But you have all the answers, and everybody else is lazy, so why bother even dealing with you.
How does needing to have an id constitute an unnecessary or heavy burden.
I like how you sum up your position -- the government can do whatever it wants and as long as you are not personally put out by it that's fine.
Not what I said, nobody is put out by it. If getting an ID is such a burden to you, them I'm sure registering and voting must be astronomically difficult!
Oh and I assure you, who is allowed and not allowed to vote is certainly a real issue.
Oh it absolutely is. I never said it wasn't. And next time the Repubs try to get some other voter issue through the dems can say that they approved the ID bill that cost nothing to implement and guarantees people are who they say they are, what more do you want good sirs? Can we move on to something that matter?
But you have all the answers, and everybody else is lazy, so why bother even dealing with you.
How does needing to have an id constitute an unnecessary or heavy burden.
I like how you sum up your position -- the government can do whatever it wants and as long as you are not personally put out by it that's fine.
Not what I said, nobody is put out by it. If getting an ID is such a burden to you, them I'm sure registering and voting must be astronomically difficult!
I tell you what.
You tell me how incredibly easy it was for me to get my ID and show to me that being poor would not have prevented me from getting it unless I was just lazy, and I will believe you.
I'm sure you already know everything I had to do in order to get it, or you wouldn't insist that it wasn't a burden or would have been an even bigger burden if I was poor.
You tell me how incredibly easy it was for me to get my ID and show to me that being poor would not have prevented me from getting it unless I was just lazy, and I will believe you.
I'm sure you already know everything I had to do in order to get it, or you wouldn't insist that it wasn't a burden or would have been an even bigger burden if I was poor.
Oh why don't you tell me of your story of whooo and how monumentally difficult it was for you to get an ID. By the way it sounds like you got one...so it wasn't impossible or too difficult for you.
You tell me how incredibly easy it was for me to get my ID and show to me that being poor would not have prevented me from getting it unless I was just lazy, and I will believe you.
I'm sure you already know everything I had to do in order to get it, or you wouldn't insist that it wasn't a burden or would have been an even bigger burden if I was poor.
Oh why don't you tell me of your story of whooo and how monumentally difficult it was for you to get an ID. By the way it sounds like you got one...so it wasn't impossible or too difficult for you.
Nope, you tell me. You already said that the only way I would have been a burden was if I was lazy. So since you know how easy or hard it is for everybody to get an ID you should be able to tell me how easy it was for me and how a poor person would not have had any problems.
But you have all the answers, and everybody else is lazy, so why bother even dealing with you.
How does needing to have an id constitute an unnecessary or heavy burden.
Because maybe, just maybe, it isn't just a case of going to your neighbourhood ID shop and going "Hey, I'd like one of those free IDs please".
People may have to go to a specific government building to sort out the process, on a certain day, and if they have work that day, tough. They can't get that ID.
Maybe they can go during the week? I'm sure their manager won't mind them missing the entire day to travel however many miles to get there, via public transport because they don't have a car.
Obviously there is no chance of their manager not giving them the time off, but maybe they can't afford to miss that shift, because they get paid by the hour, and missing out on $50 for a days work might mean the difference between them being able to eat or not.
But you have all the answers, and everybody else is lazy, so why bother even dealing with you.
How does needing to have an id constitute an unnecessary or heavy burden.
Because maybe, just maybe, it isn't just a case of going to your neighbourhood ID shop and going "Hey, I'd like one of those free IDs please".
People may have to go to a specific government building to sort out the process, on a certain day, and if they have work that day, tough. They can't get that ID.
Maybe they can go during the week? I'm sure their manager won't mind them missing the entire day to travel however many miles to get there, via public transport because they don't have a car.
Obviously there is no chance of their manager not giving them the time off, but maybe they can't afford to miss that shift, because they get paid by the hour, and missing out on $50 for a days work might mean the difference between them being able to eat or not.
But sure, it's easy to get an ID.
And maybe you need to cross vast oceans to get it and maybe you have to do complex euclidean equations to get it and maybe, but, but, but.... Maybe you just have to go to the DMV. Maybe if you are so poor that you are on government assistance you can get the ID there. Oh wait you don't even have to go to an office anymore, these guys that want to make your life so hard will actually direct deposit the amount in your bank or mail you a check......BOTH OF WHICH YOU NEED AN ID FOR ANYWAY!
I love the super exceptional and hypothetical excuses.
Really. Um I have an ID, in fact I have about 7 drivers licenses from 4 different states sitting in my desk, My 2 year old daughter has ID and my foreign born wife has ID. But maybe I'm special,l So tell me how hard it is to get an ID. I would love to hear how it is an odyssey!
Frazzled wrote: I criticize government intrusion but oppose the ultrasound legislation as being both expensive and stupid.
I also want voter id and other protections on suffrage put into place. Our voting system is declining in its veracity, and with multimillion illegal alines, its ripe for corruption.
To repeat my question, would you support a government initiative to ensure all registered voters have sufficient ID in order to vote?
Frazzled wrote: I criticize government intrusion but oppose the ultrasound legislation as being both expensive and stupid.
I also want voter id and other protections on suffrage put into place. Our voting system is declining in its veracity, and with multimillion illegal alines, its ripe for corruption.
To repeat my question, would you support a government initiative to ensure all registered voters have sufficient ID in order to vote?
Make sure they have sufficient ID or access to sufficient ID? I don't think we need to pick people up at their houses and hold their hands through the process.
But you have all the answers, and everybody else is lazy, so why bother even dealing with you.
How does needing to have an id constitute an unnecessary or heavy burden.
Because maybe, just maybe, it isn't just a case of going to your neighbourhood ID shop and going "Hey, I'd like one of those free IDs please".
People may have to go to a specific government building to sort out the process, on a certain day, and if they have work that day, tough. They can't get that ID.
Maybe they can go during the week? I'm sure their manager won't mind them missing the entire day to travel however many miles to get there, via public transport because they don't have a car.
Obviously there is no chance of their manager not giving them the time off, but maybe they can't afford to miss that shift, because they get paid by the hour, and missing out on $50 for a days work might mean the difference between them being able to eat or not.
But sure, it's easy to get an ID.
And maybe you need to cross vast oceans to get it and maybe you have to do complex euclidean equations to get it and maybe, but, but, but.... Maybe you just have to go to the DMV. Maybe if you are so poor that you are on government assistance you can get the ID there. Oh wait you don't even have to go to an office anymore, these guys that want to make your life so hard will actually direct deposit the amount in your bank or mail you a check......BOTH OF WHICH YOU NEED AN ID FOR ANYWAY!
I love the super exceptional and hypothetical excuses.
Really. Um I have an ID, in fact I have about 7 drivers licenses from 4 different states sitting in my desk, My 2 year old daughter has ID and my foreign born wife has ID. But maybe I'm special,l So tell me how hard it is to get an ID. I would love to hear how it is an odyssey!
So are you going to tell my story of what I had to do to get mine, or are you going to keep on pretending that you know how easy it is for everybody?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Meanwhile, I am sure that the DMV will accept my hand-written note saying "I'm d-usa, I can haz ID please?"...
Oh no, I'm sure you have some rare once in a century Shakespearean story to share that means every bill written EVER should take your tale of misfortunate events into account! I'm sure its an epic tale that 99.9 percent of the people in America go through....but oh do enlighten me with your mythic adventure.
I've already expressed my multiple experiences with getting IDs while moving from state to state including for a 2 year old child and a foreign born wife. I'm sure my difficulty is on a level much higher than your average person. Of course I'm sure it has nothing near the breadth and depth of the story you are going to tell me. I'm sure some mythic creature ate your IDs and all of your birth-certificates and social security cards while government agents thwarted your every effort to prove your identity.
Just get on with it already.
Meanwhile, I am sure that the DMV will accept my hand-written note saying "I'm d-usa, I can haz ID please?"..
If you don't know what I went through, then don't spew garbage pretending to know that it is easy for everybody to get an ID and that the only reason they wouldn't have one was because they are lazy.
I've told my story. It doesn't matter because I'm not the one in this thread pretending to know that it is easy enough for everybody except lazy people. I'm tired of repeating it everytime we get the same thread in which elitist jerks pretend that it is no problem at all for anybody to get one.
And why doesn't the DMV accept my hand-written note? You said all anybody had to do was to head on over to the DMV to pick one up. Did you make that up as well?
d-usa wrote: If you don't know what I went through, then don't spew garbage pretending to know that it is easy for everybody to get an ID and that the only reason they wouldn't have one was because they are lazy.
I've told my story. It doesn't matter because I'm not the one in this thread pretending to know that it is easy enough for everybody except lazy people. I'm tired of repeating it everytime we get the same thread in which elitist jerks pretend that it is no problem at all for anybody to get one.
And why doesn't the DMV accept my hand-written note? You said all anybody had to do was to head on over to the DMV to pick one up. Did you make that up as well?
That would defeat the purpose of an ID wouldn't it. I mean you do need to have some paperwork that proves who you are, which I'm sure you will come up with some rare circumstances as to why that is such a hardship for a large segment of society.
I honestly don't care what your sad Dickens like story is. I've gotten plenty of IDs so have Billions of people. If you had some freak occurrence that happened to make it difficult for you to get an ID I'm sure the government should take that lightning bolt of a story into account every time they make policy. I'm sure based on your story we should all run around with helmets because meteors might land on my head, unless you story happens less often than people get hit by meteors.....I don't want to hear it.
Actually I'll be fair about it. The voter fraud stat was something like 138 counts in 5.6 million votes. If your situation happens to 139 out of every 5.6 million people....then I'll care about your story.
135 cases of fraud occurred out of 5.6 million ballots cast in 2012).
I'm good. Your admitting that you have a very simplistic additude that basically amounts to "just get an ID you lazy bum, the DMV has all your paperwork that you need to bring already there and ready for you" is enough.
d-usa wrote: I'm good. Your admitting that you have a very simplistic additude that basically amounts to "just get an ID you lazy bum, the DMV has all your paperwork that you need to bring already there and ready for you" is enough.
Yep, because in real life that is how it works for most everybody. (Well except for the DMV has your paperwork, I always have to bring my own ID to the DMV to get a new one.) As long as you can admit that we are golden!
Again its not that hard to get an ID if you really want one. I mean you had some sort of galaxy shattering event that changes the alignment of the stars and yet after all that you were able to bet an ID. So I'm sure Bob Smith who works two jobs and has no car, yet lives 200 miles form the DMV and whose paperwork sank on the titanic when his parents brought him over can get one too.
cincydooley wrote: It's notoriously hard to get replacements of your birth certificate or your social security card. And it takes a considerable amount of time.
Nope. Already there waiting on everyone at the DMV. They got all the paperwork there, you just gotta stop by!
cincydooley wrote: It's notoriously hard to get replacements of your birth certificate or your social security card. And it takes a considerable amount of time.
Its not. I've had to do it. I've had to get those documents multiple times. You want to know whats hard to get? Grade school, High school and Medical school records, births certificates, immunization, medical records and government cards not to mention letter of recomendation from former staff at the medical school who were not even there anymore..........from INDIA so that I could get my wife a green card. Yeaah, thats difficult especially in a corrupt as country like India. You know what, it was kind of important for me to get those, .....so I did. Its funny what priorities can accomplish.
No offence D-usa, but I'm pretty sure that was more of an ordeal than you had to go through or most anybody else.
They got all the paperwork there, you just gotta stop by!
When did I say that? In fact I said you always have to bring your paperwork.
cincydooley wrote: It's notoriously hard to get replacements of your birth certificate or your social security card. And it takes a considerable amount of time.
Its not. I've had to do it. I've had to get those documents multiple times. You want to know whats hard to get? Grade school, High school and Medical school records, births certificates, immunization, medical records and government cards not to mention letter of recomendation from former staff at the medical school who were not even there anymore..........from INDIA so that I could get my wife a green card. Yeaah, thats difficult especially in a corrupt as country like India. You know what, it was kind of important for me to get those, so you know what .....I did.
No offence D-usa, but I'm pretty sure that was more of an ordeal than you had to go through or most anybody else.
Yeah, Birth Certificates are freaking easy.
Especially if you don't live anywhere near where you were born.
Or if you don't have the means to drive there (because you are lazy).
Or if you don't have an ID, which you cannot get without the birth certificate, which you cannot get without your ID, which you cannot...you get the picture.
Or if your birth certificate does not exist anywhere on this planet. Because it became a pile of ashes during a warehouse fire after the military base where you were born shut down and every record got moved to that warehouse.
It's freaking easy to get an ID if there is zero proof that you even exist.
And I take it that if you were poor and working a job that doesn't let you take any time off and without any means of transportation you would have zero difficulty getting all your crap done, right? Unless you were lazy.
They got all the paperwork there, you just gotta stop by!
When did I say that. In fact I said you always have to bring your paperwork.
In general you said that you don't. Actually you said "in general, all somebody has to do is go to the DMV".
So it seemed like you implied that the majority of people don't have to go to other agencies to get supporting paperwork, they just show up there.
Especially if you don't live anywhere near where you were born.
Or if you don't have the means to drive there (because you are lazy).
Or if you don't have an ID, which you cannot get without the birth certificate, which you cannot get without your ID, which you cannot...you get the picture.
Or if your birth certificate does not exist anywhere on this planet. Because it became a pile of ashes during a warehouse fire after the military base where you were born shut down and every record got moved to that warehouse.
It's freaking easy to get an ID if there is zero proof that you even exist.
And I take it that if you were poor and working a job that doesn't let you take any time off and without any means of transportation you would have zero difficulty getting all your crap done, right? Unless you were lazy.
Like I said, priorities! You got it done didn't you? Are you superman or Hercules, because obviously a mear mortal would never be able to accomplish this task, right? And again Im sure there was no bizarre circumstance that put you in that situation, I mean its obviously an everyday occurrence that happens to everybody!
Or is it more likely that most people who don't have IDs don't have them for some much more mundane reason!
Oh and Zero difficulty? You know who only does things when there is zero difficulty...lazy people. I'm sorry but I must have missed Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, easy living and fairness in my version of the declaration of independence, must not be updated 2.0 version!
So it seemed like you implied that the majority of people don't have to go to other agencies to get supporting paperwork, they just show up there.
Right because that is how it works for most people. You bring your paper work to get your first ID and then from then on you don't. I renewed my license a few times by just surrendering the old one, no other paper work was needed besides what I had in my wallet.
If it was such a Olympian task to get an ID I'm pretty sure less people would have them. But seeing as an ID is basically a pre requisite to being a functioning human being in this country I'm pretty sure its not that hard...in general.
So everybody has their paperwork, it's very rate that somebody doesn't have it.
And nobody ever looses their ID, that's totally rare. Hardly ever happens to anyone.
And everyone has a job that gives them the time, the means to travel, and the financial means to do everything that you had to do to get your wife's paperwork in order.
I'm sticking with my assessment of an elitist talking out his rear, who doesn't really want to admit that gak can actually be a lot more difficult for people other than himself and who has convinced himself that there is no political attempt to feth people over and who loves to blame the victim.
Andrew1975 wrote: Its not. I've had to do it. I've had to get those documents multiple times
I'm glad it was easy for you. When I lived in NYC, getting your birth certificate was a giant pain in the ass - You had to spend all day at the department of vital statistics, which had hours that guaranteed you also had to take a day off work.
Now you can do it online. I just ran through it again for the most current info, and the copy is $15, the Vital-Chek fee is $7.50, and it's required to be sent via UPS Air signature required, which is $15. So, for a mere $38.50, you can have your birth certificate, which of course you need to get the drivers license (with it's attendant fees as well - In IA, it's $32 but it varies depending on what you need, and there is a reduced fee ID only one for $8 - don't know the details on that).
I can't imagine a single person in this country who would have a hard time justifying spending 40 bucks so they can get to vote, and I'm sure you can't either, right?
White privilege refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). The term denotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white individuals may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal. It can be compared and/or combined with the concept of male privilege.
Andrew1975 wrote: Its not. I've had to do it. I've had to get those documents multiple times
I'm glad it was easy for you. When I lived in NYC, getting your birth certificate was a giant pain in the ass - You had to spend all day at the department of vital statistics, which had hours that guaranteed you also had to take a day off work.
Now you can do it online. I just ran through it again for the most current info, and the copy is $15, the Vital-Chek fee is $7.50, and it's required to be sent via UPS Air signature required, which is $15. So, for a mere $38.50, you can have your birth certificate, which of course you need to get the drivers license (with it's attendant fees as well - In IA, it's $32 but it varies depending on what you need, and there is a reduced fee ID only one for $8 - don't know the details on that).
I can't imagine a single person in this country who would have a hard time justifying spending 40 bucks so they can get to vote, and I'm sure you can't either, right?
I'm sure that $40 included lost wages for actually going to the DMV right? It couldn't possibly cost more!
And nobody ever looses their ID, that's totally rare. Hardly ever happens to anyone.
And everyone has a job that gives them the time, the means to travel, and the financial means to do everything that you had to do to get your wife's paperwork in order.
I'm sticking with my assessment of an elitist talking out his rear, who doesn't really want to admit that gak can actually be a lot more difficult for people other than himself and who has convinced himself that there is no political attempt to feth people over and who loves to blame the victim.
Dude, I win. You said blame the victim. That's like goodwining.
So everybody has their paperwork, it's very rate that somebody doesn't have it.
True statement. I mean I don't know what you consider rare as, but yeah.
And everyone has a job that gives them the time, the means to travel, and the financial means to do everything that you had to do to get your wife's paperwork in order.
Absolutely not. But most people wouldn't need to do it. Most people just have to go to the DMV
there is no political attempt to feth people
Oh there are plenty of political attempts to feth people over all the time. Requiring that someone have an ID is not one of them. Agreeing to allow those to be the terms for someone to vote is a win because it gets rid of the actual attempts to feth people over by placing more stringent limits on potential voters. Then politicians can go about actual issues that matter like funding a government, the results of not getting the important work done is fething people over.
Oh and yes I'm obviously an elitist because I expect people to have an ID! You are obviously a member of the 1% if you have a duh duh duh ......passport.
I can't imagine a single person in this country who would have a hard time justifying spending 40 bucks so they can get to vote, and I'm sure you can't either, right?
If voting is important to you, $40 is nothing. Especially in NYC what is that Lunch money?
White privilege refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). The term denotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white individuals may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal. It can be compared and/or combined with the concept of male privilege.
YES THATS IT! Because only rich white males have IDs right?
I'm sure that $40 included lost wages for actually going to the DMV right? It couldn't possibly cost more!
Look if the only reason you are getting you vital info and ID is to vote....You are doing it wrong.
Keep making up excuses guys. Seriously how many people in the US don't have IDs? You make it sound like there are these giant pockets of wasteland where people have no access to IDs or paperwork......ewww THE FORBIDDEN ZONE! If you do not have an ID in this country for the most part you can't function. I've lived in the ghetto, look up 55th and Euclid in Cleveland, people there had IDs. Hell some of them even had....drivers licenses.
It's actually sort of fascinating to see someone so clearly incapable of imagining the plight and circumstances of someone else might not be the same as their own.
A passport costs $55. If you are making minimum wage, that means you have to work 7.5 hours - an entire day - to be able to afford it.
Congratulations. You have just justified a poll tax. Suddenly, the derp throttle has gone forward considerably.
No I didn't, don't put words in my mouth or jump to derpy conclusions.
It's actually sort of fascinating to see someone so clearly incapable of imagining the plight and circumstances of someone else might not be the same as their own.
A passport costs $55. If you are making minimum wage, that means you have to work 7.5 hours - an entire day - to be able to afford it.
Exactly, which is why I said anybody with one is obviously part of the proletariat right? Nowhere did I say people need to have passports, in fact we have been talking about free voter ID cards, you just have to be motivated enough to get one.
D. I love ya like a platoon mascot favorite trooper. At times though I have to cringe. I do admire how you stick your guns and not change your stance. Your ID situation is very unique. In fact you are the very first person I have "met" with a situation that I had some knowledge on. The other one was Bush Jr military service. Still though. Andrew stop debating D.
Jihadin wrote: D. I love ya like a platoon mascot favorite trooper. At times though I have to cringe. I do admire how you stick your guns and not change your stance. Your ID situation is very unique. In fact you are the very first person I have "met" with a situation that I had some knowledge on. The other one was Bush Jr military service. Still though. Andrew stop debating D.
I guard my passport with my life now, it's the only proof I have that I am even a real person as far as the US is concerned. Nothing like a judge telling you "as far as we are concerned, you were never born." And that was pre-9/11. I can't even imagine having to do what we did in a post-9/11 world.
In the 5 years working for the VA I have met quite a few people who have missing paperwork thanks to that fire though, that single event made things hard for a whole bunch of people.
Hey I was debating Manchu. Then D came in wit his ID Apocalypse, which happens to so many people we should remember it while considering policy. Next think I know I'm the harbinger of "THE MAN" because I have a drivers license.
That Passport better be in a Fire Proof Lock Box or a safety deposit box in a bank. If not I will go break your dang pinkie toe D
I say again
ID just to balance the Voter Registeration Book.
Or we can create a Dakka Inc and apply for a contract to do it.....since I was a government contract overseer.....with active security clearance...with CptJake, Ensis, Ouze I think, SGTSCRUFFY....nine digits at least......
Andrew1975 wrote: Hey I was debating Manchu. Then D came in wit his ID Apocalypse, which happens to so many people we should remember it while considering policy. Next think I know I'm the harbinger of "THE MAN" because I have a drivers license.
Don't worry, people reading your posts know what you are
You consider it preferential to not be denied an equal chance to vote as everyone else.
OK.
That goes some way to explain your cognitive capability.
Well help me out here...
How is that in any way, denying an equal chance to vote?
I just asked a specific question on a specific case: Is it okay to grant preferential treatment to a group to vote on Sunday whereas everyone else, who is not a church goer, needs to take time out on a Tuesday to vote (or process a provisional/early ballot).
Frankly, I don't really care... but I thought it's an interesting topic.
I have already explained to you that it is not preferential treatment for a particular group to be allowed the same chance to vote as other groups by holding the polls open for long enough for everyone to vote.
Andrew1975 wrote: Hey I was debating Manchu. Then D came in wit his ID Apocalypse, which happens to so many people we should remember it while considering policy. Next think I know I'm the harbinger of "THE MAN" because I have a drivers license.
Don't worry, people reading your posts know what you are
Apparently I'm the guy that doesn't understand how you can possibly function in this society without an ID. But you know if wanting to be able to cash a check or get a library book makes me look like the Monopoly man then so be it!
I'm not trying to mess with dates or hours of voting. In fact I'm trying to take those options away by giving Repubs the gimmie option. From there Dems can say look we budged we gave you something, lets move on.
whembly wrote: If there's "no voter fraud to speak of"... how come folks are being charged/convicted of fraud?
If I said 'toilets are no threat to our lives' people would know what I meant. I'm sure we could find a case, somewhere, where a toilet seat broke or a pipe exploded or something and a person got seriously injured or killed, but that doesn't make the statement untrue. Because this is a planet with a hell of a lot of people on it, and a very strange thing happening to one person, in one place, doesn't mean we should treat it as something that happens very often.
Similarly, you have a big country, with a hell of a lot of people in it. There was what, 100 million votes cast in 2012, or thereabouts? And so when there's less than a dozen instances of people casting votes claiming to be someone else, that is basically as close to no ID fraud as any sufficiently large society is ever going to get.
Andrew1975 wrote: Like I said, priorities! You got it done didn't you? Are you superman or Hercules, because obviously a mear mortal would never be able to accomplish this task, right? And again Im sure there was no bizarre circumstance that put you in that situation, I mean its obviously an everyday occurrence that happens to everybody!
And this is exactly what the people advocating stricter ID requirements are hoping for: that if you put enough obstacles in the way of voting people will decide that they'd rather not take the time off work to take care of all of them. The laws have absolutely nothing to do with improving security, it's all about making voting more difficult so fewer people (of the "wrong" type, ideally) will do it.
Oh there are plenty of political attempts to feth people over all the time. Requiring that someone have an ID is not one of them.
So why is the NC republican party so strongly in favor of it? It certainly isn't about stopping fraud, so are you going to claim that that Art Pope is smart enough to turn the NC republican party into his pawns and then take over the legislature, but is too stupid to realize that stricter ID requirements aren't going to stop anyone from voting? Because the simple truth is that the people writing these laws believe that they will be effective in shifting election outcomes in their favor.
Andrew1975 wrote: Its called being a responsible adult member of society. If you cant be bothered to get a standard drivers license, much less a free id, well I don't know if I trust you to vote.
So, to ask my question again, would you think it reasonable to fund a program that ensured every registered voter had easy, free access to ID?
Then everyone has what they want. Republicans have their guarantee that the dozen or so ID-fraud votes each election don't happen, and Democrats know that their voters won't be prevented from voting because they don't have ID.
I guess I would have to think about it.
In Ohio a state ID is $8.50, hardly a crippling amount. I believe like drives licenses, its good for 4 years, so that comes to $2.13 a year, plus its good for more than just voting.
Now does the program have to round up all these people, and help them find their paperwork and fill everything out for them?
Does the program have to include buying new shuttle buses and covering the costs of drives, gas and insurance?
The more I think about it there are outreach programs, church groups and political activists that do this kind of work in the communities already, some of these may be government funded even. If not maybe people need to take advantage of them instead of being catered to. I'm not trying to get the government to spend millions of dollars for something people should be spending their own $2.13 a year for. Voting is an absolute right, but I don't know it needs to be brought to everyone on a silver platter. Nobody is paying for my ID or giving me free rides to the poles.
Look don't get me wrong. I'm not going to campaign for voter reform. If I see it on a ballet that you need an ID to vote, I'd mark yes. Not because I like Repubs more than I like Dems....which I don't. But because I think it moves one argument along and I just generally think you cant be a responsible member of society without an ID.
So why is the NC republican party so strongly in favor of it? It certainly isn't about stopping fraud, so are you going to claim that that Art Pope is smart enough to turn the NC republican party into his pawns and then take over the legislature, but is too stupid to realize that stricter ID requirements aren't going to stop anyone from voting? Because the simple truth is that the people writing these laws believe that they will be effective in shifting election outcomes in their favor.
No see, you are not following. They have a whole package of restrictions that they want to pass, limiting poling booths, hours and days of voting, rules about absentee voting...seriously a whole list. Some of these are obvious strategies to limit certain groups access to voting. Its awful, elitist, and probably racist! So give them the easy one. IDs are easy and less obtrusive than any of the other changes they want. So just give it too them and move on. If the Dems really are worried then they can have programs that help get people IDs and then facilitate getting them to the booths. The promise of a free ID may be enough to get people to come, people need IDs, you will be improving their lives by giving it to them and probably securing votes of people that may not have voted anyway.
Andrew1975 wrote: I don't say I'm independent to blame people. I say I'm independent because I'm nuanced enough to know that sometimes the Dems are right, and sometimes the Repubs are right, I don't have to blindly stand up for one or the other when they are wrong, or when they are both wrong.
That's not actually all that nuanced. Nuance would include the idea that at some times one party might actually be right on most things, or at least that while one party is sometimes right the other party is pretty much wrong on everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote: Make sure they have sufficient ID or access to sufficient ID? I don't think we need to pick people up at their houses and hold their hands through the process.
But you do think you need a law to prevent less than a dozen instances of voting with ID fraud?
Andrew1975 wrote: In Ohio a state ID is $8.50, hardly a crippling amount.
This is why I asked if you've had any experience being truly poor. Because saying things like "$8.50 is hardly crippling" shows a serious lack of understanding of how budgets work when you're really poor.
And again, the cost of the ID itself isn't the only cost. There's the cost of taking time off work to ride around on the bus to and from the DMV, the potential cost of getting a birth certificate copy to get that state ID, etc. If you add all of that up it's very easy for someone to decide that voting is less important than making sure their kids have enough food this month. And that's a decision Art Pope hopes enough people are going to make to keep his investment in the NC legislature.
d-usa wrote: I guard my passport with my life now, it's the only proof I have that I am even a real person as far as the US is concerned. Nothing like a judge telling you "as far as we are concerned, you were never born." And that was pre-9/11. I can't even imagine having to do what we did in a post-9/11 world.
In the 5 years working for the VA I have met quite a few people who have missing paperwork thanks to that fire though, that single event made things hard for a whole bunch of people.
Pretty sure that we've had this discussion before about your relatively unique situation;
The U.S. Federal government issues the following types of identity documents:
Certificate of U.S. Citizenship
Certificate of Naturalization
Immigration and travel-related documents issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to non-U.S. citizens, such as the Green Card.
Passport
The passport card is a travel document available to U.S. citizens for land and sea travel to Canada, Mexico, and various Caribbean destinations. It was introduced in 2008.
NEXUS card for travel between the United States and Canada.
SENTRI card for travel between the United States and Mexico.
The Transportation Worker Identification Credential, a new biometric security identification credential to be phased in by April 15, 2009, issued by the Transportation Security Administration.
The Merchant Mariner's Document, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Cards that prove participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
Other documents that are evidence of an individual's identity:
Airport Identification (SIDA Badges)
State/territory driver's license (see above)
ID card issued by federal, state, or local government agencies or entities, provided it contains a photograph or information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color and address
School ID card with photograph
Voter's registration card
Native American tribal document
Other examples of documents involving personal identity include:
Credit cards and debit cards
Internal identification card issued by one's employer, university or school
Proof of professional certification (for members of regulated professions)
Proof of automobile insurance card (when driving)
Health insurance card issued by a private health insurance company, by Medicare, or by a state public health insurance agency
Library cards
License documents issued by government organizations authorizing privileges other than driving, such as an amateur radio license or concealed firearm permit
Utility bills are often used as proof of residence or address.
In Indiana I can get an identification card by going to the BMV and proving my identity, SSN, lawful status and residency. The only difficulty that I have had with getting my actual permit (driving skills test is tomorrow) was over my status because of USCIS's mistake, and that's not a hurdle for a natural citizen.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And your experience is typical? Or is it an exception to the rule?
If your records were " lost in one of the big warehouse fires that happened during the base drawdowns in Europe" then that is far from a typical situation, and a situation that not many people are likely to experience. I'm sorry that you had to go trough it, but please stop treating an isolated and minor incident as a major hurdle for proving who you are.
d-usa wrote: My evidence that some people have serious problems is better than your evidence that nobody has trouble.
I'd ask you not to misrepresent the point I was making, thank you. I didn't say that nobody has trouble, what I was getting at was that the overwhelming majority of people do not have trouble proving their identity. I thought that was sufficiently clear.
You seem to think that your anecdotal evidence of an isolated incident that happened to you, and which many people will not be affected by, trumps thousands of people per year who managed to prove their identity successfully.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Having to prove you identification is not difficult in the overwhelming majority of instances. You have to do it to get a driver's license, to get public assistance, to get credit, open a bank account, buy alcohol. It is not an uncommon part of life in the US yet when it comes to ensuring that democracy is not eroded by people with dishonest intentions only then will people object to providing ID. We managed to get a system in place to counter voter fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq yet we cannot manage it here?
I was in the BMV getting my license today, and like everyone else there we manged to do it quite easily. Including the driving skills test it cost $21. If this was too much of an expense for me then I am eligible to vote I could get a free voter's ID (http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2625.htm). For the overwhelming majority of people proving their identity is fairly straight forward.
Oh, and I'll be away in Dallas until Monday so I won't be replying before then so feel free to read/reply/ignore as you all see fit
Andrew1975 wrote: In Ohio a state ID is $8.50, hardly a crippling amount.
This is why I asked if you've had any experience being truly poor. Because saying things like "$8.50 is hardly crippling" shows a serious lack of understanding of how budgets work when you're really poor.
And again, the cost of the ID itself isn't the only cost. There's the cost of taking time off work to ride around on the bus to and from the DMV, the potential cost of getting a birth certificate copy to get that state ID, etc. If you add all of that up it's very easy for someone to decide that voting is less important than making sure their kids have enough food this month. And that's a decision Art Pope hopes enough people are going to make to keep his investment in the NC legislature.
No, it doesn't. My family was really poor. You seam to think that the only thing that ID gets you is the right to vote. I'm pretty sure in OHIO you can't even get Medicare, Medicade, unemplyment, welfare or foodstamps without an ID. If you are really poor you NEED to spend the $2.13 cents a year to get your ID. To be honest I would not be surprised if you don't already get the ID for free if you just go to the family services office.
But you do think you need a law to prevent less than a dozen instances of voting with ID fraud?
No actually like we saw we know of 137 out of 5.6 million, so pretty much nothing, but that's not my point. The point is, get an ID, become a member of society and shut the Repubs up by taking away their arguments and other stupid demands. If you can not be bothered to get an ID, I seriously doubt your ability to participate in the country enough to allow you to vote.
Its not rocket science... and neither is getting an ID.
"Debate" is rather too strong a word for your end of that exchange. We left it with you claiming the issue doesn't even matter. You've since made some dubious arguments to the ease of obtaining certain documents, unknowingly admitted to accepting the idea of a poll tax, and claimed to know what being poor is like while dismissing the real costs at issue.
As far as d-usa's experience being atypical -- well, that could be a sincere objection. Rules rather than exceptions ought to guide us. But then again, we are talking about a law designed to prevent a crime that, far from being merely atypical, in fact hardly exists at all. So I really must doubt that said objections are actually sincere.
You need to reread the passage, it has nothing to do with 'rich'. It is about an attitude, and one you are giving almost a textbook example of.
I read the passage just fine. Im not asking for financial statements, or for people to get a job. Im asking them to get an ID its not a monumental task....well for most people who haven't had their house sucked into OZ.
"Debate" is rather too strong a word for your end of that exchange. We left it with you claiming the issue doesn't even matter. You've since made some dubious arguments to the ease of obtaining certain documents, unknowingly admitted to accepting the idea of a poll tax, and claimed to know what being poor is like while dismissing the real costs at issue.
Yes becasue $2.13 cents a year to get an ID which again I'm pretty sure you can get for free is such an expensive cost. I never advocated a poll tax. I said if your really want to vote $40 is more than worth it. You guys are the ones that like to jump to derpy conclusions. I also know that if you are poor and without ID, in Ohio you are really screwed, I don't believe you can get your benefits without it.
But then again, we are talking about a law designed to prevent a crime that, far from being merely atypical, in fact hardly exists at all.
Again if you had any comprehension or reading skills I have said ending voter fraud is not the goal of the law. Moving the conversation is one goal, getting people to get IDs is another goal. Without an ID a person has NO ability to rise above abject poverty, absolutely NONE. If you cannot take that simple step, that basic step, you don't deserve to vote.
Will it stop some people from voting, yeah probably, enough to swing a vote, probably not, do you really want that to be part of your constituency and are they worth losing potentially other voters because Republicans want even more stringent laws and if you don't give them something, then they have a decent argument to go after even more?
I find it amazing that I threw this out here as a compromise to end the fing debate. But it seams your Dems are just as much about winning vs getting stuff done as the Repubs are. Good luck you two parties deserve each other.
"Debate" is rather too strong a word for your end of that exchange. We left it with you claiming the issue doesn't even matter. You've since made some dubious arguments to the ease of obtaining certain documents, unknowingly admitted to accepting the idea of a poll tax, and claimed to know what being poor is like while dismissing the real costs at issue.
Yes becasue $2.13 cents a year to get an ID which again I'm pretty sure you can get for free is such an expensive cost. I never advocated a poll tax. I said if your really want to vote $40 is more than worth it. You guys are the ones that like to jump to derpy conclusions. I also know that if you are poor and without ID, in Ohio you are really screwed, I don't believe you can get your benefits without it.
I thought that NC was providing free IDs, or did I get that confused with something else?
Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action. What else do you think is meant by the Constitution as regards rights?
Neither the federal government nor any of the state governments have any right to levy a fee, direct or indirect, against citizens' ability to vote, again, without some compelling reason to do so.
Manchu wrote: Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action. What else do you think is meant by the Constitution as regards rights?
So free ID is now a bad thing? Glad to hear that you aren't in favour of gun licenses, taxes, and other fees and other oversight or inconveniences to that Constitutional right at least
Manchu wrote: Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action. What else do you think is meant by the Constitution as regards rights?
Neither the federal government nor any of the state governments have any right to levy a fee, direct or indirect, against citizens' ability to vote, again, without some compelling reason to do so.
There is in this case no compelling reason.
Really, no one said constitutional rights are free! I have the right to own a gun, there a plenty of fees to get guns. I'm sure I can find lots of costs to access my constitutional rights. Fine when the Repubs get to dictate when polls can open and what days, just remember you could have thrown them a bone with IDs and been done there.
Andrew1975 wrote: Fine when the Repubs get to dictate when polls can open and what days, just remember you could have thrown them a bone with IDs and been done there.
Except there's no "throw them a bone and be done there". The goal of these laws is for republicans to win more elections. It has absolutely nothing to do with compromising on election security vs. burden of regulation, the people supporting these laws would be perfectly happy if 99% of the votes in an election were fraud as long as the republican won. If you give them new ID laws now you can guarantee that they'll be right back to demand all the rest.
Andrew1975 wrote:No actually like we saw we know of 137 out of 5.6 million, so pretty much nothing, but that's not my point. The point is, get an ID, become a member of society and shut the Repubs up by taking away their arguments and other stupid demands.
Andrew1975 wrote: If you cannot take that simple step, that basic step, you don't deserve to vote.
Will it stop some people from voting, yeah probably
Jesus wept.
Please tell me you're trolling now. I beg you, please say you can't seriously, within 2 posts of each other, be saying that yeah, you know it's not a real problem, and sure, it will take away some people's right to vote, but it's OK because those people are valueless anyway.
I mean, I was going to make an argument to refute the former statement, like, how about a law that makes you buy a red clown nose and made you wear it to the polls? Yeah, it's stupid, but come on, clown noses are cheap and it would satisfy the stupid request of the people asking for it, so why not just accommodate them?
But then I realized there is no point in trying to pursue this further with you, because either you're trolling, or you're, well, rule #1, so whatever.
Seriously, what the feth has happened to the OT in the last, like, week or so?
Andrew1975 wrote: Fine when the Repubs get to dictate when polls can open and what days, just remember you could have thrown them a bone with IDs and been done there.
Except there's no "throw them a bone and be done there". The goal of these laws is for republicans to win more elections. It has absolutely nothing to do with compromising on election security vs. burden of regulation, the people supporting these laws would be perfectly happy if 99% of the votes in an election were fraud as long as the republican won. If you give them new ID laws now you can guarantee that they'll be right back to demand all the rest.
Sure, you can see that attitude in the government shutdown. However voters tend to see that when one side is willing to comprise and negotiate, they tend to see the other side as bullies, much like how most people see the repubs right now. I'm trying to inject some sense into the situation. These polarized extremist win at all cost tactics that honestly both sides use is causing the whole political process to come to a grinding halt. Much like the old story when two Elephants fight, or in this case a Donkey and an Elephant, the only thing that gets trampled is the grass, or in this case the people.
We need to stop treating this a a zero sum game where if one party wins the other loses. This isn't a footbal game with a GD scoreboard! We need to make sure the people win and understand that sometimes a conservative solution is best and for some situations a liberal solution is the answer.
The two parties need to stop seeing each other as enemies but as collaborates to do what is best for the people. This crap is not getting it done.
If in order to get that done, we disenfranchise some fringe people that cant be bothered to get a free ID when it is seriously in their best interests, not just for voting, but for life in general....I'm not going to shed a tear over it.
Manchu wrote: More than one Republican is mentioned in that article. And each of them is talking about Republican strategy to many other Republicans. Please take a close look at the article.
As to whether you're going to change my mind -- yes, you very well could change my mind. But you will need evidence and reason. You haven't been able to marshal either so far.
Interestingly I'm not a Republican, and am excited about Wendy Davis running for governor. I guess that means Democrats must want to suppress the vote too.
Peregrine wrote: The goal of these laws is for republicans to win more elections.
I keep seeing people make this type of statement. The problem is that there is a complete and total lack of evidence that voter ID would result in increased republican votes or decreased democrat votes. Basically you have one side saying, "we want to stop the nonexistent fraud" and the other side saying "you want to stop us, whom you are unable to specifically target with this law, from voting." Both sides are demagoging here.
I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.
Manchu wrote: Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action. What else do you think is meant by the Constitution as regards rights?
So free ID is now a bad thing? Glad to hear that you aren't in favour of gun licenses, taxes, and other fees and other oversight or inconveniences to that Constitutional right at least
INdeed. I look forward to just walkinginto Academy under the new Manchu doctrine, pulling a full auto MG 42 off the shelf and paying cash without so much as a hidy ho.
Breotan wrote: I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.
Actually saying that you must have a form of identification to vote and then not providing free IDs or other means to prove identity is in some cases construed as a poll tax, and the states that do have free IDs for these things often don't take into account the cost to obtain the documents needed to get the free ID.
Breotan wrote: I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.
Actually saying that you must have a form of identification to vote and then not providing free IDs or other means to prove identity is in some cases construed as a poll tax, and the states that do have free IDs for these things often don't take into account the cost to obtain the documents needed to get the free ID.
I'd be quite comfortable with a dollar increase in the Drivers License fee to help offset costs.
I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.
Peregrine wrote: The goal of these laws is for republicans to win more elections.
I keep seeing people make this type of statement. The problem is that there is a complete and total lack of evidence that voter ID would result in increased republican votes or decreased democrat votes.
After the election, former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression. “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ... ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” he said. Indeed, the Florida Republican Party imposed a host of policies, from longer ballots to fewer precincts in minority areas, meant to discourage voting. And it worked. According to one study, as many as 49,000 people were discouraged from voting in November 2012 as a result of long lines and other obstacles.
I had a good write-up in the NC thread that showed the voting patterns of every single group impacted by the changes that were made to their voting laws. It was pretty telling.
The article is a little... weird. The title of it says voter id laws are targeting democratic voters, but the quotes say they want to quash early voting.
I too am okay with early voting, not everyone can make it to the polls on Election Tuesday. But I also remember D's post in the NC thread, it is telling, though I'm still not for no identification at the polls, but I won't get into it since I've stated it before.
Manchu wrote: Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action.
So free ID is now a bad thing?
(1) That's a non sequitur (2) "Free ID" is a marketing term rather than a literal term
Peregrine wrote: The goal of these laws is for republicans to win more elections.
I keep seeing people make this type of statement. The problem is that there is a complete and total lack of evidence that voter ID would result in increased republican votes or decreased democrat votes.
Nobody, other than the Republicans supporting it, claimed it was a great strategy.
As has been said repeatedly, the "Voter ID law" that NC Republicans passed included deliberate cuts for early voting--including the "no more Sunday voting" under the claims of cost cutting.
As has been said repeatedly, the "Voter ID law" that NC Republicans passed included deliberate cuts for early voting--including the "no more Sunday voting" under the claims of cost cutting.
This is one of the reasons why Ohio House Representative Nutjob Becker's bills are terrible. I think he's got a 4th bill to feth with everything. I've written my representative urging her to vote against this trash. She's a democrat, so she'll probably listen.
As has been said repeatedly, the "Voter ID law" that NC Republicans passed included deliberate cuts for early voting--including the "no more Sunday voting" under the claims of cost cutting.
yes you're briliant at restating the obvious. The article talked about early voting. I didn't see anything about voter ID. Unless of course Democrats employ illegal voters...
Manchu wrote: Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action.
So free ID is now a bad thing?
(1) That's a non sequitur
(2) "Free ID" is a marketing term rather than a literal term
1.) You're objecting to paying "one red cent" for ID, but you don't think that it follows to ask if providing ID free is a bad idea? You're right, that follows in no way, shape, or form.....
2.) So the ID is not being provided free of charge to the applicant?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: 2.) So the ID is not being provided free of charge to the applicant?
Manchu does have a point that "Free ID" isn't free... Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, if your state does provide free IDs, you generally have to have documents to prove identity that can cost money (SS card, birth certificate, etc...) to get the free documents. And then there is the taking off of work, which if you've got a crappy job you generally can't take off and you don't work and don't get paid.
There will almost always be some cost associated with getting an ID, even if they are free.
d-usa wrote: I had a good write-up in the NC thread that showed the voting patterns of every single group impacted by the changes that were made to their voting laws. It was pretty telling.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.
-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote (56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
Yeah, and I've seen it argued that it's bad because it makes it hard for old people to get their ID's, so now it's bad because old people don't need to get new ID's?
-Making it hard for young people to vote: Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama) I would like to find a copy of the actual bill before anymore judgement is passed on this. Michigan doesn't allow pre-registration either, but it still allows for those who turn 18 by the date of the election to register 30 days before hand.
-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats -Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%) Cost saving measure, as explained. Voter turn out, even with early voting, was significantly lower then several previous elections, so in days of tight budgets it tends to make sense, but hey tightening the belt is another way of targetting people who usually vote dem anyways, right? The same amount of time is allowed for early voting, it is just offered in a shorter period of time, freeing up more resources.
-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans -Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama) See above
-Making it harder for poor people to vote -Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama) Your no free ID thing is BS. State Photo ID (not drivers license, and still acceptable under the law) is free, and will remain free.
-Eliminated Straight Party Voting (55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats) God forbid people have to put a few extra check marks down. If their to lazy to do this, then they aren't going to put in the effort to vote anyways.
-Left absentee voting intact. (66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney) And? How else are folks who are in military supposed to vote?
But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.
What's funny is that the following states has this:
Illinois – “Any time a voter uses Early Voting, the voter must present a government-issued photo ID.” An ID with your name and address is required. The IDs are not required to feature a photograph of the elector.[12] “If you register by mail, you must vote in person the first time, either at the polling place, in-person absentee or early voting, unless you submit with your mail-in registration form your driver license number or state ID number, the last four digits of your social security number, or one of the forms of ID listed below.”[13]
Delaware – Valid voter ID includes a photo ID, utility bill, paycheck or any other government document with your name and address on it.
Hawaii – In order to vote, electors must present valid photo ID with a signature. Additionally, voters will be asked to sign a poll book to record that they voted at the polling place. Voter Registration Notice is NOT an acceptable form of identification.
California – SB1016 (effective January 1, 2006) requires voters to provide their driver’s license number or state identification number. If they do not have either, they may use the last four digits of their social security card. If they also do not have a social security card number, the state will assign a unique number which may be used for voting purposes.
These states don't have problems electing their politicians (mostly, Democrats).
As to NC... I realize it's a big change, but ya'll have 2 years to get the required ID. That's not a burden imo.
Oh look, voter ID is all fine and well in Democrat majority states
Georgia’s experience with minority voters also directly refutes the claims that voter ID laws somehow prevent racial minorities from voting. Keep in mind that Georgia’s photo ID requirement was not in place in the 2004 presidential election or the 2006 mid-term congressional elections. The law was first effective in the 2008 presidential election and the 2010 congressional elections, although Georgia has actually had at least 40 state and federal elections since September 2007 when the law became effective, not including municipal and county elections. More than 15 million votes have been cast in those elections.
According to the Secretary of State, the turnout of black and Hispanic voters has been as follows:
Latino Percentage Increase 140%
Black Percentage Increase 42%
White Percentage Increase 8%
The increase in turnout of both Hispanics and blacks in the 2008 presidential election after the voter ID law became effective is quite remarkable, particularly given the unproven and totally speculative claims of the Justice Department that the voter ID requirements of Texas and South Carolina will somehow have a discriminatory impact on Hispanic and black voters.[7] In fact, Georgia had the largest turnout of minority voters in its history.
Georgia had the same exemplary experience in the 2010 congressional election
Latino Percentage Increase 66.5 %
Black Percentage Increase 44.2%
White Percentage Increase 11.7%
The large increase in turnout of Hispanic and black voters in the 2008 and 2010 federal elections far outpaced the growth rate of those populations in Georgia over a 10-year period. The U.S. Census reports that from 2000 to 2010, the Hispanic population in the state grew 96.1 percent while the black population grew by only 25.6 percent.[9]
A Common-Sense Reform
In both federal elections held in Georgia since its voter ID became effective, the increase in turnout of Hispanic and black voters dwarfed the increase in turnout of white voters. As shown by these data—as well as the fact that federal and state courts in Georgia dismissed lawsuits filed against the Georgia voter ID law that had claimed it was both unconstitutional and discriminatory—voter ID requirements can be easily met by almost all voters and do not have a discriminatory or disparate impact on racial minorities. Georgia’s experience also shows that the number of voters who do not already have an acceptable photo ID is very small.
Requiring photo IDs is a common-sense election reform. The latest Rasmussen polling shows that it is supported by 72 percent of likely voters.[10] The Justice Department and other outspoken opponents of voter ID should stop standing in the way and allow states to implement reasonable and demonstrably nondiscriminatory laws that are intended to ensure the integrity and security of the election process.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and the former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Those poor, victimised, oppressed, disenfranchised minorities
Dreadclaw69 wrote: 2.) So the ID is not being provided free of charge to the applicant?
Manchu does have a point that "Free ID" isn't free... Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, if your state does provide free IDs, you generally have to have documents to prove identity that can cost money (SS card, birth certificate, etc...) to get the free documents. And then there is the taking off of work, which if you've got a crappy job you generally can't take off and you don't work and don't get paid.
There will almost always be some cost associated with getting an ID, even if they are free.
And those documents for proof of ID are also provided free initially too, so unless you've lost them etc. there is no financial burden. Again, ID is used for so much in the US such as public assistance, job applications, credit applications, etc. - is asking for ID a tax on these also? And as far as the taking time off work that is a non-starter. If you say that you won't get a day off work in the next two years that matches the hours for the BMV please don't be offended if I'm a wee bit more than skeptical.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You're objecting to paying "one red cent" for ID, but you don't think that it follows to ask if providing ID free is a bad idea? You're right, that follows in no way, shape, or form.....
Tsk tsk. You weren't asking a sincere question. It was just rhetorical. How do I know? You provided the answer:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So free ID is now a bad thing? Glad to hear that you aren't in favour of gun licenses, taxes, and other fees and other oversight or inconveniences to that Constitutional right at least
That doesn't follow from what I posted.
Try to argue honestly at least.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And those documents for proof of ID are also provided free initially too, so unless you've lost them etc. there is no financial burden.
Why this is false has been explained to you many, many times. In fact, Alf did so in the post to which you are responding.
As has been said repeatedly, the "Voter ID law" that NC Republicans passed included deliberate cuts for early voting--including the "no more Sunday voting" under the claims of cost cutting.
yes you're briliant at restating the obvious. The article talked about early voting. I didn't see anything about voter ID. Unless of course Democrats employ illegal voters...
Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.
Republicans know that they cannot hit early voting or anything of that nature without rolling it into the voter ID bills.
I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.
I'm ok with that.
I would be as well, however it's effectively impossible to accomplish. If it's photo ID, they need to either show up in person (time off work, transportation costs and timing, etc) or submit a proper picture. Going to the local photo store for a pic for $10-25 or whatever might not seem like a lot, but as noted, we're talking about a lot of people, and for many of them, that amount will be hard to come by.
Being poor, being extremely poor, hell being homeless does not, as far as I'm aware, rescind ones right to vote in the US political system.
Also, as an aside from skimming this thread, what the hell do some of you guys do where you have to flash your ID 20 times a day? It's a blue moon that I have to bother presenting mine. Granted, living in a major metropolitan area and being able to walk to work may be part of that, but seriously, my health card and drivers licence are needed so rarely I could probably just leave them at home and be fine 360 days a year.
I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.
I'm ok with that.
I would be as well, however it's effectively impossible to accomplish. If it's photo ID, they need to either show up in person (time off work, transportation costs and timing, etc) or submit a proper picture. Going to the local photo store for a pic for $10-25 or whatever might not seem like a lot, but as noted, we're talking about a lot of people, and for many of them, that amount will be hard to come by.
The 'easiest' way for people to accomplish these free photos IDs is by going to the DMV or the USPS branch offices. Both of these places do photos for IDs already (DMV for driver's license and USPS branch office for passport). So you wouldn't have to pay to get your photo id at such a place, but those places already have you pay for the rest of the ID. But a 10 dollar headshot from the Sears Photocenter I don't think would be necessary.
But for these services, they'd have to be subsidized by something (most likely taxes). I'm very much in a similar boat on Breotan with this though, I wouldn't mind paying an extra dollar to offset costs.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You're objecting to paying "one red cent" for ID, but you don't think that it follows to ask if providing ID free is a bad idea? You're right, that follows in no way, shape, or form.....
Tsk tsk. You weren't asking a sincere question. It was just rhetorical. How do I know? You provided the answer:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So free ID is now a bad thing? Glad to hear that you aren't in favour of gun licenses, taxes, and other fees and other oversight or inconveniences to that Constitutional right at least
That doesn't follow from what I posted.
I was being sincere. The fact that I then tied it to another Constitutional right that does have ID requirements (thus showing a precedent for ID requirements on Constitutional rights) does not make it any less so..... unless you can't/won't address the point and are trying to obfuscate.
So to avoid anymore confusion on your part I'll sever the two points, and to prevent allegations of non-sequiturs - is providing free ID a bad thing?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And those documents for proof of ID are also provided free initially too, so unless you've lost them etc. there is no financial burden.
Why this is false has been explained to you many, many times. In fact, Alf did so in the post to which you are responding.
You mean where Alf addressed my points, and I provided a counter argument that you ignored? Still, if all else fails try and claim that I'm arguing in bad faith
Kanluwen wrote: Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.
This is Frazzled we're talking about. He's just here to post the dachshund pics, Kan.
"Get offa my lawn!"
Belittling others is beautifully polite, especially for a Mod.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: The 'easiest' way for people to accomplish these free photos IDs is by going to the DMV or the USPS branch offices. Both of these places do photos for IDs already (DMV for driver's license and USPS branch office for passport). So you wouldn't have to pay to get your photo id at such a place, but those places already have you pay for the rest of the ID. But a 10 dollar headshot from the Sears Photocenter I don't think would be necessary.
BMVs in Indiana provide free ID on request, but it is either a free ID or a driver's license - you cannot carry both.
Dreadclaw, you asked a plainly rhetorical question and then pretended it was sincere. Really, really weak. But we can go with it, sure:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So to avoid anymore confusion on your part I'll sever the two points, and to prevent allegations of non-sequiturs - is providing free ID a bad thing?
Not at all -- unless this "free" ID is being provided to create cover for unnecessary Voter ID laws.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You mean where Alf addressed my points, and I provided a counter argument that you ignored?
No, I meant where Alf made a point and you disregarded it. That's not a counterargument.
Why would anyone wait in huge lines, fill out redundant paperwork and waste time that could otherwise be spent watching Television or sleeping just to take a single meaningless vote away from the guy they don't like?
Alfndrate wrote: The 'easiest' way for people to accomplish these free photos IDs is by going to the DMV or the USPS branch offices. Both of these places do photos for IDs already (DMV for driver's license and USPS branch office for passport). So you wouldn't have to pay to get your photo id at such a place, but those places already have you pay for the rest of the ID. But a 10 dollar headshot from the Sears Photocenter I don't think would be necessary.
BMVs in Indiana provide free ID on request, but it is either a free ID or a driver's license - you cannot carry both.
But that is on a state by state basis, some states don't have them, and like I said earlier in the thread states that have photo ID laws for voting purposes must provide a free way to get such an ID because if you were to pay for it that would be a poll tax (which is bad, mkay?). To vote, your state requires a piece of identification that has 1) your photo 2) a name that conforms to the name on your voter registration (so if your name was Robert John Crew, it could be any number of variations of that name) 3) Cannot be expired, or expired sometime after the last general election 4) Issued by the State of Indian or the US Government.
yes your BMVs can and will provide free IDs for voting purposes, though the documentation on such things are a little unclear. The site says It seems that you need to use the same documentation to obtain a driver's license, which can be found here. And a lot of these documents had to be paid for at some point or another. Especially the 1st form of documentation you have to provide.
Spoiler:
Unexpired U.S. Passport or Passport Card.* Original or certified copy of a birth certificate filed with a U.S. state or territory office of vital statistics or equivalent agency in your state of birth.* Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) issued by U.S. Department of State: Forms FS-240, DS-1350, or FS-545.* Certificate of Citizenship: Forms N-560 or N-561.* Certificate of Naturalization issued by DHS: Forms N-550 or N-570.* Unexpired Permanent Resident Card: Form I-551.* Unexpired foreign passport in your name with English subtitles or translation, with an unexpired U.S. Visa and an approved I-94. Unexpired foreign passport without a U.S. Visa if your authorized admittance and lawful status can be verified by DHS.* Unexpired Employment Authorization Card: Form I-766. Unexpired Indiana SecureID credential. Other documentation as determined by DHS or the BMV Commissioner.
The only thing that could be used is if you have an original US birth certificate, but hell I've never had a kid so idk if the parents have that added to their hospital costs. D, you just had a younin' did you have to pay for the lil one's birth certificate?
Forar wrote: So the running gag that the DMV in the US counts as the ninth circle of hell is untrue?
Because that's what I've been led to believe.
No it still is, but if you go early enough in the morning it's merely purgatory.
Manchu wrote: Dreadclaw, you asked a plainly rhetorical question and then pretended it was sincere. Really, really weak. But we can go with it, sure:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So to avoid anymore confusion on your part I'll sever the two points, and to prevent allegations of non-sequiturs - is providing free ID a bad thing?
Not at all -- unless this "free" ID is being provided to create cover for unnecessary Voter ID laws.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You mean where Alf addressed my points, and I provided a counter argument that you ignored?
No, I meant where Alf made a point and you disregarded it. That's not a counterargument.
Arguing bad faith again Manchu when I stated that none was intended, and I attempted to clarify? Between belittling other community members who disagree with you, and casting aspersions on others who also disagree with you it almost looks like you're trying to bait for a reaction than engage in honest debate. Not the conduct I would expect of any community member, much less a moderator.
Are voting laws unnecessary in the Democrat states listed above? Are voting laws unnecessary in Georgia where the turn out of minorities increased? Are voting laws so unnecessary that there is a long list of countries that do have them, and that the US implement voter ID in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I disregarded no point of Alf's. He mentioned the cost of the documents, of getting time off work, of the hours of opening. I addressed all those points. You may not like the answer that was given, but that isn't the same as disregarding it
Alfndrate wrote: But that is on a state by state basis, some states don't have them, and like I said earlier in the thread states that have photo ID laws for voting purposes must provide a free way to get such an ID because if you were to pay for it that would be a poll tax (which is bad, mkay?). To vote, your state requires a piece of identification that has 1) your photo 2) a name that conforms to the name on your voter registration (so if your name was Robert John Crew, it could be any number of variations of that name) 3) Cannot be expired, or expired sometime after the last general election 4) Issued by the State of Indian or the US Government.
yes your BMVs can and will provide free IDs for voting purposes, though the documentation on such things are a little unclear. The site says It seems that you need to use the same documentation to obtain a driver's license, which can be found here.
And North Carolina, and many others that require ID to vote, do so free of charge. And they are absolutely right to provide them free of charge. I am not now, or have I ever said that people should be charged for ID to vote with. In fact that's what Frazz's opening post concerns - the ID being provided free.
And those documents are the ones that the government also initially provides free to natural born citizens - like the birth certificate, social security card, etc. And I don't think that it is a massive deal that your details have to match given that you have to do that on every government form that exists already
Forar wrote: So the running gag that the DMV in the US counts as the ninth circle of hell is untrue?
Because that's what I've been led to believe.
No its the 8th circle of hell. The 9th cicle of hell is the local county tax office. Texas thought about sending prisoners there. Instead of years you had so many forms you had to satisfactorily get submitted. SCOTUS ruled its more humane to kill them...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Not the conduct I would expect of any community member, much less a moderator.
This reads as pure hypocrisy after you just pissed on my shoe and told me it was raining. I think you better stick to your points.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Are voting laws unnecessary in the Democrat states listed above?
Yes.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Are voting laws unnecessary in Georgia where the turn out of minorities increased?
Yes.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Are voting laws so unnecessary that there is a long list of countries that do have them, and that the US implement voter ID in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I don't care what other countries are up to. I should also note that I'm assuming by "voting laws" you mean Voter ID laws.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I disregarded no point of Alf's. He mentioned the cost of the documents, of getting time off work, of the hours of opening. I addressed all those points.
Sure you addressed them -- by disregarding them. Alf said there are costs; you said the costs were negligible or disingenuous. If you really want to state that as a counterargument, it boils down to "free IDs are free because they are free IDs."
The article is a little... weird. The title of it says voter id laws are targeting democratic voters, but the quotes say they want to quash early voting.
I too am okay with early voting, not everyone can make it to the polls on Election Tuesday. But I also remember D's post in the NC thread, it is telling, though I'm still not for no identification at the polls, but I won't get into it since I've stated it before.
It is evidence of a specific Republican party policy to put restrictions on voting in order to try and disenfranchise Democratic leaning voters.
As such it relates to the Voter ID issue though not being specifically about it.
That 93% of African Americans voted for Obama statistic still blows my mind.
I think everyone should have an ID, and if it cost me an extra buck on my license plates or my own ID to do so, It wouldn't bother me a bit.
As to the birth cert/SS --> I wonder if all the problems my wife had were due to us requesting them from a different state? She had a lot of problems getting hers replaced.
This reads as pure hypocrisy after you just pissed on my shoe and told me it was raining. I think you better stick to your points.
It's true what they say, a thread is never really off-topic without Frazzled.
You know this is like saying the devil's name three times right?
TBone has indeed peed on my shoe and looked up at me while doing it when he was displeased. He also did that to the Boy. Mean little dog...
(OT but his latest blood test came back, absolutely normal. Although his heart's going to get him shortly and he's given up any pretense not being in full stage dementia, he appears to be wailing on the C pretty good. Wow)
Georgia’s experience with minority voters also directly refutes the claims that voter ID laws somehow prevent racial minorities from voting. Keep in mind that Georgia’s photo ID requirement was not in place in the 2004 presidential election or the 2006 mid-term congressional elections. The law was first effective in the 2008 presidential election and the 2010 congressional elections, although Georgia has actually had at least 40 state and federal elections since September 2007 when the law became effective, not including municipal and county elections. More than 15 million votes have been cast in those elections. According to the Secretary of State, the turnout of black and Hispanic voters has been as follows: Latino Percentage Increase 140% Black Percentage Increase 42% White Percentage Increase 8% ... ... .
The interesting thing about that article is that it doesn't offer a shred of evidence about reduction of voting fraud, which is the purpose of voter ID.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And North Carolina, and many others that require ID to vote, do so free of charge. And they are absolutely right to provide them free of charge. I am not now, or have I ever said that people should be charged for ID to vote with. In fact that's what Frazz's opening post concerns - the ID being provided free.
My point is that the free ID has some cost associated with it somewhere.
And those documents are the ones that the government also initially provides free to natural born citizens - like the birth certificate, social security card, etc. And I don't think that it is a massive deal that your details have to match given that you have to do that on every government form that exists already
I don't disagree that the details on these documents have to match.
I'm for voters having to show proof they are who they are insomuch as to protect the everyone gets 1 vote to balance out the register at the polling place. I don't believe voter fraud is as big of an issue as republicans believe it is. I feel that voting areas should have early voting so that people can vote when they are available to do so as some people are not available to vote on Election Tuesday (as I've stated several times in this thread). What I am against is bills that restrict people by knocking the number of available documents is restricting people's rights to vote. I've also said that I'd be for removing all ID at the polling place if we switched to an indelible ink system. I'm all for free IDs if states wish to pursue that as is their right to pursue, I'm just saying that "free IDs" aren't exactly free. Those costs have to be paid somewhere. Either with having to pay for another identifying document or through taxes, and missing work to get an ID is a lot more costly to some people than one would think. Sure some of us have Paid Time Off and we're not really 'missing' anything, but many people, especially the people that would benefit the most from a free voter ID, tend to work at crappy jobs that have a "you work, you get paid" mentality. Some of those places even go so far as, "you don't show up, you no longer work here."
Kilkrazy wrote: It is evidence of a specific Republican party policy to put restrictions on voting in order to try and disenfranchise Democratic leaning voters.
As such it relates to the Voter ID issue though not being specifically about it.
That I will agree with, and chalk it up to just piss poor titling on the part of the editor/author something like, "Republicans admit voting laws meant to disenfranchise Dem. voters" instead of what it currently is.
Also: I'm trying to find out if birth certificates for your children are free when they're born. I can't seem to nail down an answer.
d-usa wrote: I had a good write-up in the NC thread that showed the voting patterns of every single group impacted by the changes that were made to their voting laws. It was pretty telling.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.
-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote (56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
Yeah, and I've seen it argued that it's bad because it makes it hard for old people to get their ID's, so now it's bad because old people don't need to get new ID's?
-Making it hard for young people to vote: Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama) I would like to find a copy of the actual bill before anymore judgement is passed on this. Michigan doesn't allow pre-registration either, but it still allows for those who turn 18 by the date of the election to register 30 days before hand.
-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats -Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%) Cost saving measure, as explained. Voter turn out, even with early voting, was significantly lower then several previous elections, so in days of tight budgets it tends to make sense, but hey tightening the belt is another way of targetting people who usually vote dem anyways, right? The same amount of time is allowed for early voting, it is just offered in a shorter period of time, freeing up more resources.
-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans -Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama) See above
-Making it harder for poor people to vote -Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama) Your no free ID thing is BS. State Photo ID (not drivers license, and still acceptable under the law) is free, and will remain free.
-Eliminated Straight Party Voting (55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats) God forbid people have to put a few extra check marks down. If their to lazy to do this, then they aren't going to put in the effort to vote anyways.
-Left absentee voting intact. (66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney) And? How else are folks who are in military supposed to vote?
But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.
And in the time since that was originally posted your red text still doesn't do anything to actually counter the facts: Every single issue in that bill either benefits republican voters, or hurts democratic voters.
Breotan wrote: I keep seeing people make this type of statement. The problem is that there is a complete and total lack of evidence that voter ID would result in increased republican votes or decreased democrat votes. Basically you have one side saying, "we want to stop the nonexistent fraud" and the other side saying "you want to stop us, whom you are unable to specifically target with this law, from voting." Both sides are demagoging here.
Context matters. The context of the ID law in NC is that the republican party recently gained control of the state government and has been passing a series of laws to keep that control. Cuts to early voting (early voters lean democrat), blatant gerrymandering, etc. So which is the more likely explanation:
That the ID law is a good-faith attempt to stop fraud, and it's purely a coincidence that it was included in the same "reforms" as all of the suppression and gerrymandering.
or
That the ID law is just another part of the "protect Art Pope's investment" strategy.
(If you're at all familiar with NC politics the answer is pretty obvious.)
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Not the conduct I would expect of any community member, much less a moderator.
This reads as pure hypocrisy after you just pissed on my shoe and told me it was raining. I think you better stick to your points.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Are voting laws unnecessary in the Democrat states listed above?
Yes.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Are voting laws unnecessary in Georgia where the turn out of minorities increased?
Yes.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Are voting laws so unnecessary that there is a long list of countries that do have them, and that the US implement voter ID in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I don't care what other countries are up to. I should also note that I'm assuming by "voting laws" you mean Voter ID laws.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I disregarded no point of Alf's. He mentioned the cost of the documents, of getting time off work, of the hours of opening. I addressed all those points.
Sure you addressed them -- by disregarding them. Alf said there are costs; you said the costs were negligible or disingenuous. If you really want to state that as a counterargument, it boils down to "free IDs are free because they are free IDs."
So free IDs are not being provided free? So the documents needed for these free IDs are also not being provided free, and there is only a charge if you have been negligent in your handling of them? The point was not ignored, nor disregarded. It was quite clearly addressed. If you are worried about the cost to the State then that is part of the functions of the State, so it falls under it's purview. If you're complaining that someone has to make a trip to the BMV then I have no sympathy for that argument - it's like claiming that there is a poll tax because you have to travel to vote The point is that these IDs are still being provided free to the public.
You seem quite content to rail against an un-American, unconstitutional interference in this individual right - while ignoring that other constitutional rights have much more interference (firearms), and that Democrat majority States also have ID laws. So please keep tilting at windmills Don Quixote
You seem quite content to rail against an un-American, unconstitutional interference in this individual right - while ignoring that other constitutional rights have much more interference (firearms), and that Democrat majority States also have ID laws. So please keep tilting at windmills Don Quixote
Manchu already argued that a person opposed to firearm permits should be opposed to voter identification.
Seaward wrote: I'm pretty sure I've seen Manchu argue for basic gun control before, though, is the problem.
It isn't a problem if you read what he actually writes, and not just parts of it. Background checks helps curtail a great number of problems and is seen as a necessary intrusion by almost everyone, including the majority of gun owners whereas the Voter ID laws don't meet either of those requirements ie it is neither necessary nor is it curtailing any serious issues. Total freedom from government intrusion was never argued, just that we should be critical of it, and only do it when there is a compelling public interest.
That requires showing there is no compelling government interest in preventing fraudulent voting, which, so far, I don't believe anyone's accomplished.
Seaward wrote: That requires showing there is no compelling government interest in preventing fraudulent voting, which, so far, I don't believe anyone's accomplished.
Of course the government has a compelling interest in preventing fraudulent voting. The problem is that nobody has provided a compelling reason to believe that the new ID laws will make any meaningful difference in stopping fraud, or that a fraud problem (of the specific type that could be prevented) even exists at all. The government loses its compelling interest when the only reason for a new "fraud prevention" law is that Art Pope thinks it will protect his investment.
Contrast this with gun laws, where there is a credible argument that certain laws (though not all of them) restricting gun ownership do accomplish a legitimate government objective.
Seaward wrote: That requires showing there is no compelling government interest in preventing fraudulent voting, which, so far, I don't believe anyone's accomplished.
No, the argument is whether there is sufficient evidence of fraudulent voting to create a compelling case for public interest in counter-measures.
The burden of proof in the argument lies with you, and you have failed to produce evidence, so now you are trying to change the terms of the argument.
No-one supports fraudulent voting. If you want to gain wider support for your ideas you will need to do the following:
Prove widespread fraudulent voting, and also the following points:
That the proposed voter ID will be an effective counter measure.
That it will be more effective than other possible counter-measures, such as better training of polling staff.
That it can be brought in without laying unfair burdens on the citizens.
That it isn't linked to other unnecessary voting law changes designed to bias the voting pattern. (Each of those other changes is likely to occasion a long debate.)
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one supports fraudulent voting. If you want to gain wider support for your ideas you will need to do the following:
Prove widespread fraudulent voting, and also the following points:
That the proposed voter ID will be an effective counter measure.
That it will be more effective than other possible counter-measures, such as better training of polling staff.
That it can be brought in without laying unfair burdens on the citizens.
That it isn't linked to other unnecessary voting law changes designed to bias the voting pattern. (Each of those other changes is likely to occasion a long debate.)
Why, pray tell? That's certainly not the method in which those in favor of more gun laws go about proposing them. If this whole argument is based on the similarities between the two examples of restricted/potentially restricted rights, why must one side play by rules that the other doesn't have to?
Seaward wrote: Why, pray tell? That's certainly not the method in which those in favor of more gun laws go about proposing them. If this whole argument is based on the similarities between the two examples of restricted/potentially restricted rights, why must one side play by rules that the other doesn't have to?
I thought "but he did it too!!!!" stops being a valid excuse when you're a small child? The fact that some people advocate stupid gun laws for stupid reasons doesn't have anything to do with this issue, and you don't get to dismiss arguments based on what some imaginary "side" is doing about something else.
Peregrine wrote: I thought "but he did it too!!!!" stops being a valid excuse when you're a small child? The fact that some people advocate stupid gun laws for stupid reasons doesn't have anything to do with this issue, and you don't get to dismiss arguments based on what some imaginary "side" is doing about something else.
It does, actually, have something to do with this issue when someone starts claiming that anyone in favor of the Second Amendment needs to stand against voter ID laws for the same reason they stand against restrictive gun control.
That's something I actually believe, by the way, which is why I said I'm not in favor of voter ID laws a few pages ago. That does not, however, mean that blatant hypocrisy shouldn't be called out.
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one supports fraudulent voting. If you want to gain wider support for your ideas you will need to do the following:
Prove widespread fraudulent voting, and also the following points:
That the proposed voter ID will be an effective counter measure.
That it will be more effective than other possible counter-measures, such as better training of polling staff.
That it can be brought in without laying unfair burdens on the citizens.
That it isn't linked to other unnecessary voting law changes designed to bias the voting pattern. (Each of those other changes is likely to occasion a long debate.)
Why, pray tell? That's certainly not the method in which those in favor of more gun laws go about proposing them. If this whole argument is based on the similarities between the two examples of restricted/potentially restricted rights, why must one side play by rules that the other doesn't have to?
It isn't based on that either.
It is based on the fact that there isn't any significant fraudulent voting, so any measures designed to stop it are pointless (except for possible ulterior motive.)
Every time you try to shift the debate away from that fact, you make your argument look weaker.
It is based on the fact that there isn't any significant fraudulent voting, so any measures designed to stop it are pointless (except for possible ulterior motive.)
Every time you try to shift the debate away from that fact, you make your argument look weaker.
My argument has nothing to do with actual approval of voter ID laws, as I've said several times I don't approve of them. It has everything to do with curiosity as to why you appear to feel that only some rights deserve such strict scrutiny of laws arrayed against them, while you're fine with hand-waving others.
Because the consequences of some actions or procedures are greater than others.
Nuclear reactor construction, new medicines, guns, and voting are all regulated.
Nuclear reactor goes bang == massive ecological disaster.
Medicine turns out to be poisonous == thousands of people damaged.
Guns misused == a few people killed or injured.
Someone votes fraudulently == an almost negligible effect.
Kilkrazy wrote: Because the consequences of some actions or procedures are greater than others.
Which is why we accept certain levels of restriction. I believe you yourself, however - and correct me if I'm wrong, by all means - have hopped on the bandwagon for things like "assault weapon" bans, magazine capacity limits, and so on, without any of those meeting similar criteria as your requirements for voting "restrictions."
I'm just curious why you endorse further restrictions on certain rights despite no evidence that they will be effective countermeasures, no evidence they will be more effective than other possible countermeasures, no proof that they do not lay unfair burdens on the citizens, and so forth. Isn't it a double standard?
It is. As with most threads, there are sidebars. I'll take it you don't particularly want to answer the question that was asked, though, which I suppose is an answer in and of itself.
So I'll pose another one: many of the proposed restrictions/"enhancements" to gun sale security are touted as extremely minor-to-non-existent inconveniences for citizens, yet already they're significantly more time/cost-intensive than proposed voter ID laws. I'm curious how two forms of ID, a NICS form, and a waiting period can be no burden on the one hand, yet a single form of ID can be considered unbearable on the other?
Kilkrazy wrote: As with most threads, people try to divert the argument when it goes against them.
My personal view on gun control has no relevance to the point that there is no significant voter fraud in the USA.
And I'd counter by saying that assault weapons play an insignificant role in gun crime in the US, yet despite that insignificance, you're in favor of intense safeguards with one, but not the other. Your ideology is inconsistent.
Your attempted use of an ad hominem argument is another admission that your core argument is weak.
I swear I'm going to have to define 'ad hominem' for you guys one of these days, unless you're just using a little Manchu method here and laying down smoke to cover the retreat. In lieu of that for the moment, though, I'll repeat my question, if only to see what the dodge is this time:
Many of the proposed restrictions/"enhancements" to gun sale security are touted as extremely minor-to-non-existent inconveniences for citizens, yet already they're significantly more time/cost-intensive than proposed voter ID laws. I'm curious how two forms of ID, a NICS form, and a waiting period can be no burden on the one hand, yet a single form of ID can be considered unbearable on the other?
Seaward wrote: Many of the proposed restrictions/"enhancements" to gun sale security are touted as extremely minor-to-non-existent inconveniences for citizens, yet already they're significantly more time/cost-intensive than proposed voter ID laws. I'm curious how two forms of ID, a NICS form, and a waiting period can be no burden on the one hand, yet a single form of ID can be considered unbearable on the other?
Because it's not about the burden in an absolute sense, it's about the ratio of burden to effectiveness in accomplishing a legitimate purpose. Requiring a background check to buy a gun is fine because there's a reasonable argument that the benefits justify the cost. Requiring a specific form of ID to vote is not fine because there is no reasonable argument that it will do anything (or is even intended to do anything) besides skew the election results in favor of a particular party. When the only argument in favor of something is "Art Pope paid a lot of money for those seats" then even trivial inconveniences are unacceptable.
(And no, I'm not going to defend things like banning "assault weapons" because those ideas are obviously stupid.)
Kilkrazy wrote: As with most threads, people try to divert the argument when it goes against them.
My personal view on gun control has no relevance to the point that there is no significant voter fraud in the USA.
And I'd counter by saying that assault weapons play an insignificant role in gun crime in the US, yet despite that insignificance, you're in favor of intense safeguards with one, but not the other. Your ideology is inconsistent.
Your attempted use of an ad hominem argument is another admission that your core argument is weak.
I swear I'm going to have to define 'ad hominem' for you guys one of these days, unless you're just using a little Manchu method here and laying down smoke to cover the retreat. In lieu of that for the moment, though, I'll repeat my question, if only to see what the dodge is this time:
Many of the proposed restrictions/"enhancements" to gun sale security are touted as extremely minor-to-non-existent inconveniences for citizens, yet already they're significantly more time/cost-intensive than proposed voter ID laws. I'm curious how two forms of ID, a NICS form, and a waiting period can be no burden on the one hand, yet a single form of ID can be considered unbearable on the other?
You have drawn a false equivalency between voting and gun crime, then you have accused me of hypocrisy, and used that as an argument that voting ID is OK.
It's a pile of fallacies and bs. You still can't show that there is a need for voter ID legislation.
In addition to admitting that the SC voter ID laws only exist to keep Democrats from voting, it was also filled with wonderful statements by the GOP chair like "I have a black friend", "they can n****r and we can't" and "If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it".
(CNN) - The GOP precinct chair of Buncombe County in North Carolina resigned Thursday after the state's Republican Party called for his resignation over a racially-charged interview on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."
In the interview, Don Yelten made racially charged remarks and said North Carolina's new voter ID laws will "kick the Democrats in the butt."
Yelton stepped down from his post in an interview on Asheville radio station WWNC.
“I resign my position as precinct chair. Gladly. I'll give it up. To heck with it, I don't want to be part of a group that is that mealy-mouthed and that gutless,” he said.
It all began when Yelton's interview on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" aired Wednesday night. The satirical news show did a segment on North Carolina's new voter ID requirements that Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law in August.
"The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt," Yelton said. "If it hurts a bunch of college kids too lazy to get up off their bohonkas and go get a photo ID, so be it. If it hurts the whites, so be it."
"If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it," he added.
While Yelton said in the interview he's "been called a bigot before," he argued in his defense that one of his best friends is black.
North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Claude Pope swiftly called for Yelton's resignation.
"The North Carolina Republican Party finds the comments made by Mr. Yelton to be completely inappropriate and highly offensive," Pope said in a statement, adding that Yelton "does not speak for either the Buncombe County Republican Party or the North Carolina Republican Party."
Yelton told CNN affiliate WLOS on Thursday that he stands by his comments and brushed off any criticism.
"We can't avoid these issues. We need to bring them up and talk about them," he added.
On the radio show, Yelton went on to blast political correctness and reject the idea that he was hurting his party’s efforts at appealing to a wider audience or misrepresenting the GOP’s reasons for backing voter ID laws.
“They're a bunch of chickens,” he said, referring to Republicans who disagree with his approach. “I'm embarrassed for the fact that they don't stand up and fight for what's right.”
Yelton said he doesn’t regret any of the statements he made on the “Daily Show” and adamantly contended he was not a racist.
“I am not racist, never have been, and the ability of the local people and the media and the outlets to twist this into a racist issue shows exactly how willing the people are to be taken advantage of,” he said.
CNN reached out to Yelton Friday morning, but he did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In September, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit to block parts of the new North Carolina law, which requires voters to have a photo ID, shortens early voting, eliminates same-day voter registration during early voting and restricts the counting of some provisional ballots.
This summer the Supreme Court struck down a Voting Rights Act requirement for North Carolina and other states with a history of discrimination to get permission from the Justice Department or a federal judge before enacting voting law changes.
The high court's decision gave the states the green light to proceed with voter ID laws, which critics say disproportionately affect minorities, while opponents say the regulations prevent voter fraud.
The point is that these 
