UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://ujrefugees.net/
do florida voting laws require proof of property ownership? or is this just another hypothetical scenario that confuses everyone?QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:06 pmIf any of those things could be done in a fair manner that actually let voters put their vote in, maybe. We have a history in this country of using such means to keep people from voting. Voter tests that involved nothing to do with the election (number of jelly beans or coins in a jar was used in Florida), and that white people were exempt (was your grandfather a free born man?). Owning property to vote ("skin in the game") was another point discussed at the old UJ Pol forum. I asked, and got no answer to, the question of how much property would it take to qualify. Is my 140' x 50' lot enough? What if I'm a square foot short for some reason? Would property banks become a thing, where someone sells a small section of a plot with proof of ownership to qualify for voting? Shades of selling stamp sized plots of the Moon! And what specifically does property ownership have to do with voting, why is a renter not qualified if he is otherwise a productive citizen in his area?Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:52 pm I am guessing here because I really don't have a dog in the fight, libs see any type of obstacle put in front of a potential voter as bad. I.e, requiring people to pass a test before voting, owning property to get the right to vote, having valid ID to vote, etc.. Now, normal people would say one of those is not like the other. But...I don't know really....
Yea, that trips up a lot of people who move here. When I registered my son for school, I had to have a official birth certificate issued by the state. At that time, about fifteen years ago, I could not request it online or by phone. The *only* place I could get it was at one single county office next to the county health department just outside downtown Orlando in the Callahan part of town, a real rough area, in person. Having an officially stamped birth certificate is something many people don't consider having a copy of until they absolutely need it. And it's always a weird size, and can't be laminated. And you mindlessly stick it in a folder or book and forget about it. *Then* you suddenly need it now! And if you moved here from across the country...Animal wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:05 pm i know someone that moved to florida and recently wanted to get a Florida drivers license. They had to have an official birth certificate. Not a copy of a birth certificate, but an official stamped birth certificate. the kind you need to get a passport. I'm fine with that even though it is a bit of a hassle. some things are a bit of a hassle.
Jesus Christ you are ignorant. The Governor himself said it is about "election security" when pressed why Georgia felt the need to make all these changes....even though he was the one that said the Georgia election was the most secure election in their history.
No, it doesn't. There was a long thread back on UJ/Pol in 2012 where the idea was repeatedly brought up. I think that Charlie (I might be mistaken) was for it, because of that "skin in the game" business. Owning property was evidently a big thing to our country's founders, and most voters were not franchised because of it. But if we're going to do that, and I disagree with the idea, there's comes the question of quantity. Many of our founding fathers engaged in land speculation, often owning many thousands of acres at little or no cost. That's just not a question these days, where most of us maybe own a few (1, 5, 10) acres at most. I own 3/4 acres total over three properties. Does that give me "skin in the game"?
no one is suggesting that we require proof of property ownership. you can remove that from the conversation because it only brings out the nut jobs.QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:32 pmNo, it doesn't. There was a long thread back on UJ/Pol in 2012 where the idea was repeatedly brought up. I think that Charlie (I might be mistaken) was for it, because of that "skin in the game" business. Owning property was evidently a big thing to our country's founders, and most voters were not franchised because of it. But if we're going to do that, and I disagree with the idea, there's comes the question of quantity. Many of our founding fathers engaged in land speculation, often owning many thousands of acres at little or no cost. That's just not a question these days, where most of us maybe own a few (1, 5, 10) acres at most. I own 3/4 acres total over three properties. Does that give me "skin in the game"?
Burn brought it up in this thread, although he didn't seem to be making that suggestion. All I'm saying is that there very much was the idea of property ownership for voting rights back at the old UJ/Pol, several strongly supported it then. If you current UJR righties aren't for it now, good, thanks for being "woke" on the idea.Animal wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:38 pmno one is suggesting that we require proof of property ownership. you can remove that from the conversation because it only brings out the nut jobs.QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:32 pmNo, it doesn't. There was a long thread back on UJ/Pol in 2012 where the idea was repeatedly brought up. I think that Charlie (I might be mistaken) was for it, because of that "skin in the game" business. Owning property was evidently a big thing to our country's founders, and most voters were not franchised because of it. But if we're going to do that, and I disagree with the idea, there's comes the question of quantity. Many of our founding fathers engaged in land speculation, often owning many thousands of acres at little or no cost. That's just not a question these days, where most of us maybe own a few (1, 5, 10) acres at most. I own 3/4 acres total over three properties. Does that give me "skin in the game"?
It did not. When I moved to PA I registered to vote and had to prove who I was. Never had a problemQillerDaemon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:43 pm CQ, did using the credit card come with a "convenience" fee on top of the charge?
Our local water company charges a convenience fee for using either a check or a credit or debit card. Oddly, if you simply give them your checking account info with the routing number on their online payment site, it costs nothing extra. But people who show up at the utility's office to pay get to pay more. For the convenience.
Oh, well, it might keep an illegal alien from voting, right?Stapes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:54 pm Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. None of the shit the Republicans are crying about would be affected by voter ID. Do Republicans really think someone is standing in line......voting under one name.......runnning out to the end of the line.....and voting again under another name? Do they think that is a thing?
But does it prevent any of that, and more importantly, is any of that really happening? Can someone show provable statistics that any such voter ID fraud is occurring in a substantial amount that would throw an election results differently?Animal wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:05 pmOh, well, it might keep an illegal alien from voting, right?Stapes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:54 pm Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. None of the shit the Republicans are crying about would be affected by voter ID. Do Republicans really think someone is standing in line......voting under one name.......runnning out to the end of the line.....and voting again under another name? Do they think that is a thing?
It might keep someone from voting in more than one state?
It might keep someone from casting a vote for someone else?
And its a pretty simple way to regulate that a person only voted one time, right?
i would absolutely say that it prevents that. is it 100% infallible? i would never argue that anything is 100% infallible. Its just like you having to enter a password or login to get into your computer. That isn't infallible, but its a hell of a lot better than a dumbass leaving their computer open to anyone that turns it on. My god, how is that not just common logic? In my mind, requiring voter ID would only have one real purpose and that would be to keep illegal aliens from voting. The other things on that list are simply other plus marks in the column, but certainly not what i would be most worried about.QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:17 pmBut does it prevent any of that, and more importantly, is any of that really happening? Can someone show provable statistics that any such voter ID fraud is occurring in a substantial amount that would throw an election results differently?Animal wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:05 pmOh, well, it might keep an illegal alien from voting, right?Stapes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:54 pm Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. None of the shit the Republicans are crying about would be affected by voter ID. Do Republicans really think someone is standing in line......voting under one name.......runnning out to the end of the line.....and voting again under another name? Do they think that is a thing?
It might keep someone from voting in more than one state?
It might keep someone from casting a vote for someone else?
And its a pretty simple way to regulate that a person only voted one time, right?
And to throw another curve ball: I *love* how the righties here love to point out that other 1st world countries mandate voter ID (as well as many shitty 3rd would countries...) as evidence we here in the US should do it. Yet, national healthcare that those same countries provide...
Over and over again. like you have to vote every day. get the fuck out OMG! Every single year you have to take a card out of your wallet? Twice! In the same year?!?!?! The humanity!!!