But a Mexican living in Texas pays tax to the US and Texas, and doesn't get to vote in the elections they are paying taxes on. The US is the only place that taxes all residents and all citizens. If you are German, and leave Germany for Texas, and live in Texas, you pay taxes in Texas only. But not Germany, since you don't live there anymore. The US is the only country that taxes a Texan living permanently in Germany. In fact, if you are a Mexican and get US residency, then move back to Mexico, you must cancel your visa, or you'll owe taxes as a non-resident resident.
But the general point remains, the US is bad about taxing people who can't vote. Felons, non-residents, and others. It wouldn't be so bad, other than the battle cry the US is founded on, "No Taxation Without Representation".
The only thing that fixes this problem is open voting. We had open voting for 100 years, and only ended it when the Civil War made thing uncivil. Verified voting would elimintate almost all of today's voter fraud (and "allow" a type possible today, that doesn't happen). Yes, vote buying would become more practical, but it's possible today and almost unheard of (what, one case every 10 years out of billions of votes?).
The hilarious thing is that everyone on the list had State issued ID, as the clerk said they already needed ID to register. So more ID laws won't fix the problem you highlighted. You are arguing that the ID laws are ineffective. We should abolish them. They are an unnecessary barrier that costs money, but doesn't stop the problem you highlight.
And the poorest person in India is relatively rich compared to a bacterium. Relatively applies within a class, and as we are talking about US law, any comparison to those outside the US is invalid and displays deceit and duplicity by the comparator.
That proves ID laws don't work. If you have a state DL, you can vote. Forcing state ID for voting won't cut down that problem. Voter ID is issued by the state, and not checked against a central citizen database, so Voter ID can be gotten by someone ineligible to vote. So how do more hurdles not addressing the problem address the problem?
Nope. It never happens that way. You are lying. And you've never tried it. The poll workers look at faces. You do that twice, one hour before closing and see how it goes. It doesn't work, and nobody does it.
I have an unusual name, and they will make you spell it, and if they can't hear you, they'll make you write it. You *never* get to see the "clipboard" until you've given a valid name on it.
And the "free" ID requires 3 pieces of ID that are not free. When the state pays to get the required documents themselves to prove your ID, then it's "free". Until then, it's like a free rental car where you are required to pay $25 a day for the insurance. When you have to pay for a free item, it isn't free.
There is also the little phenomenon of people with more than one address voting in multiple precincts, people who blatantly vote at multiple polling stations, and worse.
How is that helped by ID? By federal law, a college student should have their "home" address on their ID, and vote at their college. As such, no address on an ID should be indicative of vote eligibility.
So, do you change those laws to require the state IDs show voting address? The rules for the address on ID don't match voting laws. Some countries, ID doesn't even have an address on it. It's discriminatory to assume everyone has an address, or require it. So if you have an ID (that only IDs the person, not providing additional irrelevant information, like address), how do you keep people from voting twice?
Nothing the pro-ID people say ever seems to make sense. If you want to drive them nuts, ask them what the fraud rate is. None of the ID nuts knows. They are trying really hard to fix a problem that doesn't exist, because fixing the problem excludes poor people from voting, and they don't deserve the vote.
There is no reason to have ID to vote. There has never been any real study into voter fraud. Neither party wants to do it. Both operate under the assumption there is no fraud. The Republicans aren't combating fraud with voter ID. They are combating poor Democrats.
The 47 cents I have to put on my ballot before I mail it is a POLL TAX!
You aren't allowed to drop it off in person or vote in person?
Oh, typical, you are just lying to prove a point. That you are a liar.
Once it is a requirement to vote, then pressure can be applied to get the cost eliminated.
That's the point. You want a poll tax, until the ID price is changed. The "other side" wants them done at the same time. That means you and you alone are pushing for the "unreasonable" solution.
An ID that costs you about $1/year is not an undue burden.
The media followed one unusual case where a guy spent over $1000 and still hadn't gotten an ID. Turns out his name was changed by his parents as a child, and he didn't have an original birth certificate, and name change forms, so he couldn't get an ID without lots of travel and other documents.
Or the places that don't allow ID for homeless people, as they don't have a legal place of residence.
For the truly poor, it is a burden. One never linked to any actual fraud. Why do Republicans hate science and proof? I guess that's why they are more likely to think that Castro assassinated Kennedy and we never landed on the moon.
Except third world countries, with way more voters, seem to have solve the Voter ID problem.
They don't require it. Solved. The Republicans don't want that. The whole ID issue is manufactured by the Republicans to be a barrier to voting for Democrats.
The real problem are the people enabling failure to keep a class of people voting lock-step with the (D) party. And the (R) party just can't figure out the language to call the (D) party on their racist policies.
Rather than calling people out for being racist, why not fix the problem? Oh, that's right, (R) want everyone not born a rich white male to suffer. That's why they have problems with minorities, not that the (D) are the racists.
because the ink/pen solution doesn't work for the handicapped.
E-voting is all about handicapped voting. There should be no more than one e-vote machine per station, and only used by those who need it. Banning them all is hateful. Only using them is stupid.
You're not arguing against me. I am repeating what US military doctrine is in these matters.
No, we are arguing against you, the same as if you were saying "Niggers are inferior to whites, don't argue with me, I'm just repeating the White Supremacist doctrine".
It's an arms race. In WWII, infantry didn't have the LAW yet. Infantry couldn't easily kill a tank. With RPGs, infantry stood a better chance, and with LAW and other man-portable anti-tank weapons, infantry got better at it. Yes, a tank in the hands of a superior force will crush infantry (both literally and figuratively), but an infantry unit prepared for tanks will have a different result.
However an infantry force with anti tank rockets does not enjoy an advantage against an armored column.
The advantage moves. As tanks had a clear advantage in WWI, and have a less clear advantage now, but that doesn't mean that the advantage was linear between. Also your statements imply open warfare, which hasn't existed since Korea or WWII, depending on who you ask. Tanks in a city are at a severe disadvantage. The infantry spreads out to one team per building, and the tank can't find a target until the units under cover fire first. Good AT weapons, and patience will get a very high kill rate on the tanks, and the rest of the column will not be able to do much.
Get them in a line (as they would have to do in a city), kill the first, the last, and you've neutralized the armor, even if you didn't kill the people inside. Hold them still, and the air support will finish them off.
About 150 planes, and I'd heard that the generals in the Army don't like being flown around by the Air Force, so they use Army "reconnaissance" planes from the army to move around without having to get permission from the AF. No idea if that's true. I've never been a general in this or any other army.
Here's a crazy scenario: suppose you decide to invade Iran. You can't just sail your carrier up to the northern end of the Persian Gulf to support your drive to Tehran, the way we did on the way to Baghdad.
Nope, you can't. Instead, you deploy the army to build the Eurasia Canal in 6 months. Size it for whatever force you want to invade with. It may delay the invasion slightly, but it'd guarantee a more comfortable win.
You fight on the south, working your way north, while you dig your way to the north. Iran can't project power enough to stop the building of the canal, and when it's done, the force through it will fix all the problems you mention.
Yup. They are doing good for a NATO/WARSAW conflict fought in eastern Western Europe. But since that'll never happen, why are we spending ourselves to bankruptcy to prepare for something that'll never happen?
WWII is the only option, because it was the last conflict where both sides did *everything* they could. Korea was fought with orders to not bomb the supply lines, as they were in China, and Vietnam doesn't need a mention. The Gulf Wars were both limited, as the other military didn't put up much of a fight. The last near-equal combat that wasn't limited in some fashion was WWII, so why shouldn't people use that as an example?
Though, as the USAF didn't exist formally until after the war, it's still not an ideal baseline.
Yeah, an invastion of China is silly. If China invades Mexico in preparation for a US invasion, and the US wanted to invade a Chinese held Mexico, assuming 100% of China's forces were in Mexico with no local resistance or supply issues, we'd be able to wipe out Mexico with the full force of China protecting it. For that matter, take every country not in NATO, give them a few years to move all their forces to Mexico and have a war to see who could hold the Rio Grande, and even handicap the US by disallowing any attacks behind enemy lines (like the pipelines moving fuel to the front from South America or Mexican oil fields), and the US would still have a massive advantage.
The only scenario where the US military is lacking is the one that everyone comes back to. Where we attack all non-allies at the same time, with no support from any allies. That's about the only case where we'd be stretched thin. And it'd take some serious stupidity to get us in a situation like that.
I used to work with Army Aviation and they are not allowed to have any fixed wing aircraft at all, with one exception.
I thought they had lots of cargo fixed-wing airplanes. And some smaller ones used for other reasons (listed as "reconnaissance, and used to fly generals around).
Your definition of imperialism is closer to my definition of colonialism. You should post your definition before being an ass and correcting someone else's correct definitions. Then we can debate the definitions used, rather than simply dismissing you as an ass.
Slashdot Mirror
But a Mexican living in Texas pays tax to the US and Texas, and doesn't get to vote in the elections they are paying taxes on. The US is the only place that taxes all residents and all citizens. If you are German, and leave Germany for Texas, and live in Texas, you pay taxes in Texas only. But not Germany, since you don't live there anymore. The US is the only country that taxes a Texan living permanently in Germany. In fact, if you are a Mexican and get US residency, then move back to Mexico, you must cancel your visa, or you'll owe taxes as a non-resident resident.
But the general point remains, the US is bad about taxing people who can't vote. Felons, non-residents, and others. It wouldn't be so bad, other than the battle cry the US is founded on, "No Taxation Without Representation".
The only thing that fixes this problem is open voting. We had open voting for 100 years, and only ended it when the Civil War made thing uncivil. Verified voting would elimintate almost all of today's voter fraud (and "allow" a type possible today, that doesn't happen). Yes, vote buying would become more practical, but it's possible today and almost unheard of (what, one case every 10 years out of billions of votes?).
Another case where ID didn't help.
The hilarious thing is that everyone on the list had State issued ID, as the clerk said they already needed ID to register. So more ID laws won't fix the problem you highlighted. You are arguing that the ID laws are ineffective. We should abolish them. They are an unnecessary barrier that costs money, but doesn't stop the problem you highlight.
And the poorest person in India is relatively rich compared to a bacterium. Relatively applies within a class, and as we are talking about US law, any comparison to those outside the US is invalid and displays deceit and duplicity by the comparator.
That proves ID laws don't work. If you have a state DL, you can vote. Forcing state ID for voting won't cut down that problem. Voter ID is issued by the state, and not checked against a central citizen database, so Voter ID can be gotten by someone ineligible to vote. So how do more hurdles not addressing the problem address the problem?
Nope. It never happens that way. You are lying. And you've never tried it. The poll workers look at faces. You do that twice, one hour before closing and see how it goes. It doesn't work, and nobody does it.
I have an unusual name, and they will make you spell it, and if they can't hear you, they'll make you write it. You *never* get to see the "clipboard" until you've given a valid name on it.
And the "free" ID requires 3 pieces of ID that are not free. When the state pays to get the required documents themselves to prove your ID, then it's "free". Until then, it's like a free rental car where you are required to pay $25 a day for the insurance. When you have to pay for a free item, it isn't free.
There is also the little phenomenon of people with more than one address voting in multiple precincts, people who blatantly vote at multiple polling stations, and worse.
How is that helped by ID? By federal law, a college student should have their "home" address on their ID, and vote at their college. As such, no address on an ID should be indicative of vote eligibility.
So, do you change those laws to require the state IDs show voting address? The rules for the address on ID don't match voting laws. Some countries, ID doesn't even have an address on it. It's discriminatory to assume everyone has an address, or require it. So if you have an ID (that only IDs the person, not providing additional irrelevant information, like address), how do you keep people from voting twice?
Nothing the pro-ID people say ever seems to make sense. If you want to drive them nuts, ask them what the fraud rate is. None of the ID nuts knows. They are trying really hard to fix a problem that doesn't exist, because fixing the problem excludes poor people from voting, and they don't deserve the vote.
There is no reason to have ID to vote. There has never been any real study into voter fraud. Neither party wants to do it. Both operate under the assumption there is no fraud. The Republicans aren't combating fraud with voter ID. They are combating poor Democrats.
The 47 cents I have to put on my ballot before I mail it is a POLL TAX!
You aren't allowed to drop it off in person or vote in person?
Oh, typical, you are just lying to prove a point. That you are a liar.
Once it is a requirement to vote, then pressure can be applied to get the cost eliminated.
That's the point. You want a poll tax, until the ID price is changed. The "other side" wants them done at the same time. That means you and you alone are pushing for the "unreasonable" solution.
Fraud isn't stopped by ID.
An ID that costs you about $1/year is not an undue burden.
The media followed one unusual case where a guy spent over $1000 and still hadn't gotten an ID. Turns out his name was changed by his parents as a child, and he didn't have an original birth certificate, and name change forms, so he couldn't get an ID without lots of travel and other documents.
Or the places that don't allow ID for homeless people, as they don't have a legal place of residence.
For the truly poor, it is a burden. One never linked to any actual fraud. Why do Republicans hate science and proof? I guess that's why they are more likely to think that Castro assassinated Kennedy and we never landed on the moon.
Stopping people who aren't citizens from voting is a good thing for all of us.
And voter ID has nothing to do with that.
Except third world countries, with way more voters, seem to have solve the Voter ID problem.
They don't require it. Solved. The Republicans don't want that. The whole ID issue is manufactured by the Republicans to be a barrier to voting for Democrats.
The real problem are the people enabling failure to keep a class of people voting lock-step with the (D) party. And the (R) party just can't figure out the language to call the (D) party on their racist policies.
Rather than calling people out for being racist, why not fix the problem? Oh, that's right, (R) want everyone not born a rich white male to suffer. That's why they have problems with minorities, not that the (D) are the racists.
because the ink/pen solution doesn't work for the handicapped.
E-voting is all about handicapped voting. There should be no more than one e-vote machine per station, and only used by those who need it. Banning them all is hateful. Only using them is stupid.
You're not arguing against me. I am repeating what US military doctrine is in these matters.
No, we are arguing against you, the same as if you were saying "Niggers are inferior to whites, don't argue with me, I'm just repeating the White Supremacist doctrine".
It's an arms race. In WWII, infantry didn't have the LAW yet. Infantry couldn't easily kill a tank. With RPGs, infantry stood a better chance, and with LAW and other man-portable anti-tank weapons, infantry got better at it. Yes, a tank in the hands of a superior force will crush infantry (both literally and figuratively), but an infantry unit prepared for tanks will have a different result.
However an infantry force with anti tank rockets does not enjoy an advantage against an armored column.
The advantage moves. As tanks had a clear advantage in WWI, and have a less clear advantage now, but that doesn't mean that the advantage was linear between. Also your statements imply open warfare, which hasn't existed since Korea or WWII, depending on who you ask. Tanks in a city are at a severe disadvantage. The infantry spreads out to one team per building, and the tank can't find a target until the units under cover fire first. Good AT weapons, and patience will get a very high kill rate on the tanks, and the rest of the column will not be able to do much.
Get them in a line (as they would have to do in a city), kill the first, the last, and you've neutralized the armor, even if you didn't kill the people inside. Hold them still, and the air support will finish them off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
About 150 planes, and I'd heard that the generals in the Army don't like being flown around by the Air Force, so they use Army "reconnaissance" planes from the army to move around without having to get permission from the AF. No idea if that's true. I've never been a general in this or any other army.
Here's a crazy scenario: suppose you decide to invade Iran. You can't just sail your carrier up to the northern end of the Persian Gulf to support your drive to Tehran, the way we did on the way to Baghdad.
Nope, you can't. Instead, you deploy the army to build the Eurasia Canal in 6 months. Size it for whatever force you want to invade with. It may delay the invasion slightly, but it'd guarantee a more comfortable win.
You fight on the south, working your way north, while you dig your way to the north. Iran can't project power enough to stop the building of the canal, and when it's done, the force through it will fix all the problems you mention.
Yup. They are doing good for a NATO/WARSAW conflict fought in eastern Western Europe. But since that'll never happen, why are we spending ourselves to bankruptcy to prepare for something that'll never happen?
It seems this obsession with WWII
WWII is the only option, because it was the last conflict where both sides did *everything* they could. Korea was fought with orders to not bomb the supply lines, as they were in China, and Vietnam doesn't need a mention. The Gulf Wars were both limited, as the other military didn't put up much of a fight. The last near-equal combat that wasn't limited in some fashion was WWII, so why shouldn't people use that as an example?
Though, as the USAF didn't exist formally until after the war, it's still not an ideal baseline.
Yeah, an invastion of China is silly. If China invades Mexico in preparation for a US invasion, and the US wanted to invade a Chinese held Mexico, assuming 100% of China's forces were in Mexico with no local resistance or supply issues, we'd be able to wipe out Mexico with the full force of China protecting it. For that matter, take every country not in NATO, give them a few years to move all their forces to Mexico and have a war to see who could hold the Rio Grande, and even handicap the US by disallowing any attacks behind enemy lines (like the pipelines moving fuel to the front from South America or Mexican oil fields), and the US would still have a massive advantage.
The only scenario where the US military is lacking is the one that everyone comes back to. Where we attack all non-allies at the same time, with no support from any allies. That's about the only case where we'd be stretched thin. And it'd take some serious stupidity to get us in a situation like that.
I used to work with Army Aviation and they are not allowed to have any fixed wing aircraft at all, with one exception.
I thought they had lots of cargo fixed-wing airplanes. And some smaller ones used for other reasons (listed as "reconnaissance, and used to fly generals around).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As a kid I used to play with the A-10, and loved it. It was always one of my favorites.
Your definition of imperialism is closer to my definition of colonialism. You should post your definition before being an ass and correcting someone else's correct definitions. Then we can debate the definitions used, rather than simply dismissing you as an ass.