RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote

RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (Full Version)

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

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 10:10:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Liberals go on about how hard it is for the poor and minorities to obtain a photo ID. Why do Liberals think the poor and minorities are too dumb to have, or be able to get photo ID's? Lets have cameras at the voting centers. Photo and fingerprint anyone who does not have a photo ID. Thus, if you can get to the voting center, you can vote. Who can then bitch or scream about being "prevented" from voting? Would you also agree that everyone who walks into a gun show be photographed and fingerprinted? I damn sure wouldn't. Who knows what those fuckers in Washington would do with that.

DomKen -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 10:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here. They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree? Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support? I also stated I don't support them because there's no evidence that there is even a problem (If it ain't broke, don't fix it is obviously a concept that Congress has never heard of), it's expensive and it hurts law abiding citizens more than any criminal. There have been many posts here that show there is fraud. Apparently, unless there is 100% fraud and a 100% effective solution, you aren't jumping on any bandwagons. Good for you. Enjoy. Present evidence that significant fraud, enough to change the outcome of elections, is being committed that can be stopped by these very restrictive ID laws and also explain these: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721 http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html Doesn't need to be significant, Ken. 100% is 100%. 99% isn't 100%, is it? If these laws disenfranchise many times as many legal voters as the number of fraudulent votes cast how is that justifiable? And you still have never dealt with all those Republicans openly admitting this is all about their side winning elections ad not about the integrity of elections.

DomKen -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 10:15:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Liberals go on about how hard it is for the poor and minorities to obtain a photo ID. Why do Liberals think the poor and minorities are too dumb to have, or be able to get photo ID's? Lets have cameras at the voting centers. Photo and fingerprint anyone who does not have a photo ID. Thus, if you can get to the voting center, you can vote. Who can then bitch or scream about being "prevented" from voting? Another con who has no idea what the 4th amendment says.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 11:05:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail voting is a right guarenteed by the constitution. Photo and fingerprint nutsuckers, not real Americans. But, but, but, we can't discriminate... [8D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 11:14:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here. They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree? Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support? I also stated I don't support them because there's no evidence that there is even a problem (If it ain't broke, don't fix it is obviously a concept that Congress has never heard of), it's expensive and it hurts law abiding citizens more than any criminal. There have been many posts here that show there is fraud. Apparently, unless there is 100% fraud and a 100% effective solution, you aren't jumping on any bandwagons. Good for you. Enjoy. Present evidence that significant fraud, enough to change the outcome of elections, is being committed that can be stopped by these very restrictive ID laws and also explain these: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721 http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html Doesn't need to be significant, Ken. 100% is 100%. 99% isn't 100%, is it? If these laws disenfranchise many times as many legal voters as the number of fraudulent votes cast how is that justifiable? You keep talking about disenfranchising. Why? If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she? Yes, there are issues with those who are very old - and I have already stated that I'd support programs to help those people get their ID's - and with those who can not afford to pay for them - and most of the laws also offer those ID's for free for those of low income, which I have zero issue with. FFS, I would even support a program to get an ID in the hands of every kid turning 16, like a rite of passage. Have it part of "government" class in HS. Field trip to the DMV day!! quote: And you still have never dealt with all those Republicans openly admitting this is all about their side winning elections ad not about the integrity of elections. I don't have to deal with any of that, Ken. Have you not seen me put out my reasoning for supporting Voter ID laws? Why they do it and why I support it doesn't have the be the same, though I'd prefer they would support the laws for the very same reasons I do. But, not everyone gets into politics for the same reasons, do they? I am not a Republican. I will not be held to task for the horseshit that comes out of their mouths.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 11:20:13 AM)
quote: You keep talking about disenfranchising. Why? If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she? Yes, there are issues with those who are very old - and I have already stated that I'd support programs to help those people get their ID's - and with those who can not afford to pay for them - and most of the laws also offer those ID's for free for those of low income, which I have zero issue with. FFS, I would even support a program to get an ID in the hands of every kid turning 16, like a rite of passage. Have it part of "government" class in HS. Field trip to the DMV day!! Are you also willing to pay for the copies of BC's that may be needed? Used to simply cost a couple of bucks to get one, now they are expensive.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 11:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: You keep talking about disenfranchising. Why? If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she? Yes, there are issues with those who are very old - and I have already stated that I'd support programs to help those people get their ID's - and with those who can not afford to pay for them - and most of the laws also offer those ID's for free for those of low income, which I have zero issue with. FFS, I would even support a program to get an ID in the hands of every kid turning 16, like a rite of passage. Have it part of "government" class in HS. Field trip to the DMV day!! Are you also willing to pay for the copies of BC's that may be needed? Used to simply cost a couple of bucks to get one, now they are expensive. Yes, I would support a program that did that, tazzy. I think that would be part of the program designed to help people get ID's.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 11:50:19 AM)
See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 12:03:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it. "with the way [they] are going about it" What do you mean? That they aren't starting programs to help people source the necessary documents? That might be something that comes along as a "necessary and proper" add on, or amendment.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 12:52:42 PM)
You dont see that as deliberate? Most of those in office are not young kids. They "supposedly" know their constituents. They "supposedly" know the areas they represent. They "supposedly" have feed back from those who they represent. I find it extremely hard to believe they didnt know all these barriers to voting existed and yet they did nothing to work assistance into the "laws" that were passed.... perhaps ulterior motives? Offering to do so after major elections is extremely hypocritical. People arent as stupid as politicians wished they were.

DomKen -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 1:38:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it. "with the way [they] are going about it" What do you mean? That they aren't starting programs to help people source the necessary documents? That might be something that comes along as a "necessary and proper" add on, or amendment. Bullshit. Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida and other Republican controlled states were all told by judges in the lawsuits they lost what changes needed to be made and they didn't. These laws are not about the integrity of elections. They are about disenfranchising citizens who don't vote for Republicans. Anyone who supports that is about as un-American as they come.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 4:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it. "with the way [they] are going about it" What do you mean? That they aren't starting programs to help people source the necessary documents? That might be something that comes along as a "necessary and proper" add on, or amendment. Bullshit. Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida and other Republican controlled states were all told by judges in the lawsuits they lost what changes needed to be made and they didn't. These laws are not about the integrity of elections. They are about disenfranchising citizens who don't vote for Republicans. Anyone who supports that is about as un-American as they come. Hyperbole, as usual. Yawn. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You dont see that as deliberate? Most of those in office are not young kids. They "supposedly" know their constituents. They "supposedly" know the areas they represent. They "supposedly" have feed back from those who they represent. I find it extremely hard to believe they didnt know all these barriers to voting existed and yet they did nothing to work assistance into the "laws" that were passed.... perhaps ulterior motives? Offering to do so after major elections is extremely hypocritical. People arent as stupid as politicians wished they were. Actually, I think it's that "politicians aren't as smart as people think they are." Plus, this legislation could easily be a framework upon which the necessary programs are made, couldn't it? Isn't that typical for legislation?

dcnovice -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 5:45:15 PM)
quote: If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she? Ah, so the ID requirement serves as a 21st-century literacy test. Plus ca change . . .

DomKen -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 6:15:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it. "with the way [they] are going about it" What do you mean? That they aren't starting programs to help people source the necessary documents? That might be something that comes along as a "necessary and proper" add on, or amendment. Bullshit. Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida and other Republican controlled states were all told by judges in the lawsuits they lost what changes needed to be made and they didn't. These laws are not about the integrity of elections. They are about disenfranchising citizens who don't vote for Republicans. Anyone who supports that is about as un-American as they come. Hyperbole, as usual. Yawn. Really? Here is the judge's ruling against the Texas voter ID law and it includes extensive discussion of what is wrong with it and what could have been done to fix it, including the fact that numerous changes and amendments to lessen the impact on voters were voted down by the Republican majority. http://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/8_30_12_Decision.pdf So we know the states are aware of the failings of these laws and we know they refused to make those changes and we have multiple Republican politician involved in passing these voter suppression laws admitting they are meant to elect Republicans and not to reduce vote fraud. What conclusion are people supposed to draw from that evidence? And just because you keep cutting these and ignoring them: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721 http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 6:24:41 PM)
quote: Actually, I think it's that "politicians aren't as smart as people think they are." Plus, this legislation could easily be a framework upon which the necessary programs are made, couldn't it? Isn't that typical for legislation? When problems arise that were unforeseen. These are known issues before the law was passed... or even written.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 7:27:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she? Ah, so the ID requirement serves as a 21st-century literacy test. Plus ca change . . . Nope. Just means that intelligence isn't a barrier to getting an ID, but great way to bring in some partisanship, DC! [:-]

dcnovice -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 7:46:31 PM)
quote: intelligence isn't a barrier to getting an ID, So then what was the point of your "bright enough" comment? You were essentially saying that people too dumb "to get an ID" deserve to be disenfranchised. All for the public good, of course. [8\|] quote: but great way to bring in some partisanship, DC! You took a stance that echoed Jim Crow-era strategies at suppressing the vote. I pointed it out. That's historical perspective, not partisanship. What's partisan is taking one party's disenfranchisement strategy and trying to dress it up as a civic good.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 7:56:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: intelligence isn't a barrier to getting an ID, So then what was the point of your "bright enough" comment? You were essentially saying that people too dumb "to get an ID" deserve to be disenfranchised. All for the public good, of course. [8\|] quote: but great way to bring in some partisanship, DC! You took a stance that echoed Jim Crow-era strategies at suppressing the vote. I pointed it out. That's historical perspective, not partisanship. What's partisan is taking one party's disenfranchisement strategy and trying to dress it up as a civic good. Actually, I was commenting that getting an ID doesn't require any more intelligence than voting. It wasn't a "poll test" of any sort. Your partisanship shows through in your interpretations.

graceadieu -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 9:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Well, if you don't have a driver's lisense you can't drive, no-one complains about it being "difficult" to get a D.L. and driving isn't even a right. Actually, if you look back a bit, I did. Or rather, I complained about how difficult it was to get a State ID before I learned to drive. It was even harder, as an adult without parental assistance, to get a driver's license. Most people, even if they're a good friend or sibling, are not comfortable letting a totally inexperienced driver (who, also, is not on their insurance) behind the wheel of their car.

graceadieu -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 10:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought this was a good picture regarding NC. [image]local://upfiles/210115/D416074887B143E5BBA5BED7C2F39874.gif[/image] Liberals go on about how hard it is for the poor and minorities to obtain a photo ID. Why do Liberals think the poor and minorities are too dumb to have, or be able to get photo ID's? Lets have cameras at the voting centers. Photo and fingerprint anyone who does not have a photo ID. Thus, if you can get to the voting center, you can vote. Who can then bitch or scream about being "prevented" from voting? It's not about anyone being "dumb", which you know. It's about it being difficult and burdensome and making voting cost money and require time off of work (or a friend to pick you up from the nursing home, etc, to go to the MVA). Though even if someone is too stupid to figure out the MVA paperwork, they still have the right to vote in this country. I would have zero problem giving my fingerprint when I check in to vote, assuming my identity could not be tied to my actual votes. That would not be burdensome. But who's going to check my fingerprint against every other check-in in the state? (While also making sure that it couldn't be tied to my actual votes, of course.) That's not free.

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 [15] 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875