RE: The GOP War on Voting

RE: The GOP War on Voting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/4/2011 12:11:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Seems a silly argument to me. Require an ID to vote. Sweet, simple and to the point. If your 'ok' with your 4th Amendment being trampled, you must be 'ok' with the other amendments listed in the US Constitution being trampled as well. I wonder how many gun nuts would be 'ok' with the 2nd Amendment being removed? Or Liberals with the 1st? How many conservatives would be 'ok' with the 10th being removed? I suppose you'd be 'ok' with the goverment removing military barracks ('to save money') and forcing you to house a squad of USMC troops with 'room and board', right? Not many people know that's the 3rd Amendment.... I consider it 'unreasonable' that an American must 'show their papers' when ever the goverment demands it. That if someone states said American isn't who they say they are nor they live where they stated, its up to the accuser to show the burden of evidence. If defending the US Constitution is to much of a 'burden' on you for the simple stuff, will you defend it on the tough stuff? 4th Amendment???? rofl, try reading it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Yes it does quote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized Does a poll worker, acting as an agent of the government, have probable cause as defined by the amendment? Then they cannot demand identification any more than a LEO can. No it doesn't. Voting is not mandatory, it's voluntary, you have the right not to go vote, therefore not show any form of identification, and not have your faux indignation raised.. And despite your childish temper tantrum, asking someone for identification doesn't fall under the definition of unreasonable... But you know that already. This is just another Lefty bullshit whine fest because ineligible voters aren't being allowed to vote for their candidates. You have no idea what you are talking about, no government agent may demand ID without statutory authority to do so. LEO's must have probable cause to stop a person and ask for ID, technically stopping a person for any reason is considered arresting that person. Poll workers cannot ask for ID except for those places where cons frightened by the demographic reality of the US have added that to the law. It is a fairly pathetic attempt to stave off their permanent minority status for a few more elections.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/4/2011 12:15:40 PM)
The only serious issue I've heard raised in the voter ID debate is what to do about people who do not have a government-issued photo ID. I think it's safe to say that MOST of us drive and therefore have a DL with a photo. But what about those who don't drive or had their license revoked. Most states off an ID card but you have to pay some (relatively small) fee to get one. And again, I would say that MOST of us here could handle the $10 or $15 fee. But there are a LOT of otherwise elligible voters for whom $10 is a big deal - the difference between walking and taking a bus; the difference between feeding the kids amd having them go hungry. So if you're going to require a government issued ID in order to cast a ballot then you better have a tax-payer funded plan to issue that ID to everyone who asks. But then you've got the Government ID crowd on your case and that's a whole other can of worms.

subrob1967 -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/4/2011 4:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You have no idea what you are talking about, no government agent may demand ID without statutory authority to do so. LEO's must have probable cause to stop a person and ask for ID, technically stopping a person for any reason is considered arresting that person. Poll workers cannot ask for ID except for those places where cons frightened by the demographic reality of the US have added that to the law. It is a fairly pathetic attempt to stave off their permanent minority status for a few more elections. Define probable cause... And I love how you left out my link... The Supreme Courted voted against your argument, you lost, it's over Asking for ID's is not a violation of the fourth or fifth amendment... Period.

farglebargle -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/4/2011 5:49:37 PM)
Maybe you guys need to send your boards of elections to a state like mine who knows how to run an election because from the anecdotes I'm hearing y'all live in the ass-end-of-nowhere...

joether -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 12:59:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You have no idea what you are talking about, no government agent may demand ID without statutory authority to do so. LEO's must have probable cause to stop a person and ask for ID, technically stopping a person for any reason is considered arresting that person. Poll workers cannot ask for ID except for those places where cons frightened by the demographic reality of the US have added that to the law. It is a fairly pathetic attempt to stave off their permanent minority status for a few more elections. Define probable cause... And I love how you left out my link... The Supreme Courted voted against your argument, you lost, it's over Asking for ID's is not a violation of the fourth or fifth amendment... Period. Try READING your own link there subrob: quote: From subrob's original link US Supreme Court rehearing denied by Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 960, 125 S. Ct. 18, 159 L. Ed. 2d 849, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4868 (U.S., Aug. 23, 2004) Yes, it never made its way to the US Supreme Court (it did make it to the Nevada Supreme Court). How about you tell all of us how the US Supreme Court ruled on court case that never took place? And was the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada about the voting booth specifically? Or of "...suspects to identify themselves during police investigations..."? Perhaps you should reread the first sentence, of your own link subrob. Those at voting booths are NOT politice officers. They do not have the powers normally given to police officers, though most states have police officers stationed at voting booths. Those that come into vote are NOT suspects in a police investigation. Perhaps you could explain to me how the 'Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada' can be applied to a totally different legal concept?

tazzygirl -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 1:10:45 AM)
~FR Updated August 8, 2011 Thirty states require all voters to show ID before voting at the polls. In 14 of these, the ID must include a photo of the voter; in the remaining 16, non-photo forms of ID are acceptable. Voter ID laws can be broken down into the three following categories: Strict Photo ID (7 states): Voters must show a photo ID in order to vote. Voters who are unable to show photo ID at the polls are permitted to vote a provisional ballot, which is counted only if the voter returns to election officials within several days after the election to show a photo ID. At the beginning of 2011, there were just two states--Georgia and Indiana--with strict photo ID laws. Two states--Kansas and Wisconsin--passed new strict photo ID laws this year, and three states with non-photo ID laws--South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas--amended them to make them strict photo ID laws. None of these new laws is in effect yet, although they likely will be before the 2012 elections. See the notes below Table 1 for more information regarding effective dates for new legislation. Photo ID (7 states): Voters are asked to show a photo ID in order to vote. Voters who are unable to show photo ID are still allowed to vote if they can meet certain other critieria. In some states, a voter with ID can vouch for a voter without. Other states ask a voter without ID to provide personal information such as a birth date, or sign an affidavit swearing to his or her identity. Voters without ID are not required to return to election officials after the election and show a photo ID in order to have their ballots counted in the manner that voters without ID in the strict photo ID states are. The seven states with photo ID laws are Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota. Non-Photo ID (16 states): All voters must show ID at the polls. The list of acceptable IDs is varied and includes options that do not have a photo, such as a utility bill or bank statement with the voter's name and address. (1) The Kansas law takes effect January 1, 2012. (2) In Alabama, South Carolina and Texas, current non-photo voter ID laws stay in effect for the time being. The new photo voter ID requirements will take effect after receiving preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (3) Tennessee's new photo ID requirement takes effect January 1, 2012. Until then, the existing non-photo ID requirement remains in effect. (4) Poll workers in Wisconsin will begin asking voters to present ID immediately, but voters will not be required to present ID until the February 2012 spring primary election. (5) There are some who prefer to call Oklahoma a photo voter ID state, because most voters will show a photo ID before voting. However, Oklahoma law also permits a voter registration card issued by the appropriate county elections board to serve as proof of identity in lieu of photo ID. (6) Rhode Island's new non-photo ID requirement takes effect January 1, 2012. On January 1, 2014, a photo ID requirement will replace the non-photo ID law. (7) Alabama's new photo ID requirement takes effect with the 2014 statewide primary election. The new law also requires preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice. The delayed implementation date was intended to ensure that the timing of preclearance did not occur between the primary and general elections of 2012, thus creating voter confusion. ............. As far as the SCOTUS hearing ... Arizona: On October 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an October 6, 2006 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that suspended Arizona’s requirements pending further litigation. The ID law was in effect for Arizona's 2006 election, and remained in effect in 2008. Indiana: Photo ID law was upheld by 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on January 4, 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling on appeal in April 2008. http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=16602

joether -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 1:14:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: joether If your 'ok' with your 4th Amendment being trampled, you must be 'ok' with the other amendments listed in the US Constitution being trampled as well. I wonder how many gun nuts would be 'ok' with the 2nd Amendment being removed? Or Liberals with the 1st? How many conservatives would be 'ok' with the 10th being removed? I suppose you'd be 'ok' with the goverment removing military barracks ('to save money') and forcing you to house a squad of USMC troops with 'room and board', right? Not many people know that's the 3rd Amendment.... I consider it 'unreasonable' that an American must 'show their papers' when ever the goverment demands it. That if someone states said American isn't who they say they are nor they live where they stated, its up to the accuser to show the burden of evidence. If defending the US Constitution is to much of a 'burden' on you for the simple stuff, will you defend it on the tough stuff? Well it's becoming more and more obvious that your definition of unreasonable differs from the court's definition... Perhaps you should crack open a dictionary and refresh your memory... Frankly asking people to identify themselves is hardly unreasonable, and only an unreasonable person could possibly think it was. Trying to hold the government for one set of standards, and living a different set of standards is not only unreasonable, it's fucking insanity, you can't have it both ways. Your right, a police officer can ask for identification. Likewise, its also a reasonable request to ask the officer, why the identification is needed in the first place. From there, the police officer must give reasonable answer to the question. If the answer (what ever that would be) sounds like a reasonable justification, I can show my ID. If the officer is simply being a dickhead, I'll collect the police officer's name, badge number and police station. I'll show the officer the ID, and after that show up at the police station on the next business day, and have a 'chat' with his superior regarding the unresonable stop. Police do work very hard not to annoy the good citizens of the area unless there is a good reason. Police officers are professional enough to understand (unlike you apparently) that once they lose the confidence and good will of the public due to silly and stupid crap, their jobs just became much more difficult.

subrob1967 -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 1:26:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Your right, a police officer can ask for identification. Likewise, its also a reasonable request to ask the officer, why the identification is needed in the first place. From there, the police officer must give reasonable answer to the question. If the answer (what ever that would be) sounds like a reasonable justification, I can show my ID. If the officer is simply being a dickhead, I'll collect the police officer's name, badge number and police station. I'll show the officer the ID, and after that show up at the police station on the next business day, and have a 'chat' with his superior regarding the unresonable stop. Police do work very hard not to annoy the good citizens of the area unless there is a good reason. Police officers are professional enough to understand (unlike you apparently) that once they lose the confidence and good will of the public due to silly and stupid crap, their jobs just became much more difficult. And you can refuse to show your bank teller, who in turn can refuse you service, same as a store clerk when you try to pay with check or credit... Once again, how is asking someone to prove they're who they claim to be a violation of their rights? It happens every day, and in just about every type of business transaction... Try buying alcohol, or tobacco without an ID... Your argument is just doesn't cut it.

Aylee -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 7:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: joether Your right, a police officer can ask for identification. Likewise, its also a reasonable request to ask the officer, why the identification is needed in the first place. From there, the police officer must give reasonable answer to the question. If the answer (what ever that would be) sounds like a reasonable justification, I can show my ID. If the officer is simply being a dickhead, I'll collect the police officer's name, badge number and police station. I'll show the officer the ID, and after that show up at the police station on the next business day, and have a 'chat' with his superior regarding the unresonable stop. Police do work very hard not to annoy the good citizens of the area unless there is a good reason. Police officers are professional enough to understand (unlike you apparently) that once they lose the confidence and good will of the public due to silly and stupid crap, their jobs just became much more difficult. And you can refuse to show your bank teller, who in turn can refuse you service, same as a store clerk when you try to pay with check or credit... Once again, how is asking someone to prove they're who they claim to be a violation of their rights? It happens every day, and in just about every type of business transaction... Try buying alcohol, or tobacco without an ID... Your argument is just doesn't cut it. Rob ~ in regards to credit cards and stores, it is a violation of the stores agreement with the CC Companies to require an ID to use the credit card. Just like a minimum purchase requirement is. It does not stop them, but it is a violation of their agreement.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 7:36:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: joether Your right, a police officer can ask for identification. Likewise, its also a reasonable request to ask the officer, why the identification is needed in the first place. From there, the police officer must give reasonable answer to the question. If the answer (what ever that would be) sounds like a reasonable justification, I can show my ID. If the officer is simply being a dickhead, I'll collect the police officer's name, badge number and police station. I'll show the officer the ID, and after that show up at the police station on the next business day, and have a 'chat' with his superior regarding the unresonable stop. Police do work very hard not to annoy the good citizens of the area unless there is a good reason. Police officers are professional enough to understand (unlike you apparently) that once they lose the confidence and good will of the public due to silly and stupid crap, their jobs just became much more difficult. And you can refuse to show your bank teller, who in turn can refuse you service, same as a store clerk when you try to pay with check or credit... Once again, how is asking someone to prove they're who they claim to be a violation of their rights? It happens every day, and in just about every type of business transaction... Try buying alcohol, or tobacco without an ID... Your argument is just doesn't cut it. Rob ~ in regards to credit cards and stores, it is a violation of the stores agreement with the CC Companies to require an ID to use the credit card. Just like a minimum purchase requirement is. It does not stop them, but it is a violation of their agreement. It may depend on the issuer, but at least in some cases this isnt quite right Aylee. It is a violation to refuse a transaction because of a lack of Photo ID. It is not a violation to ASK for a photo ID, and it is not a violation to refuse a transaction if there is no ID that can be used for signature comparison.

joether -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 12:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: joether Your right, a police officer can ask for identification. Likewise, its also a reasonable request to ask the officer, why the identification is needed in the first place. From there, the police officer must give reasonable answer to the question. If the answer (what ever that would be) sounds like a reasonable justification, I can show my ID. If the officer is simply being a dickhead, I'll collect the police officer's name, badge number and police station. I'll show the officer the ID, and after that show up at the police station on the next business day, and have a 'chat' with his superior regarding the unresonable stop. Police do work very hard not to annoy the good citizens of the area unless there is a good reason. Police officers are professional enough to understand (unlike you apparently) that once they lose the confidence and good will of the public due to silly and stupid crap, their jobs just became much more difficult. And you can refuse to show your bank teller, who in turn can refuse you service, same as a store clerk when you try to pay with check or credit... Once again, how is asking someone to prove they're who they claim to be a violation of their rights? It happens every day, and in just about every type of business transaction... Try buying alcohol, or tobacco without an ID... Your argument is just doesn't cut it. Does your bank teller work for the US Govemrent? How about the store clerk? And THAT is the difference. The bank teller and store clerk both work in NON-GOVEMRENT JOBS. The US Constitution was created to explain what powers and limits the goverment had towards all persons under its domain. One of those concepts by the founding fathers, was that the goverment couldnt snoop around your private life without a good and decent reason. Or are you someone subrob that's 'ok' with the goverment walking into your private life when ever it feels like it and seeing which laws you might be breaking when ever they want? Do you have a device that instantly alerts the police when you drive down the road even 1 m.p.h. over the speed limit? Do you do business with a company that will install a device on your car that will report instantly your location and speed to the local police if you drive over 1 m.p.h (an track you where ever you go for the Goverment)? It sounds pretty silly, and yet, your not doing that? Now WHY is that? I mean after all, thanks to the goverment, there's a strong military to protect you from threats 'foreign and domestic'. Under your defination of reality, they should be allowed to do anything and everything they damn well desire to do towards and to you, with no responsibility or accountibility what so ever. But we both know this isn't something your really advocating in favor of. One only needs to look at the number of 'bash Obama over 'X' issue'. on this forum to know your not fully and absolutely obedient to the goverment. Its a safe bet that even under the Bush Administration, you were neither fully and absolutely obedient to the goverment. An why is that?

joether -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 12:42:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: joether Your right, a police officer can ask for identification. Likewise, its also a reasonable request to ask the officer, why the identification is needed in the first place. From there, the police officer must give reasonable answer to the question. If the answer (what ever that would be) sounds like a reasonable justification, I can show my ID. If the officer is simply being a dickhead, I'll collect the police officer's name, badge number and police station. I'll show the officer the ID, and after that show up at the police station on the next business day, and have a 'chat' with his superior regarding the unresonable stop. Police do work very hard not to annoy the good citizens of the area unless there is a good reason. Police officers are professional enough to understand (unlike you apparently) that once they lose the confidence and good will of the public due to silly and stupid crap, their jobs just became much more difficult. And you can refuse to show your bank teller, who in turn can refuse you service, same as a store clerk when you try to pay with check or credit... Once again, how is asking someone to prove they're who they claim to be a violation of their rights? It happens every day, and in just about every type of business transaction... Try buying alcohol, or tobacco without an ID... Your argument is just doesn't cut it. Rob ~ in regards to credit cards and stores, it is a violation of the stores agreement with the CC Companies to require an ID to use the credit card. Just like a minimum purchase requirement is. It does not stop them, but it is a violation of their agreement. It may depend on the issuer, but at least in some cases this isnt quite right Aylee. It is a violation to refuse a transaction because of a lack of Photo ID. It is not a violation to ASK for a photo ID, and it is not a violation to refuse a transaction if there is no ID that can be used for signature comparison. Which assumes every 'front line' employee in stores, resturants and gas stations are experts on what fake ID's look like. Most people in those positions do not normally receive 'indepth' training on spotting the fake IDs. Likewise, unless the person is constantly using the same ID, same credit card, to the same clerk over a lengthy period of time, chances are rather slim of spotting any inconsistancies to the signature. Why do you think identity thief is so hard to track? While using a fake ID to grab a six pack of beers and being caught by the police is NO WHERE on the same level (i.e. penality) as using a fake ID to vote in an election.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 2:15:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Does your bank teller work for the US Govemrent? How about the store clerk? Election day volunteers arent Government employees. Not that that has anything to do with unreasonable search.

farglebargle -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 2:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Does your bank teller work for the US Govemrent? Depends on what you think about the Know Your Customer regulations...

farglebargle -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 2:31:55 PM)
"The same level (i.e. penality) as using a fake ID to vote in an election." This is something very important. The issue "casting unlawful ballots" is a non-issue. There's a greater chance of being struck by lightning, and I don't see any "Lightning Rod Requirements" being offered. From a risk management perspective, advocating this is retarded.

submittous -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 3:54:55 PM)
The things being done go beyond state issued ID's, it's things like needing a permanent address (no PO Box of forwarding address) etc.... But what other long term strategy makes sense for the Republicans? The demographics are against them, they will be on the wrong side of history and wilt if they don't stop minorities and the poor from voting. In the coming generation white Americans will go below 50% of the voting population. If they just sit back and let real democracy happen they are out on their asses in just a few election cycles going the way of the Whigs. They know it's way too late to try to get the minority voters back and to be honest their base doesn't want the Republican party to do anything supportive of any minority. What they are doing may be anti American in some peoples minds and against the spirit of the constitution but in the end it's like Al Davis says 'just win baby'... if they continue to win elections that's all that matters, at least to them.

tazzygirl -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 4:32:15 PM)
quote: The demographics are against them, they will be on the wrong side of history and wilt if they don't stop minorities and the poor from voting. Got news for all of you. Those "poor" have photo ID cards. Its a requirement when signing up for any type of benefits from the state. This is an argument that only politicians are having.

erieangel -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 6:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The demographics are against them, they will be on the wrong side of history and wilt if they don't stop minorities and the poor from voting. Got news for all of you. Those "poor" have photo ID cards. Its a requirement when signing up for any type of benefits from the state. This is an argument that only politicians are having. No its not. Way back when I was on SSI and welfare, food stamps and medicaid, I had stopped driving. I also let my license expire. I did not have a photo ID for 8 years and never once was I refused a renewal from the welfare office. And no, it can not be said that I was "known" by the case workers, because I had a different worker almost every year I came up for renewal. The photo ID laws are damaging to our democracy. And its not just the law per se. It is how some states are going about implementing them. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker signed a voter ID law, and then closed DMV centers located in predominately democratic districts--making it harder for people who don't have IDs to obtain them.

tazzygirl -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 7:00:01 PM)
Way back when was how long ago? It is the current rule now. I cant even use my medicaid without a photo ID.

tweakabelle -> RE: The GOP War on Voting (9/5/2011 8:09:53 PM)
The first time I can recall these tactics were deployed was back in 2000 in Florida. Jeb Bush, the Governor (and brother of Bush the Dumber) systematically went through the rolls striking out lots of voters, who tended to be from minority communities and vote Dem. In the washout, Bush the Dumber scraped through in Florida by a tiny margin, and clawed his way into the White House. We're all familiar with the succession of disasters that followed that less than happy choice. It seems the lesson isn't lost on the Right and they're out to repeat the process. Just think what a saner different world we might be enjoying without 8 years of Bush disasters. Does anyone seriously want to go back there?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125