Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Texas Voter ID Law

[Straw Man]

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

[avxo]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw Man]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Archer77]

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.   

[Shockwave]

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!

[Straw Man]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[avxo]

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.

[Archer77]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.  

[Straw Man]

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)

[Archer77]

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. 

[avxo]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[avxo]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw Man]

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/

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Dos Equis]

...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.