Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin's voter ID law

[chadstallion]

way to go; now start blocking Texas and the others

[RRKore]

You're framing the issue in those terms.  I dont see it that way.

I'm not trying to frame the issue here at all, I don't think.  (In this thread the only way I'm framing the issue is to suggest that ID cards might totally unnecessary due to the seeming widespread availability of fingerprint scanning technology these days.)

I didn't mean to imply that you supported limiting anyone's right to vote;  Tedim did that (wrote that he supports welfare and food stamp recipients not being allowed to vote), though, in post #50.

And, if I read it right, the silly poll tax proposal (in post #66) was suggested in response to Tedim's post, not anything you said. 

When you said (rightly) that the poll tax post was ridiculous, I'm just saying that it's not so inappropriate since Tedim's post was, too.

[Archer77]

I'm not trying to frame the issue here at all, I don't think.  (In this thread the only way I'm framing the issue is to suggest that ID cards might totally unnecessary due to the seeming widespread availability of fingerprint scanning technology these days.)

I didn't mean to imply that you supported limiting anyone's right to vote;  Tedim did that (wrote that he supports welfare and food stamp recipients not being allowed to vote), though, in post #50.

And, if I read it right, the silly poll tax proposal (in post #66) was suggested in response to Tedim's post, not anything you said. 

When you said (rightly) that the poll tax post was ridiculous, I'm just saying that it's not so inappropriate since Tedim's post was, too.

Gotcha, man.  Makes total sense.

[JOHN MATRIX]

The resident libs/dems want illegal immigrants to vote in american elections.

Its as simple as that.  Everything else they say is just bullshit fluff.

[JOHN MATRIX]

So whats to stop ANYONE from voting multiple times? Since its too racist to record their ID

[Archer77]

So whats to stop ANYONE from voting multiple times? Since its too racist to record their ID

Instead of fighting the ID laws.  Time, money and effort should have been focused on providing those with the inability to obtain an ID the means to do so.  What does it say about a community when obtaining an ID is a impossible task.  Now, its understandable that the elderly might have a difficult time and something should be done about that but any healthy capable person really has no excuse.  You need an ID for most things.  

In my opinion any picture ID should be accepted.  I know that most schools these days require a picture ID.  Why not host ID nights at local schools where people can get IDs for free.   There are enough schools in any given area where most people would be able to get to one.

[Straw Man]

Instead of fighting the ID laws.  Time, money and effort should have been focused on providing those with the inability to obtain an ID the means to do so.  What does it say about a community when obtaining an ID is a impossible task.  Now, its understandable that the elderly might have a difficult time and something should be done about that but any healthy capable person really has no excuse.  You need an ID for most things.  

In my opinion any picture ID should be accepted.  I know that most schools these days require a picture ID.  Why not host ID nights at local schools where people can get IDs for free.   There are enough schools in any given area where most people would be able to get to one.

have you ever wondered why voter ID laws were a total non-issue until after the 2008 election and then suddenly Republicans decided it was a problem contrary to all evidence ?

do you honestly think the Republican would be in favor of a system that would actually make it easier to vote and/or to expand the voter base?

 

[Archer77]

have you ever wondered why voter ID laws were a total non-issue until after the 2008 election and then suddenly Republicans decided it was a problem contrary to all evidence ?

do you honestly think the Republican would be in favor of a system that would actually make it easier to vote and/or to expand the voter base?

 

I don't care what Republicans think or why they are motivated to do what they do.   I personally feel ID laws are practical and necessary.   I don't consider whether to support someone or something based on which party supports it and why.   

[Straw Man]

I don't care what Republicans think or why they are motivated to do what they do.   I personally feel ID laws are practical and necessary.   I don't consider whether to support someone or something based on which party supports it and why.   

you wrote

Instead of fighting the ID laws.  Time, money and effort should have been focused on providing those with the inability to obtain an ID the means to do so

. 

do you think Republican have any interest in making it easy and cheap to obtain an ID

why not skip the ID's and have a national voter registry.  Everyone get's a voter ID card when they turn 18 and that's it.  No need for all these state laws or issues if you move or whatever

do you think Repubs would be in favor of that?

[Archer77]

you wrote
. 

do you think Republican have any interest in making it easy and cheap to obtain an ID

why not skip the ID's and have a national voter registry.  Everyone get's a voter ID card when they turn 18 and that's it.  No need for all these state laws or issues if you move or whatever

do you think Repubs would be in favor of that?

As I said, I don't care what Republicans are motivated by or what they would or would not do.  That has nothing to do with me and my choices.  Whatever makes it easier to obtain an ID I am for.  Whether that is IDs being available at local schools or a national ID car doesn't matter to me at all.

[Soul Crusher]

Dems don't want Id laws since it makes it harder for them to commit vote fraud

[Straw Man]

As I said, I don't care what Republicans are motivated by or what they would or would not do.  That has nothing to do with me and my choices.  Whatever makes it easier to obtain an ID I am for.  Whether that is IDs being available at local schools or a national ID car doesn't matter to me at all.

I assume you are aware that nothing will get done to make getting ID's cheaper, easier or putting something better in place without Republican support

I also assume you're aware that it's Republican who promoted/enacted all (or the vast majority of the voter ID laws)

so, if you don't want to discuss Republican motivations then you're basically saying you just want to stick your head in the sand

[Soul Crusher]

I assume you are aware that nothing will get done to make getting ID's cheaper, easier or putting something better in place without Republican support

I also assume you're aware that it's Republican who promoted/enacted all (or the vast majority of the voter ID laws)

so, if you don't want to discuss Republican motivations then you're basically saying you just want to stick your head in the sand

Someone too stupid to get an id is too stupid to vote

[Archer77]

I assume you are aware that nothing will get done to make getting ID's cheaper, easier or putting something better in place without Republican support

I also assume you're aware that it's Republican who promoted/enacted all (or the vast majority of the voter ID laws)

so, if you don't want to discuss Republican motivations then you're basically saying you just want to stick your head in the sand

Many thing can be done on a local level, both governmentally and privately. I don't think that means my head is in the sand at all.  The real problem is the inability of people to separate the core issue, voter ID laws, from the republicans motivations.   It would be foolish to throw out the issue of voter IDs because republicans support it.

[Straw Man]

Someone too stupid to get an id is too stupid to vote

simplistic point of view from a simpleton

Paul Carroll, an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same Ohio town for four decades, was denied a chance to vote in the state’s primary contests today after a poll worker denied his form of identification, a recently-acquired photo ID from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The poll worker rejected the ID because it did not contain an address, as required by Ohio law.

Carroll told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he got the ID from the VA after his driver’s license expired because he doesn’t drive anymore:

“My beef is that I had to pay a driver to take me up there because I don’t walk so well and have to use this cane and now I can’t even vote,” said Paul Carroll, 86, who has lived in Aurora nearly 40 years, running his own business, Carroll Tire, until 1975.

“I had to stop driving, but I got the photo ID from the Veterans Affairs instead, just a month or so ago. You would think that would count for something. I went to war for this country, but now I can’t vote in this country.”

A local Veterans Affairs employee told the Plain Dealer that the decision not to include the address was likely made at the federal level, and because VA IDs are accepted at any location, “the actual address of a veteran isn’t as critical to us.” Carroll was offered a provisional ballot, but the type was too small for him to read and “I was kind of perturbed by then,” he said.

Republicans across the country have pushed voter ID laws to address a voter fraud “problem” that rarely, if ever, exists. Multiple laws have been challenged in court over claims that they  disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities and the elderly. Carroll’s story isn’t altogether unique — Tennessee voter authorities denied a 96-year-old woman a voter ID last year because she didn’t have an original copy of her marriage license.

[Straw Man]

Many thing can be done on a local level, both governmentally and privately. I don't think that means my head is in the sand at all.  The real problem is the inability of people to separate the core issue, voter ID laws, from the republicans motivations.   It would be foolish to throw out the issue of voter IDs because republicans support it.

Republicans have explicitly told us their motivations with these laws and we also know the effects (whether intentional or not) from the recent GAO study

I choose not to ignore the statements of Republicans as to their motivations nor the reality of the effect of these laws from the GAO study

[Archer77]

Republicans have explicitly told us their motivations with these laws and we also know the effects (whether intentional or not) from the recent GAO study

I choose not to ignore the statements of Republicans as to their motivations nor the reality of the effect of these laws from the GAO study

You choose to let the motivation of the republicans influence and dictate your opinion on ID laws.  Republicans are for it so you are against it.  I prefer to look at the issue independently. 

[Straw Man]

You choose to let the motivation of the republicans influence and dictate your opinion on ID laws.  Republicans are for it so you are against it.  I prefer to look at the issue independently. 

?

"Republicans are for it so you are against it"?

seriously dude, go back and read what I wrote again

Republican have explicitly told us their motivation for these laws

Why should I choose to ignore their statements especially when their statements are confirmed by a GAO report on the actual effects of these laws?

[Archer77]

?

"Republicans are for it so you are against it"?

seriously dude, go back and read what I wrote again

Republican have explicitly told us their motivation for these laws

Why should I choose to ignore their statements especially when their statements are confirmed by a GAO report on the actual effects of these laws?

I'm talking about the issue.  You're talking about the republicans. 

[Straw Man]

I'm talking about the issue.  You're talking about the republicans.  

I'm absolutely talking about the issue

how is the GAO report not about the issue?

how is the motivation of the people who made these laws not about the issue

[Archer77]

I absolutely talking about the issue

how is the GAO report not about the issue?

how is the motivation of the people who made these laws not about the issue

The motivations of the republicans is a separate issue and has very little to do with whether ID laws are good or bad.  Focusing on Republican motivations results in several fallacies.

The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists.


The genetic fallacy creates a fallacious argument that is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy but is frequently not a Bayesian one: some sources are so consistently full of it that they reasonably constitute a refutation for all practical purposes. However, that this is a logical fallacy means you will still need to convince the source's fans and bystanders by engaging the source material.

[Princess L]

LMAO!

Sorry, that's categorically and completely not true, bro.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/04/28/what-does-a-state-id-cost/

This is a PRO-REPUBLICAN page showing the fees aren't that high.  But "free"?  Oh no, not even close. 

Whoever told you that, please tell them to GoRuck themselves. 

^Misleading information (at least re: WI)^

A free ID card is available under Wisconsin law to anyone who:

    will be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election and;
    requests an ID card for the purpose of voting.


https://kb.wisc.edu/vip/page.php?id=9762

[Straw Man]

The motivations of the republicans is a separate issue and has very little to do with whether ID laws are good or bad.  Focusing on Republican motivations results in several fallacies.

The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists.


The genetic fallacy creates a fallacious argument that is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy but is frequently not a Bayesian one: some sources are so consistently full of it that they reasonably constitute a refutation for all practical purposes. However, that this is a logical fallacy means you will still need to convince the source's fans and bystanders by engaging the source material.

nice copy and past job as a way to obfuscate and avoid the question

The motivations of Republicans in creating these laws is a central component of the discussion

If you want to avoid the topic all together than why don't you just say so

I choose not to ignore the statements by Republicans as to why they created these laws and I choose not to ignore the conclusions of the GAO report on the effect of these laws...which just so happens to conform with the Republicans reasons for creating them

If you want to ignore that or pretend it's not part of the conversation then that's fine with me

If you want to discuss whether bringing up the motivations of the creators of these laws and the consequences of these laws is actually an example of an "argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin" then I'll be glad to have that discussion

hint - just because I was talking about the consequences of the law does not automatically make it an argument ad consequentiam

and if you're going to copy someone elses words at least have the decency to use quotes

http://bit.ly/1tTiuhA

[JOHN MATRIX]

Strawman getting bent over as usual 

[Archer77]

nice copy and past job as a way to obfuscate and avoid the question

The motivations of Republicans in creating these laws is a central component of the discussion

If you want to avoid the topic all together than why don't you just say so

I choose not to ignore the statements by Republicans as to why they created these laws and I choose not to ignore the conclusions of the GAO report on the effect of these laws...which just so happens to conform with the Republicans reasons for creating them

If you want to ignore that or pretend it's not part of the conversation then that's fine with me

If you want to discuss whether bringing up the motivations of the creators of these laws and the consequences of these laws is actually an example of an "argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin" then I'll be glad to have that discussion

hint - just because I was talking about the consequences of the law does not automatically make it an argument ad consequentiam

and if you're going to copy someone elses words at least have the decency to use quotes

http://bit.ly/1tTiuhA

Your position is that the republican interest in the law somehow reflects its merit.  You wouldn't be focusing exclusively on the republicans motivation if you had a valid counter-argument against ID laws.  I care about examining the law, you care about the republicans and what they are doing.