CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Democrat Tina Podlodowski wants to register "New Voters at Birth"
Democrats who got hammered in the 2016 presidential election and lost more than 1,000 legislative seats while Barack Obama was president want to register new voters. How new? How about the minute they're born? A Democratic leader in Washington State(Tina Podlodowski) is moving to pass legislation to get people registered to vote at birth. If you look at different countries, European countries or Scandinavian countries, basically folks walk in when they’re 18 and they just start voting and don’t have to register, Podlodowski said. Because they were registered at birth.
The Progressives just can't help it that all they can do is to refer to European countries as their role model !
Good job of pointing out how these mindless Liberals won't even admit a baby boy is absoutely a baby boy.
These dysfunctional people on the Left who blindly accept the opposite gender some person claims to be, are now going to register a newborn to a transgender registration.
He will be registered at birth with a LGBTPYZABC card. He will be able to vote no matter if he is illegal or not. Do you see what they are trying to do? They want any person in our ntion regardless of their legal status to be able to vote.
SouthPark it's all about registering for a political party why else would a Progressive like Tina Podlodowski want to put such a ridiculous thing in a law !
Though I do see this as being quite ridiculous, if they're being registered without party affiliation I don't see a problem. I think the better solution is to allow someone to register prior to turning 18 so if an election is the day after their 18th birthday, they would have no issues in taking part.
You used her quote as your premise. Either way, from what's actually written, if registering at birth will simply make it easier to vote when 18, I don't see the big deal.
According to your own premise, "European countries or Scandinavian countries, basically folks walk in when they’re 18 and they just start voting and don’t have to register, Podlodowski said. Because they were registered at birth."
So registering a baby has nothing to do with casting a vote as a baby.
She didn't start the debate, you did, and either stop using the word, "progressive" or at least give us a definition since it doesn't fit what most would believe.
Yes the Progressive Tina Podlodowski started the debate and you still avoid the question why would a Progressive want to put such ignorance into legislation ! There is a reason !
I've said it more than once, it's to make it easier to vote when a person turns 18. I know it's not the answer you're fishing for, but that's not my problem.
So the Progressive says it makes it easier to vote LMMFAO ! If that were the case why wasn't it done decades ago ? Step up and answer that question and stop the spin you Progressives have when you avoid the reality !
If that were the case why wasn't it done decades ago ?
This is a nonsensical question. Before you can do something about anything, you must first have an idea. If airplanes were invented to make travel easier, why wasn't it done decades before it was? See how dumb a question that is?
Step up and answer that question and stop the spin you Progressives have when you avoid the reality !
You're casting into empty waters. The answer you're fishing for isn't here.
The Progressive Sylynn said it made it easier to vote so why wasn't that progressive policy put in place many years ago ?
You refuse to offer a definition of progressive so I'm not sure if it's an accurate description of me (though I am starting to think you use it to refer to someone you just disagree with). More importantly, you seem to be suggesting I have any authority to make anything happen at the political level, which is absurd.
What you refuse to answer is your own words and you said registering babies at birth makes it easier for them to vote. If that were the case why wasn't that legislation put in place years ago then you Progressives would have nothing to complain about when it comes to voting.
You have complaints when it comes to voting because you said if babies were registered at birth it would make it easier for them to vote. Now answer the question if that were the case why wasn't the legislation put in place years ago. Come on Progressive stop the spin and answer the question.
You have complaints when it comes to voting because you said if babies were registered at birth it would make it easier for them to vote.
No I don't have complaints. I was rather pleased with the outcome of the last election. I also had no complaints that I had to carry multiple CDs in my car 20 years ago, but was happy with mp3 players making it easier to have all of your music with you.
Come on Progressive stop the spin and answer the question.
Conservatives have children but who might it be that wants babies registered at birth for voting none other than a Progressive from Washington State LMMFAO !
The reality is registering babies does nothing to gain more left or right votes. Considering the left already had more votes in the last election, why would they think getting more (in 18 years) would help?
Since you still refuse to offer a definition of progressive, and I did suggest one that you did not deny, I'll go with my thought. Sound good progressive?
First thought, babies get both birth certificates and social security cards right after birth instead of waiting until they are 18, so adding voting capability is not necessarily bad. Granted they still should be blocked until legal age and their residence/polling location is up to date.
Second thought, if you're afraid Democrats or liberals are going to exploit this somehow then maybe you need to get out of the way of abortions so you can minimize your risks?
Third thought is didn't your conservative side just post that women are more attracted to conservatives? Yes? Then what are you worried about? Clearly this will be an army of new conservatives.
There is still an opt in phase where at the right age and qualifications the person makes it official and then can start voting. Which is consistent with my response above. Your assumption that they just start voting and abusing after birth is naive.
So your answer to people who don't agree with registering voters at birth, is to become inhuman pro abortion supporters, and then they would not have to worry about babies being registered because the Baby would be dead?
WOW! If that was an attempt at humor, even your humor is sick. I don't think it was humor because people like you support even no restriction abortons for any reason.
Oh I'm quite clever, and funny, too. But you wouldn't know that because you're a one note bore. And really all I did was turn several types of your own recent conservative arguments back upon you. That's called a "turn" in academic debate lingo and when used with a live impartial judge in the back of a debate room it's one of the most persuasive techniques you can use in debate. Because hey, it's making someone else's words work against them.
What you did was showing everyone what a pure radical Pro abortion extremist you are. If you want to call that good debating skills, live in your dream world.
Your counter is to say your opponent demonstrated to everyone they disagree with you on your single topic you live by. How is that showing me to be a bad debater and you a good debater?
My single topic? I guess I never talk about gun control, the debt, broken homes, social programs, LGBT agendas, freedoms of religious epression on public grounds, censorship of our Christian heritgage from schools, marriage laws, illegal immigration, refugees, socialism, etc. etc. etc.
Yeh, I'm a one topic debater. Get some new material.
There is one issue that you would vote on though. Racism! If that Politician is a KKK member, you would never vote for him.... nor would I. BUT, if that politician supports infanticide where in he supports the killing of viable late term babies up to birth for any reason, then of course that one issue is not enough to effect your vote.
So basically racism is a show stopper, but TAKING INNOCENT LIFE AT ANY STAGE IN THE WOMB FOR ANY REASON? Nahhhhh, not important to you.
You live and breath the topic of abortion and even as you lecture me about all the other things you've mentioned in the past your post is still half about abortion.
I live and breathe showing the total hypocrisy of the so called open minded inclusive tolerant compassionate Progressives like yourself.
Abortion is the best example for show casing the Left's total hypocrisy when it comes to supposedly having compassion for people.
I realize that Liberals such as yourself would love it if Prolife people would stop bringing up this issue. It truly is a black eye for your Left wing politics but you refuse to tell Politicians on the Left to compromise with the GOP and quit being held hostage to radical pro abortion feminists.
If people such as yourself called Hillary or other's who support no restriction abortions, and tell them you would not vote for them until they compromise with the GOP 20 week abortion limit (with extreme case exceptions), the bill would be passed in a year.
You know full well that I am correct about the phoniness of Progressives who try to claim they are moderates, and claim the moral high ground of tolerance for others. (no tolerance or compassion for viable late term babies)
I will continue using this issue to show what phonies you are. If you have a heart or the least amount of compassion, you will call the politicians you would vote for and tell them to stop making their Party look like inhumsn radicals.
No, actually I've defended your right to say whatever you want to say on here repeatedly. But then I also have a right to do the same.
Note I have never banned you, nor anyone else. You do.
Note I am not a Liberal, or a Democrat, or a Progressive. Those are simply labels you slap on anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Like I'm always telling you, you're fooling no one with these efforts at misdirection. The problem is not me nor people who disagree with you, the problem is you.
LOL, just keep playing the phony moderate and ignoring your support for no restriction abortions and i will keep ignoring or banning you. I can not stand deception.
Most of this nation is against no restriction abortions which makes people like you anything but moderate.
There is nothing phony about me, which is why you and I are like oil and water.
Meanwhile your pet issue of unrestricted abortion comes nowhere close to being the prerequisite for votes and government. Actual late term abortions nationwide in a year is only about a thousand. Statistics on how many people drowned in their bathtub are comparable. Why not base all democracy on that instead?
This is where debates with the types of people I ban fall apart.
When I am debating a person so lacking in humanity to actually compare accidental deaths with legalized killing of viable late term babies for any reason, then there can never be an intelligent debate. It would be like debating the likes of Democrats 200 years ago when they rationalized how slavery was ok.
You know exactly how over 80% of Americans feel about late term abortions of viable babies, and for you to trivialize such a passionate issue speaks volumes to your lack of compassion and respect for pro life people.
Over 80% of Americans are against no restriction abortions, and for you to call yourself moderate when you are so at odds with the vast majority of Americans concerning this most important issue says it all.
I guess we should also not care if they legalize the killing of newborn babies because there are few of those as well? Are you so cold and desensitized inside that the numbers of innocent killed is what you base the value of a human life?
The Supreme Court ruled, and then individual states of voters decided what they would allow under that umbrella, and the result is the variety of state differences on abortion. I accept that this is the process. You meanwhile say no Democrat ever can be voted for nationally and indeed would obstruct the whole government until you get YOUR way on abortion rights in every state. You don't care if you hurt millions of people in millions of ways until you get your way on 1000 unwanted babies.
By the way, you have made zero effort to document a more serious statistic on late term abortions. Zero. Apparently my source nailed it.
You complete waste of time Liberal. You have lost all moral conscience. Gee i wonder if they allowed racism in certain states, you would be ok with that?
I guess you would obstruct the whole government until you got your way on racism? Can you even grasp how childlessly stupid you are? All you can see is your narrow one issue support of no restriction abortion on demand.
You extreme radical pro abortion Liberal!
We are through here. I've wsted enough time on people who have lost all moral conscience.
HOGWASH! Black people are not denied access to certain pubic buildings as they were in the past. THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
How would you pro abortion Liberals like it if nine states allowed racism as they allow no restriction abortions in nine states?
Republicans have the humanity to prevent such extremism, whether it be racism or no restriction abortions in any place in America.
That's the difference between the Left and Right. The Right has a conscience and the moral integrity to stand up for people's right's to life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The only thing that equates in your metaphor here is that you find both racism and abortion to be equally morally abhorrent.
The question of racist legislation is one of equal access. The question of abortion is a different issue that has noting about equal access.
Let me ask you this: If there was another issue that impacted innocent lives, and would result in more lives lost than those lost from abortions, but the republicans opposed it and pro-abortion democrats were for it, what would you do?
The Democrat Party is denying even viable babies equal access through the birth canal. Some babies are allowed access based on their parent's convienence, some are denied access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why are some healthy mothers allowed to deny access of healthy viable babies to the world? No different than some store owner not allowing access to their restaurant based on skin color.
The GOP is not the party of inhumanity and would never allow the puposeful taking of innocent lives. They try to prevent loss of innocent life in war.
There are approximately one million abortions each year. How many innocent lives are accidently lost each year from our American military?
I'm curious, what is your opinion on miscarriages? I actually don't think we've discussed this much before. If a women say, treats her body carelessly while pregnant and it results in a miscarriage, is that the same thing as an abortion? Or even if it's out of her control? That's still ending a life. What are your thoughts about how it compares?
I get that there's a difference in intent. But just, hmm.
I think the metaphors he is going for is that black people were previously considered to not be people. Similarly pro-choice people are often careful not to refer to the unborn baby, as that would convey personhood.
Let me ask you this...
The question that follows seems to hinge on the assumption that the number lives lost is the operative moral consideration, which isn't necessarily the case.
You vented bile at me but ignored every argument I made including low significance of the numbers as well as legal and governmental structures. We are through here because you didn't debate anything, you just kept hurling insults. And you just kept hurling insults because frankly you lost.
Though you have sufficient experience of the dream world you talk of, sadly, that isn't true of reality.
All my words still stand and you haven't been able to ever counter any of them. Unlike you, I'm not hunting for points to downvote others, so I don't continually repeat them.
She wants people born in the US to be registered at birth so that when they turn legal voting age (18), they can vote straight away, without having to jump through bureaucratic loops. It's hardly a radical idea.
I am honestly curious and I would like a genuine answer without all the "Progressive", "Liberal" finger pointing. What do you think she is trying to do in passing this legislature? What exactly do you think will happen if babies are registered to vote at birth?
They still can't vote until they are 18. So what are you thinking is going to happen?
mary cotton suxxxxxx. she makes me actually want to kill myself. she is mean to lesbians and cant even conjugate a simple latin word. i hope one day i can cut off her ponytail and choke her with it.
for your information, mary cotton is one of the main supporters of "new voters at birth" and if you believe that she is mean to lesbians then you are assuming that she is mean to the children of lesbians. also, she has given her hair multiple times to locksoflove.org so you must hate bald people
According to your own premise, "European countries or Scandinavian countries, basically folks walk in when they’re 18 and they just start voting and don’t have to register, Podlodowski said. Because they were registered at birth."
So registering a baby has nothing to do with casting a vote as a baby.