PDA

View Full Version : Do you agree, or disagree with voter id laws?



Pages : [1] 2

garhkal
07-09-2012, 08:05 PM
And why do you vote that way?

For me, i went with yes. The number of things you do these days you need an ID for, whether it be travel (even buses like greyhound i have heard ask for them), to entering buildings (federal or state) you have to show one for. So why has it NOT been a requirement before now for voting?

Banned
07-09-2012, 08:28 PM
Good post. While I totally get the reasons for requiring photo ID, there's some problems:

1) Requiring photo ID is useless unless you also hire and/or train people who can actually tell if its a real ID or a fake.

2) I'm not convinced this would have any significant impact on voting fraud - a more effective way would be to ensure the votes are counted correctly, and if machines are used, make sure the company contracted to make them isn't blatantly partisan.

3) The cultural impact is worrisome - many of the states trying to pass this law (like South Carolina) have a pretty stinky history in regards to voting rights - like the poll tax. Even if the intent is pure, the way its perceived by the locals will probably be pretty bitter.

Rusty Jones
07-09-2012, 10:25 PM
Seems to me like the sole purpose of this is to make voting more troublesome, in hopes that some will feel that it's not worth the trouble.

garhkal
07-09-2012, 10:52 PM
Good post. While I totally get the reasons for requiring photo ID, there's some problems:

1) Requiring photo ID is useless unless you also hire and/or train people who can actually tell if its a real ID or a fake.

True, but it will at least cut down on those who are not legally qualified to vote from voting.



2) I'm not convinced this would have any significant impact on voting fraud - a more effective way would be to ensure the votes are counted correctly, and if machines are used, make sure the company contracted to make them isn't blatantly partisan.

And how will that stop say all the illegals or others who vote who should not be able to?



3) The cultural impact is worrisome - many of the states trying to pass this law (like South Carolina) have a pretty stinky history in regards to voting rights - like the poll tax. Even if the intent is pure, the way its perceived by the locals will probably be pretty bitter.

I will give you that. Some states do have a down right horrid voting history..

Blue Warrior
07-10-2012, 12:01 AM
I say yes. If a person can make the time and effort to get themselves to a polling location, then getting the ID shouldn't be a problem. It's not like they don't have time to get it before the national elections.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-10-2012, 12:17 AM
There are few modern political issues for which there is zero legitimate case to be made on one side, but voter ID is one of these. We can all point to many cases of extreme voter fraud, most of which could be prevented by simply verifying the identity of the voter. Of course, there are some with a vested interest in enabling voter fraud, which is the only serious reason for opposing voter ID. To anyone who makes the disingenuous argument that this is an attempt to "disenfranchise" minority voters who don't have voter ID, I say, "How would you ensure these legal minority voters get voter ID?" I've got no problem at all with it. If they don't have a drivers license, let the state issue them something else at no cost to them. Once all legal voters are offered voter ID at no cost to them, the "disenfranchised" argument shrivels, and it's clear that the opponents of voter IDs are more worried about "disenfranchising" illegal aliens, people who are paid to vote multiple times at multiple locations under multiple identities, and others who have no right to franchise in the first place.

RS6405
07-10-2012, 01:25 AM
I agree with voter ID laws. Voting is a fundamental right, but that right is just for one vote per election date.

I am living in South Carolina and it needs such laws to protect its citizens from questionable election ploys/ scams.

I just lost the ability to vote in my local Republican primary due to candidates (who followed exactly what they were told to do) having not completed the candidate registration process correctly. The candidates had to submit a paper copy of A and a electronic copy of B and both must be submitted at the exact same time, however, the candidates were told ensure the electronic document was completed before submitting the paper document. Everyone who did what they were told was ejected from the ballot (unless they were incumbents).

This situation affected nearly every Republican primary in the state in one way or another, however, not one democratic primary candidate in the entire state had an issue with it.

I've seen crooked voting in Louisiana. Some Candidates have paid a person $3 per vote they cast. Then the drivers get $2 per person they get to a voting station. I know it does not seem like much money, but is only a petty amount if you vote just once.

So IMHO voter ID laws are important.

DocBones
07-10-2012, 02:26 AM
Here in Mossouri, one has to report to the correct voting station, and show ID, before that person can vote. I agree with that policy, wholeheartedly.

garhkal
07-10-2012, 06:31 AM
One way to ensure its done, is make all voting stations in federal buildings (or state) as you need id's to get in!

TJMAC77SP
07-10-2012, 10:33 AM
I have asked a question regarding this in another thread and never got an answer. It isn't an attempt to make a point one way or the other but there is a constant claim by those that oppose these laws that they are intended to prevent minorities (actually blacks are usually cited) from voting and since most vote Democrat this is an attempt to influence elections.

Even if you concede a political motivation for this how exactly do these laws prevent anyone (or any race) from voting?

RS6405
07-10-2012, 01:17 PM
They don't TJM.

It's just a way to ensure that every voter gets just one vote.

Rusty Jones
07-10-2012, 01:35 PM
I have asked a question regarding this in another thread and never got an answer. It isn't an attempt to make a point one way or the other but there is a constant claim by those that oppose these laws that they are intended to prevent minorities (actually blacks are usually cited) from voting and since most vote Democrat this is an attempt to influence elections.

Even if you concede a political motivation for this how exactly do these laws prevent anyone (or any race) from voting?

I think it has something to do with high voter apathy among blacks. Add another step to the voting process, and it turns off those who were barely even willing to go through the steps already in place.

This is just my guess. We can easily point the finger at those not willing to take that extra step, but if this is the intent of the law... to me, that's even more sinister.

Banned
07-10-2012, 01:35 PM
Seems to me like the sole purpose of this is to make voting more troublesome, in hopes that some will feel that it's not worth the trouble.

Agreed.


I have asked a question regarding this in another thread and never got an answer. It isn't an attempt to make a point one way or the other but there is a constant claim by those that oppose these laws that they are intended to prevent minorities (actually blacks are usually cited) from voting and since most vote Democrat this is an attempt to influence elections.

Even if you concede a political motivation for this how exactly do these laws prevent anyone (or any race) from voting?

A lot of Americans (yes, especially racial minorities) do not have government issued IDs.

TJMAC77SP
07-10-2012, 01:42 PM
I think it has something to do with high voter apathy among blacks. Add another step to the voting process, and it turns off those who were barely even willing to go through the steps already in place.

This is just my guess. We can easily point the finger at those not willing to take that extra step, but if this is the intent of the law... to me, that's even more sinister.

But even if that were true it doesn't prevent anything.

TJMAC77SP
07-10-2012, 01:44 PM
Agreed.



A lot of Americans (yes, especially racial minorities) do not have government issued IDs.

I would like to see statistics on that claim. I worked for a short (thankfully) time as a bail agent and dealt with blacks and hispanics extensively. Everyone who signed for someone's bond had to show an ID. No one ever claimed they didn't have an ID (even the two illegals who had phoney ID).

Again, I don't see how this prevents anyone from voting. Aquiring these IDs is simple and relatively painless. Most state DMVs (where you get these IDs) even register you to vote so that kills two birds with one stone.

Greg
07-10-2012, 01:59 PM
I would like to see statistics on that claim. I worked for a short (thankfully) time as a bail agent and dealt with blacks and hispanics extensively. Everyone who signed for someone's bond had to show an ID. No one ever claimed they didn't have an ID (even the two illegals who had phoney ID).

Again, I don't see how this prevents anyone from voting. Aquiring these IDs is simple and relatively painless. Most state DMVs (where you get these IDs) even register you to vote so that kills two birds with one stone.

Most city, county, and state welfare agencies have programs for those that are poverty stricken to waive the fee for State ID.
There is no excuse for anyone who is "reasonably responsible" not to have an ID. Those who whine about such requirements do so just to rub against the grain, IMO.

Banned
07-10-2012, 02:00 PM
I would like to see statistics on that claim. I worked for a short (thankfully) time as a bail agent and dealt with blacks and hispanics extensively. Everyone who signed for someone's bond had to show an ID. No one ever claimed they didn't have an ID (even the two illegals who had phoney ID).

Again, I don't see how this prevents anyone from voting. Aquiring these IDs is simple and relatively painless. Most state DMVs (where you get these IDs) even register you to vote so that kills two birds with one stone.

I'm not sure on the numbers, or the reasons for it. Just stating the fact - a lot of people don't have ID. Depends largely on social background I'm guessing. The establishment isn't my enemy like it is for a lot of people.

It also raises eyebrows for me that only one party is pushing for the reform (especially considering it is the party that would benefit the most from eliminating racial minority votes)

AJBIGJ
07-10-2012, 02:24 PM
If the major problem with requiring voters to have ID's is that prevents apathetic voters from showing up at the polls, I think that could be considered a positive thing.

CYBERFX1024
07-10-2012, 02:26 PM
I saw a news video on this on Al jazeera a couple months back and it was a appaling to say the least. It kept going on and on about how minorities and college students can't vote because it is hard for them to get a id. Then it went on a tangent of how felons can't vote and it is a bad idea.

Like Garkal says pretty much everything nowadays requires a VALID state id. It doesn't have to be a DL most states have just a state id card. From cashing your paycheck, to getting on a plane, to almost everything now. So it's just plain apathy or neglect that people can't get a id card.

Banned
07-10-2012, 02:28 PM
I think it has something to do with high voter apathy among blacks. Add another step to the voting process, and it turns off those who were barely even willing to go through the steps already in place.

This is just my guess. We can easily point the finger at those not willing to take that extra step, but if this is the intent of the law... to me, that's even more sinister.

Agreed, but not sure if apathy is the right word. More like alienation.

AJBIGJ
07-10-2012, 02:30 PM
Agreed, but not sure if apathy is the right word. More like alienation.

Alienated how? Is there some conspiracy going on at the DMV that allows people to refuse issuing ID's to minorities?

Rusty Jones
07-10-2012, 02:33 PM
If the major problem with requiring voters to have ID's is that prevents apathetic voters from showing up at the polls, I think that could be considered a positive thing.

If this was a side-affect, and the law had another purpose - which it does, at least on paper - I wouldn't so much be bothered. However, if I recall correctly, there have only been 13 cases (or was it 30? Some ridiculously low number) of what this law is trying to prevent in the last three presidential elections.

Also, concerning what you stated, it depends on what your attitude is toward voting. Some people see voting as a privilege, others see it as a right, and some see it as a duty - and I'm in the last group. Some may be voting solely because they see it as a duty, and I support them 100% on that - but why make it more difficult to do something that they feel that they have a duty to do?

AJBIGJ
07-10-2012, 02:39 PM
If this was a side-affect, and the law had another purpose - which it does, at least on paper - I wouldn't so much be bothered. However, if I recall correctly, there have only been 13 cases (or was it 30? Some ridiculously low number) of what this law is trying to prevent in the last three presidential elections.

Also, concerning what you stated, it depends on what your attitude is toward voting. Some people see voting as a privilege, others see it as a right, and some see it as a duty - and I'm in the last group. Some may be voting solely because they see it as a duty, and I support them 100% on that - but why make it more difficult to do something that they feel that they have a duty to do?

I see it as a right myself, a right you get from a social contract of US Citizenship. As a free people we have the choice whether to exercise that right at the appropriate time, or not to. As guarantors of the social contract the state governments also have the authority to ensure it holds up its end of the obligation and ensure the ones who do vote have a fair piece of the pie, and not have their vote nullified by an individual who commits fraud to the system. Does it happen often? Probably not, but does it really have to happen very often to put such simple measures in place?

Banned
07-10-2012, 02:39 PM
Alienated how? Is there some conspiracy going on at the DMV that allows people to refuse issuing ID's to minorities?

Alienation in the sense of a disconnect between the government and the governed.

AJBIGJ
07-10-2012, 02:41 PM
Alienation in the sense of a disconnect between the government and the governed.

What disconnect? The rules apply universally to the governed, the only individuals not qualified are under the age of 18 or not US citizens. Where's the disconnect?

Banned
07-10-2012, 02:47 PM
What disconnect? The rules apply universally to the governed, the only individuals not qualified are under the age of 18 or not US citizens. Where's the disconnect?

I mean a social disconnect.

AJBIGJ
07-10-2012, 02:49 PM
I mean a social disconnect.

Where? How? Which part of this law applies any differently to any US Citizen of appropriate age?

TJMAC77SP
07-10-2012, 02:57 PM
I'm not sure on the numbers, or the reasons for it. Just stating the fact - a lot of people don't have ID. Depends largely on social background I'm guessing. The establishment isn't my enemy like it is for a lot of people.

It also raises eyebrows for me that only one party is pushing for the reform (especially considering it is the party that would benefit the most from eliminating racial minority votes)

Joe, I get your point but what is the source of your assertion that a lot of people don't have a photo ID? Of course in this case, a lot would have to be a fairly large number to influence an election.

Luvnlife
07-10-2012, 03:31 PM
It's really an easy answer. Voting is a very important responsibility for American citizens and has to be controlled and checked to make sure that no one who's not allowed to vote isn't. The usual suspects will pipe in and give the usual BS argument of racism, voter suppression, etc. Same old scare tactics that are slowly getting old and tiresome.

Does anyone know of others who don’t have some sort of state issued ID? And if you do, why don’t they have one? No one is holding them back or trying to stop them from getting one. If you're poor in this country and receiving some sort of state/govt assistance then you have to have an ID to be able to even apply for those benefits, so unless they're homeless that argument is pointless. And we all know that about 50% of the country is receiving some sort of govt "aid" so right there 50% already have ID's.

Most people won't vote because their polling place is too far and they're just plain lazy than to use the excuse that they don’t have an ID.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-10-2012, 05:42 PM
It also raises eyebrows for me that only one party is pushing for the reform (especially considering it is the party that would benefit the most from eliminating racial minority votes)

It's pretty obvious why. It's because the other party is constantly engaged in illegal, the-ends-justify-the-means tactics to stuff ballot boxes for its candidates. Of course that party doesn't want reform.

Banned
07-10-2012, 05:43 PM
Joe, I get your point but what is the source of your assertion that a lot of people don't have a photo ID? Of course in this case, a lot would have to be a fairly large number to influence an election.

I don't know. I did some digging and found this.

It sounds kind of high to me, but believable I suppose.


Where? How? Which part of this law applies any differently to any US Citizen of appropriate age?

This applies equally well to some Conservative groups - a disconnect in the sense that instead of viewing government has an internal mechanism for good... as a hostile external force out to oppress you.


It's pretty obvious why. It's because the other party is constantly engaged in illegal, the-ends-justify-the-means tactics to stuff ballot boxes for its candidates. Of course that party doesn't want reform.

Never mind that that particular form of ballot fraud is miniscule... and practiced by both sides. But nice try though.

AJBIGJ
07-10-2012, 06:04 PM
This applies equally well to some Conservative groups - a disconnect in the sense that instead of viewing government as an internal mechanism for good... as a hostile external force out to oppress you.

I always view anything beyond the scope of a limited government as falling into the latter category regardless, but I digress. In this instance it's doing something quite simple, regulating it to attempt to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. If we apply this mentality to any other subject we tend to argue from the opposing sides to where we are here. This, at least to me, seems to fall into the category of "common sense regulating". The level of "oppression" is no greater than the level of "oppression" we apply towards the purchase of cigarrettes and firearms. Kind of like what you were stating in the "My Boy Obeezy" thread, a government does have a legal authority to regulate in a manner that ensures taxpayers are getting a return on their investment. This is a not-altogether complex mechanism allowing state governments to do so (which is nice that we still allow the states the authority to do something around here). If there was a specific wording in the law that very obviously discriminated against minorities we'd have an issue here, there is nothing of such. Any US citizen can acquire a proper form of ID regardless of their gender, sexuality, or ethnic heritage. Nobody has to vote in the elections, in fact in the upcoming Presidential elections I myself may choose to abstain, but it's not because I do not have the means to do so.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-10-2012, 06:05 PM
Never mind that that particular form of ballot fraud is miniscule... and practiced by both sides.

That's obviously not true. If it were, the Democrats would be just as interested in stopping it as the Republicans are. You yourself pointed out that the Democrats have no desire to stop this fraud by requiring voter ID.

garhkal
07-10-2012, 08:10 PM
Agreed.



A lot of Americans (yes, especially racial minorities) do not have government issued IDs.

Got any stats?? Links to prove this?
How then do they all get their checking done (since you need IDs to use banks)>?
Use credit cards (as many places DO check your id, though i will admit walmart is not one of them)?
Drive? Or are you saying most minorities drive without a license?


I'm not sure on the numbers, or the reasons for it. Just stating the fact - a lot of people don't have ID. Depends largely on social background I'm guessing. The establishment isn't my enemy like it is for a lot of people.

And what we are stating Joe, is how can you claim it to be "Fact" without anything to back it up?

TJMAC77SP
07-11-2012, 10:51 AM
Got any stats?? Links to prove this?
How then do they all get their checking done (since you need IDs to use banks)>?
Use credit cards (as many places DO check your id, though i will admit walmart is not one of them)?
Drive? Or are you saying most minorities drive without a license?



And what we are stating Joe, is how can you claim it to be "Fact" without anything to back it up?

I think he tried to post a link. Joe....no link in your last post.

Banned
07-11-2012, 01:17 PM
Oops, don't know how that happened, here it is. (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_voter_identification/)

Banned
07-11-2012, 01:23 PM
That's obviously not true. If it were, the Democrats would be just as interested in stopping it as the Republicans are. You yourself pointed out that the Democrats have no desire to stop this fraud by requiring voter ID.

That type of fraud is not a major problem, which is why the Dems really don't care... the Reps on the other hand have a huge incentive to prevent as many non-white citizens from voting as possible. Because pretty much anyone who isn't white isn't going to vote Republican, so any measure that'll decrease the number of them from voting will help Romney in November.


Got any stats?? Links to prove this?
How then do they all get their checking done (since you need IDs to use banks)>?
Use credit cards (as many places DO check your id, though i will admit walmart is not one of them)?
Drive? Or are you saying most minorities drive without a license?

And what we are stating Joe, is how can you claim it to be "Fact" without anything to back it up?

1) I went into the military straight out of high school, so I didn't see the "real world" much until I left active duty... you'd be surprised by how many people just don't drive. Learning to drive costs money, getting licensed, buying a car, insurance, etc... all cots money - so a lot of people just don't do it and rely on public transportation.

2) Most places don't require photo id for credit cards if there's a signature on the back. And even the places that do will generally take any photo ID, not just a state issued one, so is still less restrictive than what these laws are proposing. Though its kind of a moot point because a lot of people pay everything in cash and don't use plastic at all.

Luvnlife
07-11-2012, 01:36 PM
That type of fraud is not a major problem, which is why the Dems really don't care... the Reps on the other hand have a huge incentive to prevent as many non-white citizens from voting as possible. Because pretty much anyone who isn't white isn't going to vote Republican, so any measure that'll decrease the number of them from voting will help Romney in November.



1) I went into the military straight out of high school, so I didn't see the "real world" much until I left active duty... you'd be surprised by how many people just don't drive. Learning to drive costs money, getting licensed, buying a car, insurance, etc... all cots money - so a lot of people just don't do it and rely on public transportation.

2) Most places don't require photo id for credit cards if there's a signature on the back. And even the places that do will generally take any photo ID, not just a state issued one, so is still less restrictive than what these laws are proposing. Though its kind of a moot point because a lot of people pay everything in cash and don't use plastic at all.

This is why you can never be taken seriously in any of your posts. You're just a typical liberal hack spouting off your talking points you get from MSNBC or CNN. Keep on droning on Joe.

Banned
07-11-2012, 01:44 PM
This is why you can never be taken seriously in any of your posts. You're just a typical liberal hack spouting off your talking points you get from MSNBC or CNN. Keep on droning on Joe.

Do you dispute the fact that the Dems get strong majorities in every ethnic group except whites?

Not to say the Dems are a particularly awesome group. But if I have to choose between "Conservative" and "Even more Conservative", well...

CYBERFX1024
07-11-2012, 01:46 PM
That type of fraud is not a major problem, which is why the Dems really don't care... the Reps on the other hand have a huge incentive to prevent as many non-white citizens from voting as possible. Because pretty much anyone who isn't white isn't going to vote Republican, so any measure that'll decrease the number of them from voting will help Romney in November.
1) I went into the military straight out of high school, so I didn't see the "real world" much until I left active duty... you'd be surprised by how many people just don't drive. Learning to drive costs money, getting licensed, buying a car, insurance, etc... all cots money - so a lot of people just don't do it and rely on public transportation.

2) Most places don't require photo id for credit cards if there's a signature on the back. And even the places that do will generally take any photo ID, not just a state issued one, so is still less restrictive than what these laws are proposing. Though its kind of a moot point because a lot of people pay everything in cash and don't use plastic at all.


Obviously you live some place like in suburbia or a city some place. Because if you live outside of the city there is NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION at all. The ONLY people that I knew that did not have driver license when I was in was usually someone from say LA or NYC. A big city to where there is public transportation.

Who pays EVERYTHING in cash? I know I don't and I know for a fact that is NOT true. I used to work at a convenience store for over 2 years. It was usually about 70/30 in that regards. 70% paid with credit/debit, and 30% paid with cash. That included gas as well espiecally when the gas prices inched into the 2.50+ range, everybody started paying in plastic. Unless they were putting it in a container then it was cash on average.

Luvnlife
07-11-2012, 01:48 PM
The only time democrats care about voter fraud is when they lose an election by a small margin and have recounts until they win (Washington state governor) or when they're running against each other (Rangel/Espaillat).

Luvnlife
07-11-2012, 01:50 PM
Do you dispute the fact that the Dems get strong majorities in every ethnic group except whites?

Not to say the Dems are a particularly awesome group. But if I have to choose between "Conservative" and "Even more Conservative", well...

Nope of course not. But when you make those minorities dependant on the government for their basic needs what do you expect?

CYBERFX1024
07-11-2012, 01:50 PM
Do you dispute the fact that the Dems get strong majorities in every ethnic group except whites?

Not to say the Dems are a particularly awesome group. But if I have to choose between "Conservative" and "Even more Conservative", well...

Also most states actually help individuals to get there state id's if they need assistance. DSS will pay for it and help get it. The individual just has to provide the documentation, dss will help with that as well if needed. I know this for a fact because my ex-wife took advantage of this about 6 months back. Before DSS wised about actually spoke to me, and figured out she was trying to play them while getting money from me for child support.

Banned
07-11-2012, 01:51 PM
Obviously you live some place like in suburbia or a city some place. Because if you live outside of the city there is NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION at all. The ONLY people that I knew that did not have driver license when I was in was usually someone from say LA or NYC. A big city to where there is public transportation.

Yes.


Who pays EVERYTHING in cash?

My roommate. Of course half of her money comes from drugs, and the other half from stripping, so...:spy


I know I don't and I know for a fact that is NOT true. I used to work at a convenience store for over 2 years. It was usually about 70/30 in that regards. 70% paid with credit/debit, and 30% paid with cash. That included gas as well espiecally when the gas prices inched into the 2.50+ range, everybody started paying in plastic. Unless they were putting it in a container then it was cash on average.

If somebody doesn't have a car, why would he be buying gas?:twitch

CYBERFX1024
07-11-2012, 01:52 PM
It had been known for a LONG time in Democratic strongholds that dead people will come out of the ground and vote. Just take a look at Chicago, and actually do the research. There have been numerous times where people that have been dead for YEARS have suddenly voted for a particular canidate.

CYBERFX1024
07-11-2012, 01:56 PM
Yes.



My roommate. Of course half of her money comes from drugs, and the other half from stripping, so...:spy



If somebody doesn't have a car, why would he be buying gas?:twitch

Ok, then that is the EXCEPTION here. So why make it suddenly the MAJORITY when you have named only 1 person?

Ok you need to get OUTSIDE of the city and live somewhere in the country. Where people have vehicles. It doesn't matter if that POS cost $300 it still gets them from A to B. So yes they have to have gas to operate. Also they buy gas for things such as a chain saw, weed eater, or a lawn mower. Something you probably have never used. Because they don't run off the hot air coming from you. They run off of gas.

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:02 PM
It had been known for a LONG time in Democratic strongholds that dead people will come out of the ground and vote. Just take a look at Chicago, and actually do the research. There have been numerous times where people that have been dead for YEARS have suddenly voted for a particular canidate.

Yes and in California a guy registered his dog to vote. These are extreme cases. How often do you honestly think they happen? Or do you believe there are legions of dead voters?

And while its cute, perhaps even inspirational - that you're so loyal to your party you actually believe 100% of voter fraud comes from the Left... both sides commit voter fraud. But the numbers are being exaggerated.

From Slate:


If you challenge conservatives with just how rare voter fraud is in the United States, you usually get one of three responses: It’s easy to do, it’s hard to catch, and they’ve heard of it happening. Let’s take these arguments one at a time.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/republicans_are_trying_to_stamp_out_voting_fraud_t hat_does_not_exist_.html

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:05 PM
Ok, then that is the EXCEPTION here. So why make it suddenly the MAJORITY when you have named only 1 person?

I would LOVE to see the quote where I said "majority". We've established roughly 10% of people allegedly don't have photo IDs (from the link I posted earlier), and the number of people without plastic is probably much smaller than that. I don't know where in the hell you pulled "majority" from that.


Ok you need to get OUTSIDE of the city and live somewhere in the country. Where people have vehicles. It doesn't matter if that POS cost $300 it still gets them from A to B. So yes they have to have gas to operate. Also they buy gas for things such as a chain saw, weed eater, or a lawn mower. Something you probably have never used. Because they don't run off the hot air coming from you. They run off of gas.

Well, I was made an honorary redneck by my adoptive family in North Carolina... they even let me drive the John Deere!

CYBERFX1024
07-11-2012, 02:07 PM
That is why I believe in using ID's to validate people. Why is that bad? You just validated my whole argument right there.

I believe it goes on, on both sides of the aisle. That's why it needs to be implemented. I am a conservative. I am not fully Republican, they have alot of my same values yes. But I look at the individual canidate then I decide. Don't try and lump into some mindless person. Because I actually do my research.

Go ahead and be apart of the same people that BHO will pay for your mortgage or your car note.

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:09 PM
That is why I believe in using ID's to validate people. Why is that bad? You just validated my whole argument right there.


Right where?


I believe it goes on, on both sides of the aisle. That's why it needs to be implemented. I am a conservative. I am not fully Republican, they have alot of my same values yes. But I look at the individual canidate then I decide. Don't try and lump into some mindless person. Because I actually do my research.

Do you have any evidence there is a significant problem, or is this just an emotional response?


Go ahead and be apart of the same people that BHO will pay for your mortgage or your car note.

I have no mortgage and my car is already paid off... but nice try.

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:10 PM
That is why I believe in using ID's to validate people. Why is that bad? You just validated my whole argument right there.


Right where?


I believe it goes on, on both sides of the aisle. That's why it needs to be implemented. I am a conservative. I am not fully Republican, they have alot of my same values yes. But I look at the individual canidate then I decide. Don't try and lump into some mindless person. Because I actually do my research.

Do you have any evidence there is a significant problem, or is this just an emotional response?


Go ahead and be apart of the same people that BHO will pay for your mortgage or your car note.

I have no mortgage and my car is already paid off... but nice try.

Luvnlife
07-11-2012, 02:16 PM
Joe is that kid in the commercial that always asks "why?", you give him an answer or explanation and he continually asks "why?", there's really no point in feeding him, you're never going to get him to understand the point. And if you put some cold hard facts he'll see a butterfly and get distracted and take the conversation in another direction.

Please link to the articles or facts that point to republican voter fraud, of course you'll have to knowingly skip over the majority of links that point to democrats.

Luvnlife
07-11-2012, 02:18 PM
I do like how the people attending Eric Holders speech yesterday about the evil voter ID laws had to show their IDs to get in.

CYBERFX1024
07-11-2012, 02:19 PM
Yes and in California a guy registered his dog to vote. These are extreme cases. How often do you honestly think they happen? Or do you believe there are legions of dead voters?

And while its cute, perhaps even inspirational - that you're so loyal to your party you actually believe 100% of voter fraud comes from the Left... both sides commit voter fraud. But the numbers are being exaggerated.

The part where the guy actually registered his dog to vote. That is what validated my whole argument right there. Also I don't believe there are legions out there. But I do believe that people can only vote once not multiple times, and that there vote should be counted.

CYBERFX1024
07-11-2012, 02:20 PM
I do like how the people attending Eric Holders speech yesterday about the evil voter ID laws had to show their IDs to get in.

That makes me laugh it really does

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:27 PM
The part where the guy actually registered his dog to vote. That is what validated my whole argument right there. Also I don't believe there are legions out there. But I do believe that people can only vote once not multiple times, and that there vote should be counted.

Its about weighing the benefits with the negative effect. If the negative effect outweighs the benefit.

I take it you didn't bother to read through the link, you just jumped on the dog story (The guy was caught, BTW)

TJMAC77SP
07-11-2012, 02:30 PM
Oops, don't know how that happened, here it is. (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_voter_identification/)

I do think 10% is high and the Brennan Center offers no source themselves for that figure (although they do for most of their other assertions.)

The fees they cite are misleading (at best). Most states charge very little for an ID (non-driver's license) and many have fee waivers. The they fees they cite for obtaining a birth certificate are high as well. I couoldn't find ANY state that charges $45. Perhaps if you use a third party vendor which of course adds service fees. The fees range from a low of $5 to around $26.

I just don't buy the arguement that people don't have IDs. Too many instances in today's world require we prove our identity to outright dismiss the availability of IDs in the hands of US citizens.

TJMAC77SP
07-11-2012, 02:34 PM
My roommate. Of course half of her money comes from drugs, and the other half from stripping, so...:spy

Ok, major cool points for living with a stripper

((Yeah, I know the reality but I prefer the fantasy))

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:34 PM
Ok, major cool points for living with a stripper

((Yeah, I know the reality but I prefer the fantasy))

She's gay. :(

TJMAC77SP
07-11-2012, 02:35 PM
Well, I was made an honorary redneck by my adoptive family in North Carolina... they even let me drive the John Deere!

Did you eat (and enjoy) grits?

If not it is a sham label.

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:37 PM
Did you eat (and enjoy) grits?

If not it is a sham label.

Equivalent of the Corps making an actor an "Honorary Marine".

Well, you were a total badass in that one movie, so you could totally do all that in real life.

TJMAC77SP
07-11-2012, 02:40 PM
Equivalent of the Corps making an actor an "Honorary Marine".

Well, you were a total badass in that one movie, so you could totally do all that in real life.

Who did they bestow that title on.

I enjoy how after calling himself Gunny for years and years they finally gave SSG Ermey the honorary rank of Gunnery Sergeant.

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:45 PM
Who did they bestow that title on.

I enjoy how after calling himself Gunny for years and years they finally gave SSG Ermey the honorary rank of Gunnery Sergeant.

Chuck Norris and Jim Nabers (Gomer Pyle).

Complete list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Honorary_United_States_Marines

Banned
07-11-2012, 02:50 PM
Nope of course not. But when you make those minorities dependant on the government for their basic needs what do you expect?

It is nothing new for racial minorities in the US (or pretty much anywhere else for that matter) to have to choose between the lesser of two evils.


I always view anything beyond the scope of a limited government as falling into the latter category regardless, but I digress. In this instance it's doing something quite simple, regulating it to attempt to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. If we apply this mentality to any other subject we tend to argue from the opposing sides to where we are here. This, at least to me, seems to fall into the category of "common sense regulating". The level of "oppression" is no greater than the level of "oppression" we apply towards the purchase of cigarrettes and firearms. Kind of like what you were stating in the "My Boy Obeezy" thread, a government does have a legal authority to regulate in a manner that ensures taxpayers are getting a return on their investment. This is a not-altogether complex mechanism allowing state governments to do so (which is nice that we still allow the states the authority to do something around here). If there was a specific wording in the law that very obviously discriminated against minorities we'd have an issue here, there is nothing of such. Any US citizen can acquire a proper form of ID regardless of their gender, sexuality, or ethnic heritage. Nobody has to vote in the elections, in fact in the upcoming Presidential elections I myself may choose to abstain, but it's not because I do not have the means to do so.

Right, but I think the root of the problem - the government as an external entity - which almost by definition results in a disconnect.

Hence the reason both the left and the right strive for a "stateless society", where the people and the government are one and the same.

TJMAC77SP
07-11-2012, 03:19 PM
Chuck Norris and Jim Nabers (Gomer Pyle).

Complete list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Honorary_United_States_Marines

But Chuck was an AF Security Policeman.

((Just to set the record straight))

They have been playing reruns of the Andy Griffin show since he died last week. I have heard Gomer several times. Never get tired of hearing that 'Golllllllly !"

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-11-2012, 04:26 PM
That type of fraud is not a major problem, which is why the Dems really don't care...

Of course Dems don't consider it a major problem. It helps them get elected! Now if it were helping Republicans get elected, then it would be a major problem.


the Reps on the other hand have a huge incentive to prevent as many non-white citizens from voting as possible. Because pretty much anyone who isn't white isn't going to vote Republican, so any measure that'll decrease the number of them from voting will help Romney in November.

The only reasons I can see for voting Democrat are utter ignorance and disloyalty to the United States Constitution. Are you suggesting that non-whites are ignorant or that they are disloyal? Either way, you sound racist.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-11-2012, 04:27 PM
Joe is that kid in the commercial that always asks "why?", you give him an answer or explanation and he continually asks "why?", there's really no point in feeding him, you're never going to get him to understand the point. And if you put some cold hard facts he'll see a butterfly and get distracted and take the conversation in another direction.

Sad but true.

Banned
07-11-2012, 04:29 PM
Of course Dems don't consider it a major problem. It helps them get elected! Now if it were helping Republicans get elected, then it would be a major problem.

The only reasons I can see for voting Democrat are utter ignorance and disloyalty to the United States Constitution. Are you suggesting that non-whites are ignorant or that they are disloyal? Either way, you sound racist.

LOL disloyalty. You know what you sound like, right?

AJBIGJ
07-11-2012, 04:35 PM
Hence the reason both the left and the right strive for a "stateless society", where the people and the government are one and the same.

That concept I think is what Gene Roddenberry was notorious for trying to visualize, nice idea just not wholly practical or realistic in my point of view. I tend to view the Government more like the infamous blob monster where the more you feed it, the more it grows, and the more it seeks to consume. Governments that overextend themselves inevitably become a tyranny of the majority. You always find predictable results when you ask a sheep and two wolves to vote on what's for dinner. What's worse is the wolves tend to be entirely convinced they're only doing what's best for the sheep.

What you define as the root of the problem is what I would say is the most necessary conceptual understanding for a free society. We've seen quite a few "stateless societies" in our world history, none of which I feel worthy of emulating.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-11-2012, 06:02 PM
LOL disloyalty. You know what you sound like, right?

An American.

You claim to wear the uniform but laugh at the notion of loyalty to the US Constitution?

Rusty Jones
07-11-2012, 06:20 PM
An American.

You claim to wear the uniform but laugh at the notion of loyalty to the US Constitution?

Oh, Lord. This guy sounds like a young glory-seeker from straight out of boot camp.

Banned
07-11-2012, 06:20 PM
An American.

You claim to wear the uniform but laugh at the notion of loyalty to the US Constitution?

The Constitution is there for our benefit. If there's something in it that no longer benefits the American people, the Constitution is amended. The same goes for the government.

Your notion of "loyalty" is misguided. These tools of governance are there to serve the American people... not the other way around!

Banned
07-11-2012, 06:22 PM
Oh, Lord. This guy sounds like a young glory-seeker from straight out of boot camp.

Its funny to go back home and talk to the boots on recruiters' assistance. You always get that young brainwashed punk who thinks he's the biggest most patriotic bad-ass in the world - gets all mad if you don't have the same admiration for his boot camp ideas... then gets scared when he finds out you're a higher rank than him.

DaveIn3D
07-11-2012, 06:40 PM
You have to be over 18 and a citizen to vote.

issue: you dont have to prove who you are to vote leading to the possibility of voter fraud

logical answer: State or federal ID to prove who you are

Am I missing something here? Why is this even an issue? Who is being denied the chance to vote? The only reason to not want laws such as these is if you rely on those breaking the law in the first place. You cant go 10 feet in the states without proving who you are so why is this so difficult?

-3D

garhkal
07-11-2012, 08:17 PM
Oops, don't know how that happened, here it is. (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_voter_identification/)

Thanks for the link joe.. Some of what i was looking for, but i didn't see on that site, where they got their stats for:

"The same study found that African Americans have driver’s licenses at half the rate of whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. "

What study is that? Where is the study to check it out?


1) I went into the military straight out of high school, so I didn't see the "real world" much until I left active duty... you'd be surprised by how many people just don't drive. Learning to drive costs money, getting licensed, buying a car, insurance, etc... all cots money - so a lot of people just don't do it and rely on public transportation.

So did I.. Nearly every command i have been at, only those serving suspended driving sentences, or out of dosh did not drive. But that maybe a difference in branches (navy me, can't remember-you).



If somebody doesn't have a car, why would he be buying gas?

Lawn mowers. Bike. Atv.



And while its cute, perhaps even inspirational - that you're so loyal to your party you actually believe 100% of voter fraud comes from the Left... both sides commit voter fraud. But the numbers are being exaggerated.

No i don't joe. BUT neither do i feel that anyone who supports ID laws is as racist as MSNBC wants to portray.


Do you have any evidence there is a significant problem, or is this just an emotional response?

How much does it have to be, to get counted as a significant problem? 2%?? 10%?? 50%?>?


I do like how the people attending Eric Holders speech yesterday about the evil voter ID laws had to show their IDs to get in.

Which to me is proof positive that IDs are not hard to get.

Luvnlife
07-11-2012, 08:28 PM
You have to be over 18 and a citizen to vote.

issue: you dont have to prove who you are to vote leading to the possibility of voter fraud

logical answer: State or federal ID to prove who you are

Am I missing something here? Why is this even an issue? Who is being denied the chance to vote? The only reason to not want laws such as these is if you rely on those breaking the law in the first place. You cant go 10 feet in the states without proving who you are so why is this so difficult?

-3D
Last night I was at Target and I got some Nyquil, I've never bought it before and when the checker rang it up it beeped and I had to show ID to purchase it. WTF???? But people say you dont need to show an ID to vote. :twitch

Banned
07-11-2012, 09:21 PM
Last night I was at Target and I got some Nyquil, I've never bought it before and when the checker rang it up it beeped and I had to show ID to purchase it. WTF???? But people say you dont need to show an ID to vote. :twitch

I know, its ridiculous how increasingly monitored we are. My grandma told me that "back in the day" when social security was still new, it was promised that your SS number would NEVER be used as a form of identification... now it seems like I have to give out my social ten thousand times a day.

Though if you put a little effort into it, you'd be surprised how easy it is to live without ID. Outside of my military job, I barely get ID'ed for anything - not even to buy smokes or alcohol. But maybe that's just because everyone thinks I'm 27 or 28 (I'm 23).


Thanks for the link joe.. Some of what i was looking for, but i didn't see on that site, where they got their stats for:

"The same study found that African Americans have driver’s licenses at half the rate of whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. "

What study is that? Where is the study to check it out?

Yeah its a bit annoying, the source was buried in the text, and there's no in-text citations... but its apparently the Carter Baker Commission in 2005.


So did I.. Nearly every command i have been at, only those serving suspended driving sentences, or out of dosh did not drive. But that maybe a difference in branches (navy me, can't remember-you).

Marines so yeah, not too different from the Navy (We have to follow the same rules).


Lawn mowers. Bike. Atv.

In the rougher parts of town, the idea of mowing your lawn is apparently a lost concept, or throwing trash into a trash bin.


No i don't joe. BUT neither do i feel that anyone who supports ID laws is as racist as MSNBC wants to portray.

Though for a lot of people, I suspect there's the inclination to believe that there's hordes of illegals swarming the polls - which there's no evidence for that. In part that though it is fairly easy to commit voter fraud - the consequences of getting caught are huge - fined thousands of dollars, years in prison... especially for an illegal resident, who wants to keep a low profile, its just not worth the risk to sneak in and put in ONE extra vote for the dude you like.


How much does it have to be, to get counted as a significant problem? 2%?? 10%?? 50%?>?

I would say even half a percent might be a problem - but there's so many other ways to commit voter fraud at any step in the process, from everything I'm reading over here, it just doesn't sound like a significant problem.


Which to me is proof positive that IDs are not hard to get.

How is that proof? If you don't have an ID, then you can't see Eric Holder... so by definition everyone who saw him had an ID, those who didn't were turned away outside.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-12-2012, 12:05 AM
The Constitution is there for our benefit. If there's something in it that no longer benefits the American people, the Constitution is amended.

Amended. Not ignored.

garhkal
07-12-2012, 05:28 AM
Last night I was at Target and I got some Nyquil, I've never bought it before and when the checker rang it up it beeped and I had to show ID to purchase it. WTF???? But people say you dont need to show an ID to vote. :twitch

That's cause of Crystal meth. People have used nyquill and other OCT drugs to make it, so states have instated laws that check ID for it, and track how much someone buys.


I know, its ridiculous how increasingly monitored we are. My grandma told me that "back in the day" when social security was still new, it was promised that your SS number would NEVER be used as a form of identification... now it seems like I have to give out my social ten thousand times a day.

Especially in the military. But i agree, if so much of your ID is so dependant on it, from your credit score, to getting mortgages etc, then why is it so much needs you to give it over for?


Though for a lot of people, I suspect there's the inclination to believe that there's hordes of illegals swarming the polls - which there's no evidence for that. In part that though it is fairly easy to commit voter fraud - the consequences of getting caught are huge - fined thousands of dollars, years in prison... especially for an illegal resident, who wants to keep a low profile, its just not worth the risk to sneak in and put in ONE extra vote for the dude you like.

Sure of those penalties? IIRC in some elections in FL 3 folks got caught for fraud on voting.. between them they got 20 months jail (suspended for 2 of the 3) and iirc a $500 fine. Not that 'harsh'...
Well assuming it was what they got.

Well just checked for "penalties for voter fraud" and found this site..
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0865.htm


The criminal penalty for fraudulently voting when not legally qualified or for voting more than once when qualified is a fine of $300 to $500, one to two years in prison, and disenfranchisement. Anyone who votes or attempts to vote by assuming the name of another is subject to a fine of $500, one year in prison, and disenfranchisement (CGS § 9-360).
So it seems they got the highest side of fines, but under the recommended prison terms.


How is that proof? If you don't have an ID, then you can't see Eric Holder... so by definition everyone who saw him had an ID, those who didn't were turned away outside.

Since so many saw him, that means a lot had ID. Ergo it must be easy to get.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-12-2012, 01:18 PM
The Left knows it can commit any voter fraud or intimidation it wants in the upcoming election. Anyone think Eric Holder is going to prosecute them?

Banned
07-12-2012, 01:28 PM
The Left knows it can commit any voter fraud or intimidation it wants in the upcoming election. Anyone think Eric Holder is going to prosecute them?

Yeah that's right we're going to intimidate you into voting for Obama.

garhkal
07-12-2012, 06:35 PM
Well look at the new black panthers in the 08 election. They were doing some damn close to intimidation stuff within the carolinas, but didn't get prosecuted..

Luvnlife
07-12-2012, 08:04 PM
So this is an interesting article. Some girl in San Antonio is in Washington DC to testify how hard it is to get a photo ID in Texas. I wonder how she got from San Antonio to DC? Did she fly or did she drive? In both cases I would think she would need a photo ID, or maybe someone drove her all the way to DC. In her testimony it was noted that she has the proper documentation to get a photo ID in Texas but she says she's unable to get one. So this young girl can get from San Antonio to DC but cant get to her local DMV office. :doh

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/politics/texas-teen-testifies-in-voter-id-trial

Luvnlife
07-13-2012, 05:09 PM
Another update on the trial:


University of Texas students conducted a telephone survey of random people on the DOJ's list of people who allegedly don't have the documents required to vote, and found that more than 90% of them, including 93% of African Americans and 92% of Hispanics on the list, actually have a photo i.d.

Read more: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10266472#ixzz20WW07IcE

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
07-13-2012, 10:33 PM
Well look at the new black panthers in the 08 election. They were doing some damn close to intimidation stuff within the carolinas, but didn't get prosecuted..

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but criticism of the black panthers is racist.

Banned
07-13-2012, 11:31 PM
Well look at the new black panthers in the 08 election. They were doing some damn close to intimidation stuff within the carolinas, but didn't get prosecuted..

I remember that - I guess its one of those borderline cases, where its hard to find the line between "free speech", and threatening people.

Fortunately, the New Black Panthers are a fringe minority - honestly I think they're harmless - they're like the Westborro guys... they just want attention.

garhkal
08-25-2013, 07:49 PM
Well, with the hubbabalou in Texas with their ID law being "Challenged" by the DOJ, i thought i would bring this back to the forefront to get more people's opinions..

efmbman
08-25-2013, 08:46 PM
I see no reason to prohibit voter ID laws.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 09:49 PM
Another update on the trial:


University of Texas students conducted a telephone survey of random people on the DOJ's list of people who allegedly don't have the documents required to vote, and found that more than 90% of them, including 93% of African Americans and 92% of Hispanics on the list, actually have a photo i.d.

Read more: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10266472#ixzz20WW07IcE

Correct me if I'm wrong - but from what I understand the issue isn't absence of photo ID, its absence of photo ID that is accepted by the state to vote. IMHO, student ID, VHA ID, and the like should be more than enough. Saying "Oh you need a state ID" is voter discrimination.

Also, while I don't question the idea of increased scrutiny on voting, I absolutely do question the motivation. Its pretty fishy to me that in the months coming up to an election with a president with strong support among the poor and racial minorities, a political party supported by elderly upper-class white males suddenly sees the need to tighten up election fraud.

efmbman
08-25-2013, 10:07 PM
Saying "Oh you need a state ID" is voter discrimination.

Why?

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 04:09 AM
Why?

It's not. That's a line parroted by the left with absolutely no basis in fact considering that voter IDs are offered free in most cases.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml

http://sos.georgia.gov/gaphotoid/

http://sos.ri.gov/elections/voterid/

http://www.tn.gov/sos/election/photoID.htm

etc, etc, etc.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 04:29 AM
Why?

Try actually responding to my post, instead of pulling an isolated phrase and taking it out of context. Try again please.


It's not. That's a line parroted by the left with absolutely no basis in fact considering that voter IDs are offered free in most cases.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml

http://sos.georgia.gov/gaphotoid/

http://sos.ri.gov/elections/voterid/

http://www.tn.gov/sos/election/photoID.htm

etc, etc, etc.

So if I already have a government issued ID, why is it okay for you to force me to get another one? Why would an ID that can get me into a bar, or get me prescribed powerful opiates from a pharmacy, not be equally acceptable for voting purposes?

Seems to me just another hurdle conveniently thrown into the path of those who might vote for the "wrong" candidate.

Also - before you get your panties in a bunch - I'm not necessarily referring to either party.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-26-2013, 04:36 AM
In my home state of Maryland many of the local elections are rife with cheating. In Baltimore where it is 90 percent Democrat, the city-wide elections are almost always decided in the primaries. There is wide spread Democrat-on-Deomocrat cheating.

I'm talking about everything from dead people voting to registered voters going to multiple precincts to vote.

I've noticed that in Baltimore they check your ID during the primaries but not the general election.

People think this is a problem in state-level and national elections when most of the corruption is at the local level.

They not only need to be checking your ID but also looking at how many places you are registered.

Baltimore has a population of 600,000 and only 25,000 voted in the last election. It doesn't take that many zombie voters to steal an election at the local level.

Check IDs!

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 04:38 AM
Try actually responding to my post, instead of pulling an isolated phrase and taking it out of context. Try again please.



So if I already have a government issued ID, why is it okay for you to force me to get another one? Why would an ID that can get me into a bar, or get me prescribed powerful opiates from a pharmacy, not be equally acceptable for voting purposes?

Seems to me just another hurdle conveniently thrown into the path of those who might vote for the "wrong" candidate.

Also - before you get your panties in a bunch - I'm not necessarily referring to either party.


If you already have a government issued ID, who's telling you that you have to get another one?

Example of acceptable ID(Georgia):

Any valid state or federal government issued photo ID, including a FREE Voter ID Card issued by your county registrar's office or the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS)
A Georgia Driver's License, even if expired
Valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state
Valid U.S. passport ID
Valid U.S. military photo ID
Valid tribal photo ID

And even if they did, if they are FREE who cares?

CYBERFX1024
08-26-2013, 05:00 AM
I am from the great of state of North Carolina. They have just passed and signed into effect a new voting law. Basically the law requires that a person wanting to vote possess a valid id and it cuts early voting down from 17 to 10 days. It is currently being challenged as being racist. But in my opinion it isn't racist at all. In NC when you get a ID card or a DL you can also sign up to vote. It is all done electronically and done in no time. The requirements to get a id card in NC are:

2 forms of identification, such as your:
Valid ID: (including out-of-state ID). Passport. Birth certificate (original or certified copy only). Proof of your Social Security number, such as your:
Social Security card: Tax forms from the IRS. Payroll record. Proof of your North Carolina residency, such as your:
Vehicle registration card: Utility bills. Rental agreement or mortgage statement.


The last thing you need is $10. Is this bad?

RobotChicken
08-26-2013, 05:03 AM
Try actually responding to my post, instead of pulling an isolated phrase and taking it out of context. Try again please.

:spy " 'JD'; they do it cause they can; to start something in turn use it against you and then report it to moderators then the mods zing u for an 'infraction'. Old trick around here, and never gets old for the moderators." (just IMO of course, no one takes 'RC' serious yet)

So if I already have a government issued ID, why is it okay for you to force me to get another one? Why would an ID that can get me into a bar, or get me prescribed powerful opiates from a pharmacy, not be equally acceptable for voting purposes?

Seems to me just another hurdle conveniently thrown into the path of those who might vote for the "wrong" candidate.

Also - before you get your panties in a bunch - I'm not necessarily referring to either party.

:peep

John Drake
08-26-2013, 05:09 AM
If you already have a government issued ID, who's telling you that you have to get another one?

Example of acceptable ID(Georgia):

Any valid state or federal government issued photo ID, including a FREE Voter ID Card issued by your county registrar's office or the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS)
A Georgia Driver's License, even if expired
Valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state
Valid U.S. passport ID
Valid U.S. military photo ID
Valid tribal photo ID

I'm putting up the BS flag on this one. CAC cards and VA cards don't have your home address. If showing your home address isn't part of the voter ID law, then what the hell is the point of the law in the first place, except to further inconvenience and annoy people?


And even if they did, if they are FREE who cares?

Again, I'm not questioning the principle, I'm questioning the motivation. A black dude gets into the white house, then all of a sudden this imaginary threat of "voter fraud" becomes a huge issue.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 05:12 AM
I'm putting up the BS flag on this one. CAC cards and VA cards don't have your home address. If showing your home address isn't part of the voter ID law, then what the hell is the point of the law in the first place, except to further inconvenience and annoy people?


Again, I'm not questioning the principle, I'm questioning the motivation. A black dude gets into the white house, then all of a sudden this imaginary threat of "voter fraud" becomes a huge issue.



Example of acceptable ID(Georgia):

Any valid state or federal government issued photo ID, including a FREE Voter ID Card issued by your county registrar's office or the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS)
A Georgia Driver's License, even if expired
Valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state
Valid U.S. passport ID
Valid U.S. military photo ID
Valid tribal photo ID


What are you talking about dude? You aren't proving where you live. You are proving you are who you say you are.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 05:22 AM
What are you talking about dude? You aren't proving where you live. You are proving you are who you say you are.

So I vote as John Drake... what does me showing an ID accomplish exactly? What fraud could I commit if no ID was required?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 05:25 AM
:peep

RobotChicken is clearly a very smart man.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 05:39 AM
So I vote as John Drake... what does me showing an ID accomplish exactly? What fraud could I commit if no ID was required?

You do understand how voting works, right? They match you up to what it shows in the voter registration record. In states where no voter ID is required, you can literally walk in, claim to be so and so, and as long as the name is in the voter registry, they will let you vote. You have seen the video of the guy who walked into a voting precinct and claimed to be "Eric Holder" just to demonstrate how easy it is. They were ready to give him the AG's ballot.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 05:45 AM
You do understand how voting works, right? They match you up to what it shows in the voter registration record. In states where no voter ID is required, you can literally walk in, claim to be so and so, and as long as the name is in the voter registry, they will let you vote. You have seen the video of the guy who walked into a voting precinct and claimed to be "Eric Holder" just to demonstrate how easy it is. They were ready to give him the AG's ballot.

So I could show up as John Drake, show my ID, and vote ten times?

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 05:50 AM
So I could show up as John Drake, show my ID, and vote ten times?

Wow, I'm really having to explain this to you?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 06:23 AM
Wow, I'm really having to explain this to you?

I want to hear your explanation, in your own words.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:42 AM
I want to hear your explanation, in your own words.

I want to hear your explanation how you think you can show up with ID and vote 10 times.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 07:10 AM
I want to hear your explanation how you think you can show up with ID and vote 10 times.

I can't... any more than I could show up without one and vote ten times.

Not that I would have any particular enthusiasm for risking a fine and jail sentence over getting a few extra votes in for my favorite politician.

RobotChicken
08-26-2013, 07:40 AM
:spy "Good Nite/morning All!"

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 08:10 AM
I can't... any more than I could show up without one and vote ten times.

In states without voter ID laws, tell me, what protections are in place that would stop someone from going into a polling place claiming to be someone else and casting a ballot?

You do know that states can sometimes take years to purge dead people from there voter roles? You do know that history shows that dead people have somehow voted?

You are aware that the Supreme Court even cited instances in our history where voter fraud occurred in their ruling that voter ID requirements are constitutional?

It truly amazes me that some people are against something as small as showing an ID when you basically need one to do almost anything in today's society (and that includes qualifying for public assistance in most states BTW).

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 10:39 AM
Try actually responding to my post, instead of pulling an isolated phrase and taking it out of context. Try again please.



So if I already have a government issued ID, why is it okay for you to force me to get another one? Why would an ID that can get me into a bar, or get me prescribed powerful opiates from a pharmacy, not be equally acceptable for voting purposes?

Seems to me just another hurdle conveniently thrown into the path of those who might vote for the "wrong" candidate.

Also - before you get your panties in a bunch - I'm not necessarily referring to either party.

You can use a student ID to purchase Schedule II medications?

Did this refer to no particular party…. “a political party supported by elderly upper-class white males suddenly sees the need to tighten up election fraud.”?

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 10:43 AM
So I vote as John Drake... what does me showing an ID accomplish exactly? What fraud could I commit if no ID was required?

If John Drake voted as John Smith, John Jones, John Johnson, John Lee, John Williams.....................

efmbman
08-26-2013, 12:28 PM
Try actually responding to my post, instead of pulling an isolated phrase and taking it out of context. Try again please.

I did respond to your post. I took your "isolated phrase ... out of context" because that was my question. You don't have to be confrontational to have a debate.

You stated:


Saying "Oh you need a state ID" is voter discrimination

My response to that part of your post is "WHY?" Why is it voter discrimination? If every voter in the state is required to have a state-issued voter ID, where is the discrimination? The Constitution gives the states the power to prescribe how elections happen. This is covered in Article 1, Section 4 - Elections and Meetings.

Discrimination would be to say that only some are required to have a state ID.

So... my question is why do you feel that practice would be voter discrimination. I am not saying that any state is or is not doing it... just why do you feel it is voter discrimination. Since that is all I wanted to ask you, I did not feel the need to quote your entire post.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 02:04 PM
If John Drake voted as John Smith, John Jones, John Johnson, John Lee, John Williams.....................

How many times has this happened? What is the statistic?

John Drake
08-26-2013, 02:24 PM
I did respond to your post. I took your "isolated phrase ... out of context" because that was my question. You don't have to be confrontational to have a debate.

You stated:



My response to that part of your post is "WHY?" Why is it voter discrimination? If every voter in the state is required to have a state-issued voter ID, where is the discrimination? The Constitution gives the states the power to prescribe how elections happen. This is covered in Article 1, Section 4 - Elections and Meetings.

Discrimination would be to say that only some are required to have a state ID.

So... my question is why do you feel that practice would be voter discrimination. I am not saying that any state is or is not doing it... just why do you feel it is voter discrimination. Since that is all I wanted to ask you, I did not feel the need to quote your entire post.

First off I apologize for being snippy, as for the rest, I'll come back and give you a reply later. :)

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 02:28 PM
My response to that part of your post is "WHY?" Why is it voter discrimination? If every voter in the state is required to have a state-issued voter ID, where is the discrimination? The Constitution gives the states the power to prescribe how elections happen. This is covered in Article 1, Section 4 - Elections and Meetings.

Discrimination would be to say that only some are required to have a state ID.

It's called "disparate impact," only not in the case of employment. They tried the same thing with laws in the past - for example, after passage of the 15th Amendment, some states tried to make other requirements. For example, your father had to have been eligible to vote in the 1856 election. Poll taxes. Things like that. You find a requirement that you feel that a significant number of people of certain groups won't meet, and you implement it.

efmbman
08-26-2013, 02:41 PM
It's called "disparate impact."

I searched it and looked at the Wikipedia entry (thanks - I was not familiar with this term):


"...the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group."

I realize that the term "employment practices" is not the only area in which this applies. I can see how this could be applied to this conversation.

What I don't understand is how required a voter to have a state-issued ID card would cause this. How would this discriminate against members of a minority group(s)? Which minority group(s)?

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 02:56 PM
How many times has this happened? What is the statistic?

What has that got to do with the question you asked?

("So I vote as John Drake... what does me showing an ID accomplish exactly? What fraud could I commit if no ID was required?")

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 03:02 PM
Primarily, I think that this would negatively impact the elderly and disabled; especially those who live farther away from the nearest DMV and lack the transportation.

Secondly, I think that minorities can be affected by this as well; regardless of where they live. Think about this for a second: just five or six years ago, it only cost about $10 to replace your driver's license. Now, with these new cards that are designed to combat identity theft; they're about $35.

$35 actually makes a big difference in the household budget of someone below the poverty line.

Now... I know that the next comment is going to mention poor whites also being affected; but... it seems to me that with the way Republicans make their laws, poor whites are simply collateral damage when they make laws that are designed to impact minorities. White American culture... is anchored in "middle class values."

For example, I can tell you that among middle class blacks; insulting and putting down poor blacks will get you outcast, and no one will want to deal with you. Among middle class whites; it's a bit different. Middle class whites tend to get a kick out of insulting and putting down trailer park dwelling "white trash."

During the Zimmerman trial, there was Rachel Jeantel. The black community came together in supporting Rachel Jeantel. Honestly, I have to say... had Rachel Jeantel been white... if she was a fat sloppy-looking trailer park-dwelling redneck; would white Americans have rallied in support? Nope. She would have been left for dead. She would be seen as trash, and middle class whites aren't going to associate themselves with such "trash."

Mind you, I'm not saying that how whites do things is necessarily a bad thing; in fact, I wish middle class blacks were that way to a certain extent.

It could be that, in the eyes of conservatives, maybe poor whites are simply no better than their brown counterparts.

efmbman
08-26-2013, 03:11 PM
Primarily, I think that this would negatively impact the elderly and disabled; especially those who live farther away from the nearest DMV and lack the transportation.

Good point - and I agree. I would be interested to see states that are proposing this idea address this point. I initially thought that the issuing facility could use the data used to issue drivers licenses, but there is not guarantee that the elderly and/or disabled would have a drivers license (probably less likely actually).


Secondly, I think that minorities can be affected by this as well; regardless of where they live. Think about this for a second: just five or six years ago, it only cost about $10 to replace your driver's license. Now, with these new cards that are designed to combat identity theft; they're about $35.

$35 actually makes a big difference in the household budget of someone below the poverty line.

Any state that tried to implement this and have it cost would be just asking for trouble. What if the card was issued at no cost?


Now... I know that the next comment is going to mention poor whites also being affected; but... it seems to me that with the way Republicans make their laws, poor whites are simply collateral damage when they make laws that are designed to impact minorities. White American culture... is anchored in "middle class values."

For example, I can tell you that among middle class blacks; insulting and putting down poor blacks will get you outcast, and no one will want to deal with you. Among middle class whites; it's a bit different. Middle class whites tend to get a kick out of insulting and putting down trailer park dwelling "white trash."

During the Zimmerman trial, there was Rachel Jeantel. The black community came together in supporting Rachel Jeantel. Honestly, I have to say... had Rachel Jeantel been white... if she was a fat sloppy-looking trailer park-dwelling redneck; would white Americans have rallied in support? Nope. She would have been left for dead. She would be seen as trash, and middle class whites aren't going to associate themselves with such "trash."

Mind you, I'm not saying that how whites do things is necessarily a bad thing; in fact, I wish middle class blacks were that way to a certain extent.

It could be that, in the eyes of conservatives, maybe poor whites are simply no better than their brown counterparts.

Someone may make that comment, but not me. You kinda went off on a tangent there at the end.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 03:29 PM
Primarily, I think that this would negatively impact the elderly and disabled; especially those who live farther away from the nearest DMV and lack the transportation.

Secondly, I think that minorities can be affected by this as well; regardless of where they live. Think about this for a second: just five or six years ago, it only cost about $10 to replace your driver's license. Now, with these new cards that are designed to combat identity theft; they're about $35.

$35 actually makes a big difference in the household budget of someone below the poverty line.

Now... I know that the next comment is going to mention poor whites also being affected; but... it seems to me that with the way Republicans make their laws, poor whites are simply collateral damage when they make laws that are designed to impact minorities. White American culture... is anchored in "middle class values."

For example, I can tell you that among middle class blacks; insulting and putting down poor blacks will get you outcast, and no one will want to deal with you. Among middle class whites; it's a bit different. Middle class whites tend to get a kick out of insulting and putting down trailer park dwelling "white trash."

During the Zimmerman trial, there was Rachel Jeantel. The black community came together in supporting Rachel Jeantel. Honestly, I have to say... had Rachel Jeantel been white... if she was a fat sloppy-looking trailer park-dwelling redneck; would white Americans have rallied in support? Nope. She would have been left for dead. She would be seen as trash, and middle class whites aren't going to associate themselves with such "trash."

Mind you, I'm not saying that how whites do things is necessarily a bad thing; in fact, I wish middle class blacks were that way to a certain extent.

It could be that, in the eyes of conservatives, maybe poor whites are simply no better than their brown counterparts.

^^^This

Bunch
08-26-2013, 03:34 PM
Any state that tried to implement this and have it cost would be just asking for trouble. What if the card was issued at no cost?


Dont you kind of need a car in order to get to the office for the ID? Car needs gas too. For gas we need money. Many poor families live with very tight budgets. Are you asking them to choose between paying utilities or getting a stupid ID to vote? Whats the more pressing need? Have heat or have an ID?

20+Years
08-26-2013, 03:36 PM
Or.... they can take the public transport system and get thier ID. Or...they could walk. Or... they could find a ride.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 03:38 PM
Or.... they can take the public transport system and get thier ID. Or...they could walk. Or... they could find a ride.

I knew that a "Fuck you; you're on your own" comment would eventually show up.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 03:41 PM
Or.... they can take the public transport system and get thier ID. Or...they could walk. Or... they could find a ride.

Rush Limbaugh couldn't have said it any better...

As you can see is nothing about voter fraud but everything about making it hard to vote.

20+Years
08-26-2013, 03:49 PM
Nope, I just have some simple beliefs. Want to drive, get a license. Want to file taxes, get an identifing number. Want to vote, get an ID.

If someone can get to a voting booth, they can get an ID.

20+Years
08-26-2013, 03:51 PM
I knew that a "Fuck you; you're on your own" comment would eventually show up.

And Rusty, those were your words. I don't talk like you, and I don't act like you. If you look, my first suggestion was a public transport system, not "your on your own". And if you want to discuss the charge for public transport, I know plenty of charities in town that will provide a bus pass.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 03:58 PM
And Rusty, those were your words. I don't talk like you, and I don't act like you. If you look, my first suggestion was a public transport system, not "your on your own". And if you want to discuss the charge for public transport, I know plenty of charities in town that will provide a bus pass.

And public transportation is not always a viable option. The point is, you got very condescending with your "suggestions" - suggesting things as if people in this situation haven't already examined the options that are available to them, if any.

The intent behind your statements is definitely "Fuck you, you're on your own."

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 04:00 PM
Primarily, I think that this would negatively impact the elderly and disabled; especially those who live farther away from the nearest DMV and lack the transportation.

Secondly, I think that minorities can be affected by this as well; regardless of where they live. Think about this for a second: just five or six years ago, it only cost about $10 to replace your driver's license. Now, with these new cards that are designed to combat identity theft; they're about $35.

$35 actually makes a big difference in the household budget of someone below the poverty line.

Now... I know that the next comment is going to mention poor whites also being affected; but... it seems to me that with the way Republicans make their laws, poor whites are simply collateral damage when they make laws that are designed to impact minorities. White American culture... is anchored in "middle class values."

For example, I can tell you that among middle class blacks; insulting and putting down poor blacks will get you outcast, and no one will want to deal with you. Among middle class whites; it's a bit different. Middle class whites tend to get a kick out of insulting and putting down trailer park dwelling "white trash."

During the Zimmerman trial, there was Rachel Jeantel. The black community came together in supporting Rachel Jeantel. Honestly, I have to say... had Rachel Jeantel been white... if she was a fat sloppy-looking trailer park-dwelling redneck; would white Americans have rallied in support? Nope. She would have been left for dead. She would be seen as trash, and middle class whites aren't going to associate themselves with such "trash."

Mind you, I'm not saying that how whites do things is necessarily a bad thing; in fact, I wish middle class blacks were that way to a certain extent.

It could be that, in the eyes of conservatives, maybe poor whites are simply no better than their brown counterparts.

My opinion of Rachel Jeantel's credibility as a witness (or more accurately lack of credibility) is based on her testimony. Her apparent illiteracy and physical appearance were inconsequential (abeit sad to behold).
Why did you find her to be credible?

We also must know very different types of blacks because I see the opposite of what you state (blacks putting each other down) all the time. In fact the entertainment business makes a lot of money from it.

efmbman
08-26-2013, 04:07 PM
And suddenly... the exchange of ideas and thoughts becomes emotional and hysterical.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 04:21 PM
My opinion of Rachel Jeantel's credibility as a witness (or more accurately lack of credibility) is based on her testimony. Her apparent illiteracy and physical appearance were inconsequential (abeit sad to behold).
Why did you find her to be credible?

I didn't find her to be credible. In fact, I'M example of what I'm talking about when middle class blacks have something to say about poor blacks. In my circles outside of MTF, I criticized the black community for associating themselves with the least of their own; because that ends of being the image that gets projected.

I don't know if you ever saw that movie "A Soldier's Story" - it was a damned good movie - but I was 100% in total agreement with MSG Waters (played by Adolph Caesar), who was actually meant to be the bad guy. So with that, you could probably guess how I felt about Rachel Jeantel. I have no problem with her personally, my problem was the black community rallying in her support.


We also must know very different types of blacks because I see the opposite of what you state (blacks putting each other down) all the time. In fact the entertainment business makes a lot of money from it.

But not based on class - i.e., middle class blacks putting down ghetto-dwelling blacks.

Edit: I didn't mean what I said about not finding Rachel Jeantel credible. What I meant to say was that I wasn't part of the group that was rallying in her support.

AJBIGJ
08-26-2013, 04:25 PM
I don't know if you ever saw that movie "A Soldier's Story" - it was a damned good movie - but I was 100% in total agreement with MSG Waters (played by Adolph Caesar), who was actually meant to be the bad guy. So with that, you could probably guess how I felt about Rachel Jeantel. I have no problem with her personally, my problem was the black community rallying in her support.

I don''t suppose you'd mind paraphrasing a bit if you can't remember directly, I would like to see the movie myself (if I haven't already and just don't remember it enough) but it may add some context to what your referring. I should add you can google almost anything these days, especially in terms of direct quotes, you may be able to find verbatim what may otherwise be at the tip of the tongue.

As an example:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088146/quotes

20+Years
08-26-2013, 04:25 PM
The intent behind your statements is definitely "Fuck you, you're on your own."

Nope, its not. I'll say it again, I don't talk like you and I don't act like you. You can decide your intent, and thats about all the power you have.

MY intent would be to find a solution rather than an excuse. If the public transportation scenario does not work out, then I would look at different options. Most likely, a person can find ONE that will work. In this day and age of "getting voters to the booths", I bet a political party would be more than happy to "get voters to an ID location".

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 04:42 PM
I don''t suppose you'd mind paraphrasing a bit if you can't remember directly, I would like to see the movie myself (if I haven't already and just don't remember it enough) but it may add some context to what your referring. I should add you can google almost anything these days, especially in terms of direct quotes, you may be able to find verbatim what may otherwise be at the tip of the tongue.

As an example:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088146/quotes

The movie was about an all black unit during WWII; and it took place on a fictional Army post in Louisiana.

It was released in 1984, and Denzel Washington was in it.

It starred Howard Rollings (Mr. Tibbs from In the Heat of the Night, the TV series) who was investigating the murder of MSG Waters, and was getting the stories from members of the black unit.

I'll say this much: this was important soliloquy that occurred at the end of the movie, MSG Waters being quoted:


He's the kind of boy that seems innocent. Got everybody on the post thinking he's a strong, black buck. White boys envy his strength. His speed. Power in his swing. Then this coloured champion lets those same white boys call him... "Shine" or "Sambo" and he just smiles. Can't talk. Can barely read or write his own name... and don't care. He'll tell you they like him... or that coloured folks ain't supposed to have but so much sense.

Do you know the damage one ignorant Negro can do? We were in France in the First War. We'd won decorations, but the white boys had told all them French gals... that we had tails. And they found this ignorant coloured soldier. Paid him to tie a tail to his ass and run around half-naked making monkey sounds. They put him on a big round table in the Cafe Napoleon. Put a reed in his hand, a crown on his head... a blanket on his shoulders and made him eat bananas... in front of all them Frenchies.

The white boys danced and passed out leaflets with his picture on it. Called him "Moonshine, King of the Monkeys."

When we slit his throat, you know that fool asked us... what he had done wrong.

My daddy told me, we got to turn our backs on his kind. Close our ranks to the chitlins, collard greens, cornbread style. We are men, soldiers. I don't intend for our race... to be cheated out of its place of honour and respect in this war... because of fools like CJ.

That should be a large clue as to how he behaved toward many of the black troops under his charge, and what led to his murder.

AJBIGJ
08-26-2013, 04:57 PM
That should be a large clue as to how he behaved toward many of the black troops under his charge, and what led to his murder.

I thought that illustrated it nicely, thank you!

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 05:13 PM
I searched it and looked at the Wikipedia entry (thanks - I was not familiar with this term):



I realize that the term "employment practices" is not the only area in which this applies. I can see how this could be applied to this conversation.

What I don't understand is how required a voter to have a state-issued ID card would cause this. How would this discriminate against members of a minority group(s)? Which minority group(s)?

It doesn't, as the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 when it upheld voter ID requirement.

garhkal
08-26-2013, 05:38 PM
I can't... any more than I could show up without one and vote ten times.

Not that I would have any particular enthusiasm for risking a fine and jail sentence over getting a few extra votes in for my favorite politician.

THat's the thing though, there HAS been instances of people voting multiple times by going to other places.


What I don't understand is how required a voter to have a state-issued ID card would cause this. How would this discriminate against members of a minority group(s)? Which minority group(s)?


From the news reports i have seen, many feel that it 'disproportionally hits' blacks and latinos cause they are less likely to have ids and afford them, even though most states have free ids that can be handed out for voting, AND to get govt assistance which is where the 'most blacks come in' need one to get it.


Dont you kind of need a car in order to get to the office for the ID? Car needs gas too. For gas we need money. Many poor families live with very tight budgets. Are you asking them to choose between paying utilities or getting a stupid ID to vote? Whats the more pressing need? Have heat or have an ID?

If they are that poor they are enar poverty, they most likely are on welfare right? Most states require id for getting welfare checks/other govt assistance. So they should by all rights already have one.
2ndly as the links posted back on page 11 showed, many states Give FREE id's for those in need.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 05:47 PM
I didn't find her to be credible. In fact, I'M example of what I'm talking about when middle class blacks have something to say about poor blacks. In my circles outside of MTF, I criticized the black community for associating themselves with the least of their own; because that ends of being the image that gets projected.

I don't know if you ever saw that movie "A Soldier's Story" - it was a damned good movie - but I was 100% in total agreement with MSG Waters (played by Adolph Caesar), who was actually meant to be the bad guy. So with that, you could probably guess how I felt about Rachel Jeantel. I have no problem with her personally, my problem was the black community rallying in her support.



But not based on class - i.e., middle class blacks putting down ghetto-dwelling blacks.

Edit: I didn't mean what I said about not finding Rachel Jeantel credible. What I meant to say was that I wasn't part of the group that was rallying in her support.

I didn't find her credible nor did I find Martin's mother credible (although from an emotional standpoint that is to be expected)

I find ther automatic rally to her support based on nothing but her race very troubling. To paraphrase what I have always said about the OJ Simpson case...if doubting everything she said on the stand because she is black is wrong (and it is) then equally wrong would be believing everything for the same reason

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 06:00 PM
I didn't find her credible nor did I find Martin's mother credible (although from an emotional standpoint that is to be expected)

I find ther automatic rally to her support based on nothing but her race very troubling. To paraphrase what I have always said about the OJ Simpson case...if doubting everything she said on the stand because she is black is wrong (and it is) then equally wrong would be believing everything for the same reason

That's not what her support was based on. I mean, it could be, but I wouldn't say "nothing but."

In my other circles online, I've been outcast myself for dogging out people whose demeanor is similar to Rachel Jeantel's. I brought up the movie "A Soldier's Story," because it stars a man who was villainized for doing something similar.

I can tell you that if Rachel Jeantel was in a court cause providing testimony against a middle class black person - the black community probably STILL would have rallied in her support.

efmbman
08-26-2013, 06:03 PM
It doesn't, as the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 when it upheld voter ID requirement.

OK... if the SCOTUS upheld voter ID requirement, then what is the basis for Holder challenging the events in Texas?

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:14 PM
OK... if the SCOTUS upheld voter ID requirement, then what is the basis for Holder challenging the events in Texas?

That Texas law is curtailing voting rights of minorities protected under the Voting Rights Act.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:21 PM
Seems to me like the sole purpose of this is to make voting more troublesome, in hopes that some will feel that it's not worth the trouble.

People seem to have no problem getting an ID when they want government handouts.

efmbman
08-26-2013, 06:22 PM
Either I am not understanding all this, or it is not being explained properly. This is a circular argument and now we are back at the beginning....


That Texas law is curtailing voting rights of minorities protected under the Voting Rights Act.

OK... how?

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:22 PM
People seem to have no problem getting an ID when they want government handouts.

Lol... I got to admit (if thats true) thats a really good point.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:22 PM
OK... if the SCOTUS upheld voter ID requirement, then what is the basis for Holder challenging the events in Texas?

It fits his and the other race baiting agendas.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:24 PM
Lol... I got to admit (if thats true) thats a really good point.

You need ID to get WIC, EBT, Wellfare, etc.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:24 PM
Either I am not understanding all this, or it is not being explained properly. This is a circular argument and now we are back at the beginning....



OK... how?

Same arguement. Nothing different than in other cases.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:26 PM
Good question. He's grasping at straws. Texas used to be included in the group of states that was held to different standards in the voting rights act because of things that had happened in the past.

The Supreme Court recent removed those provisions and now all states are treated the same and Texas (and any other state) are free to implement voter ID laws. And considering the Texas voter ID laws are based in large part on the Indiana voter ID law, which is what the Supreme Court rules as being constitutional in their 6-3 ruling, I don't know what Holder thinks he's going to accomplish.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:26 PM
You need ID to get WIC, EBT, Wellfare, etc.

But then you are admiting that these laws target minorities and the poor? Be honest... You know they do...

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:26 PM
Same arguement. Nothing different than in other cases.How does a law that requires EVERYONE to get an ID target one section of the population?

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:27 PM
But then you are admiting that these laws target minorities and the poor? Be honest... You know they do...

The left LOVES to point out that more whites are on these programs than blacks. I never mentioned minorities, but it seemed to be the first place you went to to defend you position.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:27 PM
Good question. He's grasping at straws. Texas used to be included in the group of states that was held to different standards in the voting rights act because of things that had happened in the past.

The Supreme Court recent removed those provisions and now all states are treated the same and Texas (and any other state) are free to implement voter ID laws. And considering the Texas voter ID laws are based in large part on the Indiana voter ID law, which is what the Supreme Court rules as being constitutional in their 6-3 ruling, I don't know what Holder thinks he's going to accomplish.

Keep the issue alive?

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:28 PM
The left LOVES to point out that more whites are on these programs than blacks.

As I said minorities and the poor...

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:29 PM
Keep the issue alive?

Most likely.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:29 PM
Keep the issue alive?

So its ok for IN to have the law but not TX because TX is a red state?

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:30 PM
As I said minorities and the poor...

Where do the poor whites typically vote? Lets be honest, you think of the trailer park trash redneck hick white folk, you are you suspecting they vote for?

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:34 PM
How does a law that requires EVERYONE to get an ID target one section of the population?

The is a reasonable argument that it places an unnecessary burden to people that will prevent them from exercszing their most basic right.

efmbman
08-26-2013, 06:36 PM
How does a law that requires EVERYONE to get an ID target one section of the population?

No no... that can't be it. I tried that argument about 20 posts ago.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:39 PM
So its ok for IN to have the law but not TX because TX is a red state?

I dont think that laws that are design to restrict access to voting are good anywhere.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:42 PM
The is a reasonable argument that it places an unnecessary burden to people that will prevent them from exercszing their most basic right.
But like in GA, they have made ways to take those burdens off the table for the poor. But please show me in the constitution where it says everyone has the right to vote.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:44 PM
Where do the poor whites typically vote? Lets be honest, you think of the trailer park trash redneck hick white folk, you are you suspecting they vote for?

No doubt they vote GOP but the point is that they become "collateral damage" in the name of voter suppresion. The GOP has realized that they are a dying party, all these laws are just efforts to delay the inevitable. The demographics of this country are fast changing and it just a matter of two decades before the GOP is relegated to be a permanent minorty party.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:45 PM
I dont think that laws that are design to restrict access to voting are good anywhere.

I think not having laws that keep voter fraud away really harms those that want to vote because what does their vote mean if there is the sense of voter fraud? In Iraq, they mark people who vote's thumb with purple dye. Maybe we can try that? But there have also been research that more minorities vote when ID is required because they feel their vote actually will mean something and not be washed away from fraud.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:46 PM
But like in GA, they have made ways to take those burdens off the table for the poor. But please show me in the constitution where it says everyone has the right to vote.

The courts has spoken on the issue many times.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 06:46 PM
But like in GA, they have made ways to take those burdens off the table for the poor. But please show me in the constitution where it says everyone has the right to vote.

Wait a second... you're denying that the voter ID laws are discriminatory; but now you're justifying discrimination? Holy shit...

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:48 PM
No doubt they vote GOP but the point is that they become "collateral damage" in the name of voter suppresion. The GOP has realized that they are a dying party, all these laws are just efforts to delay the inevitable. The demographics of this country are fast changing and it just a matter of two decades before the GOP is relegated to be a permanent minorty party.

How is voter ID laws were you would lose more votes than the other guy a sane move? Why would you even stop it from happening if its just going to hurt those that you dont like more? It would make it a quicker death if the GOP lost more votes than the DEMs. You dont make sense.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:48 PM
Wait a second... you're denying that the voter ID laws are discriminatory; but now you're justifying discrimination? Holy shit...

What? When? I said show me in the constitution where it says voting is a right. If that is the language you are going to use, have something to back it up. The 14th is just so everyone is treated fairly, and making sure EVERYONE has a valid picture ID IS treating everyone fairly. But it doesn't say everyone has the right to vote.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:49 PM
I think not having laws that keep voter fraud away really harms those that want to vote because what does their vote mean if there is the sense of voter fraud? In Iraq, they mark people who vote's thumb with purple dye. Maybe we can try that? But there have also been research that more minorities vote when ID is required because they feel their vote actually will mean something and not be washed away from fraud.

There is plenty of ways that can be used to prevent voter fraud than making people get an ID.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:50 PM
The courts has spoken on the issue many times.

No, it hasnt. It jsut said to treat everyone the same.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:51 PM
There is plenty of ways that can be used to prevent voter fraud than making people get an ID.

Enlighten us.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:53 PM
What? When? I said show me in the constitution where it says voting is a right. If that is the language you are going to use, have something to back it up. The 14th is just so everyone is treated fairly, and making sure EVERYONE has a valid picture ID IS treating everyone fairly. But it doesn't say everyone has the right to vote.

The funny thing is that the right to bear arms IS in the Constitution but I'm willing to bet that these guys that are against it when it comes to voting are all about making me show ID to buy a gun, even though I have no criminal record to speak of.

Why am I being forced to have an ID, pay for registration (sounds like a poll tax to me) , etc, etc in order to exercise my Constitutionally protected right?

Calmo70
08-26-2013, 06:54 PM
OK - didn't read all 17 pages of posts - so someone might have already suggested this. But, how about sitting up a desk to get photo IDs issued at the polling place. The individual would still have to provide something to prove who they are (i.e., birth certificate, social security card, maybe even just an electric bill with the individual's name and address on it). Then - just issue the photo ID - make it good for say 3 to 5 years and then the individual walks across the room and votes.

That's probably too easy though - right?

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 06:55 PM
The funny thing is that the right to bear arms IS in the Constitution but I'm willing to bet that these guys that are against it when it comes to voting are all about making me show ID to buy a gun, even though I have no criminal record to speak of.

According to the Constitution, membership in the National Guard is a condition of the right to bear arms.

garhkal
08-26-2013, 06:56 PM
People seem to have no problem getting an ID when they want government handouts.

Yup!

Bunch
08-26-2013, 06:56 PM
How is voter ID laws were you would lose more votes than the other guy a sane move? Why would you even stop it from happening if its just going to hurt those that you dont like more? It would make it a quicker death if the GOP lost more votes than the DEMs. You dont make sense.

Let me explain.

Texas: Red State. GOP won last presidential election by 1 million plus votes. The GOP realizes that the demographics are changing and in order to decrease the amount of voters they place this law in effect. If the effect is that for every GOP voter affected 5 Democrats get affected is a win for the GOP because although they will be losing voters the Democrats will be losing more.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:57 PM
According to the Constitution, membership in the National Guard is a condition of the right to bear arms.

Negative, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 06:57 PM
OK - didn't read all 17 pages of posts - so someone might have already suggested this. But, how about sitting up a desk to get photo IDs issued at the polling place. The individual would still have to provide something to prove who they are (i.e., birth certificate, social security card, maybe even just an electric bill with the individual's name and address on it). Then - just issue the photo ID - make it good for say 3 to 5 years and then the individual walks across the room and votes.

That's probably too easy though - right?That slows people down when they jsut want to get in a pull that "D" lever and get out and back in line to do it again. I dont see how people can deny there is voter fraud when there have been many instances of 103%+ of the population of towns voting. This isnt a new tactic here, they did it for a long time.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 06:58 PM
The founding fathers did not need a photo ID to vote.

What ID was there at all back then?

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:00 PM
Let me explain.

Texas: Red State. GOP won last presidential election by 1 million plus votes. The GOP realizes that the demographics are changing and in order to decrease the amount of voters they place this law in effect. If the effect is that for every GOP voter affected 5 Democrats get affected is a win for the GOP because although they will be losing voters the Democrats will be losing more.

Rhode Island, about as blue a state as you can get, has a voter ID law, passed by Democrats...as well as several other not-as-blue states.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 07:00 PM
Let me explain.

Texas: Red State. GOP won last presidential election by 1 million plus votes. The GOP realizes that the demographics are changing and in order to decrease the amount of voters they place this law in effect. If the effect is that for every GOP voter affected 5 Democrats get affected is a win for the GOP because although they will be losing voters the Democrats will be losing more.And how do you come across with the 5:1 number? More whites being on welfare and all, that doesnt seem to play out very well. Unless you are talking about the illegal alliens coming to the state and voting illegally?

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 07:01 PM
The founding fathers did not need a photo ID to vote.

You are right, because it wasnt a foundational right that EVERYONE had. Its not in the constitution then nor now.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 07:03 PM
Negative, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

They should have repealed that amendment and replaced it with a new one, because the 2nd Amendment still says that the purpose of the right to bear arms so that each state can maintain a militia.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 07:03 PM
I voted undecided on this.

First, one side seems to think that IDs are require to prevent widespread voter fraud...but there is no evidence of this going on.And how do you suppose it can be tracked without some measure in place to know the person in front of you has only voted once? There have actually been several cases over the centuries of more than 100% of the population of a town or city voting, including those that were ineligible to vote like children.

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-26-2013, 07:06 PM
I'm not sure...but it should be obvious that the Constitution did not intend a photo ID to be a voting requirement.

It didnt require everyone to vote either. The rules for voting were left to the states and counties and cities to provide their way of verifying and allowing people to vote, hense the rease of the voter rights suppression act when the southern dems made it unfair for minorities to vote according to the 14th amendment.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 07:08 PM
They should have repealed that amendment and replaced it with a new one, because the 2nd Amendment still says that the purpose of the right to bear arms so that each state can maintain a militia.

By 'they' I assume you mean the people of the United States and not the Supreme Court?

Bunch
08-26-2013, 07:08 PM
Rhode Island, about as blue a state as you can get, has a voter ID law, passed by Democrats.

So, I dont agree with it either.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 07:08 PM
The founding fathers did not need a photo ID to vote.

No, they needed a penis

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:10 PM
I'm not sure...but it should be obvious that the Constitution did not intend a photo ID to be a voting requirement.

The Constitution doesn't address that aspect.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:11 PM
So, I dont agree with it either.

That's fine, but it pretty much negates your notion that this is some grand conspiracy being pushed by the GOP.

Pullinteeth
08-26-2013, 07:11 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong - but from what I understand the issue isn't absence of photo ID, its absence of photo ID that is accepted by the state to vote. IMHO, student ID, VHA ID, and the like should be more than enough. Saying "Oh you need a state ID" is voter discrimination.
OK

So if I already have a government issued ID, why is it okay for you to force me to get another one? Why would an ID that can get me into a bar, or get me prescribed powerful opiates from a pharmacy, not be equally acceptable for voting purposes?
Since when is a student ID a government issued ID?

I'm putting up the BS flag on this one. CAC cards and VA cards don't have your home address. If showing your home address isn't part of the voter ID law, then what the hell is the point of the law in the first place, except to further inconvenience and annoy people?
Better throw the B.S. flag on your own post then as well…I have NEVER seen a student ID with a home address on it either…

Primarily, I think that this would negatively impact the elderly and disabled; especially those who live farther away from the nearest DMV and lack the transportation.
Secondly, I think that minorities can be affected by this as well; regardless of where they live. Think about this for a second: just five or six years ago, it only cost about $10 to replace your driver's license. Now, with these new cards that are designed to combat identity theft; they're about $35.
$35 actually makes a big difference in the household budget of someone below the poverty line.
Nobody said it had to be a DRIVER’s LICENSE. State IDs are generally cheaper. Since TX is the subject of the most recent discussion, I pulled their fees;
• New ID Card Application
o 59 years old & younger – $16 (expires on birth date after 6 years).
o 60 years old & older – $6 (no expiration).
Next…..?

I dont think that laws that are design to restrict access to voting are good anywhere.
So you don’t think there should be any restrictions? It should be legal for me to vote for you? It should be legal for convicted felons to vote? Illegal aliens? I should be able to vote as many times as I want? That is quite the interesting stance….

No doubt they vote GOP but the point is that they become "collateral damage" in the name of voter suppresion.
NO doubt? Really? Keep in mind that they are likely BIG fans of social programs…

According to the Constitution, membership in the National Guard is a condition of the right to bear arms.
Might want to head back and re-read that…..

Bunch
08-26-2013, 07:12 PM
And how do you come across with the 5:1 number? More whites being on welfare and all, that doesnt seem to play out very well. Unless you are talking about the illegal alliens coming to the state and voting illegally?

The stats on welfare are going to vary by state. The ratio I used is just hypothetical, I was just trying to explain how the GOP can supress votes from their own voters and still win an election.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 07:16 PM
But then you are admiting that these laws target minorities and the poor? Be honest... You know they do...

Or he is pointing out that by citing the impact to minorities and the poor you bring their needs and situation into play and the requirements of those programs are relevant in the argument.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 07:17 PM
The is a reasonable argument that it places an unnecessary burden to people that will prevent them from exercszing their most basic right.

Actually what is in question is whether it is a reasonable argument and that has not been proven.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 07:17 PM
Nobody said it had to be a DRIVER’s LICENSE. State IDs are generally cheaper. Since TX is the subject of the most recent discussion, I pulled their fees;
• New ID Card Application
o 59 years old & younger – $16 (expires on birth date after 6 years).
o 60 years old & older – $6 (no expiration).
Next…..?

That's all fine and dandy, but unfortunately... Texas is not every state. Next?


Might want to head back and re-read that…..

No, YOU might.

Bunch
08-26-2013, 07:20 PM
That's fine, but it pretty much negates your notion that this is some grand conspiracy being pushed by the GOP.

No it doesnt.

AFcynic
08-26-2013, 07:21 PM
Right wingers will say day in and day out that voter ID laws are there to prevent voter fraud, voting irregularities. However, when you ask for solid evidence that shows significant voter fraud that turned the tide of an election, they will show you empty hands.

Let's look at an example. If you live in a big city, and use public transportation to get around, you don't need a driver's license. Same person may work in a low-paying job, and can't afford an ID. Or they may be working for a company where they don't earn vacation time. They might have to take off of work, not get paid, and come out of pocket for an ID that they only need to vote. That disenfranchises a voter who probably would have voted Democrat.

Just because it's easy for you, me, and other people that can afford an ID, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. Do you need an ID to cash a check? Yep. Do you need an ID to get government services? Yep. Do you need an ID to take part in the American democratic process that is used as a model in other nations establishing a democracy? NO.

I mean, for crying out loud, the law used to be that only white land owners were allowed to vote. Voter ID laws are used as another form of suppressing the votes of the economically disadvantaged. Regardless of my status as rich/poor, black/white, Democrat/Republican, I am an American citizen. The only way I have to participate in electing the official of my choice for office is through voting. Putting obstacles in that path ensures that my voice isn't heard.

Think of it like this: Your employer has given you the option to vote for your raise. You can vote for $1 an hour raise, $5 an hour, or no raise. When you go to vote for the $5 raise, you're told that you can only vote if you are a member of the management team, or you have to have a certain red card issued to certain employees. So, without that red card, you can't vote in determining your raise. Better luck next year, I guess.

'Merica!

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 07:22 PM
No doubt they vote GOP but the point is that they become "collateral damage" in the name of voter suppresion. The GOP has realized that they are a dying party, all these laws are just efforts to delay the inevitable. The demographics of this country are fast changing and it just a matter of two decades before the GOP is relegated to be a permanent minorty party.

Actually that is very much in doubt. Demographics show that geographic location has an impact. Poor white in MA are more likely to vote DEM than GOP.

Before your two decades are up both Social Security and Medicare will be bankrupt (at current rates of expenditure and fund growth). Not sure the dems will continue to garner the votes if there is no money coming down the entitlement pipeline.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:23 PM
Actually what is in question is whether it is a reasonable argument and that has not been proven.

In the 6-3 Supreme Court's ruling, they stated that the plantiffs in the voter ID law did not meet the burden of proof that this somehow prevented people from voting.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 07:23 PM
According to the Constitution, membership in the National Guard is a condition of the right to bear arms.

Missed that one in CONLAW

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2013, 07:28 PM
In the 6-3 Supreme Court's ruling, they stated that the plantiffs in the voter ID law did not meet the burden of proof that this somehow prevented people from voting.

I think you are agreeing with me.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:30 PM
Right wingers will say day in and day out that voter ID laws are there to prevent voter fraud, voting irregularities. However, when you ask for solid evidence that shows significant voter fraud that turned the tide of an election, they will show you empty hands.

Let's look at an example. If you live in a big city, and use public transportation to get around, you don't need a driver's license. Same person may work in a low-paying job, and can't afford an ID. Or they may be working for a company where they don't earn vacation time. They might have to take off of work, not get paid, and come out of pocket for an ID that they only need to vote. That disenfranchises a voter who probably would have voted Democrat.

Just because it's easy for you, me, and other people that can afford an ID, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. Do you need an ID to cash a check? Yep. Do you need an ID to get government services? Yep. Do you need an ID to take part in the American democratic process that is used as a model in other nations establishing a democracy? NO.

I mean, for crying out loud, the law used to be that only white land owners were allowed to vote. Voter ID laws are used as another form of suppressing the votes of the economically disadvantaged. Regardless of my status as rich/poor, black/white, Democrat/Republican, I am an American citizen. The only way I have to participate in electing the official of my choice for office is through voting. Putting obstacles in that path ensures that my voice isn't heard.

Think of it like this: Your employer has given you the option to vote for your raise. You can vote for $1 an hour raise, $5 an hour, or no raise. When you go to vote for the $5 raise, you're told that you can only vote if you are a member of the management team, or you have to have a certain red card issued to certain employees. So, without that red card, you can't vote in determining your raise. Better luck next year, I guess.

'Merica!

Tell me how you prove voter fraud AFTER the fact? If someone is registered to vote, but never votes, and someone goes and votes in their place, how you do prove it? If someone votes in the place of someone that is deceased, how do you prove it?

The Supreme Court cited instances of voter fraud in their 6-3 decision and the fact of the matter is that laws are also in place to serve as a deterrent.

And since it has already been demonstrated in this very thread, the vast majority of states with voter ID laws will provide ID's to people with very little to NO cost to the person. Time to acknowledge that fact.

Pullinteeth
08-26-2013, 07:31 PM
That's all fine and dandy, but unfortunately... Texas is not every state. Next?



No, YOU might.

Here you go...not ONE state meets your $35 bar...not ONE;

Alabama – $23
Alaska – Under 60 is $15, over 60 is free
Arizona – $12. Over 65 is free
Arkansas – $10
California – $23. Free for those over 62. $7 for low income folks
Colorado – $10.50. Free for those over 60
Connecticut – $15
Delaware -$5
Florida – $3
Georgia -$20 for 5 years, $35 for $10 years
Hawaii – $15 for under 65, $10 for over 65
Idaho – $7.50.
Illinois – $20, free for seniors over 65-never expires
Indiana – $13 under 65, $10 for over 65
Iowa – $5
Kansas – $18 under 65, $14 over 65
Kentucky – $12
Louisiana – $21, free for over 60
Maine – $5
Maryland – $15, free for those over 65
Massachusetts – $15
Michigan – $10, free for seniors and those with mental impairments
Minnesota – $15.50, $10.75 for those 65 and up
Mississippi – $13
Missouri – $11
Montana – $8
Nebraska – $23.75
Nevada – $11.25. For 65 and up, new is $6.25, renewal is $2.25
New Hampshire – $10
New Jersey – $24
New Mexico – $5 for 5 years, $8 for 10 years
New York – $9 -$14 depending on length. 62 and up, $6.50
North Carolina – $10
North Dakota – $8
Ohio – $8.50
Oklahoma – $10
Oregon – $29 for 8 years
Pennsylvania – $10
Rhode Island – $15, free for 59 and up
South Carolina – $5
South Dakota – $8
Tennessee – $12.50. For those 65 and up, they never expire
Texas – $15. 60 and up, $5-does not exp
Utah – $18 Never expires for those 65 and up
Vermont – $15, $10 if you get Social Security Income
Virginia – $10
Washington – $20
West Virginia – $5
Wisconsin – $28 for eight years
Wyoming – $10-lifetime
Washington, D.C. – $20

Next.....

Ok, show me where in the second Amendment is mentions the NATIONAL GUARD. I'll wait.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:31 PM
I think you are agreeing with me.

Yup, just piggybacking on what you were saying.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:33 PM
Here you go...not ONE state meets your $35 bar...not ONE;

Alabama – $23
Alaska – Under 60 is $15, over 60 is free
Arizona – $12. Over 65 is free
Arkansas – $10
California – $23. Free for those over 62. $7 for low income folks
Colorado – $10.50. Free for those over 60
Connecticut – $15
Delaware -$5
Florida – $3
Georgia -$20 for 5 years, $35 for $10 years
Hawaii – $15 for under 65, $10 for over 65
Idaho – $7.50.
Illinois – $20, free for seniors over 65-never expires
Indiana – $13 under 65, $10 for over 65
Iowa – $5
Kansas – $18 under 65, $14 over 65
Kentucky – $12
Louisiana – $21, free for over 60
Maine – $5
Maryland – $15, free for those over 65
Massachusetts – $15
Michigan – $10, free for seniors and those with mental impairments
Minnesota – $15.50, $10.75 for those 65 and up
Mississippi – $13
Missouri – $11
Montana – $8
Nebraska – $23.75
Nevada – $11.25. For 65 and up, new is $6.25, renewal is $2.25
New Hampshire – $10
New Jersey – $24
New Mexico – $5 for 5 years, $8 for 10 years
New York – $9 -$14 depending on length. 62 and up, $6.50
North Carolina – $10
North Dakota – $8
Ohio – $8.50
Oklahoma – $10
Oregon – $29 for 8 years
Pennsylvania – $10
Rhode Island – $15, free for 59 and up
South Carolina – $5
South Dakota – $8
Tennessee – $12.50. For those 65 and up, they never expire
Texas – $15. 60 and up, $5-does not exp
Utah – $18 Never expires for those 65 and up
Vermont – $15, $10 if you get Social Security Income
Virginia – $10
Washington – $20
West Virginia – $5
Wisconsin – $28 for eight years
Wyoming – $10-lifetime
Washington, D.C. – $20

Next.....

Ok, show me where in the second Amendment is mentions the NATIONAL GUARD. I'll wait.

Not to mention, in most of the states the do require photo ID for voting, the state will provide it for FREE, as I posted with links earlier in this thread.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 07:34 PM
No it doesnt.

Oh, so when Democrats do it, it doesn't count.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 07:44 PM
Here you go...not ONE state meets your $35 bar...not ONE;

You're looking at an old list, likely one that came out before the states started issuing the new ID cards that were designed to prevent ID theft (though I have no clue how an ID card is supposed to do that).

For example, you have Virginia listed as $10. It's $32 now.


Ok, show me where in the second Amendment is mentions the NATIONAL GUARD. I'll wait.

It says well regulated militia. Now, before you try to say that that's up for interpretation; the 2nd Amendment is the basis of the National Guard's existence. The purpose of your right to bear arms is so that your state can maintain a well regulated militia - that militia being the National Guard.

Pullinteeth
08-26-2013, 07:49 PM
You're looking at an old list, likely one that came out before the states started issuing the new ID cards that were designed to prevent ID theft (though I have no clue how an ID card is supposed to do that).

For example, you have Virginia listed as $10. It's $32 now.

It says well regulated militia. Now, before you try to say that that's up for interpretation; the 2nd Amendment is the basis of the National Guard's existence. The purpose of your right to bear arms is so that your state can maintain a well regulated militia - that militia being the National Guard.

Not according to the VA DMV....$10...http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/id-cards.php

Who am I gonna believe? Them or YOU? BTW, $32 still doesn't reach your $35 threshold....

So you admit it doesn't say shit about the National Guard?

Here you go...BOTH versions;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Nope...neither one says National Guard...

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 07:56 PM
Not according to the VA DMV....$10...http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/id-cards.php

Who am I gonna believe? Them or YOU? BTW, $32 still doesn't reach your $35 threshold....

Whoa, calm down there bud! You've updated this thing three times before I even had a chance to respond it; each update appearing to have the purpose of intensifying "burn" factor!

I'm talking about driver's license's. You have one state listed as $28 just for the ID card - imagine how much their driver's license costs! Even then, we're talking about a seven dollar difference.


So you admit it doesn't say shit about the National Guard?

No, I'm saying that the National Guard IS the well-regulated militia. Plenty of National Guard units STILL exist from the days BEFORE it was called the National Guard.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 08:04 PM
Whoa, calm down there bud! You've updated this thing three times before I even had a chance to respond it; each update appearing to have the purpose of intensifying "burn" factor!

I'm talking about driver's license's. You have one state listed as $28 just for the ID card - imagine how much their driver's license costs! Even then, we're talking about a seven dollar difference.


The state where it is $28 bucks is Wisconsin and they have no voter ID law. Same with Oregon at $29.

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 08:10 PM
Here you go...BOTH versions;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Nope...neither one says National Guard...

Since you want to play semantics, let me ask you a question: If the President, as Commander in Chief of our military, comes out and says that he's getting rid of the National Guard... and he says that he can easily run a bill through Congress and get it passed if he can't do this through executive order... that no state is allowed to have one... would this be legal? Can the president, or Congress, do this?

If the answer is "no," then why not?

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 08:15 PM
The state where it is $28 bucks is Wisconsin and they have no voter ID law. Same with Oregon at $29.

Right, but you know as well as I do that every state in the US could be just one governor away from a voter ID law being passed or repealed.

grimreaper
08-26-2013, 08:18 PM
Right, but you know as well as I do that every state in the US could be just one governor away from a voter ID law being passed or repealed.

It would take the state legislature to do that and in places like California and New York, that ain't happening. And considering states that have recently put voter ID laws in place, they have either made it very cheap or FREE. And I'm not even understanding your argument...what do states that have no voter ID laws, but have higher ID fees have to do with states the do have voter ID laws and provide them for free?

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml

http://sos.georgia.gov/gaphotoid/

http://sos.ri.gov/elections/voterid/

http://www.tn.gov/sos/election/photoID.htm

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2625.htm

http://www.gotvoterid.com/valid-photo-ids.html#idlist -Kansas

garhkal
08-26-2013, 09:00 PM
And how do you suppose it can be tracked without some measure in place to know the person in front of you has only voted once? There have actually been several cases over the centuries of more than 100% of the population of a town or city voting, including those that were ineligible to vote like children.

Exactly. Not sure which local channels it was on, but one did have someone suggesting we start actually using the barcodes on each ID. Scan it in when you vote.


Right wingers will say day in and day out that voter ID laws are there to prevent voter fraud, voting irregularities. However, when you ask for solid evidence that shows significant voter fraud that turned the tide of an election, they will show you empty hands.

But what is used for 'significant evidence"? What determines significant cases of fraud? WHO decides it??

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 11:05 AM
It says well regulated militia. Now, before you try to say that that's up for interpretation; the 2nd Amendment is the basis of the National Guard's existence. The purpose of your right to bear arms is so that your state can maintain a well regulated militia - that militia being the National Guard.

No, the 2nd amendment is not the basis of the National Guard. The National Guard itself claims linage back to many of the original colonies' local militia. You are interpeting the meaning of the 2nd amendment (exactly what you are dismissing from the other side). Unfortunately for your argument the only body with the force of law in the land disagrees with you.

Currently the 'basis' of the National Guard is USC Title 10, section 311

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 11:07 AM
Whoa, calm down there bud! You've updated this thing three times before I even had a chance to respond it; each update appearing to have the purpose of intensifying "burn" factor!

I'm talking about driver's license's. You have one state listed as $28 just for the ID card - imagine how much their driver's license costs! Even then, we're talking about a seven dollar difference.



No, I'm saying that the National Guard IS the well-regulated militia. Plenty of National Guard units STILL exist from the days BEFORE it was called the National Guard.

The orignal post stating the cost in VA was NOT edited or updated.

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 11:12 AM
Since you want to play semantics, let me ask you a question: If the President, as Commander in Chief of our military, comes out and says that he's getting rid of the National Guard... and he says that he can easily run a bill through Congress and get it passed if he can't do this through executive order... that no state is allowed to have one... would this be legal? Can the president, or Congress, do this?

If the answer is "no," then why not?

The President can't do it because it would violate federal law. I suppose congress could repeal the laws establishing the National Guard (none of which are as old as you seem to think). Congress could also unfund (or is it defund?) the NG. Of course this ignores the political suicide any of these actions would mean. I am not sure of you point here

AJBIGJ
08-27-2013, 11:38 AM
As Commander in Chief, the powers really are not that broad-reaching from the original definitions as laid out in the Constitution. Until after WWII, Presidents greatest frustrations were that they couldn't really send their troops into conflict without a Declaration of War from Congress. The original design of the Executive Branch was to "execute" the desires of the Congress (as a representative of the people). It is rumored that one of FDR's first reactions to the attack at Pearl Harbor was a sigh of relief, because now his hands would be untied to take the war directly to Japan and soon to Germany. Only in the most recent years has it broadened to the extent where the executives could push the troops forward of their own accord and seek forgiveness rather than permission from the Congress, and that role is increasingly expanding all to make us more "secure".

Me personally, not a fan, I doubt that was the MTF's greatest secret. I understand people find gridlock in Congress frustrating, but it is necessary, considering the alternative is easier "action", but what we fail to realize is dictators and tyrants have the easiest action of any world leader, and seem to be as consistent when they are given the authority as is the rising of the sun in the morning. This is especially true when sending my brothers and sisters in arms to die for this country. I really feel the taxpayers in this country should consent that the actions taken are indeed for this country and not some quagmire with ambiguous goals and ambiguous alliances. Leading in the common defense is a very good role for a Chief Executive, some might argue one of the very few. However, since the definition of what constitutes defense seems to be somewhat vague it is important that the authority given be limited to what is consented to by the American people.

Dickie
08-27-2013, 01:01 PM
I don't see the problem here. No, really. I have to identify myself so many other times from buying a car, to a home, to alcohol. Have proof of ID to even driving my car or when I re-up my tag on my car for another year. There is a lot of good discussion here.

Pullinteeth
08-27-2013, 01:25 PM
Whoa, calm down there bud! You've updated this thing three times before I even had a chance to respond it; each update appearing to have the purpose of intensifying "burn" factor!

I'm talking about driver's license's. You have one state listed as $28 just for the ID card - imagine how much their driver's license costs! Even then, we're talking about a seven dollar difference.

No, I'm saying that the National Guard IS the well-regulated militia. Plenty of National Guard units STILL exist from the days BEFORE it was called the National Guard.


Nobody said it had to be a DRIVER’s LICENSE. State IDs are generally cheaper. Since TX is the subject of the most recent discussion, I pulled their fees;
• New ID Card Application
o 59 years old & younger – $16 (expires on birth date after 6 years).
o 60 years old & older – $6 (no expiration).
Next…..?

So you admit you were wrong? The second amendment doesn't mention the National Guard?

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-27-2013, 01:29 PM
The stats on welfare are going to vary by state. The ratio I used is just hypothetical, I was just trying to explain how the GOP can supress votes from their own voters and still win an election.

So what you are saying is its total BS.

efmbman
08-27-2013, 01:33 PM
Check out this ruling from SCOTUS:


In District of Columbia v. Heller (http://forums.militarytimes.com/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), 554 U.S. (http://forums.militarytimes.com/wiki/United_States_Reports) 570 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=554&page=570) (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.

So... the courts have spoken.

Now, about those voter ID laws...

imported_WILDJOKER5
08-27-2013, 01:44 PM
Right wingers will say day in and day out that voter ID laws are there to prevent voter fraud, voting irregularities. However, when you ask for solid evidence that shows significant voter fraud that turned the tide of an election, they will show you empty hands. Except the many times more than 100% of the population of a town turns out to vote? How are you supposed to track voter fraud if you cant track the people voting?


Let's look at an example. If you live in a big city, and use public transportation to get around, you don't need a driver's license. Same person may work in a low-paying job, and can't afford an ID. Or they may be working for a company where they don't earn vacation time. They might have to take off of work, not get paid, and come out of pocket for an ID that they only need to vote. That disenfranchises a voter who probably would have voted Democrat.So these fictional people who dont drink or smoke, or get welfare, or EBT, or use the library, or cash a check, or have a bank account, or even have a job because every job I ever applied for, I had to show an ID, cant afford $10 for a gov issued ID? Was this fictional hermit in ATL or any specific big city? ATL will give them an ID for free.


Just because it's easy for you, me, and other people that can afford an ID, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. Do you need an ID to cash a check? Yep. Do you need an ID to get government services? Yep. Do you need an ID to take part in the American democratic process that is used as a model in other nations establishing a democracy? NO. Sad isnt it? That something that has a bigger impact than cashing a check doesnt need the same oversight when that vote could mean the difference between hitler or gahndi.


I mean, for crying out loud, the law used to be that only white land owners were allowed to vote. Voter ID laws are used as another form of suppressing the votes of the economically disadvantaged. Regardless of my status as rich/poor, black/white, Democrat/Republican, I am an American citizen. The only way I have to participate in electing the official of my choice for office is through voting. Putting obstacles in that path ensures that my voice isn't heard. Sadly, you dont have the constitutional right to vote. And once you figure that out, the easier it will be for you to accept that. If there are obsticles in the way to vote and people over come those obsticles, they may actually be the kinds of people that should vote instead of the lo-fo voters that think the government will pay for their gas and house payments. There was a very big reason why not everyone could vote in the beginning, and its called the cycle of democracy. Once the people that depend on the government start figuring out they can vote for more "free" stuff from the public coffer, that is the beginning of the end of the republic.


Think of it like this: Your employer has given you the option to vote for your raise. You can vote for $1 an hour raise, $5 an hour, or no raise. When you go to vote for the $5 raise, you're told that you can only vote if you are a member of the management team, or you have to have a certain red card issued to certain employees. So, without that red card, you can't vote in determining your raise. Better luck next year, I guess.

'Merica!

And voting for that raise means half the employees get fired or the entire business goes under because the company can no longer balance the budget. FREE STUFF!!! "Merica!!!

AJBIGJ
08-27-2013, 01:58 PM
Sadly, you dont have the constitutional right to vote. And once you figure that out, the easier it will be for you to accept that. If there are obsticles in the way to vote and people over come those obsticles, they may actually be the kinds of people that should vote instead of the lo-fo voters that think the government will pay for their gas and house payments. There was a very big reason why not everyone could vote in the beginning, and its called the cycle of democracy. Once the people that depend on the government start figuring out they can vote for more "free" stuff from the public coffer, that is the beginning of the end of the republic.
Probably should caveat this position a bit, people do very much have a right to vote, at least citizens do, it's written in several different places, there's even an Amendment centered around it. The key point here is that voting is not a right of persons, but of legal contract, which is a contract between the government and its taxpaying citizens. That's where the distinction lies, but in the other sense you are 100% correct, we have ID requirements for things that are considered even to be the rights of persons, there is simply no good reason the same logic can't be applied to a right of citizens, especially when it comes to rights that, when executed, will inevitably affect us all.

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2013, 02:17 PM
It is really a matter of honesty and credibility.

The GOP and some of those that support the laws state they are being enacted to fight voter fraud. Sometimes the modifier ‘wide spread voter fraud’ is used.
Those opposed to the laws state that there is no evidence of ‘wide spread’ voter fraud and by extension it isn’t a problem big enough to warrant these laws.

- There is evidence of some level of voter fraud throughout the country in every election (probably since the first votes were cast for G. Washington.) The question becomes…if it is a problem of some level of severity why do we not enact measures to limit it further?

- No real proof of the impact to ‘minorities and poor’ voters has been provided. There were some anecdotal evidence like an 80+ year old black gentleman in South Carolina who does not have such and ID, and would have trouble obtaining a copy of his birth certificate. I was curious (more so than the reporter evidently because he didn’t ask these questions). Does this gentleman receive Social Security payments? If so, you are required to have these payments electronically deposited (direct deposit). You must have an ID to open a bank account. I am doing the math here and………….well, you can figure it out.

- I have no doubt that there is some minute portion of the population who do not have any ID but I strongly suspect that this percentage chooses to maintain this lack of ID and won’t go get one to vote (if they vote at all to begin with). Laws are very often made that affect a very small percentage of the population negatively but are for the greater good.

One side says that Republican controlled state legislators are enacting these laws in an attempt to disenfranchise ‘minority and poor’ voters. The claim being that these people find it hard to afford and/or obtain these ID’s. The end result being that voters who traditionally vote Democratic will not be able to vote.

Even if you accept the claimed motivation (although there is no proof of such) you can’t ignore that there is indeed voter fraud and the voter polls are a mess throughout the country. A study by the Pew Center on the States found that over 1.8 million dead people are still registered to vote. Almost 3 million people are currently registered to vote in more than one state. They estimated that 24 million voters have registrations which are no longer valid or are seriously inaccurate. All of this presents an opportunity for fraud. Much of this fraud will go unnoticed. Requiring a photo ID will limit this potential for fraud.

Unfortunately this is a case where the Democratic Party has ‘lost touch with the average American’.

Another study by the Pew Center just prior to the last election found that 77% of registered voters support voter ID laws. That is all voters. Now that is down 3% (from 80%) six years earlier. Despite the huge publicity campaign and protests against such laws. 95% of Republicans, 83 of Independents and 61% percent of Democrats support voter ID laws.

98% of registered voters were confident they had the required ID documentation and the same percentage was aware of their state’s requirements.

So it would seem that both sides are guilty of over stating the situation somewhat. The facts remain that there is voter fraud in the US and that the majority of registered voters support such laws.

Finally there is the very large elephant sitting in the room. Why is it that ‘minorities and poor’ will be the ones affected by a law which applies to the entire population. It can’t really be money because almost every state offers discounted (non-driver’s license) state IDs. Hell I would support free IDs for need-driven cases. I already pay for free cell phones every month. A dollar extra to renew my license won’t hurt. Does anyone think this would silence the opposition?

If not, then what is the real issue? Why is it that demographic will be most affected and why is it that the Democrats are so interested in this situation? The voting history of the ‘minorities and poor’? Of course, that is a valid concern but why is that voter history true?

MrMiracle
08-27-2013, 02:33 PM
I'd bet that if enough whites drove through enough counties and faked enough identities to vote in as many districts as possible during some of the slower voting days, opponents of Voter ID laws would change their tune pretty quickly.

SomeRandomGuy
08-27-2013, 02:43 PM
I'd bet that if enough whites drove through enough counties and faked enough identities to vote in as many districts as possible during some of the slower voting days, opponents of Voter ID laws would change their tune pretty quickly.

I have always wondered why this isn't tried. I realize it is illegal but it would be incredibly hard to detect. If no one ever asks for your ID how hard could it be to go from district to district voting as people in each one? Most polling locations simply ask for your name and sometimes address. If you live in a neighborhood you likely know who your neighbors are and they if they are registered to vote they should be voting at the same location as you. Just provide their name and address to a co-conspirator who walks in with their name and address and votes on their behalf. In turn your co-conspirator could provide you a name and address to use at a different polling location. If no one is checking IDs how would you stop people doing this?

Rusty Jones
08-27-2013, 02:52 PM
No, the 2nd amendment is not the basis of the National Guard. The National Guard itself claims linage back to many of the original colonies' local militia. You are interpeting the meaning of the 2nd amendment (exactly what you are dismissing from the other side). Unfortunately for your argument the only body with the force of law in the land disagrees with you.

Currently the 'basis' of the National Guard is USC Title 10, section 311

The law you quoted actually supports what I'm saying. It established the National Guard as a class of the militia.

The militia became the National Guard through the Militia Act of 1903. What this law did was establish federal funding to state militias, and established requirements for them to be organized, equipped, and trained the exact same way as their federal counterparts. It was meant to supercede the Militia Acts of 1792, which only established the right of the federal government to mobilize state militias.

These state militias were always there, and the 2nd Amendment clearly states that that's the purpose of the right to bear arms.


The orignal post stating the cost in VA was NOT edited or updated.

Not sure what the time limit is, but if you make your edits quickly enough, that little note at the bottom saying when you edited your post won't show up.


The President can't do it because it would violate federal law. I suppose congress could repeal the laws establishing the National Guard (none of which are as old as you seem to think). Congress could also unfund (or is it defund?) the NG. Of course this ignores the political suicide any of these actions would mean. I am not sure of you point here

The correct answer is that he can't do it because of the 2nd Amendment. Sure, the Militia Acts can be repealed - in which case, the executive and legislativee branches can merely relinquish federal involvement in state militias. But that's about it.

Bunch
08-27-2013, 02:52 PM
So what you are saying is its total BS.

Just in your head my friend.

AJBIGJ
08-27-2013, 03:19 PM
If not, then what is the real issue? Why is it that demographic will be most affected and why is it that the Democrats are so interested in this situation? The voting history of the ‘minorities and poor’? Of course, that is a valid concern but why is that voter history true?
Well stated in total.

The most logical reason in my mind actually happens to be what Rush Limbaugh's conclusion likely would be, I hate to say it but I think there are people in Congress who could actually be relying on getting fraudulent votes, maybe even those coming from illegal immigrants, and hike up the demagoguery campaign to make it appear like the sky is falling when you put the same restrictions on steering the direction of this country as you do a pack of cigarettes. If that's what's getting these politicians over that hump it doesn't surprise me in the least if some of them are throwing up the politics to blockade any motion that puts it at risk. I'm sure some probably find that a bit kooky, hell I even kind of agree, but it seems even kookier that minorities are really finding it that hard to acquire a valid form of ID that they need to use anyways for so many other different things just to live their lives in America.

garhkal
08-30-2013, 05:10 AM
Well stated in total.

The most logical reason in my mind actually happens to be what Rush Limbaugh's conclusion likely would be, I hate to say it but I think there are people in Congress who could actually be relying on getting fraudulent votes, maybe even those coming from illegal immigrants, and hike up the demagoguery campaign to make it appear like the sky is falling when you put the same restrictions on steering the direction of this country as you do a pack of cigarettes. If that's what's getting these politicians over that hump it doesn't surprise me in the least if some of them are throwing up the politics to blockade any motion that puts it at risk. I'm sure some probably find that a bit kooky, hell I even kind of agree, but it seems even kookier that minorities are really finding it that hard to acquire a valid form of ID that they need to use anyways for so many other different things just to live their lives in America.

I don't hate to say it. I doubt there is any member of govt who at some point has not had fraudulent votes get them where they are.

TJMAC77SP
08-30-2013, 10:55 AM
The law you quoted actually supports what I'm saying. It established the National Guard as a class of the militia.

The militia became the National Guard through the Militia Act of 1903. What this law did was establish federal funding to state militias, and established requirements for them to be organized, equipped, and trained the exact same way as their federal counterparts. It was meant to supercede the Militia Acts of 1792, which only established the right of the federal government to mobilize state militias.

These state militias were always there, and the 2nd Amendment clearly states that that's the purpose of the right to bear arms.

Actually USC Title 10, section 311 doesn’t support your claim that the basis of the National Guard is the 2nd Amendment by any stretch of the imagination…or wish. The second Amendment is not and never has been an establishment clause (and I don’t mean THE establishment clause…save you a google search). It delineates individual rights. BTW: While I appreciate history discussions you will notice that when I cited USC 1:311 I said “Currently the 'basis' of the National Guard is…”

The National Guard claims historical lineage to the militias of the original colonies. That is not legal establishment.


Not sure what the time limit is, but if you make your edits quickly enough, that little note at the bottom saying when you edited your post won't show up.

It is certainly less time than it would take to realize a post was incorrect based on someone else's post and go back and correct the OP. For instance I edited this post in less than 2 minutes. It shows at the bottom.


The correct answer is that he can't do it because of the 2nd Amendment. Sure, the Militia Acts can be repealed - in which case, the executive and legislativee branches can merely relinquish federal involvement in state militias. But that's about it.

The 2nd amendment would not be legal impetus to such an action. Oh, I suppose gun rights lobbies would bark this but again, the 2nd Amendment has no legal bearing on the formal establishment of the National Guard.

Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 12:40 PM
Actually USC Title 10, section 311 doesn’t support your claim that the basis of the National Guard is the 2nd Amendment by any stretch of the imagination…or wish. The second Amendment is not and never has been an establishment clause (and I don’t mean THE establishment clause…save you a google search). It delineates individual rights. BTW: While I appreciate history discussions you will notice that when I cited USC 1:311 I said “Currently the 'basis' of the National Guard is…”

The National Guard claims historical lineage to the militias of the original colonies. That is not legal establishment.



It is certainly less time than it would take to realize a post was incorrect based on someone else's post and go back and correct the OP. For instance I edited this post in less than 2 minutes. It shows at the bottom.



The 2nd amendment would not be legal impetus to such an action. Oh, I suppose gun rights lobbies would bark this but again, the 2nd Amendment has no legal bearing on the formal establishment of the National Guard.

Guard is also covered under title 32. The Fed (PotUS/Congress) could remove the Federal portion of the National Guard. It wouldn't be easy but they COULD-all it would take is rewriting the laws. The second amendment doesn't say the Fed has to pay for it. They could take back all the weapons, vehicles, etc and the National Guard would cease to exist in all but name. There isn't a state in the union that could afford to equip their guardsmen.

Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 01:57 PM
Do you agree or disagree?

Yes or no.


???????

If you agree or disagree, the answer to the poll question is yes. If you are completely ambivelent, the answer is no. If you don't understand what voter ID laws are, you would hit other/undecided?

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-03-2013, 06:47 PM
Probably should caveat this position a bit, people do very much have a right to vote, at least citizens do, it's written in several different places, there's even an Amendment centered around it. The key point here is that voting is not a right of persons, but of legal contract, which is a contract between the government and its taxpaying citizens. That's where the distinction lies, but in the other sense you are 100% correct, we have ID requirements for things that are considered even to be the rights of persons, there is simply no good reason the same logic can't be applied to a right of citizens, especially when it comes to rights that, when executed, will inevitably affect us all.

They have the responsibility to vote, not the right. Along with the responsibility to vote comes the responsibility to be informed on whom they are voting for and the laws that are up for a public vote. The constitution only restricts what restrictions can be placed on the people from state to state, specifically when it comes to race that everyone is treated the same. The poll tax or education test were not conducted fairly throughout the races, and that is why the voter act was ratified.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-03-2013, 06:55 PM
One side says that Republican controlled state legislators are enacting these laws in an attempt to disenfranchise ‘minority and poor’ voters. The claim being that these people find it hard to afford and/or obtain these ID’s. The end result being that voters who traditionally vote Democratic will not be able to vote.

Why is there a need to point out minorities in all of this? Is it to draw attention away to the FACT that if they just say "poor", people will say white people make up the majority of the poor, and there for the anti-voter ID people have nothing to really stand on?

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-03-2013, 06:57 PM
Just in your head my friend.
Not if you cant provide any proof of you numbers.

grimreaper
09-03-2013, 07:11 PM
Why is there a need to point out minorities in all of this? Is it to draw attention away to the FACT that if they just say "poor", people will say white people make up the majority of the poor, and there for the anti-voter ID people have nothing to really stand on?

To take it a step further, using the term "minorities" in this context is showing racial bias, since as you pointed out, there is no lack of poor white people in the U.S. Therefore, they are ignoring poor whitey and only worried about the votes of racial minorities.

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 02:56 AM
They have the responsibility to vote, not the right. Along with the responsibility to vote comes the responsibility to be informed on whom they are voting for and the laws that are up for a public vote. The constitution only restricts what restrictions can be placed on the people from state to state, specifically when it comes to race that everyone is treated the same. The poll tax or education test were not conducted fairly throughout the races, and that is why the voter act was ratified.

The Nineteenth Amendment tends to disagree with you, and the Fifteenth, and not to mention the twenty sixth.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-04-2013, 06:53 PM
The Nineteenth Amendment tends to disagree with you, and the Fifteenth, and not to mention the twenty sixth.

19th-"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

This is saying sex isnt a qualifying discriminator, not saying they have the "right" to vote.

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".

Again, this is just pointing out that you cant be denied the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution bars the states and the federal government from setting a voting age higher than eighteen

Again, just setting rules about age. Now, if a state were to say only land owners could vote, that means white, black, asian, man, woman above the age of 18 are legal to vote baring there are no felony convictions in their record. According to the 14th amendment, this is equal across to board because its not based on race, color, sex or age, but whether or not you work and own land and have a stake in the out come of the election. Its why these amendments were put into place, because the 3 categories of people had a stake in the outcome of elections. 18 yr olds were being sent off to die in nam because of someone they couldnt vote for.

This is an example of a right that is all encompassing and says EVERYONE has a right to... The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights and protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement

No caveats, no restrictions, no land owner or sex or color discrimination. But yet, this is the heaviest restricted RIGHTS of the US.

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 08:28 PM
19th-"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

This is saying sex isnt a qualifying discriminator, not saying they have the "right" to vote.

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".

Again, this is just pointing out that you cant be denied the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution bars the states and the federal government from setting a voting age higher than eighteen

Again, just setting rules about age. Now, if a state were to say only land owners could vote, that means white, black, asian, man, woman above the age of 18 are legal to vote baring there are no felony convictions in their record. According to the 14th amendment, this is equal across to board because its not based on race, color, sex or age, but whether or not you work and own land and have a stake in the out come of the election. Its why these amendments were put into place, because the 3 categories of people had a stake in the outcome of elections. 18 yr olds were being sent off to die in nam because of someone they couldnt vote for.

This is an example of a right that is all encompassing and says EVERYONE has a right to... The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights and protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement

No caveats, no restrictions, no land owner or sex or color discrimination. But yet, this is the heaviest restricted RIGHTS of the US.

In all three Amendments that you have just quoted, the terms "Right to vote" was stated very explicitly. People who were once lawyers put these amendments together wouldn't use the word "right" by accident, in every context voting is meant to be a right of citizens of appropriate age. The context they were built from, to explicitly ensure that certain demographics of adult citizens were not denied what is a right of citizenship, which you would refer to as a responsibility. I would argue that in some circumstances it is a more responsible decision to decline to vote in the elections, at least when the act of doing so has nothing to do with knowing what the candidate stands for and the explicit belief that they represent your values. Essentially about 90% of the people who answered Jimmy Kimmel in the Street interviews of why they are voting for Obama. However, since voting is inherently a right of contract through citizenship, even their obvious ignorance about the general election is so readily apparent, they cannot be denied, as legal citizens, their ability to exercise this right.

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 08:31 PM
In all three Amendments that you have just quoted, the terms "Right to vote" was stated very explicitly. People who were once lawyers put these amendments together wouldn't use the word "right" by accident, in every context voting is meant to be a right of citizens of appropriate age. The context they were built from, to explicitly ensure that certain demographics of adult citizens were not denied what is a right of citizenship, which you would refer to as a responsibility. I would argue that in some circumstances it is a more responsible decision to decline to vote in the elections, at least when the act of doing so has nothing to do with knowing what the candidate stands for and the explicit belief that they represent your values. Essentially about 90% of the people who answered Jimmy Kimmel in the Street interviews of why they are voting for Obama. However, since voting is inherently a right of contract through citizenship, even their obvious ignorance about the general election is so readily apparent, they cannot be denied, as legal citizens, their ability to exercise this right.

Luckily voter ID laws don't have to do with denying someone the vote, no more than having to show ID when purchasing a gun takes away ones right to bear arms

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 08:34 PM
Luckily voter ID laws don't have to do with denying someone the vote, no more than having to show ID when purchasing a gun takes away ones right to bear arms

Of this we are most definitely in agreement.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-05-2013, 07:07 PM
In all three Amendments that you have just quoted, the terms "Right to vote" was stated very explicitly.But not saying they cant be infringed. You have a right not to be searched...without an order from a lawfully appointed judge. Rights do have the ability to be infringed, except for the second because it explicitly states there is no infringement allowed. So why is it ok to infringe on the only right that is law not to be infringed, but something as reprcussive as voting shouldnt have and midigation what so ever on who can vote?


People who were once lawyers put these amendments together wouldn't use the word "right" by accident, in every context voting is meant to be a right of citizens of appropriate age. There in lies the problem. And not all of them were even good lawyers, look at Obama, what key piece of judication did he ever lidigate?


The context they were built from, to explicitly ensure that certain demographics of adult citizens were not denied what is a right of citizenship, which you would refer to as a responsibility. The right of citizenship is not a right to vote. There are plenty of townships that let non-citizens vote in their elections. Its a responsibility of citizens to vote.


I would argue that in some circumstances it is a more responsible decision to decline to vote in the elections, at least when the act of doing so has nothing to do with knowing what the candidate stands for and the explicit belief that they represent your values. Thats where the responsibilty comes in, you have the responsibility to be informed on who or what you are voting for.


Essentially about 90% of the people who answered Jimmy Kimmel in the Street interviews of why they are voting for Obama. However, since voting is inherently a right of contract through citizenship, even their obvious ignorance about the general election is so readily apparent, they cannot be denied, as legal citizens, their ability to exercise this right.
It the prime example why there was only a select few that could vote. And those that qualified to vote did so with the resposibility of knowing what they were casting a ballot for. It was important that they gained the right to vote, and so it was more important that they knew what they were voting for.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-05-2013, 07:13 PM
Luckily voter ID laws don't have to do with denying someone the vote, no more than having to show ID when purchasing a gun takes away ones right to bear arms


Of this we are most definitely in agreement.

But I thought the arguement was that IDs did stop people from voting? Just like the lack of ID stops criminals from getting a gun.

sandsjames
09-05-2013, 07:26 PM
But I thought the arguement was that IDs did stop people from voting? Just like the lack of ID stops criminals from getting a gun.

What? Without an ID, I can't purchase a gun...whether I'm a criminal or not.

And IDs don't stop people from voting. A lack of ID should stop someone from voting, just as it stops someone from purchasing a gun.

AJBIGJ
09-05-2013, 09:11 PM
But I thought the arguement was that IDs did stop people from voting? Just like the lack of ID stops criminals from getting a gun.

Pretty sure that wasn't either of us making that argument here. I only pointed out that the right to vote is most certainly a "right", which you made an earlier assertion stating the contrary, whether you in particular happen to agree or not it is most certainly a "right" in the most literal sense and is specifically preserved by the Constitution. Everything else you stated was arguments against points I wasn't even making, and I think we are in concurrence about. As for the responsibility discussion, I agree with the statement that it is a responsible thing to do "responsibly". I would also add that the two terms "right" and "social responsibility" are not mutually exclusive. I hope we can agree that "responsibility" is a somewhat applicable term here, being so doesn't make it something that should or can be enforced.

garhkal
09-06-2013, 04:11 AM
But it does seem to be the call of the liberals (and race baiters) that requiring id to vote is akin to wanting to stop minorities from voting.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-06-2013, 05:54 PM
Pretty sure that wasn't either of us making that argument here. I only pointed out that the right to vote is most certainly a "right", which you made an earlier assertion stating the contrary, whether you in particular happen to agree or not it is most certainly a "right" in the most literal sense and is specifically preserved by the Constitution. Everything else you stated was arguments against points I wasn't even making, and I think we are in concurrence about. As for the responsibility discussion, I agree with the statement that it is a responsible thing to do "responsibly". I would also add that the two terms "right" and "social responsibility" are not mutually exclusive. I hope we can agree that "responsibility" is a somewhat applicable term here, being so doesn't make it something that should or can be enforced.

Ok, but voting is not a right for everyone.

AJBIGJ
09-06-2013, 06:03 PM
Ok, but voting is not a right for everyone.

In this we agree as well, that is why it is referred to as a "right of contractual agreement". It is based on a contractual agreement between the citizen who has reached the age of majority, and the government.

efmbman
09-06-2013, 06:10 PM
But it does seem to be the call of the liberals (and race baiters) that requiring id to vote is akin to wanting to stop minorities from voting.

It seems that if an idea originates from the liberals, most conservatives will disagree simply because it was thought of by a liberal. The same applies in the reverse, too. Just more evidence that Libs and Convs are becoming more and more divided. Moderates or those that will compromise are becoming an endangered species.

garhkal
09-06-2013, 10:22 PM
That's why i would love to see either a Moderate (either party) or an independant get in the white house.

AJBIGJ
09-06-2013, 11:08 PM
Would be good, I think. The primary system seems to not allow a moderate to survive though.

A well-funded independent, I think, just might have a shot at a national election these days.

With emphasison on the "well funded". Takes a lot of moolah to go against Super PAC attack ads. Hell, it takes a considerable amount to market oneself even to the point where the Super PACs even find a candidate worthy of attacking. In a sense, it is usually taken as a major milestone when they attack ads do target a candidate, to be ignored in the political realm is worse than viral videos of yourself with your pants down on an Emu farm!

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-11-2013, 07:12 PM
That's why i would love to see either a Moderate (either party) or an independant get in the white house.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/11/new-poll-shows-republicans-flocking-toward-libertarian-principles/
This might be a good start. But the problem is still there of the term "GOP" or "Republican". The Dems have used propaganda way too much to tarnish the orrigional founding of the party and twist 100+ years of fighting for civil right to making them out to be the party against minorities. Just as the Repubs took over the whigs, the GOP will be gone one day soon as long as they continue down the path that shows them to be just like the Dems but a different brand of social morals.