Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on October 14, 2014, 04:55:15 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-reinstates-texas-voter-id-law-212302367.html
Allowing it to be enforced in the November elections...
The ruling represents a temporary but key victory for Republican-backed photo ID measures that have swept across the U.S. in recent years. Last week's ruling from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos — an appointee of President Barack Obama who likened the law to a poll tax designed to dissuade minorities from voting — remains under appeal.
-
by then, they'll probably be issuing voting IDs to illegal aliens too.
Voting of love.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-reinstates-texas-voter-id-law-212302367.html
Allowing it to be enforced in the November elections...
The ruling represents a temporary but key victory for Republican-backed photo ID measures that have swept across the U.S. in recent years. Last week's ruling from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos — an appointee of President Barack Obama who likened the law to a poll tax designed to dissuade minorities from voting — remains under appeal.
"Free IDs offered by the state require a birth certificate that costs as little as $3, but the Justice Department argued that traveling to get those documents imposes a burden on poor minorities."
I am very sympathetic to low income people, but this opposition is ridiculous. The ID is free. You pay $3 for a BC, which you can get by mail. Get transportation to get your free ID. And this is a burden? Seriously?
I could see this being an issue if time was a problem, but when people literally have years, I simply don't see this as some kind of unfair or unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.
-
we've talked about those state ID costs. free in a few places for the elderly, but in most states, for most people, ,they're not free. and most aren't $3 either. and for a birth cert? I needed one from ohio a while back, it was like 30 or 50.
-
"Free IDs offered by the state require a birth certificate that costs as little as $3, but the Justice Department argued that traveling to get those documents imposes a burden on poor minorities."
I am very sympathetic to low income people, but this opposition is ridiculous. The ID is free. You pay $3 for a BC, which you can get by mail. Get transportation to get your free ID. And this is a burden? Seriously?
I could see this being an issue if time was a problem, but when people literally have years, I simply don't see this as some kind of unfair or unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.
If you work 60 hours a week at a minimum wage job it could be a huge burden if you have to skip a day of work and a day of income to get an ID and if you're living paycheck to paycheck you may literally not be able to afford to skip a day of work
-
Well then, to your hypothetical, it doesn't seem as though those people would have time to vote anyway.
voting hours aren't 9 to 5 most states have early voting and other options.
Funny how these articles about voter ID laws rarely have any quotes from Republicans talking about all the fraud they will be stopping. Then again, its probably easier to get a fake ID than a real one so if you really want to commit voter fraud it is probably easier than being a legitimate voter
-
Well then, to your hypothetical, it doesn't seem as though those people would have time to vote anyway.
lol. Good point. Also, most (if not all) states have laws requiring employers to give employees paid time off to vote.
-
lol. Good point. Also, most (if not all) states have laws requiring employers to give employees paid time off to vote.
LOL way to contradict yourself
if a state requires employers to give time off to vote then actually going to vote would NOT be a burden but having to take a day off of work to get the required ID would be a burden
-
lol. Good point. Also, most (if not all) states have laws requiring employers to give employees paid time off to vote.
I'm all for voter ID laws. I find it ludicrous that one can vote without proving one is entitled to vote to begin with.
But we both know that while the law says that, many of the lower-income people won't really be protected anyways - and they are the ones that need the protection the most in a way. The University won't fire me for going to vote and if they did, it would be no skin off my back - I can get a nice job in my chosen field in industry in under a month; an academic job would take longer, but I wouldn't be too pressed.
A woman with two kids that loses her waitressing evening job? Not so lucky, is she?
My point is that even if her employer follows the letter of the law - giving her paid time off to vote - she still be punished in other ways: fewer shifts, firing (“cutbacks”), etc. - all completely unrelated to the voting of course.
I don't think this really warrants a change and no law could really fix it anyways; just pointing out that the law in question is nice in theory but not very helpful in practice. But as I said, I don't think this is a problem: people who want to vote have options available today, from early voting to voting by mail, to absentee ballots.
-
LOL way to contradict yourself
if a state requires employers to give time off to vote then actually going to vote would NOT be a burden but having to take a day off of work to get the required ID would be a burden
Who, in this day and age, doesn't have a single piece of ID? By the way, someone posted about a veteran who couldn't vote because his VA ID didn't have an address on - that's a travesty. If an ID proves the person's identity it should be acceptable.
-
Who, in this day and age, doesn't have a single piece of ID? By the way, someone posted about a veteran who couldn't vote because his VA ID didn't have an address on - that's a travesty. If an ID proves the person's identity it should be acceptable.
we're not talking about merely a single piece of ID
We have the example of the navy veteran who didn't drive anymore and tried to use his federally issued ID from the VA and was told it was not acceptable because it didn't include his address.
In Texas students ID's are not acceptable but concealed handgun licenses are
There are plenty of other examples and there are people who actually have no photo ID.
When we already have Republicans on the record bragging about the results of these laws in suppressing the vote I don't even know why we need to debate the true intent of these laws
-
we're not talking about merely a single piece of ID
Really? Because that's what we are, actually, talking about.
We have the example of the navy veteran who didn't drive anymore and tried to use his federally issued ID from the VA and was told it was not acceptable because it didn't include his address.
If IA state law requires the ID to include a home address, I'd argue that the law is broken. The solution is to fix the broken law, not say "well, I guess that's it - the law is the law and we can't do anything about it... no ID checking for voting![/u]"
In Texas students ID's are not acceptable but concealed handgun licenses are
This may actually be reasonable - are student IDs typically accepted where government-issued identification is required? I don't believe so. Anecdotal evidence: a few years ago but a classmate of mine managed to get avalid (that is, actually issued by the University; not a fake) Student ID card issued in the name of "Buffcoat N. Beaver (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lobkzXRt-o)" - no joke.
There are plenty of other examples and there are people who actually have no photo ID.
Right and?
When we already have Republicans on the record bragging about the results of these laws in suppressing the vote I don't even know why we need to debate the true intent of these laws
Even if they're bragging this is irrelevant. Voter identification laws aren't about suppressing the vote. They're about ensuring the integrity of our voting system. Procuring one form of government-issued ID isn't that difficult as to qualify as "suppression" in my opinion.
-
I'm all for voter ID laws. I find it ludicrous that one can vote without proving one is entitled to vote to begin with.
But we both know that while the law says that, many of the lower-income people won't really be protected anyways - and they are the ones that need the protection the most in a way. The University won't fire me for going to vote and if they did, it would be no skin off my back - I can get a nice job in my chosen field in industry in under a month; an academic job would take longer, but I wouldn't be too pressed.
A woman with two kids that loses her waitressing evening job? Not so lucky, is she?
My point is that even if her employer follows the letter of the law - giving her paid time off to vote - she still be punished in other ways: fewer shifts, firing (“cutbacks”), etc. - all completely unrelated to the voting of course.
I don't think this really warrants a change and no law could really fix it anyways; just pointing out that the law in question is nice in theory but not very helpful in practice. But as I said, I don't think this is a problem: people who want to vote have options available today, from early voting to voting by mail, to absentee ballots.
I'm sure there are employees who experience retaliation for exercising rights afforded them by the employer and by the law, but I don't think that diminishes the fact that employees are given the right to vote without penalty. Just like you cannot fire someone because you think they're too old doesn't mean people don't get fired for being old. It happens.
But this particular issue? I just find it so simple and the opposition so absurd, that I have a hard time even paying attention to it. I am just blown away that this issue has been clogging up the court system at the highest levels.
I have yet to hear a legitimate reason for not requiring someone to get an ID, especially when the ID is free for people who cannot afford one.
-
Really? Because that's what we are, actually, talking about.
really then why does not a "single piece of ID" work
I can give you many examples of single pieces of ID that don't work
so is this just a semantic argument that you're trying to make?
-
really then why does not a "single piece of ID" work
I can give you many examples of single pieces of ID that don't work
so is this just a semantic argument that you're trying to make?
In principle, a single piece of ID is all that's needed. Is it possible that some particular piece of ID was rejected? Sure. Should it have been? Maybe. You're making the argument that just because one piece of ID was rejected, voter ID laws must go out the door. That's stupid and nonsensical. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
-
In principle, a single piece of ID is all that's needed. Is it possible that some particular piece of ID was rejected? Sure. Should it have been? Maybe. You're making the argument that just because one piece of ID was rejected, voter ID laws must go out the door. That's stupid and nonsensical. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm not making that argument at all
let me state my argument again so that it's clear for everyone
Voter ID laws were not intended to prevent voter fraud (which is so small that it's statistically zero) but to creates burden which would discourage/disenfranchise voters
Republicans have even admitted this and we have some recent proof that this is the result
I think I've said these two statements about 10 times now
-
It is a fact that once an older, poor person stops driving (for whatever reason), chances of he/she renewing some form of that type of ID, aren't the best. Sometimes they'll get to a stage or a state in life where they need help to manage, but there's no one there. So that's a potential problem.
But the voter ID people have the upper hand, big damn time. Many or most of them hope to see others removed from the political picture, let's be perfectly real. But that's the way the dice rolls sometimes. They have the goods.
-
It is a fact that once an older, poor person stops driving (for whatever reason), chances of he/she renewing some form of that type of ID, aren't the best. Sometimes they'll get to a stage or a state in life where they need help to manage, but there's no one there. So that's a potential problem.
But the voter ID people have the upper hand, big damn time. Many or most of them hope to see others removed from the political picture, let's be perfectly real. But that's the way the dice rolls sometimes. They have the goods.
A lot of entities, from governments to private companies, refuse to even consider an expired drivers license as proof of identity, which makes no real sense. Identity doesn't expire, even if my driving privilege does. But doesn't change the fact that I'm Archibald Vxo, born on February 29th, 1976.
So, to me, the question is does it make sense to reject expired documents for the purposes of identification? I don't think so, unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. the picture and the person don't look alike).
-
If you work 60 hours a week at a minimum wage job it could be a huge burden if you have to skip a day of work and a day of income to get an ID and if you're living paycheck to paycheck you may literally not be able to afford to skip a day of work
Oh brother.
-
A lot of entities, from governments to private companies, refuse to even consider an expired drivers license as proof of identity, which makes no real sense. Identity doesn't expire, even if my driving privilege does. But doesn't change the fact that I'm Archibald Vxo, born on February 29th, 1976.
So, to me, the question is does it make sense to reject expired documents for the purposes of identification? I don't think so, unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. the picture and the person don't look alike).
Total agreement, here, considering the subject. But I suppose a few of the ideas, are that standards can't be necessarily trusted from whenever or wherever the person got the ID in question (versus something current) and/or a sufficiently "certified" physical address is an inherent part of identifying a person to fit the circumstances, etc. - that line of thought.
No matter how it's sliced, the weight will always be on the side of someone that demands to see the lowest possible chance of voting fraud, within reason.
-
"Free IDs offered by the state require a birth certificate that costs as little as $3, but the Justice Department argued that traveling to get those documents imposes a burden on poor minorities."
I am very sympathetic to low income people, but this opposition is ridiculous. The ID is free. You pay $3 for a BC, which you can get by mail. Get transportation to get your free ID. And this is a burden? Seriously?
I could see this being an issue if time was a problem, but when people literally have years, I simply don't see this as some kind of unfair or unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.
What if you're an elderly person who was never issued a birth certificate??? Sorry but the Voter ID law is to suppress minority votes and it will also supress senior citizens.
The idea of illegal votes has been proven minimal because there's no financial gain from it whatsoever. Killing a fly with a shotgun.....
-
If you work 60 hours a week at a minimum wage job it could be a huge burden if you have to skip a day of work and a day of income to get an ID and if you're living paycheck to paycheck you may literally not be able to afford to skip a day of work
If youre working 60 hours a week you have a fckn ID. Your hypthetical excuses are pathetic. You HAVE to have an ID to live in the modern world.
-
What if you're an elderly person who was never issued a birth certificate??? Sorry but the Voter ID law is to suppress minority votes and it will also supress senior citizens.
The idea of illegal votes has been proven minimal because there's no financial gain from it whatsoever. Killing a fly with a shotgun.....
You're an elderly person and don't have any form of ID at all and, on top of that, don't have a birth certificate and, on top of that, you can't get any form of ID? Sorry, I don't buy it. You cannot go through an entire life and not acquire some piece of identification.
Also you say insisting voter ID laws are to suppress minority voters. How do they do that exactly? Are minorities allergic to ID cards or something?
-
If youre working 60 hours a week you have a fckn ID. Your hypthetical excuses are pathetic. You HAVE to have an ID to live in the modern world.
you can certainly be poor enough in this country to no own a car or have a drivers license or in many cases even a bank account
you could have also read the article which is linked in the first post on this thread
The Texas law, considered the toughest of its kind in the nation, requires that an estimated 13.6 million registered voters show one of seven kinds of photo identification to cast a ballot. The Justice Department says more than 600,000 of those voters, mostly blacks and Hispanics, lack eligible ID[/b]
-
If youre working 60 hours a week you have a fckn ID. Your hypthetical excuses are pathetic. You HAVE to have an ID to live in the modern world.
A day of work.....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA. Go at your lunch hour. I always get my new military ID's when deployed. They run 24/7 so I'll go at like 2AM and get mine. If you want to vote finding a hour should not be that hard as it serves to ensure everybody is who they say they are. You libs are trying real fucking hard to defraud the system here. The shit is free.
-
A day of work.....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA. Go at your lunch hour. I always get my new military ID's when deployed. They run 24/7 so I'll go at like 2AM and get mine. If you want to vote finding a hour should not be that hard as it serves to ensure everybody is who they say they are. You libs are trying real fucking hard to defraud the system here. The shit is free.
what if you need to go take a bus or a couple of buses, go down and stand in line for an hour or two and then another couple of buses back
why are you even bringing up your military ID. If you're in the military then this is not an issue for you at all as your military ID.
Of course if you're retired military and don't drive a car then your photo ID from the VA will NOT be acceptable in some places
-
you can certainly be poor enough in this country to no own a car or have a drivers license or in many cases even a bank account
None of which stops you from getting an ID card.
The Justice Department says more than 600,000 of those voters, mostly blacks and Hispanics, lack eligible ID
The question isn't whether they lack eligible ID. The question is whether they can acquire one if they want to. The answer to that question is that yes, they can.
-
A day of work.....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA. Go at your lunch hour. I always get my new military ID's when deployed. They run 24/7 so I'll go at like 2AM and get mine. If you want to vote finding a hour should not be that hard as it serves to ensure everybody is who they say they are. You libs are trying real fucking hard to defraud the system here. The shit is free.
The left are doing what they always do, turn minorities into helpless children. They have such little faith in minorities that they feel its up to them(parental figure) to make sure minorities behave responsibility. They will never accept personal responsibility as being a necessary component of adulthood. There is plenty of time and opportunity to get a photo ID. It's not like elections are taking place every week and IDs are cheap where they aren't free. A healthy adult has no excuse for not having a photo ID. You snooze, you lose.
-
None of which stops you from getting an ID card.
The question isn't whether they lack eligible ID. The question is whether they can acquire one if they want to. The answer to that question is that yes, they can.
it doesn't stop you it just makes it very difficult to the point where you might just say fuck it
and
that is EXACTLY the intent of these laws
Republican have told us this and the GAO confirms this is a result
-
The left are doing what they always do, turn minorities into helpless children. They have such little faith in minorities that they feel its up to them(parental figure) to make sure minorities behave responsibility. They will never accept personal responsibility as being a necessary component of adulthood. There is plenty of time and opportunity to get a photo ID. It's not like elections are taking place every week and IDs are cheap where they aren't free. A healthy adult has no excuse for not having a photo ID. You snooze, you lose.
Hey Professor Logic
How about the WWII Veteran who was not allowed to vote because his federally issued photo ID from the VA administration did not include his home address
Hey, how did your PM to Ron go?
have you figured out yet how to construct the argument
Did he laugh like I did when you showed him the formula and then got it wrong in your example
Negative form
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.
(P)Passing ID LAWS (Q)ID laws will result in fewer minorities and young people voting
Q: Fewer minorities and young people voting is undesirable
Therefore, (P) ID Laws are bad.
-
it doesn't stop you it just makes it very difficult to the point where you might just say fuck it
And that is on them. They don't have proper priorities.
-
Hey Professor Logic
How about the WWII Veteran who was not allowed to vote because his federally issued photo ID from the VA administration did not include his home address
Hey, how did your PM to Ron go?
have you figured out yet how to construct the argument
Did he laugh like I did when you showed him the formula and then got it wrong in your example
Stop, seriously. I've already seen another logical fallacy in the posts you've made today but I thought I would go easy on you. I can argue with you until I'm blue in the face but you will never admit your logical failures.
-
And that is on them. They don't have proper priorities.
Seriously. Theyre CHOOSING not to vote in that situation.
Waaahhhhh, we have to do something, waaahhhhh, its unfair, we shouldnt have to do anything to vote!
-
You're an elderly person and don't have any form of ID at all and, on top of that, don't have a birth certificate and, on top of that, you can't get any form of ID? Sorry, I don't buy it. You cannot go through an entire life and not acquire some piece of identification.
Also you say insisting voter ID laws are to suppress minority voters. How do they do that exactly? Are minorities allergic to ID cards or something?
again, it's not just "any form of ID"
didn't we already talk about that
here is an example of how hard it can be and she
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/05/marriage-certificate-required-bureaucrat-tells/
Dorothy Cooper is 96 but she can remember only one election when she's been eligible to vote but hasn't.
The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote. She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.
So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.
That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.
"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center.
Here's Jim Cramer complaining that his father, a WW II veteran could not vote.
Now of course, given his fame he was able to get it resolved quickly but think of all the other people in the same situation who couldn't get it done
So if you want to pretend this kind of thing doesn't happen that's fine but it's doesn't change reality
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jim-cramer-voter-id-law-will-disenfranchise-my-dad
CNBC host Jim Cramer said Tuesday that his father was among the estimated 750,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania who lack a state-issued form of identification.
"My dad, a vet, won't be allowed to vote in Pa. because he does not drive, he is elderly, and can't prove his citizenship," Cramer wrote on Twitter.
-
Stop, seriously. I've already seen another logical fallacy in the posts you've made today but I thought I would go easy on you. I can argue with you until I'm blue in the face but you will never admit your logical failures.
I'm not stopping
you brought it up and you were blatantly wrong
you couldn't even get your example right after having stated the simple formula correctly
you're so fucking stupid you can't even understand a simple two part equation
would you like to try again or how you can just admit you got it wrong and I'll drop it
-
How about the WWII Veteran who was not allowed to vote because his federally issued photo ID from the VA administration did not include his home address
You're doing it again - cut it out. You're claiming you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and then you are trying to do just that. Fix the problem - namely that law that mandates a home address be present for an identification card to be considered eligible. Don't say "welp... this now means that we should never ID anyone, ever again." Also, note that the veteran in question could have received a provisional ballot - and he chose not to.
it doesn't stop you it just makes it very difficult to the point where you might just say fuck it
How the fuck is it difficult? Last time I got an ID it took me all of 20 minutes. I called my local DMV, made an appointment, showed up at 5 minutes ahead of time and I was in and out in 10 minutes flat. Even with no appointment, the average waiting time was one hour. Enough with this fiction that it's difficult to apply for and get ID.
that is EXACTLY the intent of these laws
If that's the intent, then the law is silly way of accomplishing that objective since it's trivial to get an ID card.
Republican have told us this and the GAO confirms this is a result
Again, what Republican have or haven't said is irrelevant. And the GAO doesn't confirm that this is the result - it just states that a subset of voters don't have a card that meet the requirements set out in the statute. Getting a card that does is trivial.
-
I'm not stopping
you brought it up and you were blatantly wrong
you couldn't even get your example right after having stated the simple formula correctly
you're so fucking stupid you can't even understand a simple two part equation
would you like to try again or how you can just admit you got it wrong and I'll drop it
Im not wrong. Why are you dwelling on only one of my accusations of committing a logical fallacy? Are you accepting you've committing the multiple other fallacies you've been accused of?
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification,causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy, a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
ID laws prevent minorities from voting. You're completely ignoring the other causes for poor minority turn out, including lack of interest. You are also completely ignoring the multiple reasons blacks aren't procuring IDS, no initiative and a poor planning being two. You place all the reason for minorities not having IDS on external factors beyond their control. You're doing this in order to frame your argument in a way that is advantageous to your position. This is known colloquially as a framing fallacy.
Of course I didn't contact, ron, you doofus.
-
Funny how leftists argue its a burden to take 30 minutes to get an id - yet its not a burden to go to a polling place to vote.
If you can get to a polling place to vote - you can get to wherever to get an id.
-
You're doing it again - cut it out. You're claiming you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and then you are trying to do just that. Fix the problem - namely that law that mandates a home address be present for an identification card to be considered eligible. Don't say "welp... this now means that we should never ID anyone, ever again." Also, note that the veteran in question could have received a provisional ballot - and he chose not to.
How the fuck is it difficult? Last time I got an ID it took me all of 20 minutes. I called my local DMV, made an appointment, showed up at 5 minutes ahead of time and I was in and out in 10 minutes flat. Even with no appointment, the average waiting time was one hour. Enough with this fiction that it's difficult to apply for and get ID.
If that's the intent, then the law is silly way of accomplishing that objective since it's trivial to get an ID card.
Again, what Republican have or haven't said is irrelevant. And the GAO doesn't confirm that this is the result - it just states that a subset of voters don't have a card that meet the requirements set out in the statute. Getting a card that does is trivial.
hey man, you basically said it doesn't happen and I gave you just a couple of examples
My point this entire time is that voter fraud is RARE and these photo ID laws cause much more harm in disenfranchising voters than in preventing the very rare cases of voter fraud
In fact, the cases of voter fraud that were given as example included people who used ID's so even having a photo ID didn't prevent the fraud
btw - you asked for a link to the GAO report
have you commented on it's results (I don't which is the only reason I'm asking)
-
Funny how leftists argue its a burden to take 30 minutes to get an id - yet its not a burden to go to a polling place to vote.
If you can get to a polling place to vote - you can get to wherever to get an id.
And its always the fault of some external force. It's never the responsibility of the person to obtain an ID.
-
again, it's not just "any form of ID"
didn't we already talk about that
here is an example of how hard it can be and she
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/05/marriage-certificate-required-bureaucrat-tells/
No system is perfect, but this isn't really a representative situation either. Her birth certificate is in
Here's Jim Cramer complaining that his father, a WW II veteran could not vote.
Now of course, given his fame he was able to get it resolved quickly but think of all the other people in the same situation who couldn't get it done
So if you want to pretend this kind of thing doesn't happen that's fine but it's doesn't change reality
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jim-cramer-voter-id-law-will-disenfranchise-my-dad
Forgive me for being skeptical. My Father is not a veteran, was born overseas and didn't have any form of government issued ID for over 25 years. He wanted to get an ID card, so we looked at the requirements, and got to work: we wrote a letter to the Department of State (birth certificates of citizens born abroad are issued by DoS) listing the particulars and asking for a copy of his birth certificate (5 minutes) which we dropped in the mail (60 seconds to walk across the street and drop the letter in the mailbox. A couple of weeks later a nice form showed up in the mail. Total cost: one Forever stamp and (I think) $35 dollars.
We took that, went to the DMV, and an hour we left. A week later a nice ID card showed up in the mail. Total cost: $8.75.
This isn't to say it's always smooth. I am sure that some people have trouble procuring an ID - some for better reasons than others; the solution isn't to not ask voters to prove their ID. The solution is to improve the process by which IDs are issued and verified.
-
Im not wrong. Why are you dwelling on only one of my accusations of committing a logical fallacy? Are you accepting you've committing the multiple other fallacies you've been accused of?
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification,causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy, a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
ID laws prevent minorities from voting. You're completely ignoring the other causes for poor minority turn out, including lack of interest. You are also completely ignoring the multiple reasons blacks aren't procuring IDS, no initiative and a poor planning being two. You place all the reason for minorities not having IDS on external factors beyond their control. You're doing this in order to frame your argument in a way that is advantageous to your position. This is known colloquially as a framing fallacy.
Of course I didn't contact, ron, you doofus.
again, I'm never singled out minorities as the sole victims and I've given multiple examples no NON-MINORITIES
I've said from the beginning that these law are intended to disenfranchise VOTERS
I've shown you and other the GAO report that reaches the same conclusion (though they say, whether intended or not)
I've shown you and others that I don't believe the "whether intended or not" because we have Republican bragging about their intention and their results
Finally, we've you trying to be a logic professor and yet your're unable to construct a simple two party equation to prove what you accuse me of doing
You can try again if you'd like
The only negative consequence I've talked about is disenfranchisement of VOTER's so you have your part B of the equation
now all you have to do is fill in A an show that B "proves" A false and then you will finally understand what you claim I am doing
Here's one of the sites that contains the text that you plagiarized
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_adverse_consequences
-
hey man, you basically said it doesn't happen and I gave you just a couple of examples
No, I didn't say it doesn't happen. Try reading again.
My point this entire time is that voter fraud is RARE and these photo ID laws cause much more harm in disenfranchising voters than in preventing the very rare cases of voter fraud
Even if voter fraud is rare - and that's not a point I concede especially when we hear about dead people voting by the dozen - asking voters to prove their identity before they can vote is not a burden and it disenfranchises noone.
In fact, the cases of voter fraud that were given as example included people who used ID's so even having a photo ID didn't prevent the fraud
So now, unless the system is fool-proof it shoudn't be implemented? Tell me, what other fool-proof systems do you know, especially when it comes to the field of identity verification?
btw - you asked for a link to the GAO report
have you commented on it's results (I don't which is the only reason I'm asking)
I haven't had a chance to read it - but I briefly addressed it, albeit only tangentially.
-
No system is perfect, but this isn't really a representative situation either. Her birth certificate is in
Forgive me for being skeptical. My Father is not a veteran, was born overseas and didn't have any form of government issued ID for over 25 years. He wanted to get an ID card, so we looked at the requirements, and got to work: we wrote a letter to the Department of State (birth certificates of citizens born abroad are issued by DoS) listing the particulars and asking for a copy of his birth certificate (5 minutes) which we dropped in the mail (60 seconds to walk across the street and drop the letter in the mailbox. A couple of weeks later a nice form showed up in the mail. Total cost: one Forever stamp and (I think) $35 dollars.
We took that, went to the DMV, and an hour we left. A week later a nice ID card showed up in the mail. Total cost: $8.75.
This isn't to say it's always smooth. I am sure that some people have trouble procuring an ID - some for better reasons than others; the solution isn't to not ask voters to prove their ID. The solution is to improve the process by which IDs are issued and verified.
I'm sure there are many examples showing that is easy, moderately difficult to a huge pain in the ass
my point all along is that is a "solution" to a non-existent problem that is really a ruse to have a different effect.....suppressing voter turnout
and whether we want to debate whether that is the true intent of the framers of these laws or not (all Republicans by and large) we know from the GAO report suppressing voter turn out is in fact one of the results
That's all I've been saying this entire time
that's it in two sentences
-
No, I didn't say it doesn't happen. Try reading again.
Even if voter fraud is rare - and that's not a point I concede especially when we hear about dead people voting by the dozen - asking voters to prove their identity before they can vote is not a burden and it disenfranchises noone.
I haven't had a chance to read it - but I briefly addressed it, albeit only tangentially.
I was referring to this post where you keep repeating your "some form of ID" argument when it's got nothing to do with "some form of ID" but a specific form of ID which many don't have
Whether you believe voter fraud is rare of not is your choice. You are certainly free to believe something in the absence of proof.
The only proof we have of voter fraud are so few in number that it's statistically zero compared the the ~ 127 million people who voted in the last election
I'm not sure if you saw the recent dissent written but Judge Richard Posner (the first judge to uphold voter ID laws who now is completely against them)
Here is a quote from his dissent
The panel is not troubled by the absence of evidence. It deems the supposed beneficial effect of photo ID requirements on public confidence in the electoral system “‘a legislative fact’-a proposition about the state of the world,” and asserts that “on matters of legislative fact, courts accept the findings of legislatures and judges of the lower courts must accept findings by the Supreme Court.” In so saying, the panel conjures up a fact-free cocoon in which to lodge the federal judiciary. As there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials? If the Supreme Court once thought that requiring photo identification increases public confidence in elections, and experience and academic study since shows that the Court was mistaken, do we do a favor to the Court-do we increase public confidence in elections-by making the mistake a premise of our decision? Pressed to its logical extreme the panel’s interpretation of and deference to legislative facts would require upholding a photo ID voter law even if it were uncontested that the law eliminated no fraud but did depress turnout significantly
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gop_voter_id_law_gets_crushed_why_judge_richard_posners_ruling_is_so_amazing/
-
What if you're an elderly person who was never issued a birth certificate??? Sorry but the Voter ID law is to suppress minority votes and it will also supress senior citizens.
The idea of illegal votes has been proven minimal because there's no financial gain from it whatsoever. Killing a fly with a shotgun.....
If an elderly person wants to vote, he or she should prove his identity just like everyone else. And if they were never issued a birth certificate, which is likely extremely rare, there are other ways to get an ID.
You cannot use examples so rare they are like unicorns to prove a point.
-
Waaahhhhh, we have to do something, waaahhhhh, its unfair, we shouldnt have to do anything to vote!
...but this IS the argument. You SHOULDN'T have to do anything to vote. The point of the law is to create a barrier to vote where there shouldn't be one.
-
If an elderly person wants to vote, he or she should prove his identity just like everyone else. And if they were never issued a birth certificate, which is likely extremely rare, there are other ways to get an ID.
You cannot use examples so rare they are like unicorns to prove a point.
He is not using a rare example. It is a well-known example that is very common. The other ways to get an id are difficult and time consuming, which is the point of the law.
-
Funny how leftists argue its a burden to take 30 minutes to get an id - yet its not a burden to go to a polling place to vote.
Because it isn't! Polling places are set up all over districts and open late hours to accommodate as many people as possible. Even when that doesn't work for some, they have the option of absentee ballots. None of this is true for getting an id. Neither is the "30 minutes"crap.
-
...but this IS the argument. You SHOULDN'T have to do anything to vote. The point of the law is to create a barrier to vote where there shouldn't be one.
Says who? You should have to prove you are eligible to vote. And the failure to do so can have consequences, line Al Frankan's margin of victory in his Senate race likely being decided by ineligible felons who voted.
-
He is not using a rare example. It is a well-known example that is very common. The other ways to get an id are difficult and time consuming, which is the point of the law.
It is very common for someone to not have ever been issued a birth certificate, or a drivers license or other ID, and be unable (rather than unwilling) to get that resolved in the two to four years between elections? BS.
Yes getting an ID is time consuming. So what? I stood in line for half an hour the other day to pay my car registration. That was after I spent over an hour getting a mandatory safety check. Dealing with the government at any level usually takes time.
-
Says who? You should have to prove you are eligible to vote. And the failure to do so can have consequences, line Al Frankan's margin of victory in his Senate race likely being decided by ineligible felons who voted.
Even the Supreme Court that overturned the initial ruling doesn't agree with that. The ruling acknowledged that requiring ID is likely a discriminatory practice, but that wasn't the basis of the case. It was whether or not it's too close to the election to reverse course.
-
It is very common for someone to not have ever been issued a birth certificate, or a drivers license or other ID, and be unable (rather than unwilling) to get that resolved in the two to four years between elections?
Yep.
Yes getting an ID is time consuming. So what? I stood in line for half an hour the other day to pay my car registration. That was after I spent over an hour getting a mandatory safety check. Dealing with the government at any level usually takes time.
We're not talking half an hour. We're talking years. Here's an article about the obstacles one woman has faced, and her story is not unique.
http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-28/news/48634147_1_certificate-viviette-applewhite-south-carolina
-
Even the Supreme Court that overturned the initial ruling doesn't agree with that. The ruling acknowledged that requiring ID is likely a discriminatory practice, but that wasn't the basis of the case. It was whether or not it's too close to the election to reverse course.
I didn't read the decision, but if they did say you don't have to do anything to vote then I disagree with them and you. If you don't have to do anything, then you don't have to prove you live in the state, or the right district, or that you're not a convicted felon, etc., etc. That doesn't make sense.
-
Yep.
We're not talking half an hour. We're talking years. Here's an article about the obstacles one woman has faced, and her story is not unique.
http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-28/news/48634147_1_certificate-viviette-applewhite-south-carolina
Thanks for the link. Sad story, but she isn't precluded from having a BC created as the story says. It's hard for her get her background facts straight. She just has to work harder to get her stuff together. Unfortunate, but not a reason to forego having someone prove their identity. And certainly isn't the norm.
By the norm we're talking about someone with no BC, no DL or ID, who is unable to remember her life history, and wants to vote. These kinds of extraordinary situations don't really prove much.
-
I hope I get to see a few of these losers get turned away when I go to the ballot box in a few weeks.
-
Thanks for the link. Sad story, but she isn't precluded from having a BC created as the story says. It's hard for her get her background facts straight. She just has to work harder to get her stuff together. Unfortunate, but not a reason to forego having someone prove their identity. And certainly isn't the norm.
By the norm we're talking about someone with no BC, no DL or ID, who is unable to remember her life history, and wants to vote. These kinds of extraordinary situations don't really prove much.
The question was not whether or not she was precluded from getting an id, but whether or not it was an issue that took years to clear up. And there was never any discussion or guidelines set down as to what "norm"we're talking about. Goodrum brought up a valid point and you claimed it was an exceedingly rare example. It's not. The article speaks to that and I can vouch for it myself. As I have posted about before on here, I volunteered as a homeless advocate in my early 20s and one of the main things I did was help clients get into programs and on social assistance. Even for someone living in NYC without a birth certificate of ID, it is a minimum 6 month process to get those things. There were clients born out of state who were still waiting to have their shit sorted out throughout the entire year and a half I was there. This woman's story is not extraordinarily rare.
And even if it wasn't so common, that doesn't negate the fact that the law is bullshit. when you look at the ridiculous gerrymandering that goes on with these election maps, it's obvious that these sleazeballs are out to get any little advantage they can get. And this is not a small advantage. This is a stroke of evil genius designed solely to disenfranchise lower income voters who would likely vote democratic.
-
I didn't read the decision, but if they did say you don't have to do anything to vote then I disagree with them and you. If you don't have to do anything, then you don't have to prove you live in the state, or the right district, or that you're not a convicted felon, etc., etc. That doesn't make sense.
That isn't what I said or what I said they said. You do have to prove you are eligible to vote- by registering to vote. This is an effective system that is rarely tampered with.
-
That isn't what I said or what I said they said. You do have to prove you are eligible to vote- by registering to vote. This is an effective system that is rarely tampered with.
That's exactly what you said: "You SHOULDN'T have to do anything to vote."
-
The question was not whether or not she was precluded from getting an id, but whether or not it was an issue that took years to clear up. And there was never any discussion or guidelines set down as to what "norm"we're talking about. Goodrum brought up a valid point and you claimed it was an exceedingly rare example. It's not. The article speaks to that and I can vouch for it myself. As I have posted about before on here, I volunteered as a homeless advocate in my early 20s and one of the main things I did was help clients get into programs and on social assistance. Even for someone living in NYC without a birth certificate of ID, it is a minimum 6 month process to get those things. There were clients born out of state who were still waiting to have their shit sorted out throughout the entire year and a half I was there. This woman's story is not extraordinarily rare.
And even if it wasn't so common, that doesn't negate the fact that the law is bullshit. when you look at the ridiculous gerrymandering that goes on with these election maps, it's obvious that these sleazeballs are out to get any little advantage they can get. And this is not a small advantage. This is a stroke of evil genius designed solely to disenfranchise lower income voters who would likely vote democratic.
The issue is about whether requiring an ID is voter suppression. It doesn't preclude people from voting. It means some have to work harder than others. That's life.
I have been doing volunteer work in poor communities for my entire adult life. I'll be at an elementary school in Waianae in a couple weeks. That's the hood. Kids from that community have to work much harder to succeed than kids from higher income families who attend private school. I don't see this ID situation as much different.
-
That's exactly what you said: "You SHOULDN'T have to do anything to vote."
Obviously, I meant this extra bullshit. I was just being glib in response to Shockwave's temper tantrum. For clarity's sake, I also think you should have to show up to the poll or at least vote by absentee ballot to have your vote counted. I don't think ballot officials should be expected to read your mind.
-
The issue is about whether requiring an ID is voter suppression. It doesn't preclude people from voting. It means some have to work harder than others. That's life.
I have been doing volunteer work in poor communities for my entire adult life. I'll be at an elementary school in Waianae in a couple weeks. That's the hood. Kids from that community have to work much harder to succeed than kids from higher income families who attend private school. I don't see this ID situation as much different.
::) People shouldn't have to work harder to be able to vote.
-
::) People shouldn't have to work harder to be able to vote.
Last time I checked you had to be a US citizen to vote, how exactly is that being verified?
-
Obviously, I meant this extra bullshit. I was just being glib in response to Shockwave's temper tantrum. For clarity's sake, I also think you should have to show up to the poll or at least vote by absentee ballot to have your vote counted. I don't think ballot officials should be expected to read your mind.
The only obvious thing is what you said, but I'll accept your clarification.
I take it you have no problem with illegal aliens, convicted felons, people who live outside of the district, etc. voting?
-
::) People shouldn't have to work harder to be able to vote.
That's silly. One voter might drive a 2014 BMW and live one mile from the polling station. Another might live in a rural area with no car or bus service. Which person has to work harder to vote? The facts of life are that some people have to work harder than others to enjoy the conditional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting isn't any different.
-
The only obvious thing is what you said, but I'll accept your clarification.
I take it you have no problem with illegal aliens, convicted felons, people who live outside of the district, etc. voting?
Honestly, I'm not philosophically opposed to ex-cons voting, but there are other ways besides voter ids to verify people have the right to vote. With or without government issued ids, those measures have to be used.
-
That's silly. One voter might drive a 2014 BMW and live one mile from the polling station. Another might live in a rural area with no car or bus service. Which person has to work harder to vote? The facts of life are that some people have to work harder than others to enjoy the conditional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting isn't any different.
This example is silly. First of all, there's not one polling station.
There are several. Why are there several? To make it as easy as possible to give the most people access. To limit the amount of work people have to do to vote. It would be impossible to have a polling station the same distance from everyone's home. It is not impossible to hold an election without attempting to disenfranchise voters along economic lines.
As for your comparison between voting access and the hard knock lives of lower income children, does your volunteer work entail intentionally making their lives more difficult? If there was a way to even the playing field so that the kids you work with were able to get the same results from the same amount of work, wouldn't that be the better option? That's not something possible to enforce insitutionally. But it is possible to create as level a playing field as possible for a basic right.
-
...but this IS the argument. You SHOULDN'T have to do anything to vote. The point of the law is to create a barrier to vote where there shouldn't be one.
thats retarded. Proving who you are helps ensure the voting process is fair by trying to keep everyone voting only for themselves.
Saying you shouldnt have to do anything is retarded.
-
Yep.
We're not talking half an hour. We're talking years. Here's an article about the obstacles one woman has faced, and her story is not unique.
http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-28/news/48634147_1_certificate-viviette-applewhite-south-carolina
Yep
Not unique at all
Here are a couple more from Texas
These disenfranchised voters seem a lot less isolated than the cases of voter fraud that are alleged (although we know phony) impetus for these laws.
Over and over the courts have concluded that these laws were not created to prevent voter fraud but instead intended to create obstacles to prevent ELIGIBLE VOTERS from VOTING...... PERIOD
Take the case of Floyd Carrier. An 84-year-old retiree, Carrier worked with his son to get a copy of his birth certificate. After a three-month wait, the birth certificate finally arrived. It was useless: His last name was misspelled, his birth date was wrong, and his first name was listed as “Florida.” To amend the document required more money, more months of waiting and more documentation, including – wait for it – a birth certificate. Several months later the amended certificate finally arrived. It said Floyd Carrier, which was an improvement, but the birth date was still wrong.
Or consider Sammie Louise Bates. Living on a fixed income, Bates has had trouble coming up with the $42 required to get her birth certificate. As she explained, “I had to put the $42.00 where it was doing the most good. It was feeding my family, because we couldn’t eat the birth certificate … [a]nd we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate, so, just wrote it off.” The new law, Ramos pointed out, “makes some poor Texans choose between purchasing their franchise or supporting their family.” An unconscionable choice.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nicole-hemmer/2014/10/14/texas-voter-id-law-is-unconstitutional-and-discriminates-against-minorities
-
If an elderly person wants to vote, he or she should prove his identity just like everyone else. And if they were never issued a birth certificate, which is likely extremely rare, there are other ways to get an ID.
You cannot use examples so rare they are like unicorns to prove a point.
There are 600,000 people in Texas who lack the proper ID by the state's standard to most. The vast majority of them are poor, black, and elderly.
The Republicans pushed for this law for political gain....nothing else. Voter fraud is where your unicorn is.....there's nothing for anyone to gain from it. People rob banks....not ballot boxes
-
There are 600,000 people in Texas who lack the proper ID by the state's standard to most. The vast majority of them are poor, black, and elderly.
The Republicans pushed for this law for political gain....nothing else. Voter fraud is where your unicorn is.....there's nothing for anyone to gain from it. People rob banks....not ballot boxes
Nothing to gain from it ::)
-
There are 600,000 people in Texas who lack the proper ID by the state's standard to most. The vast majority of them are poor, black, and elderly.
The Republicans pushed for this law for political gain....nothing else. Voter fraud is where your unicorn is.....there's nothing for anyone to gain from it. People rob banks....not ballot boxes
So what. It's their responsibility to procure a photo ID. They are adults and a photo ID is needed for most everything. Stop treating blacks like children who are incapable of being responsible with their lives. Why don't you donate your time and help people obtain IDs.
-
So what. It's their responsibility to procure a photo ID. They are adults and a photo ID is needed for most everything. Stop treating blacks like children who are incapable of being responsible with their lives. Why don't you donate your time and help people obtain IDs.
What a ridiculous statement. You can't donate time to get ID's....and again, its just a sad ploy by Republicans to win elections which will seriously backfire on them eventually.
-
What a ridiculous statement. You can't donate time to get ID's....and again, its just a sad ploy by Republicans to win elections which will seriously backfire on them eventually.
wow.
Excuses excuses excuses.
I got an ID today and it took 5 min and 10 dollars.
Holy fucking shit what a hassle to have something BASICALLY REQUIRED TO LIVE AND FUNCTION IN THE US
-
wow.
Excuses excuses excuses.
I got an ID today and it took 5 min and 10 dollars.
Holy fucking shit what a hassle to have something BASICALLY REQUIRED TO LIVE AND FUNCTION IN THE US
Gee, if it was such a breeze for you, then certainly no one else's experience will be different. ::)
-
Gee, if it was such a breeze for you, then certainly no one else's experience will be different. ::)
clearly not. Every experience is the same, always, without question.
If you have to jump through hoops to get an ID, you do. You pretty much have to have one to do ANYTHING in the US.
Except prove your identity to vote.
-
clearly not. Every experience is the same, always, without question.
If you have to jump through hoops to get an ID, you do. You pretty much have to have one to do ANYTHING in the US.
Except prove your identity to vote.
Considering that so many people who would be affected by this law are elderly, that alone is enough to prove it isn't true. Once again, YOUR experiences are not universal. There are plenty of ways to be poor without and make it through life without having government issued i.d.
-
Considering that so many people who would be affected by this law are elderly, that alone is enough to prove it isn't true. Once again, YOUR experiences are not universal. There are plenty of ways to be poor without and make it through life without having government issued i.d.
Yeah, im sure there are.
-
Honestly, I'm not philosophically opposed to ex-cons voting, but there are other ways besides voter ids to verify people have the right to vote. With or without government issued ids, those measures have to be used.
A government ID is the most common way for people to prove their identity.
Should someone have to prove they live in the right district to vote? Or what about illegal aliens?
-
This example is silly. First of all, there's not one polling station.
There are several. Why are there several? To make it as easy as possible to give the most people access. To limit the amount of work people have to do to vote. It would be impossible to have a polling station the same distance from everyone's home. It is not impossible to hold an election without attempting to disenfranchise voters along economic lines.
As for your comparison between voting access and the hard knock lives of lower income children, does your volunteer work entail intentionally making their lives more difficult? If there was a way to even the playing field so that the kids you work with were able to get the same results from the same amount of work, wouldn't that be the better option? That's not something possible to enforce insitutionally. But it is possible to create as level a playing field as possible for a basic right.
My example is spot on. You claim some people shouldn't have to work harder than others to vote. That's not reality. Of course every district has one or more polling stations, but some people who live in rural areas may have to travel a bit. If that person is poor and has no transportation, then they have to work harder than the person who lives nearby and has a nice ride.
I help disadvantaged kids with improving literacy, among other things. We are trying to help do what the public school system fails to do.
Requiring an ID to vote is an across the board, fair requirement, so no, the government isn't precluding anyone from voting.
I was just looking at Virginia's requirements. Reasonable requirements, including providing free IDs for people who cannot afford them.
http://sbe.virginia.gov/index.php/casting-a-ballot/in-person-voting/
-
What a ridiculous statement. You can't donate time to get ID's....and again, its just a sad ploy by Republicans to win elections which will seriously backfire on them eventually.
Yes you can, moron.. I have personally driven people to the secretary of state to register to vote. I have personally driven van loads of people to vote. You could just as easily drive people to get a photo ID...at the secretary of state. For fuck sake, I've done more for black people than you ever have.
-
A government ID is the most common way for people to prove their identity.
Should someone have to prove they live in the right district to vote? Or what about illegal aliens?
too bad a photo id from the Veterans Administration is not an acceptable form of ID
and what about illegal aliens ?
they can't vote
remember
and since most try to stay "under the radar" why would they risk being caught by voting and how exactly would they register in the first place
next you're going probably going ask well what about human looking extra-terrestrials or shape shifters who look like humans ?
-
There are 600,000 people in Texas who lack the proper ID by the state's standard to most. The vast majority of them are poor, black, and elderly.
The Republicans pushed for this law for political gain....nothing else. Voter fraud is where your unicorn is.....there's nothing for anyone to gain from it. People rob banks....not ballot boxes
Then I guess those poor, black, and elderly people have some work to do. They have had three years already to comply. These are adults we're talking about, not children.
-
Then I guess those poor, black, and elderly people have some work to do. They have had three years already to comply. These are adults we're talking about, not children.
In the eyes of the left they will always be children.
-
In the eyes of the left they will always be children.
Tell me about it.
-
too bad a photo id from the Veterans Administration is not an acceptable form of ID
and what about illegal aliens ?
they can't vote
remember
and since most try to stay "under the radar" why would they risk being caught by voting and how exactly would they register in the first place
next you're going probably going ask well what about human looking extra-terrestrials or shape shifters who look like humans ?
i already told you i knew a family that registered 4 fake SS cards per family member and drew disability on them all, and i know for a fact that they all voted using absentee ballots. The dad did used to do side work under the table for my boss and he offered to sell me forged cards with full welfare.
Also, they have a side business selling the forged SS card to illegals coming up from Cali to Wa where they settle in relatively small towns and life off their forged SS cards.
So yes, they vote. Multiple times, illegally.
-
i already told you i knew a family that registered 4 fake SS cards per family member and drew disability on them all, and i know for a fact that they all voted using absentee ballots. The dad did used to do side work under the table for my boss and he offered to sell me forged cards with full welfare.
Also, they have a side business selling the forged SS card to illegals coming up from Cali to Wa where they settle in relatively small towns and life off their forged SS cards.
So yes, they vote. Multiple times, illegally.
what happened when you turned them in?
-
My example is spot on. You claim some people shouldn't have to work harder than others to vote. That's not reality. Of course every district has one or more polling stations, but some people who live in rural areas may have to travel a bit. If that person is poor and has no transportation, then they have to work harder than the person who lives nearby and has a nice ride.
I help disadvantaged kids with improving literacy, among other things. We are trying to help do what the public school system fails to do.
Requiring an ID to vote is an across the board, fair requirement, so no, the government isn't precluding anyone from voting.
I was just looking at Virginia's requirements. Reasonable requirements, including providing free IDs for people who cannot afford them.
http://sbe.virginia.gov/index.php/casting-a-ballot/in-person-voting/
Virginia gives free ids but Texas doesn't....not to mention that most people would need to get a birth certificate to get a new ID...in Texas that's 42 dollars for a copy btw. Elderly people who live on Social Security cannot afford that and people living paycheck to paycheck would rather buy food for their kids with the 52 dollars....lets not forget that they would miss a few hours or even a day of work getting all of these things.
You know good and well that the Republicans passed the law not because they care about "integrity in the voting booth" but to simply keep the poor and elderly who overwhelmingly do not vote Republican from voting at all. Its a scumbag move and its why a number of judges are throwing them out. Eventually Texas will endure the same fate.
-
Virginia gives free ids but Texas doesn't....not to mention that most people would need to get a birth certificate to get a new ID...in Texas that's 42 dollars for a copy btw. Elderly people who live on Social Security cannot afford that and people living paycheck to paycheck would rather buy food for their kids with the 52 dollars....lets not forget that they would miss a few hours or even a day of work getting all of these things.
You know good and well that the Republicans passed the law not because they care about "integrity in the voting booth" but to simply keep the poor and elderly who overwhelmingly do not vote Republican from voting at all. Its a scumbag move and its why a number of judges are throwing them out. Eventually Texas will endure the same fate.
Elections occur every two years. 42 dollars over 24 months. That's a whopping $1.75 a month they'd have to save.....OH THE HUMANITY, no cheese on your Whopper.
People on fixed incomes blow more than that on cigarettes and/or lotto tickets.
-
what happened when you turned them in?
I dont rat anyone out. Im not the law and its not my job to play cop.
-
Elections occur every two years. 42 dollars over 24 months. That's a whopping $1.75 a month they'd have to save.....OH THE HUMANITY, no cheese on your Whopper.
People on fixed incomes blow more than that on cigarettes and/or lotto tickets.
Yeah, or their crack rocks and spinnin' rims, amirite? ???
This is such an arrogant mindset. Because $42 is not a big deal to you, it's not a big deal to poor people.
Statistically, most people are living paycheck to paycheck and people living in poverty are barely managing that. Saving $1.75 each month is a huge deal when the limited money you get is already accounted for before you get it. Most people experienced a time in their lives (most likely college through early 20) when you felt lucky just to have $5 or $10 bucks in your pocket.
-
Yeah, or their crack rocks and spinnin' rims, amirite? ???
You said it, not me. I've seen it firsthand. People in the hood with $100+ dollar shoes, somehow can't afford an ID to vote. Women struggling to paid their bills SOMEHOW manage to get longer hair and nails in the span of a week. But getting an ID (for about a fifth of what they spend on weave) is just TOOOOOO MUCH!!
This is such an arrogant mindset. Because $42 is not a big deal to you, it's not a big deal to poor people.
Statistically, most people are living paycheck to paycheck and people living in poverty are barely managing that. Saving $1.75 each month is a huge deal when the limited money you get is already accounted for before you get it. Most people experienced a time in their lives (most likely college through early 20) when you felt lucky just to have $5 or $10 bucks in your pocket.
News flash: I've been poor, lived in the 'hood, the whole nine. Yet, SOMEHOW, I managed to (rather easily) get a valid ID.
Saving $1.75 (seven quarters) a MONTH is a big deal? In what bizarro world is that? I was able to save more than that A WEEK, flipping burgers at Wendy's.
$1.75? That's about two days' BUS FARE (or, it was back in the day when I was using public transit)!!!
In some places, IDs are FREE. So what's your silly excuse to cover that one?
-
I dont rat anyone out. Im not the law and its not my job to play cop.
So you knowingly let these people defraud YOU and every other tax payer and also let them commit voter fraud
So I guess if you saw someone commit murder, armed robbery, child abuse, etc... you wouldn't "rat them out" either?
Hey, do you think since these people have no problem getting fraudulent social security cards that they are going to have any problem getting a fraudulent photo ID
so these criminals will still have no problem voting but actual eligible voters will be disenfranchised and people like you will just look the other way
-
You said it, not me. I've seen it firsthand. People in the hood with $100+ dollar shoes, somehow can't afford an ID to vote. Women struggling to paid their bills SOMEHOW manage to get longer hair and nails in the span of a week. But getting an ID (for about a fifth of what they spend on weave) is just TOOOOOO MUCH!!
Yeah, I said it because you sound ignorant. Living in the hood, even having trouble paying your bills is not what we're talking about here. Most of the people you are describing probably have id or would not have trouble getting it. What is the issue here is poverty (in some cases extreme poverty) combined with unconventional backgrounds or unstable current circumstances. We're not talking about young ladies who want to have their hair done. We're more frequently talking about older people with virtually no disposable income or an inability to track down certain documents.
News flash: I've been poor, lived in the 'hood, the whole nine. Yet, SOMEHOW, I managed to (rather easily) get a valid ID.
Once again, not the issue.
Saving $1.75 (seven quarters) a MONTH is a big deal? In what bizarro world is that? I was able to save more than that A WEEK, flipping burgers at Wendy's.
Did you have children? Were you living with your parents? Did you ever have an amount saved, then an emergency popped up which required you to spend it all? It may not be your reality, but it is certainly not a bizarro universe for people on the lower end of the economic scale to spend every dollar they earn within a month, and it's not due to weaves and $100+ shoes. You have kids, you have an emergency, you have no credit, you make very little money += spending literally every dime you have. It's called being poor.
$1.75? That's about two days' BUS FARE (or, it was back in the day when I was using public transit)!!!
Once again, your extreme arrogance showing. For some people, it's just a reality that every dollar has to be counted. Just because that does not apply to you doesn't mean that no one has those concerns.
In some places, IDs are FREE. So what's your silly excuse to cover that one?
The cost of the id is only one of several reasons people may not have an id. Several have been listed, over and over, in this thread.
-
The cost of the id is only one of several reasons people may not have an id. Several have been listed, over and over, in this thread.
And yet, none of them are particularly credible.
-
So you knowingly let these people defraud YOU and every other tax payer and also let them commit voter fraud
So I guess if you saw someone commit murder, armed robbery, child abuse, etc... you wouldn't "rat them out" either?
Hey, do you think since these people have no problem getting fraudulent social security cards that they are going to have any problem getting a fraudulent photo ID
so these criminals will still have no problem voting but actual eligible voters will be disenfranchised and people like you will just look the other way
Yes, yes i did let them. I have no desire to fuck with someones life no matter how deplorable i find their actions. Thats the Polices job to catch criminals, not mine, im no do gooding crusader.
And i dont have any clue how easy itd be for them to forge passable, scannable Wa state IDs, one reason being that they had fake SS cards but not IDs.
-
And yet, none of them are particularly credible.
No, they've all been credible. The thing is the appeals rulings and the Supreme Court don't even deny that these policies are transparently discriminatory. The main factor in most of the recent rulings has been whether or not it's too close to an election to institute changes.
-
My example is spot on. You claim some people shouldn't have to work harder than others to vote. That's not reality. Of course every district has one or more polling stations, but some people who live in rural areas may have to travel a bit.
No, that was a poor example. If it was a hardship for a voter to get to the poll, they have the option of voting by absentee ballot. Why is there an option to do that? To make the process as accessible and easy for as many people possible!
-
Elections occur every two years. 42 dollars over 24 months. That's a whopping $1.75 a month they'd have to save.....OH THE HUMANITY, no cheese on your Whopper.
People on fixed incomes blow more than that on cigarettes and/or lotto tickets.
The law was just reinstated...no time to save and no time for the state to issue birth certificates because it takes about 4 weeks for one to be mailed...if they can get one to begin with. Republicans have effectively accomplished their mission of squashing the poor and elderly vote.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/identificationrequirements.htm
The law will prevent over 600,000 US citizens from voting in the election...period.
-
Yes, yes i did let them. I have no desire to fuck with someones life no matter how deplorable i find their actions. Thats the Polices job to catch criminals, not mine, im no do gooding crusader.
And i dont have any clue how easy itd be for them to forge passable, scannable Wa state IDs, one reason being that they had fake SS cards but not IDs.
if you're going to look the other way while someone rips YOU off and fraudulently votes in YOUR elections then you have nothing to complain about regard requiring a photo ID to vote or even in a debate about welfare fraud or illegal immigration
We're not talking about turning your neighbor in who cheats on his taxes
These are illegal aliens committing multiple crimes and you have a civic duty to not look the other way
I'm sure you're aware that law enforcement depends on help from citizens all the time so your excuse that it's "their job" to catch criminals is complete bullshit
-
if you're going to look the other way while someone rips YOU off and fraudulently votes in YOUR elections then you have nothing to complain about regard requiring a photo ID to vote or even in a debate about welfare fraud or illegal immigration
We're not talking about turning your neighbor in who cheats on his taxes
These are illegal aliens committing multiple crimes and you have a civic duty to not look the other way
I'm sure you're aware that law enforcement depends on help from citizens all the time so your excuse that it's "their job" to catch criminals is complete bullshit
yeah, well thats all well and good for you. You go crusading then. I don't, and won't. The only time i'd intervene in someones personal life is if someone is in mortal danger, and possibly a few others.
Your post is so full of bullshit that i dont even know where to start, but it definitely shows me your character.
-
The law will prevent over 600,000 US citizens from voting in the election...period.
Too bad they're all dead and vote democrat......oh wait, win ;D
-
yeah, well thats all well and good for you. You go crusading then. I don't, and won't. The only time i'd intervene in someones personal life is if someone is in mortal danger, and possibly a few others.
Your post is so full of bullshit that i dont even know where to start, but it definitely shows me your character.
It shows my character ?
that's a laugh
you turn a blind eye to multiple criminal activities while at the same time complaining about them
kind of hard to justify those two positions
-
Too bad they're all dead and vote democrat......oh wait, win ;D
yep, that is the intent of the law
glad to see someone here who is honest about it
of course it is the antithesis of democracy but who gives a shit about that
-
It shows my character ?
that's a laugh
you turn a blind eye to multiple criminal activities while at the same time complaining about them
kind of hard to justify those two positions
I refuse to meddle in other people lives when theyre not directly harming someone. Period.
That in no way invalidates my opinion that they should have to prove their identity to vote to help keep that from happening and to keep the system functioning correctly, and you assertation that by not turning them invalidates my right to want voter ID is another pathetic leao of logic akin to "of you dont vote you have no right to comment/have an opinion".
Its asinine.
I
-
I refuse to meddle in other people lives when theyre not directly harming someone. Period.
That in no way invalidates my opinion that they should have to prove their identity to vote to help keep that from happening and to keep the system functioning correctly, and you assertation that by not turning them invalidates my right to want voter ID is another pathetic leao of logic akin to "of you dont vote you have no right to comment/have an opinion".
Its asinine.
I
how to you figure that fraudulently drawing disability income, selling ss cards and fraudulently voting is not directly harming ALL OF US
WTF man??
-
how to you figure that fraudulently drawing disability income, selling ss cards and fraudulently voting is not directly harming ALL OF US
WTF man??
Look man, if you want their name and address, YOU can turn them in.
I will NOT intervene in someones personal life if theyre not DIRECTLY (keyword, as in physically taking someones shit or violently assaulting someone).
I am not the law, and until they start to fuck with someone elses livelyhood i wont fuck with theirs just because i vehemently disagree with their life choices.
-
Look man, if you want their name and address, YOU can turn them in.
I will NOT intervene in someones personal life if theyre not DIRECTLY (keyword, as in physically taking someones shit or violently assaulting someone).
I am not the law, and until they start to fuck with someone elses livelyhood i wont fuck with theirs just because i vehemently disagree with their life choices.
I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth or just completely full of shit
you're the person with first hand knowledge
If you want to post their name and address on this thread that is fine with me
-
No, that was a poor example. If it was a hardship for a voter to get to the poll, they have the option of voting by absentee ballot. Why is there an option to do that? To make the process as accessible and easy for as many people possible!
So what happens when a poor person with no phone, internet, or car who lives in rural area miles from the polling station wants to vote via absentee ballot?
-
Virginia gives free ids but Texas doesn't....not to mention that most people would need to get a birth certificate to get a new ID...in Texas that's 42 dollars for a copy btw. Elderly people who live on Social Security cannot afford that and people living paycheck to paycheck would rather buy food for their kids with the 52 dollars....lets not forget that they would miss a few hours or even a day of work getting all of these things.
You know good and well that the Republicans passed the law not because they care about "integrity in the voting booth" but to simply keep the poor and elderly who overwhelmingly do not vote Republican from voting at all. Its a scumbag move and its why a number of judges are throwing them out. Eventually Texas will endure the same fate.
Yes, Texas charges a whopping $6 to $16 for an ID, and people have had three years to get one.
http://www.dmv.org/tx-texas/id-cards.php
-
Yes, Texas charges a whopping $6 to $16 for an ID, and people have had three years to get one.
http://www.dmv.org/tx-texas/id-cards.php
Besides the ID card fee, aren't there fees for obtaining the documents needed to get an ID card? (For the poor and/or elderly, it seems reasonable that many wouldn't have copies of the necessary documents, right?)
According to your link, here are the requirements (other than having $6- to $16-) for obtaining an ID card in Texas:
Apply for a Texas Identification Card
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) does NOT allow you to apply for an original Texas ID card online or by phone. You must apply in person at a local DPS office and submit:
An Application For Texas Driver License or Identification Card (Form DL 14-A).
Proof of identity. The DPS designates that you may bring either:
1 document from the primary list (e.g. valid U.S. passport, U.S. military ID card, Texas driver’s license, U.S. Certificate of Citizenship or Certificate of Naturalization).
2 documents from the secondary list (e.g. original or certified birth certificate, U.S. Department of State Certification of Birth Abroad, court order showing your name and date of birth).
A combination of 1 document from the secondary list and 2 documents from the “supporting” list (e.g. Social Security card, Form W-2 or 1099, TX voter registration card).
The DPS provides a list of acceptable documentation for each category.
Proof of U.S. citizenship and lawful presence for non-residents (e.g. original or certified birth certificate, U.S. passport, permanent resident card).
The DPS has a list of documents for non-residents to prove lawful status.
Proof of Texas residency (2 documents - e.g. deed or mortgage, rental/lease agreement, TX voter registration card).
One of these documents must show that you’ve lived in Texas for at least 30 days. Please see the state’s list of residency documents for details.
-
So what happens when a poor person with no phone, internet, or car who lives in rural area miles from the polling station wants to vote via absentee ballot?
Mail.
-
Besides the ID card fee, aren't there fees for obtaining the documents needed to get an ID card? (For the poor and/or elderly, it seems reasonable that many wouldn't have copies of the necessary documents, right?)
According to your link, here are the requirements (other than having $6- to $16-) for obtaining an ID card in Texas:
Apply for a Texas Identification Card
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) does NOT allow you to apply for an original Texas ID card online or by phone. You must apply in person at a local DPS office and submit:
An Application For Texas Driver License or Identification Card (Form DL 14-A).
Proof of identity. The DPS designates that you may bring either:
1 document from the primary list (e.g. valid U.S. passport, U.S. military ID card, Texas driver’s license, U.S. Certificate of Citizenship or Certificate of Naturalization).
2 documents from the secondary list (e.g. original or certified birth certificate, U.S. Department of State Certification of Birth Abroad, court order showing your name and date of birth).
A combination of 1 document from the secondary list and 2 documents from the “supporting” list (e.g. Social Security card, Form W-2 or 1099, TX voter registration card).
The DPS provides a list of acceptable documentation for each category.
Proof of U.S. citizenship and lawful presence for non-residents (e.g. original or certified birth certificate, U.S. passport, permanent resident card).
The DPS has a list of documents for non-residents to prove lawful status.
Proof of Texas residency (2 documents - e.g. deed or mortgage, rental/lease agreement, TX voter registration card).
One of these documents must show that you’ve lived in Texas for at least 30 days. Please see the state’s list of residency documents for details.
So?
-
Mail.
Which requires them to travel to the nearest government office that has absentee ballot applications, which means they have to work harder than the person who drives a BMW and lives one mile from the polling station, or the person who has internet access and can order the forms online.
-
So what happens when a poor person with no phone, internet, or car who lives in rural area miles from the polling station wants to vote via absentee ballot?
No one gives a fk for such a lazy stupid shit, walk, bike, crawl for all I care
-
Which requires them to travel to the nearest government office that has absentee ballot applications, which means they have to work harder than the person who drives a BMW and lives one mile from the polling station, or the person who has internet access and can order the forms online.
So, my position is that voting should be as easy and accessible to everyone who is eligible as possible.
Certain aspects of new voter ID laws make voting less accessible to many. There are realistic ways to make it more accessible to them. We have used them before and they have been effective in maintaining the integrity of elections.
Realistically, what policy not currently in place could be instituted that would make it easier for the person you're describing to vote?
-
So, my position is that voting should be as easy and accessible to everyone who is eligible as possible.
Certain aspects of new voter ID laws make voting less accessible to many. There are realistic ways to make it more accessible to them. We have used them before and they have been effective in maintaining the integrity of elections.
Realistically, what policy not currently in place could be instituted that would make it easier for the person you're describing to vote?
Actually, the specific point we were addressing was whether it is harder for some people to vote than others.
There are lots of policies we could adopt to make things easier, but that's not the government's role and I don't want to spend my tax dollars trying to help people who don't have the motivation to get off their butts and do what everyone does to take part in the voting process.
That said, I don't have a problem with waiving fee requirements for people who have trouble paying for an ID or even providing transportation to the polls if the person is disabled or has financial difficulty getting to the polls. But the ID requirement? I'm sorry, it's just not a burdensome or unreasonable requirement.
-
Actually, the specific point we were addressing was whether it is harder for some people to vote than others.
MY specific point was accessibility. Then you made a specious comparison to how children from lower income families have it harder in school and farms. The point I was making was easy accessibility.
The question points to the fact that pretty much every policy possible is in place to make voting as easy and accessible for the person you described. Many of these voter ID laws have aspects that are deliberate hurdles for many. There really is nothing that can be done for the person in your example to make voting more accessible. That is how it should be. If it is common knowledge that a policy is going to effectively disenfranchise a sizable number of potential voters, then that policy needs to be rethought until it accommodates as many as possible.
There are lots of policies we could adopt to make things easier, but that's not the government's role and I don't want to spend my tax dollars trying to help people who don't have the motivation to get off their butts and do what everyone does to take part in the voting process.
But this discussion is about new requirements. They aren't things that everyone does or has always done or have even done for very long. And it is the government's role to make voting as easy and accessible as possible.
-
MY specific point was accessibility. Then you made a specious comparison to how children from lower income families have it harder in school and farms. The point I was making was easy accessibility.
The question points to the fact that pretty much every policy possible is in place to make voting as easy and accessible for the person you described. Many of these voter ID laws have aspects that are deliberate hurdles for many. There really is nothing that can be done for the person in your example to make voting more accessible. That is how it should be. If it is common knowledge that a policy is going to effectively disenfranchise a sizable number of potential voters, then that policy needs to be rethought until it accommodates as many as possible.
[qoute]
There are lots of policies we could adopt to make things easier, but that's not the government's role and I don't want to spend my tax dollars trying to help people who don't have the motivation to get off their butts and do what everyone does to take part in the voting process.
But this discussion is about new requirements. They aren't things that everyone does or has always done or have even done for very long. And it is the government's role to make voting as easy and accessible as possible.
Actually, your point was right here:
::) People shouldn't have to work harder to be able to vote.
I just showed you how that isn't reality.
Requiring an ID isn't a "deliberate hurdle." It's a reasonable requirement that applies to everyone. Some states allow you to get them for free and in most every other state the cost is nominal. And a person has years to come up with the $6 or $10, or so for an ID.
The government has already made voting incredibly easy. Even with the ID requirement it's incredibly easy. And I don't even know what the ID law is in Hawaii, but every election I've voted in I've had to show an ID.
-
Even the Supreme Court that overturned the initial ruling doesn't agree with that. The ruling acknowledged that requiring ID is likely a discriminatory practice, but that wasn't the basis of the case. It was whether or not it's too close to the election to reverse course.
This a great point that needs to be repeated
-
Actually, your point was right here:
I just showed you how that isn't reality.
You made 3 or 4 posts with that BMW/ farm analogy. My post following the first one:
This example is silly. First of all, there's not one polling station.
There are several. Why are there several? To make it as easy as possible to give the most people access. To limit the amount of work people have to do to vote. It would be impossible to have a polling station the same distance from everyone's home. It is not impossible to hold an election without attempting to disenfranchise voters along economic lines.
As for your comparison between voting access and the hard knock lives of lower income children, does your volunteer work entail intentionally making their lives more difficult? If there was a way to even the playing field so that the kids you work with were able to get the same results from the same amount of work, wouldn't that be the better option? That's not something possible to enforce insitutionally. But it is possible to create as level a playing field as possible for a basic right.
-
My post immediately preceding the "people shouldn't have to work harder post:
Obviously, I meant this extra bullshit. I was just being glib in response to Shockwave's temper tantrum. For clarity's sake, I also think you should have to show up to the poll or at least vote by absentee ballot to have your vote counted. I don't think ballot officials should be expected to read your mind.
-
Ok? That doesn't change your point at all that some people shouldn't have to work harder than others to vote.
-
Ok? That doesn't change your point at all that some people shouldn't have to work harder than others to vote.
::)
YOU:
Actually, the specific point we were addressing was whether it is harder for some people to vote than others.
ME:
MY specific point was accessibility.
YOU:
Actually, your point was right this.
I just showed you how that isn't reality.
SEE MY TWO POSTS DIRECTLY PRECEDING THIS ONE. REPEAT AS MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY.
-
::)
YOU:
Actually, the specific point we were addressing was whether it is harder for some people to vote than others.
ME:
MY specific point was accessibility.
YOU:
Actually, your point was right this.
I just showed you how that isn't reality.
SEE MY TWO POSTS DIRECTLY PRECEDING THIS ONE. REPEAT AS MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY.
::)
-
::)
I literally said what you claimed I didn't say. Several times. I literally said "voting access."
-
I literally said what you claimed I didn't say. Several times. I literally said "voting access."
I literally quoted you. Is this another instance where you didn't mean what you actually typed?
-
I literally quoted you. Is this another instance where you didn't mean what you actually typed?
"be able to vote"==voting access
;Even if you want to argue that you didn't believe that to be what I meant after your first post, I literally used those exact words several times following that post.
-
So?
You really don't understand what I'm getting at? Okay...
Your post implies that cost of obtaining an ID will only be $6- to $16-. I'm saying that it's likely to cost more than that for the folks that don't already have one; Besides the ID fee, a person wanting an ID will also need a few documents which, if they don't have them already (and this is likely for the type of people we're talking about), will also cost money.
(Not to mention costs associated with getting to and from the DMV or other ID issuing govt. office.)
In the interest of accuracy, it's worthwhile to point these things out, I think.
-
Justice Department Expert Witness: Blacks 'Less Sophisticated Voters'
Breitbart's Big Government ^ | October 20, 2014 | J. Christian Adams
Posted on October 21, 2014 6:03:26 AM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
An expert witness paid with tax dollars by the United States Department of Justice testified that North Carolina election laws impact black voters disproportionately and that blacks are less sophisticated.
Charles Stewart, a political scientist was retained by the Justice Department to testify against voter identification laws and other election integrity measures. His testimony argued that ending same day voter registration and requiring voters to vote in the precinct where they live constitutes racial discrimination.
When asked if terminating the ability to register to vote on the day that someone casts a ballot impacts blacks disproportionately, Stewart testified in court that it did. Stewart:
It's also the case that -- well, yes, so it would, empirically more likely affect African Americans. Also, understanding within political science, that people who register to vote the closer and closer one gets to Election Day tend to be less sophisticated voters, tend to be less educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairs. That also tells me from the literature of political science that there are likely to be people who will end up not registering and not voting. People who correspond to those factors tend to be African Americans, and, therefore, that's another vehicle through which African Americans would be disproportionately affected by this law.
Blacks tend to be less sophisticated, less educated, and lower information voters, according to a taxpayer-funded Justice Department expert. Experts for the Voting Section of the United States routinely make tens of thousands of dollars for this sort of expert testimony, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
"be able to vote"==voting access
;Even if you want to argue that you didn't believe that to be what I meant after your first post, I literally used those exact words several times following that post.
What's the difference? We are talking about voting access. Driving to the polls. Absentee ballots. Showing ID. That all relates to access.
BTW, I just read an article that talks about how voter participation increased after ID laws were passed, including among minority groups.
A Big Win for Voter ID Laws in Texas
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky
October 20, 2014 / 13 comments 50 10.k
The Texas voter ID law, which was effective in November 2013 statewide constitutional elections, will be in place for the Nov. 4 mid-term election, representing a big win for voters and election integrity in Texas.
On Saturday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency petition filed by the NAACP and refused to overrule the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had thrown out an injunction against the voter ID law issued by a federal district court judge. Voters will have to show either a Texas driver’s license or personal ID card, a Texas Election Identification Certificate (issued free to any voter), a Texas concealed handgun license, a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport on Nov. 4.
It was no surprise when Obama appointee Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos of the federal district court in Corpus Christi issued an injunction against the state’s voter ID law. Ramos essentially ignored the fact that Texas successfully implemented the law in state elections in Texas in 2013 with none of the problems predicted by opponents and that evidence from other states, such as Georgia and Indiana that have had ID laws in place since 2008, show such laws do not suppress turnout.
Turnout across Texas nearly doubled in 2013, the first election after the voter ID law was implemented, over the 2011 election.
Contrary to the claims made by the NAACP and other opponents in the Texas case (and believed by Ramos), 2013 voter turnout actually went up compared to 2011 levels. This held true throughout the state, including in heavily minority counties such as Webb and Fort Bend Counties.
Webb County is 95 percent Hispanic and 30.6 percent of the population is below the federal poverty level. Yet it experienced a huge jump in voter turnout among registered voters in 2013 when 10,600 voters turned out to vote compared to 2011 when only 1,285 residents voted–an increase of more than eight fold. In fact, turnout across Texas nearly doubled in 2013 over the 2011 election.
Ramos’s views that voter ID is discriminatory and unconstitutional is not in accord with numerous other federal courts in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Tennessee that have upheld similar voter ID laws. Contrary to her conclusions, voter ID is neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional nor a poll tax.
On Oct. 14, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved the Ramos injunction “based primarily on the extremely fast-approaching election date.” With just 24 days before election day when Ramos issued her opinion, the injunction “substantially disturbs” the election process “on the eve of the election.” As Judge Edith Brown Clement said, the “Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed courts to carefully consider the importance of preserving the status quo on the eve of an election.” Six justices of the Supreme Court refused to question the Fifth’s Circuit judgment, although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a six-page dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The Texas case is not over, but it is still a significant win for election integrity and Texas voters who want to make sure their votes are not stolen in the upcoming election through fraud. But Texas still needs to take other steps to safeguard the election process as outlined in a new Heritage guide, such as extending the voter ID requirement to absentee ballots and requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/20/big-win-voter-id-laws-texas/
-
You really don't understand what I'm getting at? Okay...
Your post implies that cost of obtaining an ID will only be $6- to $16-. I'm saying that it's likely to cost more than that for the folks that don't already have one; Besides the ID fee, a person wanting an ID will also need a few documents which, if they don't have them already (and this is likely for the type of people we're talking about), will also cost money.
(Not to mention costs associated with getting to and from the DMV or other ID issuing govt. office.)
In the interest of accuracy, it's worthwhile to point these things out, I think.
We're still talking about a nominal amount of money, so I don't see anything inaccurate about what I said. That was the point. It's not a financially burdensome requirement to give someone between two and four years to obtain an ID.
-
What's the difference? We are talking about voting access. Driving to the polls. Absentee ballots. Showing ID. That all relates to access.
BTW, I just read an article that talks about how voter participation increased after ID laws were passed, including among minority groups.
A Big Win for Voter ID Laws in Texas
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky
October 20, 2014 / 13 comments 50 10.k
The Texas voter ID law, which was effective in November 2013 statewide constitutional elections, will be in place for the Nov. 4 mid-term election, representing a big win for voters and election integrity in Texas.
On Saturday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency petition filed by the NAACP and refused to overrule the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had thrown out an injunction against the voter ID law issued by a federal district court judge. Voters will have to show either a Texas driver’s license or personal ID card, a Texas Election Identification Certificate (issued free to any voter), a Texas concealed handgun license, a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport on Nov. 4.
It was no surprise when Obama appointee Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos of the federal district court in Corpus Christi issued an injunction against the state’s voter ID law. Ramos essentially ignored the fact that Texas successfully implemented the law in state elections in Texas in 2013 with none of the problems predicted by opponents and that evidence from other states, such as Georgia and Indiana that have had ID laws in place since 2008, show such laws do not suppress turnout.
Turnout across Texas nearly doubled in 2013, the first election after the voter ID law was implemented, over the 2011 election.
Contrary to the claims made by the NAACP and other opponents in the Texas case (and believed by Ramos), 2013 voter turnout actually went up compared to 2011 levels. This held true throughout the state, including in heavily minority counties such as Webb and Fort Bend Counties.
Webb County is 95 percent Hispanic and 30.6 percent of the population is below the federal poverty level. Yet it experienced a huge jump in voter turnout among registered voters in 2013 when 10,600 voters turned out to vote compared to 2011 when only 1,285 residents voted–an increase of more than eight fold. In fact, turnout across Texas nearly doubled in 2013 over the 2011 election.
Ramos’s views that voter ID is discriminatory and unconstitutional is not in accord with numerous other federal courts in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Tennessee that have upheld similar voter ID laws. Contrary to her conclusions, voter ID is neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional nor a poll tax.
On Oct. 14, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved the Ramos injunction “based primarily on the extremely fast-approaching election date.” With just 24 days before election day when Ramos issued her opinion, the injunction “substantially disturbs” the election process “on the eve of the election.” As Judge Edith Brown Clement said, the “Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed courts to carefully consider the importance of preserving the status quo on the eve of an election.” Six justices of the Supreme Court refused to question the Fifth’s Circuit judgment, although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a six-page dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The Texas case is not over, but it is still a significant win for election integrity and Texas voters who want to make sure their votes are not stolen in the upcoming election through fraud. But Texas still needs to take other steps to safeguard the election process as outlined in a new Heritage guide, such as extending the voter ID requirement to absentee ballots and requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/20/big-win-voter-id-laws-texas/
Intredasting.
But making someone prove who they are means they wont vote cause' they can't afford to get demselves dat dere ID!
-
Intredasting.
But making someone prove who they are means they wont vote cause' they can't afford to get demselves dat dere ID!
Yeah. That is total BS.
-
We're still talking about a nominal amount of money, so I don't see anything inaccurate about what I said. That was the point. It's not a financially burdensome requirement to give someone between two and four years to obtain an ID.
"Nominal" is subjective, though, isn't it? You don't seem well-acquainted with the life circumstances of the citizens who'll be most affected by these new rules.
To be clear here, I'm for a national ID system. In fact, I would be in favor of a law requiring everyone to have one.
I just think that any voter ID law passed also needs to include a provision for giving economically disadvantaged folks ID's that are completely free of charge and that includes any fees for supporting documentation as well as transportation costs (but not lost wages for time spent getting it sorted).
-
"Nominal" is subjective, though, isn't it? You don't seem well-acquainted with the life circumstances of the citizens who'll be most affected by these new rules.
To be clear here, I'm for a national ID system. In fact, I would be in favor of a law requiring everyone to have one.
I just think that any voter ID law passed also needs to include a provision for giving economically disadvantaged folks ID's that are completely free of charge and that includes any fees for supporting documentation as well as transportation costs (but not lost wages for time spent getting it sorted).
Me too but Repubs would never allow it
It would totally defeat the purpose of their voter ID laws
-
"Nominal" is subjective, though, isn't it? You don't seem well-acquainted with the life circumstances of the citizens who'll be most affected by these new rules.
To be clear here, I'm for a national ID system. In fact, I would be in favor of a law requiring everyone to have one.
I just think that any voter ID law passed also needs to include a provision for giving economically disadvantaged folks ID's that are completely free of charge and that includes any fees for supporting documentation as well as transportation costs (but not lost wages for time spent getting it sorted).
As I previously indicated, I don't have a problem with fee waivers, but no, the government doesn't have to do that. Each state should be able to decide.
And no, nominal is not subjective in this context. Someone being given years to come up with a few dollars for an ID is being charged a nominal fee. I don't care how low their income is. Do you even know what the word means?
-
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/after-push-mobilize-new-voters-turnout-surges-texas
"According to figures released by the secretary of state’s office, Texas’ six largest counties all saw increases in voting Monday compared to the first day of early voting in 2010, the last midterm election."
hmmmmmmmmmmm
-
As I previously indicated, I don't have a problem with fee waivers, but no, the government doesn't have to do that. Each state should be able to decide.
And no, nominal is not subjective in this context. Someone being given years to come up with a few dollars for an ID is being charged a nominal fee. I don't care how low their income is. Do you even know what the word means?
Yeah, "nominal" in the sense you're using it means something like "very small", "symbolic" or "token". (LOL, ya think I didn't look up the meaning of the word before I wrote my post or what?) And what I'm saying to you is that folks who are 14 dollars away from 27 cents (lyrics to a funny song about being in debt) aren't going to consider ANY expense not directly connected to their survival as being necessary so it's not going to be nominal to them.
Also, you seem to be discounting how difficult it might be to get documents needed for a voter ID. Tell me, you live in Hawaii, right? What state was your birth certificate issued in, though? And if you were broke as a joke, would it be a challenge to get it?
For a guy who claims to have been around a lot of different kinds of people, your opinion that "nominal" is the same for everyone makes you come off as a "let them eat cake" type. Are you maybe not such a fan of democracy or what?
-
A Voter ID Law Passed Under The Premise ToPreserve Integrity In Which There Was Never An Issue With To Begin With.....
The problem with Voter ID Laws is that there is nowan integrity issue in which its designed simply to make it harder for the poor, the elderly and impoverished to vote.....who generally do not vote Republican. Its a disgraceful tactic that will backfire just as the constant bashing of Hispanics to go back to Mexico
-
A Voter ID Law Passed Under The Premise ToPreserve Integrity In Which There Was Never An Issue With To Begin With.....
The problem with Voter ID Laws is that there is nowan integrity issue in which its designed simply to make it harder for the poor, the elderly and impoverished to vote.....who generally do not vote Republican. Its a disgraceful tactic that will backfire just as the constant bashing of Hispanics to go back to Mexico
Whatever dude, since I was 18 I have had many forms of identification, birth certificate, drivers license, FOID card, State ID, School ID, Passport. Always the same shit with you, the man trying to keep you down ::)
The only Hispanics that people wasn't to go back to Mexico are the ones here illegally.
You are your manufactured moral outrage, what a jagoff.