TheGreatBuzz Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: But maybe I read you post wrong, buzz. I think so. Me for example, happened to be in florida towards the start of my career. I went to DMV and changed my residence from MD to FL for tax purposes. Over the last 17 years, I've voted and everything as a FL resident, usually via absentee ballot. I wonder what that states laws are on becoming a resident for students who come from out of state. I could see an arguement that they want people voting for Utah's best interest and that would be done by people who intend to live there long term. I could also see an arguement that they are living there at the time so they should be able to vote for people that affect their time there. I could be swayed either way. I don't really see it as a big deal either way. And since it isn't a big deal either way, I don't see a need to change it from whatever the current system is. Since someone is trying to change it, that makes me automatically suspect of their intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 If the legitimate concern was temporary residents voting on local issues (I could buy that thought process), then you would think instead of simply saying they can't vote, there would be an effort to streamline a process so college students could vote on the local issues from their state of origin without having to travel to do it. That is my man issue, when it comes to the GOP and voting, in almost every case it seems like their goal is simply to find ways to allow less people to vote. Never do I hear them advocating for policies that would help more folks vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 47 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: If the legitimate concern was temporary residents voting on local issues (I could buy that thought process). Why? Do all other resident voters have to surrender their voting rights if their company can transfer them in the next year? Is this standard asked of ANY other voter? If you are a legal resident of voting age then you vote where you are a resident, that's it. SCOTUS says so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Why? Do all other resident voters have to surrender their voting rights if their company can transfer them in the next year? Is this standard asked of ANY other voter? If you are a legal resident of voting age then you vote where you are a resident, that's it. SCOTUS says so. Well I agree with all of that, which is why I found the original premise disingenuous considering all the other factors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Just now, NoCalMike said: Well I agree with all of that, which is why I found the original premise disingenuous considering all the other factors. It's clear that the reason they are trying to do this is to disenfranchise younger college aged students who vote overwhelmingly liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: It's clear that the reason they are trying to do this is to disenfranchise younger college aged students who vote overwhelmingly liberal. "disenfranchise" is probably a polite way of saying, "trying to prevent from voting" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: "disenfranchise" is probably a polite way of saying, "trying to prevent from voting" I think that's the actual definition. dis·en·fran·chise /ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/ verb deprive (someone) of the right to vote. "the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification" deprive (someone) of a right or privilege. "a measure that would disenfranchise people from access to legal advice" ARCHAIC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 48 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Why? Do all other resident voters have to surrender their voting rights if their company can transfer them in the next year? Is this standard asked of ANY other voter? If you are a legal resident of voting age then you vote where you are a resident, that's it. SCOTUS says so. Honest question. Do different areas have different law on becoming a resident? Like if Joe Smith leaves Maryland to go to school in BFE, can he automatically become a resident? I honestly don't know much about this stuff because the military makes it so easy for me. My initial thought is to make voting tied to their ability to become a resident there. If you don't want them voting in your area then realize you will also lose out on money for them doing things like getting vehicles registered and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Honest question. Do different areas have different law on becoming a resident? Like if Joe Smith leaves Maryland to go to school in BFE, can he automatically become a resident? I honestly don't know much about this stuff because the military makes it so easy for me. My initial thought is to make voting tied to their ability to become a resident there. If you don't want them voting in your area then realize you will also lose out on money for them doing things like getting vehicles registered and such. Usually, establishing residency is done when you get your driver's license in that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Honest question. Do different areas have different law on becoming a resident? Yes. I went to school in Colorado. Unless you move there with your parents earliest you can become a resident is your 23rd birthday. Also there were financial forms I had to fill out. Basically showing that the money I was using to pay my tuition was actually mine. Not from my folks or a trust from what I remember. Edited March 12, 2019 by clietas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, clietas said: Yes. I went to school in Colorado. Unless you move there with your parents earliest you can become a resident is your 23rd birthday. So did you have to keep your car registered in your last state? What about drivers license? And what were rules for you voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: So did you have to keep your car registered in your last state? What about drivers license? And what were rules for you voting? Nope. Had a Colorado license, tags, and was registered to vote. Was able to get everything when I moved there at age 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 (edited) The State of Iowa (and the small towns within) are more than happy to accept mega $'s from out of state students. They just don't want them to vote on how to use that money is what I'm hearing... Edited March 12, 2019 by The Evil Genius 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) Oh Barry you so silly.... Edited March 13, 2019 by AsburySkinsFan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Ahhhhhh the morality party... **** these clowns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 14 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Ahhhhhh the morality party... **** these clowns! Curious way of saying he raped an unconscious woman 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Quote America is having a heated debate about the meaning of the word socialism. We’d be better served if, instead, we were debating the meaning of freedom..........While socialism may or may not solve their problem, the more pressing issue we have is an entire political party and a huge sector of the billionaire class who see homelessness not as a problem, but as a symptom of a “free” society. https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/heres-what-republicans-and-billionaires-really-mean-when-they-talk-about-freedom/?fbclid=IwAR3i-QW3X8nvQ_Y73dU1c_h3vVHyUu5edT1Qbtk7FbbhDTOlOtMc5IX5txM#.XJGep64voWs.facebook 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 That's a great read. Thx for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 The Regressives have been dictating the narrative for decades, and you see where it has gotten us. It's about time that changes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Socialism the dirtiest word in American politics. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 https://bizstandardnews.com/2019/03/22/robertson-god-told-me-therell-be-a-trump-towers-in-heaven/ Yup, the voice of the Evangelical Right 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) The Socialism dirty word thing is very similar to how the term "class warfare" only seems to apply to the folks tired of being ripped off, but not the side that is actually winning which is the billionaire class. Because the "warfare" of the wealthy takes place in boardrooms and behind closed doors via buying off politicians and having friendly legislation written for them people don't react the same visceral way they do when they see people protesting in the streets, but people have to resort to that to have any kind of voice since they cannot buy the sort of access with their wallets. A united front can beat the billionaire class because politicians will change when the people demand it, the larger point of how to fix the Republican party, is truthfully, how do you fix the GOP voter? And that article articulates so well how FDR's New Deal has basically been wiped off the political landscape since the birth of Reganomics that simply professing the New Deal ideals will have you labeled a socialist. When I harp on how the "middle" has moved right on fiscal policy for a few decades now, this is what I mean. Edited March 27, 2019 by NoCalMike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now