221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/un-delves-into-us-voter-id-laws/
Politics
UN rights council delves into US voter I.D. laws
By Eric Shawn
The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.
Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.
Eight states have passed voter ID laws in the past year, voter ID proposals are pending in 32 states and the Obama administration has recently moved to block South Carolina and Texas from enacting their voter ID measures.
"This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy," said Hillary Shelton, the NAACP's senior vice president for advocacy, about voter photo ID requirements.
In a Fox News interview prior to his trip, Shelton said the message from the NAACP delegation to the Human Rights Council is that the photo ID law "undercuts the integrity of our government, if you allow it to happen. It's trickery, it's a sleight-of-hand. We're seeing it happen here and we don't want it to happen to you, and we are utilizing the U.N. as a tool to make sure that we are able to share that with those countries all over the world."
The United Nations has no legal jurisdiction over the American electoral system, which Shelton acknowledges. Asked whether he thinks that the U.N. should be involved in domestic American laws, he answered, "No, not specifically. The U.N. should certainly be involved in sharing a best practice for the world."
"We're the greatest country on the face of the earth, but we can be better still," he said.
The NAACP had scheduled two American citizens to present their claims at the U.N. panel who, the group says, worry they will be disenfranchised by the requirement to present a photo ID to vote. The civil rights group says one, Kemba Smith Pradia, was convicted of a drug-related offense and is concerned that if she moves back to Virginia from the Midwest, state law will block her voting because of her record, even though she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton.
A second American, Austin Alex, is a Texas Christian University student. The NAACP says he is worried that he will be barred from voting because he only holds an out-of-state driver's license and a non-government student ID, not a Texas issued photo ID.
But supporters of photo ID requirements argue that states provide such identifications for free, and in some cases, voters can cast provisional or absentee ballots that do not even require a photo ID. The NAACP disputes those claims.
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court upheld the voter photo ID law enacted in Indiana.
The U.N. Human Rights Council members include communist China and Cuba. In addition, several Arab nations are on the council that have only granted the right to vote to women in recent years, such as Kuwait in 2005 and Qatar in 2003. Women in the Republic of Moldova have had the right to vote for less than 20 years.
Council member Saudi Arabia announced six months ago that women will be granted the right to vote, but that change does not go into effect until 2015.
"The idea that this is a human rights abuse is ridiculous," said Hans von Spakovsky, a voter fraud expert and senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, in Washington, D.C.
"The UN allowing this to take place under their roof makes them, unfortunately, complicit in what really is a publicity stunt by the NAACP, and I think it wastes their time, when they should be going after real and sustained human rights abuses like the things going on in horrible places, like North Korea."
Spakovsky, who supports voter photo ID laws, says it is a hypocritical and meaningless waste of time to present a case against American electoral laws at the UN forum.
"I think the leadership of the NAACP is, quite frankly, doing a disservice to American citizens and the democracy that we have here, by going abroad to the Human Rights Council, which is filled with dictatorships and other countries that actually and really abuse human rights."
He called the council's weighing of U.S. laws "an insult to the United States that the NAACP thinks we should be getting advice from those kinds of countries, which are not democracies, on how to administer elections in this country.”
But Shelton argues that the NAACP's presence at the Geneva conference can teach other nations how to improve their electoral systems.
"We can learn a lot from those who haven't gone through as much as we have," he said.
"Everyone has a different struggle, but there's lessons to learn from whoever we come across ... but there's also some things I think we can still help teach the rest of the world."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/un-delves-into-us-voter-id-laws/#ixzz1p7dl9IeL
34168
Post by: Amaya
Someone get a double facepalm in here asap!
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
On one hand the idea of Saudi Arabia lecturing the US on how to hold fair elections is ridiculous, on the other this would be a perfect chance for the US to argue their side of the story.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Here's and Idea UN: feth off. And while we're at if GTFO out of our country. Find another country to base your headquarters in. Maybe one of those bastions of freedom in Africa will take you.
32482
Post by: Lord Solar Awesome
Yeah... The U.N is pretty much a joke.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I saw this a while ago. The argument is that its a racially motivated law because 25% of black people don't have IDs.
Let me highlight that 25% of black people dont have ID's!!!!
WTF. How do you do anything in the US without an ID? GO get an ID lazy.
Now some argue that some blacks were born in the US where they could not legally get birth certificates. I understand this and programs can be put in place but really that has to be at the most 1% of the black population, what is with the other 24%?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Andrew1975 wrote:I saw this a while ago. The argument is that its a racially motivated law because 25% of black people don't have IDs.
Let me highlight that 25% of black people dont have ID's!!!!
WTF. How do you do anything in the US without an ID? GO get an ID lazy.
Now some argue that some blacks were born in the US where they could not legally get birth certificates. I understand this and programs can be put in place but really that has to be at the most 1% of the black population, what is with the other 24%?
Can you link to an article becuase I can't believe that is right. You sure it wasn't 25% don't have a Driver's License? Or maybe it was taking into account all ages and thus included children who wouldn't have an ID yet. One quarter of the African-American population just doesn't sound right at all.
Edit. Found it. There were a few stemming from one article but I couldn't find a reputable source to back up the claim in the articles. They just sort of say it and hope that no one asks where the number came from I guess.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Ahtman wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:I saw this a while ago. The argument is that its a racially motivated law because 25% of black people don't have IDs.
Let me highlight that 25% of black people dont have ID's!!!!
WTF. How do you do anything in the US without an ID? GO get an ID lazy.
Now some argue that some blacks were born in the US where they could not legally get birth certificates. I understand this and programs can be put in place but really that has to be at the most 1% of the black population, what is with the other 24%?
Can you link to an article becuase I can't believe that is right. You sure it wasn't 25% don't have a Driver's License? Or maybe it was taking into account all ages and thus included children who wouldn't have an ID yet. One quarter of the African-American population just doesn't sound right at all.
I found the number ridiculous too. I don't remember where I saw it but here is a link I just found by googling http://www.theroot.com/buzz/25-percent-blacks-dont-have-id-voting-0
here were a few stemming from one article but I couldn't find a reputable source to back up the claim in the articles. They just sort of say it and hope that no one asks where the number came from I guess.
http://www.yourblackworld.com/2011/10/24/25-percent-of-african-americans-lack-one-small-thing-that-could-affect-the-2012-election/
Well right in this article is says
To vote in the 2012 election you must have a ‘ government-issued photo id.’ Fifteen percent of Americans don’t have one and the number of African Americans without an id is closer to 30 percent, according to the Brennan Center For Justice.
304
Post by: Archaeo
This is from my local paper a few weeks ago.
"The biggest discrepancy is in Humphreys County, which has 9,243 registered voters but only 6,673 residents who are 18 or older.
16 of 82 Miss counties have inflated voter rolls "
This is looking to get sorted out now so hopefully it will not happen again. The officials in the State should have done something about this years ago, but for whatever reason have not. Most of the 16 counties that they listed have higher minority populations, but not all (one is 75% white but REALLY rural). Humphreys County listed above is at least 74% minority. Voter ID's would go a long way in fixing the problem of fraud though not totally fix it.
22051
Post by: Barksdale
The UN. Dollars well spent...
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Can someone get a source besides Faux News? That article is pretty dang biased.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
If you're to lazy to get an ID then you don't deserve to vote.
Sorry but for gods sake it's $10 in California for state ID. I'm not sure how much one in Minnesota costs but seriously, if it's not worth it to you to vote and have a proper ID then that's your issue. Not mine.
32410
Post by: Azure
Does it really matter anyhow? Electoral college is what really decides who gets voted in, even if the popular vote is against it. Happened three times already
32955
Post by: Coolyo294
Hulksmash wrote:If you're to lazy to get an ID then you don't deserve to vote.
Sorry but for gods sake it's $10 in California for state ID. I'm not sure how much one in Minnesota costs but seriously, if it's not worth it to you to vote and have a proper ID then that's your issue. Not mine.
Despite the fact that he is from Minnetonka, I'm inclined to agree with Hulksmash.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Azure wrote:Does it really matter anyhow? Electoral college is what really decides who gets voted in, even if the popular vote is against it. Happened three times already
It's the magic electoral college that is in no way related to the popular vote of the states the electors come from.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I found that same article but when I went to the Brennan Center for Justice i was not able to find any specific study that showed that 25% of African-Americans don't have ID. I only found a few websties that carried the story. None of them reference a specific study, just the BCfJ. Now they have a lot of articles and statistics about Voter ID so it may be buried in there. It seems more likely though that it is supposed to be that only 25% of all African Americans in states with certain strict Voter ID laws or legislation in consideration. You may have an ID but an old one that doesn't have a picture, or it may have a picture but not updated address. I did find this though.
The impact of ID requirements is even greater for the elderly, students, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people of color. Thirty-six percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a driver’s license. Fewer than 3 percent of Wisconsin students have driver’s licenses listing their current address. The same study found that African Americans have driver’s licenses at half the rate of whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. Not only are minority voters less likely to possess photo ID, but they are also more likely than white voters to be selectively asked for ID at the polls. For example, in New York City, which has no ID requirement, a study showed that poll workers illegally asked one in six Asian Americans for ID at the polls, while white voters were permitted to vote without showing ID.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Ahtman wrote:I found that same article but when I went to the Brennan Center for Justice i was not able to find any specific study that showed that 25% of African-Americans don't have ID. I only found a few websties that carried the story. None of them reference a specific study, just the BCfJ. Now they have a lot of articles and statistics about Voter ID so it may be buried in there. It seems more likely though that it is supposed to be that only 25% of all African Americans in states with certain strict Voter ID laws or legislation in consideration. You may have an ID but an old one that doesn't have a picture, or it may have a picture but not updated address. I did find this though.
The impact of ID requirements is even greater for the elderly, students, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people of color. Thirty-six percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a driver’s license. Fewer than 3 percent of Wisconsin students have driver’s licenses listing their current address. The same study found that African Americans have driver’s licenses at half the rate of whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. Not only are minority voters less likely to possess photo ID, but they are also more likely than white voters to be selectively asked for ID at the polls. For example, in New York City, which has no ID requirement, a study showed that poll workers illegally asked one in six Asian Americans for ID at the polls, while white voters were permitted to vote without showing ID.
Does the ID really even need to be valid? I don't think they are gonna check to see if your license as been suspended, just that you have one. In many states a basic state ID is free if you are low income.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
The bit Ahtman quoted demonstrates two things.
1. That there are significant numbers of people entitled to vote who don't normally walk around with the kind of ID required by many of these new laws. Particularly the elderly, out of state college students, and poor people, particularly minorities.
2. That in practice polling officials do ask racial minorities for ID more often, thus creating a bit of a race barrier at the polls.
This whole voter ID thing is dumb. It's not as if there's a significant amount of voter fraud anyway. I like being able to walk into my neighborhood polling station and give my name. Does anyone else remember what Heinlein wrote in Time Enough For Love about how when a society gets to the point where you need to carry photo ID at all times, you can tell that society is getting choked with beauracracy and it's getting to me time to move somewhere else?
55076
Post by: Poppabear
Well actually. The U.N is not a joke, there the only damn thing keeping the states in check from going completely hape on the world. Well, that and China ;D.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Poppabear wrote:Well actually. The U.N is not a joke, there the only damn thing keeping the states in check from going completely hape on the world. Well, that and China ;D.
At first in the "world without America" thread I thought you were just silly, now I see you have a case of "Amurika Badd Derp." Must be something in the water.
37597
Post by: sparkywtf
Since it is kinda related, how many out of state college students really vote in the state they go to school?
I am sick of being asked if I want to register to vote in Wisconsin... I really don't care what they do as long as I can keep going to school there. After that, its back to Minnesota, where we elect idiots into every position we can!
As an election judge, I gladly support any form of Voter ID that makes my job easier. I would say half the people voting show ID anyways cause its easier than playing 20 questions like we are trained to do.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Poppabear wrote:Well actually. The U.N is not a joke, there the only damn thing keeping the states in check from going completely hape on the world. Well, that and China ;D.
HA Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
5470
Post by: sebster
You know, in this instance I actually have to hand it to FOX news. They've taken something easily outraged people love to complain about, the UN, and tied that to issues of dubious electoral reform, and the result is exactly what you'd expect, people reflexively dismissing dubious electoral reform policies as a real concern.
Well played FOX news, well played.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Hulksmash wrote:If you're to lazy to get an ID then you don't deserve to vote.
Sorry but for gods sake it's $10 in California for state ID. I'm not sure how much one in Minnesota costs but seriously, if it's not worth it to you to vote and have a proper ID then that's your issue. Not mine.
Since you have an American flag icon next your avatar, it is your issue. While the license in this case is available for free, you seem to not have a problem with a small fee being associated with the right to vote; is that an accurate assessment of your opinion? If so, you appear to be ignorant of the 24th Amendment.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Hazardous Harry wrote:On one hand the idea of Saudi Arabia lecturing the US on how to hold fair elections is ridiculous, on the other this would be a perfect chance for the US to argue their side of the story.
The governors of all the state with the aforementioned law should line up in front of the UN, wipe their keisters with the UN flag, and sing an acapella version of "Barbara Ann." I'd pay good money for that.  Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:Here's and Idea UN: feth off. And while we're at if GTFO out of our country. Find another country to base your headquarters in. Maybe one of those bastions of freedom in Africa will take you.
 Automatically Appended Next Post: Andrew1975 wrote:I saw this a while ago. The argument is that its a racially motivated law because 25% of black people don't have IDs.
Let me highlight that 25% of black people dont have ID's!!!!
WTF. How do you do anything in the US without an ID? GO get an ID lazy.
Now some argue that some blacks were born in the US where they could not legally get birth certificates. I understand this and programs can be put in place but really that has to be at the most 1% of the black population, what is with the other 24%?
Holder's "hey they're Just Black Panthers with clubs outside the polling booth, thats not voter intimidation" Justice Department is freezing the law (even though an identical law wa already vetted by SCOTUS) saying it unfairly discimrinates against Hispanics. Its a political move only. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hulksmash wrote:If you're to lazy to get an ID then you don't deserve to vote.
Sorry but for gods sake it's $10 in California for state ID. I'm not sure how much one in Minnesota costs but seriously, if it's not worth it to you to vote and have a proper ID then that's your issue. Not mine.
Most voter id states have the requirement now, that if you can't afford it, its free - court decisions require that. Some states even have portable vans that will come out and do the process. Holder "Lets arm the Cartels" Justice Department argument cited that Texas voted against extending the working hours for DPS hours as reason that there is discrimination.   Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:The bit Ahtman quoted demonstrates two things.
1. That there are significant numbers of people entitled to vote who don't normally walk around with the kind of ID required by many of these new laws. Particularly the elderly, out of state college students, and poor people, particularly minorities.
2. That in practice polling officials do ask racial minorities for ID more often, thus creating a bit of a race barrier at the polls.
This whole voter ID thing is dumb. It's not as if there's a significant amount of voter fraud anyway. I like being able to walk into my neighborhood polling station and give my name. Does anyone else remember what Heinlein wrote in Time Enough For Love about how when a society gets to the point where you need to carry photo ID at all times, you can tell that society is getting choked with beauracracy and it's getting to me time to move somewhere else?
Respectfully horsecrap. Its not dumb when you have an open border, and instances where parties have been using illegals to vote.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
It is dumb, unless there is some real evidence of significant amounts of voter fraud. So far I haven't seen anything convincing.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:It is dumb, unless there is some real evidence of significant amounts of voter fraud. So far I haven't seen anything convincing.
How do you have evidence when its legal? http://times247.com/articles/breitbart-o-keefe-video-exposes-vermont-voter-fraud The counterargument is nonsensical on its face. You have to have id to work, to write checks, to enter buildings, to use a bank account, to use foodstamps/CHPs accounts, etc. etc. -If you can't afford it, then it will be provided for you free of charge. -If you can't drive, call a party. They'll freaking bus you over. Given that, its incumbent on those claiming some sort of discrimination to say how there is such discrimination, when its clearly preventing potential illegal activity. After all SCOTUS has already ruled on this gak. Automatically Appended Next Post: I realized without voter ID the wiener dogs are sorely under-represented. Time to register Da Boyz. Good thing I don't need voter ID, else I might be blocked from voting on their behalf.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/03/justice-department-protecting-voter-fraud/371281
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/12/3804285/hasen-texas-voter-id-law-may-be.html
Texas is now suing to overturn the actual provision giving the Department of Justice authority in the first place:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/14/texas-legal-challenge-goes-beyond-voter-id-law/
The Yellow Rose of Texas is the only girl for me....
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
How long is the case likely to last?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:How long is the case likely to last?
Well its at the panel now. Then SCOTUS would have to take up the case.
The voter id act is already settled SCOTUS law, but the redistricting issue is separate. The expanded argument Texas just brought up might be adjudicated and looked at by SCOTUS (Alabama is arguing the same thing).
If it were just the redistricting I'd say before the next election. The voter ID - don't know.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
sebster wrote:You know, in this instance I actually have to hand it to FOX news. They've taken something easily outraged people love to complain about, the UN, and tied that to issues of dubious electoral reform, and the result is exactly what you'd expect, people reflexively dismissing dubious electoral reform policies as a real concern.
Well played FOX news, well played.
It just shows how little people think about these things.
The knee-jerk "Hurr Fox News" overriding the subject matter itself. Predictable.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
Frankly the UN can take it's criticism of our elections and SHOVE IT. Many of the member countries of the UN are run by dictators, if not outright tyrants (I'm looking at YOU Syria!) and the UN isn't busting THEIR chops over it!
Cast the beam out of your eye before worrying about the mote in mine.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
@Ouze
While I was unaware it was free for people of low income I still stand by my statement. And to answer your question I'm cool with a minor tax to vote in the form of ensuring people have proper ID. I think it's ridiculous that I can't touch my own money without an ID but I could vote without it.
Personally I'm not a fan of our current system. Most people have seemed to have forgotten we were founded on as a republic. Most people choose to forget that the founding fathers were afraid of what we're moving toward (a more pure democracy) as once the lowest contributors have the highest voting power (or influence) America will begin it's swift slide towards collapse. The Romans already showed us the results but it's cool.
They aren't asking you to pay money you don't have. They aren't requiring service or land ownership to vote. For gods sake they are asking you bring you ID with you to vote. Something you should always have with you anyway.
41610
Post by: TheHammer
I agree, guys.
If you can't be bothered to be a land owning white male who can pass difficult literacy tests than you clearly don't deserve to vote.
1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
2) Thinly veiled racism? Check
3) Specious reasons for instituting barriers to voting? Check
Who says the John Birch Society is in decline?
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Hulksmash wrote:I think it's ridiculous that I can't touch my own money without an ID but I could vote without it.
Really? That's just weird. I can withdraw cash, write checks, transfer funds, and adjust investments all without ID. What are you doing that requires an ID?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Grakmar wrote:Hulksmash wrote:I think it's ridiculous that I can't touch my own money without an ID but I could vote without it.
Really? That's just weird. I can withdraw cash, write checks, transfer funds, and adjust investments all without ID. What are you doing that requires an ID?
No you can't. You can't open an account without ID.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
You can't open a PO box without ID either.
221
Post by: Frazzled
1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
****Ridiculous? Look who's on the UN Rights Council.****
2) Thinly veiled racism? Check
***Only by you boyo.***
3) Specious reasons for instituting barriers to voting? Check
***PLease put up a real world reason why prevention of fraud is a bad thing. Its only bad if you're supporting potential abuse.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I'm unable to see why being literate wouldn't be a positive thing to require of a potential voter, regardless of their race.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Monster Rain wrote:I'm unable to see why being literate wouldn't be a positive thing to require of a potential voter, regardless of their race.
What degree of literacy? Literate in English only, or are other languages allowed? Is braille okay? If we require literacy, why not basic arithmetic? Or, how about we test you on your knowledge of the issues (expect the only right answers to be the ones the party in power believe)?
34168
Post by: Amaya
Are you also scared of your own shadow?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Grakmar wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I'm unable to see why being literate wouldn't be a positive thing to require of a potential voter, regardless of their race.
What degree of literacy? Literate in English only, or are other languages allowed? Is braille okay? If we require literacy, why not basic arithmetic? Or, how about we test you on your knowledge of the issues (expect the only right answers to be the ones the party in power believe)?
Surely the fact that there are details to work out doesn't negate the premise.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Monster Rain wrote:Grakmar wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I'm unable to see why being literate wouldn't be a positive thing to require of a potential voter, regardless of their race.
What degree of literacy? Literate in English only, or are other languages allowed? Is braille okay? If we require literacy, why not basic arithmetic? Or, how about we test you on your knowledge of the issues (expect the only right answers to be the ones the party in power believe)?
Surely the fact that there are details to work out doesn't negate the premise.
It does, IMO. The right to vote should be as simple and easy as possible. Once you have government stepping in and regulating exactly who can and can't vote, the system becomes incredibly open to abuse.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Grakmar wrote:It does, IMO.
That's an incredibly simplistic view of how legislation works.
Grakmar wrote:The right to vote should be as simple and easy as possible.
Proving some sort of basic literacy isn't terribly hard.
Grakmar wrote:Once you have government stepping in and regulating exactly who can and can't vote, the system becomes incredibly open to abuse.
The system is incredibly open to abuse now.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Frazzled wrote:1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
****Ridiculous? Look who's on the UN Rights Council.****
2) Thinly veiled racism? Check
***Only by you boyo.***
3) Specious reasons for instituting barriers to voting? Check
***PLease put up a real world reason why prevention of fraud is a bad thing. Its only bad if you're supporting potential abuse.
In that dudes defense I had "and take the NAACP with you" after "bastions of freedom in Africa" and deleted it...I feel the logic in that decision was sound. Although if we want to talk about racisim the NAACP is a fine place to start. If I started an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People the public would go ape gak.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I like that the NAACP now gave a forum to such enlightened countries as Syria to attack us, at the same time Syria is under pressure from the US. Awesome.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Monster Rain wrote:Proving some sort of basic literacy isn't terribly hard.
Because this worked out so well the last time we tried it with Jim Crow.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
****Ridiculous? Look who's on the UN Rights Council.****
Its still pretty ridiculous.
With how worked up some people get about the UN, you would think they were killing our puppies.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Laughing Man wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Proving some sort of basic literacy isn't terribly hard.
Because this worked out so well the last time we tried it with Jim Crow.
Yeah, I think you'll find that the educational system and racial relations have progressed, a bit, since 1965.
There's also the glaring fact that Jim Crow was actually racially motivated. I'll bow out of this now, and point out that I'm not calling for literacy tests to be required for voting; I'm simply stating that in my version of a perfect world the people who vote can also read.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
****Ridiculous? Look who's on the UN Rights Council.****
Its still pretty ridiculous.
With how worked up some people get about the UN, you would think they were killing our puppies.
Just taking billions from us....
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Just taking billions from us....
And serving as a significant force in maintaining the order we benefit from more than any other nation. In that context, its a bargain at ~6.5 billion.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Voter ID laws are an embarrassment. I feel embarrassed that this was brought up before other countries. It's not so much that Saudi Arabia has any right to lecture us about elections. Rather, this casts doubts on whether we ought to be lecturing anyone else.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:Voter ID laws are an embarrassment. I feel embarrassed that this was brought up before other countries. It's not so much that Saudi Arabia has any right to lecture us about elections. Rather, this casts doubts on whether we ought to be lecturing anyone else.
Why are they an embarassment? You have to have ID just to pick up mail at the post office. Are you saying voting should have less protections against fraud than the average mail order miniature?
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Monster Rain wrote:Laughing Man wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Proving some sort of basic literacy isn't terribly hard.
Because this worked out so well the last time we tried it with Jim Crow.
Yeah, I think you'll find that the educational system and racial relations have progressed, a bit, since 1965.
There's also the glaring fact that Jim Crow was actually racially motivated. I'll bow out of this now, and point out that I'm not calling for literacy tests to be required for voting; I'm simply stating that in my version of a perfect world the people who vote can also read.
The problem is that while literacy requirements (and voter ID laws, for that matter) may not be racially motivated, they're easily exploited by those who are. The road to hell, and all that jazz.
I do agree with you completely however, in that a perfect world would see everyone, voter or not, being literate. Unfortunately, it's the nature of humanity (and the universe in general, for that matter) for perfection to be unachievable, and disenfranchising voters for any reason should be seen as repulsive (potentially barring felons, although a case can be made there as well).
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'm saying that:
(1) people who would otherwise vote are probably not blocked from voting by these laws;
(2) people who would otherwise commit election fraud are probably not blocked from committing election fraud by these laws;
(3) I don't believe these laws are motivated by any concern about election fraud based on actual problems;
(4) these laws are facially contemptuous of the poorest, who are frequently also black, and undocumented immagrants, who are frequently also latino;
(5) balancing the lack of actual electoral protection against the strong appearance of racial and socioeconomic bias is an embarrassment to a culture that claims to value egalitarianism.
221
Post by: Frazzled
(4) these laws are facially contemptuous of the poorest, who are frequently also black, and undocumented immagrants, who are frequently also latino;
NEWFLASH, illegal immigrants are not citizens and CANNOT LEGALLY VOTE. Thats what this is about. my vote is being disinfranchised by noncitizens illegally voting.
16387
Post by: Manchu
NEWSFLASH: there is no evidence that undocumented immigrants are disenfranchising you; if you believe they are doing so, it is based on something besides evidence ...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:NEWSFLASH: there is no evidence that undocumented immigrants are disenfranchising you; if you believe they are doing so, it is based on something besides evidence ...
There is no evidence there hasn't been, except of course there are 12mm -20mm illegal immigrants in the US.
There have been plenty of anecdotal stories here.
I'll also note, you brought up illegal immigrants as a party being discriminated against.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Well, if we're talking about an ideal world...
I'd love to see a world where everyone is not just literate, but can recite, from memory, the entire works of Shakespeare, Orwell, Homer, Aristotle, Descartes, Thoreau, Freud, Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Hippocrates, the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Dhammapada, Upanishads, Luther, Calvin, Thomas Paine, the Constitution of several dozen different countries, the Communist Manifesto, Plato, and several thousand other things. All in their original languages, of course.
But, since we're talking about the real world, let's just not start discriminating against immigrants, the poorly educated, dyslexics, people with severe ADHD (they can read just fine, but would struggle to take the test), or any of the other millions and millions of Americans who struggle with literacy.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Frazzled: Yes, I did. The way the laws look is that rich white people don't want poor black people to vote and are accusing poor Latino people of voting illegally.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Why are they an embarassment? You have to have ID just to pick up mail at the post office. Are you saying voting should have less protections against fraud than the average mail order miniature?
Photo ID is almost no protection against voter fraud.
I can get you an outwardly valid photo ID at many, many convenience stores in Chicago, New York, or virtually any major city in the US.
Hell, a relatively simple internet search, some shop, and your mail is in my hands tommorow.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
How do people register to vote in the US?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Usually, you fill out a form and send it through the mail.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Kilkrazy wrote:How do people register to vote in the US?
In my state you do it when you renew your license plates, obviously that's not the only way. The website Service AZ.com also has a dedicated voter registration portal. In a week or two you get a card that I guess is a voter's ID right? You could try it, not being a citizen and see how far you get. I'd be interested to know if you could fake your way in.
5534
Post by: dogma
Manchu wrote:Usually, you fill out a form and send it through the mail.
Some states allow same-day registration as well.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Kilkrazy wrote:How do people register to vote in the US?
It varies by state. In Illinois, you can do it in person at the election office, the DMV (motor vehicles), with any one of the thousands of licensed voter registers (there's typically one per high school and they show up all the time in major downtowns or events) or by mailing in this form: http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/VotingInformation/PDF/R-19.pdf The proof you need is ONE of the following: 1) Drivers License number 2) Social Security number 3) valid photo ID 4) current utility bill 5) bank statement 6) government check 7) paycheck 8) other government document that shows the name and address of the voter You only need to show this proof once, and you can register without it, but can't vote the first time without showing it. Once you've done that once, you can vote forever.
37597
Post by: sparkywtf
In Minnesota you can register day of. It has been 2 years since I have worked an election, and the 6 times I have worked an election, I have registered 3 people (I just don't work the table, someone else likes doing that).
You need either a state ID (easiest and quick way)
Or
Photo ID with your name on it and a piece of mail such as a power bill.
That being said, it would be very easy for an undocumented illegal immigrant to register. I know a guy who is illegally here that has a license, he could easily be allowed to vote.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: Yes, I did. The way the laws look is that rich white people don't want poor black people to vote and are accusing poor Latino people of voting illegally.
Only illegal people. The law (at least in Texas) provides for free IDs. Exactly what more is needed? Its also really annoying that we both can't discuss a topic without being called a racist. Use your own point -the allegation is made without any proof. If thats the argument, it is a sad one. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Why are they an embarassment? You have to have ID just to pick up mail at the post office. Are you saying voting should have less protections against fraud than the average mail order miniature?
Photo ID is almost no protection against voter fraud.
I can get you an outwardly valid photo ID at many, many convenience stores in Chicago, New York, or virtually any major city in the US.
Hell, a relatively simple internet search, some shop, and your mail is in my hands tommorow.
Then fix that, for a lot of reasons.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'm not calling you a racist. Anything I have to say about this subject has nothing to do with you.
And all I have said is that voter ID laws are an embarrassment to the United States.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:I'm not calling you a racist. Anything I have to say about this subject has nothing to do with you.
And all I have said is that voter ID laws are an embarrassment to the United States.
You said this: @ Frazzled: Yes, I did. The way the laws look is that rich white people don't want poor black people to vote and are accusing poor Latino people of voting illegally.
I support the law, therefor I must not want poor black people to vote.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
If voter fraud were shown to be a big enough problem, I could get behind this law.
'til then, I don't see the necessity.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Frazzled: You can obviously spin what I write however you want in your head but the text will not bear any interpretation.
I was talking about the way the law could appear in light of it doing nothing meaningful to prevent a problem for which there is no evidence. I didn't even make a claim as to what the law's authors intended much less what its supporters feel.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Well, if one says that the supporters of this law don't want black people to vote, and Frazzled supports the law, then one has effectively called Frazzled a racist.
It's the transitive property.
Just saying. It's a reasonable conclusion to draw.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: You can obviously spin what I write however you want in your head but the text will not bear any interpretation.
I was talking about the way the law could appear in light of it doing nothing meaningful to prevent a problem for which there is no evidence. I didn't even make a claim as to what the law's authors intended much less what its supporters feel.
I'm pretty sure you called me a racist. Watch
Manchu wrote:AustonT is a racist and I will do everything in my power to purge him from DakkaDakka
It's in quotes, it must be legit.  
16387
Post by: Manchu
Monster Rain wrote:Well, if one says that the supporters of this law don't want black people to vote, and Frazzled supports the law, then one has effectively called Frazzled a racist.
One would have to say that supporters of the law don't want black people to vote in order to get to the rest of that. And as I just mentioned, this one didn't say that. The fact that Frazzled is so hyper-sensitive to being called a racist in this instance speaks to me as more evidence of how bad this looks, even to supporters of the law. Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:It's in quotes, it must be legit.
I know, look: AustonT wrote:Manchu is the best mod in all of interwebz land!
Thanks for that, by the way.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Nah. I think people are just sensitive about being called racists, directly or otherwise.
29110
Post by: AustonT
And...
/defused
16387
Post by: Manchu
Nah, I think context matters.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Manchu wrote: I rule these boards with an iron fist. Go back to BandC from whence thou came!
I feel like Fox News
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Grakmar wrote:snip
Also, in my ideal world, there'd be no logical fallacies. 
Manchu wrote:Nah, I think context matters.
Sure, but I don't think that distinction applies here.
16387
Post by: Manchu
You're a regular Breitbart there, AustonT. But you have to put it in orange to look more authentic. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:Manchu wrote:Nah, I think context matters.
Sure, but I don't think that distinction applies here.
I think it especially matters here since my actual claim is that these laws are an embarrassment because they could seem racist while at the same time they don't actually address real election fraud problems. If the rejoinder to that rather innocuous statement is "don't call me a racist" from a supporter of the law, I think it's very relevant indeed.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Then fix that, for a lot of reasons.
Easiest way is national IDs tied to SSNs, with mandatory checks against the SSN database.
You're not going to fix the ability to forge IDs unless the inspection procedures are so rigorous that they start looking like "papers". After all, as I said before, they're not hard to forge when the check is basically by eye.
Fine by me, but not most people, I imagine.
16387
Post by: Manchu
dogma wrote:Fine by me, but not most people, I imagine.
No more big government, thank you very much.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Monster Rain wrote:Nah. I think people are just sensitive about being called racists, directly or otherwise.
Exactly.
5534
Post by: dogma
Manchu wrote:dogma wrote:Fine by me, but not most people, I imagine.
No more big government, thank you very much.
IDs don't bother me much, simply because the primary worry is the state having access to my identity and history.
The way I look at it, national ID is just simplifying what's already in place.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Just being ironic there, d.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Then fix that, for a lot of reasons.
Easiest way is national IDs tied to SSNs, with mandatory checks against the SSN database.
You're not going to fix the ability to forge IDs unless the inspection procedures are so rigorous that they start looking like "papers". After all, as I said before, they're not hard to forge when the check is basically by eye.
Fine by me, but not most people, I imagine.
I'm ok with that. It would help with ID fraud.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Manchu wrote:I think it especially matters here since my actual claim is that these laws are an embarrassment because they could seem racist while at the same time they don't actually address real election fraud problems. If the rejoinder to that rather innocuous statement is "don't call me a racist" from a supporter of the law, I think it's very relevant indeed.
I don't think you appreciate how easily an allegation of racism can be construed from someone actually specifically stating that the law appears to be engineered to keep black people from voting.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Manchu wrote: I rule these boards with an iron fist. Go back to BandC from whence thou came!
Done and done. I'd have to say though if I were a mod I'd use violet to come across as gentle ans understanding, so people think I'm soft and then lay down the velvet ban hammer.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Monster Rain: No, I get that. As I said, for your analysis to apply I would have had to claim that the law was specifically engineered to disenfranchise black people. Which I didn't. Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:I'd have to say though if I were a mod I'd use violet to come across as gentle ans understanding
FWIW, that's why I used "friendly orange" instead of "you have awoken the dragon red."
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Okay, then, it seems to me that you said what you said (to wit: supporting the law makes one racist) in a way that allows you to not have to take responsibility for it.
See what I did there?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Just to reiterate, the law looks really bad. It doesn't seem to address a problem that actually exists. And if that problem actually does exist, these laws don't even hypothetically address it. Voter ID Laws do seem to disproportionately affect poor people and, for that reason, black people.
Racist intent on the part of legislators is not required for a law to have racist implications. It's not even required for those implications to be utterly obvious.
The reason that I avoided saying that the lawmakers in these cases are racists is because I don't want to say that. I don't think that's the point. I don't think the point is that the laws' supporters are racists either and so I also didn't say that.
The point, to me, is that these laws are embarrassing. They undermine American credibility abroad and, apparently, also at home. I am embarrassed by them. I did say that. And I will also say that it embarrasses me that other Americans support them.
That is not the same thing as calling anyone a racist. If you fear that you might be called a racist for supporting this law, I think you should consider why that may be. Because that is very relevant to my point: if this is the sort of thing that looks bad then we really need to weigh it against what it actually does that is good.
As things stand, this just looks bad. The game of twisting my points into a personal insult doesn't address that.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Manchu wrote:dogma wrote:Fine by me, but not most people, I imagine.
No more big government, thank you very much.
Yeah I know one federal ID agency run by the government would be more corrupt, less effective and somehow much much more expensive than the 50 Id agencies run by the different states. I'm not sure how.....but it would.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Andrew1975: I'll go on being ironic by screaming something about the tenth amendment ... ah, who has the energy?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Manchu wrote:Just to reiterate, the law looks really bad. It doesn't seem to address a problem that actually exists. And if that problem actually does exist, these laws don't even hypothetically address it. Voter ID Laws do seem to disproportionately affect poor people and, for that reason, black people.
There's more poor white people than black people.
16387
Post by: Manchu
That's not relevant to anything that I've said.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Manchu wrote:That's not relevant to anything that I've said.
Isn't it?
If it disenfranchises the poor, and there's more poor whites than any other ethnic group, how does it hurt the black community specifically?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Because the issue isn't absolute numbers but rather proportions?
34168
Post by: Amaya
Can someone explain how a law requiring some form of Federal ID to vote is racist or biased against any given group?
16387
Post by: Manchu
The problem is that it looks racist because it disproportionately affects poor black people.
Also, I don't think we're talking about a law that requires federal ID.
34168
Post by: Amaya
How and why does it affect poor/blacks greater than any other group?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
According to the census bureau, there's more poor white people than any other group.
Hell, I'm one of them.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Because a large percentage of poor blacks don't have state ID as a result of grave and complicated social inequalities.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah I know one federal ID agency run by the government would be more corrupt, less effective and somehow much much more expensive than the 50 Id agencies run by the different states. I'm not sure how.....but it would.
I travel a lot, so I'm more sensitive to this than most, but I have had numerous problems dealing with clients due to certain places in certain states being unwilling to take out of state IDs, or even passports.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Monster Rain wrote:According to the census bureau, there's more poor white people than any other group.
And yet that still isn't what proportionate means in this case.
34168
Post by: Amaya
I'd really like to know why it's so bloody hard to get a damn ID. Texas apparently gives out FREE voter ID cards. Texas accepts several forms of ID other than driver's licenses.
I'm still struggling to understand why poor blacks are unable to get some form of ID.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
In many (most?) states getting photo ID does actually cost money and take time. Poor people (and black people are disproportionately poor), college students, and the elderly are the folks most likely to lack the ID required by these laws. These laws make it harder for those people to vote, and impact them disproportionately.
As Manchu said (and as I said back on page 1) these laws are dumb. They don't actually give real protection against voter fraud, and voter fraud has not been shown to be a real issue or happening in any significant numbers.
So these are ineffective laws, addressing a virtually nonexistant problem, which have the effects of hurting the poor, black, elderly and college students, and make us look like jackasses in front of other countries, to whom we should serve as a model of how to do things right.
34168
Post by: Amaya
I am still trying to understand why it is so hard to go and get the ID if you want to vote.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Well, they might not actually harm black folks and the others you mentioned, Mannahnin. But the point is that they hypothetically could. Meanwhile, the could not even hypothetically address the problem they're aimed at, which is itself hypothetical. Automatically Appended Next Post: Amaya wrote:I am still trying to understand why it is so hard to go and get the ID if you want to vote.
The better question is why should you have to have an ID to vote?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Amaya wrote:Can someone explain how a law requiring some form of Federal ID to vote is racist or biased against any given group?
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/12/3804285/hasen-texas-voter-id-law-may-be.html
34168
Post by: Amaya
Why should you have an ID to drive, enter certain areas, or purchase alcohol or tobacco products?
Sounds to me like a great deal of crying about non issue. At the very least, requiring IDs can limit the number of illegal immigrants that vote, but illegals have a tendency to be minorities and minorities tend to vote for Democrats and Liberals...so I can see how they would be opposed to such laws.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Manchu wrote:Monster Rain wrote:According to the census bureau, there's more poor white people than any other group.
And yet that still isn't what proportionate means in this case.
The number of poor whites is larger in proportion to poor blacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:The better question is why should you have to have an ID to vote?
To prove that you're eligible. Which is to say that, if voter fraud was a huge problem (is it, really?) that mitigating it in some way would probably be a good thing to do.
34168
Post by: Amaya
It doesn't prove anything. Is there evidence that many Hispanics do not have IDs? If so, why do they not have IDs and why is it so difficult to go and get one?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Monster Rain wrote:The number of poor whites is larger in proportion to poor blacks.
That is not the proportion that matters. I'll save you some trouble. If you are white, you are less likely to be affected by this law than if you were black. If you are black, you are more likely to be affected by it than if you were white. Monster Rain wrote:Manchu wrote:The better question is why should you have to have an ID to vote?
To prove that you're eligible.
There is no issue with non-eligible people voting. Therefore there is no need to have an ID.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Manchu wrote:Monster Rain wrote:The number of poor whites is larger in proportion to poor blacks.
That is not the proportion that matters. I'll save you some trouble. If you are white, you are less likely to be affected by this law than if you were black. If you are black, you are more likely to be affected by it than if you are white.
Are there any actual numbers on the percentage, by race, of who has an ID?
Manchu wrote:There is no issue with non-eligible people voting. Therefore there is no need to have an ID.
Right, but if it did become a problem I don't consider requiring ID to vote would be the end of democracy.
34168
Post by: Amaya
So even if it affects 4x as many whites it is racist because it affects a higher percentage of blacks?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Amaya wrote:So even if it affects 4x as many whites it is racist because it affects a higher percentage of blacks?
Rephrase that in terms of likelihood to be affected and you will have answered your own question. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:Are there any actual numbers on the percentage, by race, of who has an ID?
Well, we've actually been talking about who is poor. As to who has an ID, someone said earlier in the thread that 25% of all black people do not have ID. Ahtman looked into it and reported that while he could find that figure, he could not find any support for the figure.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Oh, so it can't affect poor whites now, only blacks huh.
I guess the fact whites make up roughly 75% of the bottom 20% is absolutely meaningless.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No, what it means is that if you are black you are more likely to be affected by the law than if you are white -- DESPITE the fact that there are so many more poor white people than poor black people.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0695.pdf
The majority (by percentage) of people who make more than 250,000 dollars per year in the US are Asian.
Is raising taxes on that bracket racist?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
So these are ineffective laws, addressing a virtually nonexistant problem, which have the effects of hurting the poor, black, elderly and college students, and make us look like jackasses in front of other countries, to whom we should serve as a model of how to do things right.
How about you look at it as more of a carrot than a stick. The law is there to get people to get IDs. You know, take at least a small step to becoming a functioning member of society for f%$s sake!
I travel a lot, so I'm more sensitive to this than most, but I have had numerous problems dealing with clients due to certain places in certain states being unwilling to take out of state IDs, or even passports.
I've never understood why people wont take passports. I misplaced my drivers license some nightclubs would give me a hassle over using a passport. Do you know how much harder it is to get a passport than a drivers license. I guess that depends on how well you drive, but really its much harder to get a passport.
34168
Post by: Amaya
I'm pretty sure I said exactly that.
About 3-4 times more total whites will be affected, but a higher percentage of blacks will be affected. I don't see how that isn't clear enough. That still does not explain how requiring IDs are racist...
Apparently requiring IDs for tobacco and alcohol are racist as well, since blacks and Hispanics do not have access to any form of ID whatsoever.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
You can be a functioning member of society without needing a photo ID. Many Libertarians classically are champions of this concept. The idea of a country where you need to carry ID papers to prove your citizenship to engage in normal everyday activities is classically a hallmark of fascist countries. In old movies as soon as you heard a guy say "Papers, please" in a foreign accent you knew the action was happening behind the iron curtain.
16387
Post by: Manchu
There is no constitutional right to alcohol and tobacco. Black people were not unfairly blocked from accessing alcohol and tobacco for most of this country's history. It's a bit different. Same with tax brackets.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
There's a constitutional right to bear arms.
Is it racist to require ID to buy a gun?
55086
Post by: Electro
Hahahaha... Thats rich. Americans telling others not to stick their nose in and complaining about other countrys human rights records. At lease Saudi and China manage to not kidnap people and transport them illigaly.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Electro, please don't troll.
34168
Post by: Amaya
That's a weak leg to stand on.
You need to provide some form of ID for a variety of things, how is requiring the same thing for voting racist? Simply because blacks were discriminated in the past?
Also, where is the evidence that minorities both lack IDs and are unable to get them?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Mannahnin wrote:You can be a functioning member of society without needing a photo ID. Many Libertarians classically are champions of this concept. The idea of a country where you need to carry ID papers to prove your citizenship to engage in normal citizen behavior is classically a hallmark of fascist countries. In old movies as soon as you heard a guy say "Papers, please" in a foreign accept you knew the action was happening in a bad place.
No the libertarians are against National IDs, because of the more Tin Hat ideas of some Libertarians (I'm libertarian, but not that libertarian) They still have drivers licenses. Try getting most anything done without one. If you don't have a state photo ID you are pretty much not a functioning member of society.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
A) That's not true. You can do it if you really want to.
B) I know and grew up around some of those more hardcore Libertarians,.
C) You can accept carrying photo ID for some purposes while not wanting the requirement to extend any further than it absolutely has to. Refer to my Heinlein reference from earlier.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Amaya wrote:I'd really like to know why it's so bloody hard to get a damn ID. Texas apparently gives out FREE voter ID cards. Texas accepts several forms of ID other than driver's licenses.
I'm still struggling to understand why poor blacks are unable to get some form of ID.
Texas even allows a Concealed handgun License as an ID. Just saying... Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:You can be a functioning member of society without needing a photo ID.
How?
You need it for a checking account. Here you need it for the Lonestar Card etc (think foodstamps).
You need it to cash a check if you don't have a checking account.
You need one to drive.
You need an ID for most jobs.
etc. etc.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Mannahnin wrote:A) That's not true. You can do it if you really want to.
B) I know and grew up around some of those more hardcore Libertarians,.
C) You can accept carrying photo ID for some purposes while not wanting the requirement to extend any further than it absolutely has to. Refer to my Heinlein reference from earlier.
I understand you don't think ID should be mandatory, it's not like when you cross a state border there is a guy asking you for papers. The problem as I see it is that these people don't even have IDs to show. If the argument was that the just didn't want to show them then I might not be so annoyed. The argument is that they don't have them and can't be bothered to get them. If you don't have an ID, I'm sorry but you are just not capable of participating in society as we know it. You are on the fringe, for one reason or the other. It's time to put on your big boy pants on and be a responsible member of society and get a FREE ID.
I know though IDs are just "The Man's" way of keeping black folk down.
I found it interesting when I read some of the articles on black websites about this. The reactions were pretty interesting. Most were of the mind that the 25% that don't have IDs were really a disgrace to the black community as they were being used as pawns by politicians.
In general you have to remember that your average Black people hate illegal immigrants even more than your average white person. Because to phrase south park.
Dey took er jerbs
I mean you like to use fictional quotes from nut jobs to support your arguments. I feel I can do the same.
41610
Post by: TheHammer
You guys are awesome. By awesome I mean terrible.
When I talked about racism I was referring to
Andrew1975 said:
I saw this a while ago. The argument is that its a racially motivated law because 25% of black people don't have IDs.
Let me highlight that 25% of black people dont have ID's!!!!
WTF. How do you do anything in the US without an ID? GO get an ID lazy.
Now some argue that some blacks were born in the US where they could not legally get birth certificates. I understand this and programs can be put in place but really that has to be at the most 1% of the black population, what is with the other 24%?
But, hey, if you want to get upset because you inferred I was calling you a racist for defending an inherently racist law than that's fine.
Doubly so when AustonT's obnoxiously stupid "imagine if there was a National Association for the Advancement of White People" argument is just too stupid and ignorant to really call racist. I don't think his sentiment is racist, but it's stupid and ignorant and it wouldn't surprise me if the rest of AustonT's beliefs never positively address the structural racism in America.
You guys keep fighting the good fight against the oppressively racist NAACP, terrible African Americans who want to exercise their right to vote, and against the UN. I can't wait to read all the jokes I'm sure you guys will have about the French and to hear detailed weapon specifications of the Nazi Army!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Way to Troll
41610
Post by: TheHammer
Poor Frazzled doesn't understand how language works.
It's okay, pal, I'll try to explain it to you.
Andrew1975 says something thinly racist.
I refer to that racism.
People, including you, mistake that my assertion was directed to them.
I clarify myself.
For that you call me a troll.
Good job, Frazzled! I, for one, am glad that you are there to protect us white men in America!
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Frazzled wrote:Way to Troll
Don't feed him, Frazzled.
221
Post by: Frazzled
TheHammer wrote:Poor Frazzled doesn't understand how language works.
It's okay, pal, I'll try to explain it to you.
Andrew1975 says something thinly racist.
I refer to that racism.
People, including you, mistake that my assertion was directed to them.
I clarify myself.
For that you call me a troll.
Good job, Frazzled! I, for one, am glad that you are there to protect us white men in America!
I am not here to praise Caesar, but to bury him. 
41610
Post by: TheHammer
Poor persecuted white guys won't stand up against those that agree with them when they say racist things :(
I'm pretty excited for Obama's second term when he and Eric Holder let the UN set up reeducation camps. Or should I not talk about the stuff that goes on in our meetings? Automatically Appended Next Post: Man, Frazzled, you're on fire tonight! Way to be an old white guy posting meme pics that make fun of those with disabilities.
You're a real class act 
221
Post by: Frazzled
I didn't know vampires were covered under the ADA. I've invented new cash cow - Vampires.
We're Here! We're Dead! Get used to It! Automatically Appended Next Post: TheHammer wrote:Poor persecuted white guys won't stand up against those that agree with them when they say racist things :(
I'm pretty excited for Obama's second term when he and Eric Holder let the UN set up reeducation camps. Or should I not talk about the stuff that goes on in our meetings?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Man, Frazzled, you're on fire tonight! Way to be an old white guy posting meme pics that make fun of those with disabilities.
You're a real class act
Oh Noes i'VE bEEN tOLD!
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
TheHammer wrote:Poor persecuted white guys won't stand up against those that agree with them when they say racist things :(
I'm pretty excited for Obama's second term when he and Eric Holder let the UN set up reeducation camps. Or should I not talk about the stuff that goes on in our meetings?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Man, Frazzled, you're on fire tonight! Way to be an old white guy posting meme pics that make fun of those with disabilities.
You're a real class act
Yes yes, we are poor persecuted white guys because we believe IDs are probably valuable tools to have in modern society. Yes preach on brother? Nice try though. Even black people believe that this excuse is a sham.....which it is. But go ahead and throw those labels.
47269
Post by: deathholydeath
Electro wrote:Hahahaha... Thats rich. Americans telling others not to stick their nose in and complaining about other countrys human rights records. At lease Saudi and China manage to not kidnap people and transport them illigaly.
Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest markets for modern day slavery
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/SaudiArabia.htm
As for china...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Invasion_of_Tibet
http://www.hrw.org/news/2000/06/12/human-rights-violations-tibet
I mean... c'mon, guy. Go read a book or something.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I wonder how many inner cities have DMV's the are close.
Listen i think its stupid to live w/o an ID. But for those who do not have a reliable form of transportation and rely on the bus its hard. A normal 2 hour venture to the DMV can turn into an al day hell, especially if you have kids.
Also poor whites are more likely to live in nicer neighbor hoods then poorer minorities. ones close to a DMV.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also poor whites are more likely to live in nicer neighbor hoods then poorer minorities. ones close to a DMV.
Gotta ask for a source here.
Compton, CA,. if Dr. Dre is to be believed, is a pretty rough area. There is a DMV.
12744
Post by: Scrabb
It makes me angry that voting fraud happens. But odds are more legitimate american citizen votes will be eliminated than fraudulent ones due to voter ID legislation. So it's not a good idea.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I mean, i'm just going by the seat of my pants here, but aren't poor whites far more likely to live in rural areas that are much farther from DMVs?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Monster Rain wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:Also poor whites are more likely to live in nicer neighbor hoods then poorer minorities. ones close to a DMV.
Gotta ask for a source here.
Compton, CA,. if Dr. Dre is to be believed, is a pretty rough area. There is a DMV.
TBH its from one of my sociology lectures awhile back.
34168
Post by: Amaya
The only DMV I've been to in San Antonio is on the poorer side. I don't even know if the 'rich' side has one.
There is no evidence that a lower percentage of minorities have IDs than whites or that it is somehow more difficult for minorities to get IDs.
You already need an ID to purchase alcohol, tobacco, firearms, ammo, pornography, and even certain medicine. I got carded purchasing creatine at Wal-Mart once...wtf. You also need an ID to legally drive and I'm pretty sure there are numerous other things that require a photo ID of some sort.
The argument that requiring an ID is somehow racist is both nonsensical and extremely offensive at the same time. You're either suggesting that minorities are too ignorant and lazy to get/already have IDs or that conservative whites intentionally desire to suppress the minority vote. So, once again, where is the evidence that this somehow suppresses the minority vote?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
hotsauceman1 wrote:Monster Rain wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:Also poor whites are more likely to live in nicer neighbor hoods then poorer minorities. ones close to a DMV.
Gotta ask for a source here.
Compton, CA,. if Dr. Dre is to be believed, is a pretty rough area. There is a DMV.
TBH its from one of my sociology lectures awhile back.
Its false, there is a License bureau on 55th and I believe Kinsmen in Cleveland. You don't get much more Ghetto than that. You don't need to go to the DMV to get a ID. License bureaus work just fine. In fact most Ghetto type areas have lots of these government facilities because property is cheap, the majority possibly. Many times when I had to go to government facilities for different reasons I was not happy about where I had to go.
People in the back country would have a much harder time as there is little to no public transportation and the nearest facility could be tens if not hundreds of miles away.
I think most poor white people live in basically the same conditions as poor black people, they may trade ghetto apartments for run down trailer parks, but they are usually in a relatively built up area with government facilities, its easier to get your government aid that way.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Amaya wrote: It doesn't prove anything. Is there evidence that many Hispanics do not have IDs? If so, why do they not have IDs and why is it so difficult to go and get one?
You didn't ask for proof. You asked for an explanation. The point is that, yes, various groups including blacks, Hispanics and elders, do not have photo IDs though they have other forms of ID which are valid under current law such as social security number. It's difficult to get a Photo ID because, for example, the main form available is a driving licence or a passport. Citizenship does not require people to have licences or passports, so why should people be forced to buy them? The counter to this is to provide free Photo ID carding, which means it would be done by the government at taxpayer expense.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Scrabb wrote:It makes me angry that voting fraud happens. But odds are more legitimate american citizen votes will be eliminated than fraudulent ones due to voter ID legislation. So it's not a good idea.
Again, what source do you have for that? If people can can get food they can get an ID. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:
The counter to this is to provide free Photo ID carding, which means it would be done by the government at taxpayer expense.
IT IS FREE NOW. Thats the point. The people who have legitimate arguments about not being able to get IDs are invalids and illegal immigrants. If you are invalid you're not going to be voting (or I am sure you can ring up the local political party as they bus homes and hooligans now), or you don't have the legal right to vote in the first place.
12313
Post by: Ouze
In other news, conservatives and alleged libertatians are lobbying strongly for expanding and strengthening government bureaucracy (like the DMV) to give away "free" ID's (at taxpayer expense) to address a non-existent problem.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Can we just nuke the politicians now?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Elect me President and all these problems go away.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Dibs on Minister of Strip Clubs in the Frazzled administration. Someone has to keep their eye on all those wily strippers.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Bromsy wrote:Dibs on Minister of Strip Clubs in the Frazzled administration. Someone has to keep their eye on all those wily strippers.
Cant get in the strip club without an ID. I wonder which form of validation costs the taxpayers more, training people to interrogate people for info and making sure it matches or getting someone to just check IDs?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Andrew1975 wrote:Cant get in the strip club without an ID.
Which is, of course, racist.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mannahnin wrote:It is dumb, unless there is some real evidence of significant amounts of voter fraud. So far I haven't seen anything convincing.
I haven't either, besides, government issued ID can be faked.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
IT IS FREE NOW. Thats the point.
The people who have legitimate arguments about not being able to get IDs are invalids and illegal immigrants. If you are invalid you're not going to be voting (or I am sure you can ring up the local political party as they bus homes and hooligans now), or you don't have the legal right to vote in the first place.
It depends on what is considered a valid photo ID.
Several states will accept US passports, but not out of state IDs.
In state and Congressional elections this isn't necessarily an issue, but regarding the Presidency it is.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The key point is that if you have a problem with immigration you need to solve it by solving the immigration problem, not by inventing unnecessary measures likely to disenfranchise thousands of voters.
35589
Post by: Jakka
Kilkrazy wrote:The key point is that if you have a problem with immigration you need to solve it by solving the immigration problem, not by inventing unnecessary measures likely to disenfranchise thousands of voters.
This is quite honestly the only convincing argument I've read from this side of the discussion.
29408
Post by: Melissia
How about the argument that governmetn ID can be faked too, so it's not really that much of a deterrent of fraud?
Hell my classmates in high school got fake IDs pretty easily, believable ones too.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Melissia wrote:How about the argument that governmetn ID can be faked too, so it's not really that much of a deterrent of fraud?
I don't think that qualifies as a convincing argument, personally.
Infallibility is a rather high standard to hold any law to.
29408
Post by: Melissia
True, but we're talking about a law that's supposed to prevent voting fraud, but since the law itself is quite easy to defraud, I'd say that it's not really going to help is it?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Well, I'm just saying that the fact that a law can be circumvented being used as an argument against its implementation is a flawed line of reasoning. It's possible that murder can be gotten away with. Should we not bother having laws against it?
I'm pretty sauced right now though. So I hope that made sense.
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, but this isn't the same type of law as a law saying murder is illegal. It's a proscriptive law instead of a preventative one.
Dunno if I'm expressing that right.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Nah, I get what you're saying.
Still, I think the basic principle remains the same: the fact that a law can be circumvented by those who want to go to the trouble isn't a good reason to not make the law.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Can we get back to the part where I am minister of Strip Clubs? It's Saint Patties fer Odin's sake.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Monster Rain wrote:Still, I think the basic principle remains the same: the fact that a law can be circumvented by those who want to go to the trouble isn't a good reason to not make the law.
Is it if the ability to circumvent it is sufficiently easy as to make the law unable to achieve its aim. If the costs of a law outweigh the benefits, it shouldn't be enacted. Again, we're talking about a law being made to solve a nonexistant problem, will have undesirable side effects of voter suppression, and which will cost states millions of dollars to implement.
In addition, some courts may require states to ensure that all the documents required in order to obtain photo IDs are free and easily available to prospective voters. While these measures will not guarantee that a state’s voter ID law will be upheld in court (there are a number of constitutionalproblems with voter ID requirements, as discussed below), failure to include these measures willmake it likely that courts will find the law deficient. All of these measures entail appreciable costs that states must be prepared to incur if they moveforward with photo ID requirements. In addition, states adopting photo ID laws must incur all theadministrative costs of changing election procedures, including the costs of materials and training forelection officials and poll workers across the state. A fiscal note prepared in conjunction with aproposed photo ID law in Missouri estimated a cost of $6 million for the first year in which the law was to be in effect, followed by recurring costs of approximately $4 million per year.
When Indiana estimated the costs of its photo ID law, it found that, to provide more than 168,000 IDs to voters,the “[t]otal production costs, including man-power, transaction time and manufacturing” was in excess of $1.3 million, with an additional revenue loss of nearly $2.2 million. That estimateapparently did not include a variety of necessary costs, including the costs of training and votereducation and outreach. A fiscal note assessing an ID bill in Minnesota estimated at least $250,000 for the manufacturing costs of providing free ID at only 90 locations across the state, the costs of onetraining conference for county auditors, and some administrative costs.
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_cost_of_voter_id_laws_what_the_courts_say/
Frazzled wrote:IT IS FREE NOW. Thats the point.
No it's not. If it's free in Texas, how much is that costing the taxpayers down there? Have you looked it up?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
He means free to users at the point of access, like the British NHS.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I'm pretty sure that he's repeatedly claimed that state photo IDs are free. Which they certainly aren't in my state, among others.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Mannahnin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Still, I think the basic principle remains the same: the fact that a law can be circumvented by those who want to go to the trouble isn't a good reason to not make the law.
Is it if the ability to circumvent it is sufficiently easy as to make the law unable to achieve its aim. If the costs of a law outweigh the benefits, it shouldn't be enacted. Again, we're talking about a law being made to solve a nonexistant problem, will have undesirable side effects of voter suppression, and which will cost states millions of dollars to implement.
If I might clarify my position:
If voter fraud were shown to be a problem that required addressing via some sort of law requiring IDs for voters, I'd be for it. Until then, this is simply some sort of thought exercise for me.
Also, it WAS March 17th until recently, So, um... take that into account when reading this post. I told everyone how racist the "Irish Car Bomb" is, but damned if I didn't drink 'em.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Hum.
I'm not going to take offence at a cocktail called an Irish Carb Bomb, however I would not advise you to order one at a pub in Omagh, Northern Ireland.
29 dead and over 200 injured isn't really a clever concept for a new cocktail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Kilkrazy wrote:Hum.
I'm not going to take offence at a cocktail called an Irish Carb Bomb, however I would not advise you to order one at a pub in Omagh, Northern Ireland.
29 dead and over 200 injured isn't really a clever concept for a new cocktail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing
Oh, believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about.
It's quite common in the States, though. I explain that it's like ordering a 9/11, but people don't get it I guess.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Yeah, the Irish Car Bomb drink is definitely part of the legacy of black humor about it /sympathy towards it in the US. It's quite an old drink though. You haven't heard of it before?
MR: Fairy snuff!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Bromsy wrote:Can we get back to the part where I am minister of Strip Clubs? It's Saint Patties fer Odin's sake.
Bromsy is hereby appointed minister of Strip Clubs in an enlightened Frazzled administration. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:I'm pretty sure that he's repeatedly claimed that state photo IDs are free. Which they certainly aren't in my state, among others.
Move to a better state? We have a rodeo that last an entire month. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, the Irish Car Bomb drink is definitely part of the legacy of black humor about it /sympathy towards it in the US. It's quite an old drink though. You haven't heard of it before?
MR: Fairy snuff!
I prefer my version. Go to a wine tasting class with a wife who "makes" me finish off all her glasses, drink more wine at an Italian restaurant, and then finish off some cheap Ravenwood cabernet while watching two episodes of th e 3rd season of Tru Blood.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
You party animal, you!
29110
Post by: AustonT
The question that's been nagging at me is: Does that mean 25% of blacks don't drive?
241
Post by: Ahtman
AustonT wrote:The question that's been nagging at me is: Does that mean 25% of blacks don't drive?
Just as much as it means everyone who drives has car insurance.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Ahtman wrote:AustonT wrote:The question that's been nagging at me is: Does that mean 25% of blacks don't drive?
Just as much as it means everyone who drives has car insurance.
Given I've read that the Census indicated that only 61% of Americans drive I suppose it's possible. I just wonder if that's a real number or if there's a way to confirm it. Since I haven't seen any indication that the number from the B something institute is based on actual data it'd be nice to at least have hard data to put it in the ball park. A good start would be the %-age of black Americans that drive.
241
Post by: Ahtman
AustonT wrote:Ahtman wrote:AustonT wrote:The question that's been nagging at me is: Does that mean 25% of blacks don't drive?
Just as much as it means everyone who drives has car insurance.
Given I've read that the Census indicated that only 61% of Americans drive I suppose it's possible. I just wonder if that's a real number or if there's a way to confirm it. Since I haven't seen any indication that the number from the B something institute is based on actual data it'd be nice to at least have hard data to put it in the ball park. A good start would be the %-age of black Americans that drive.
I never found the data (25% w/o ID) that was attributed to the Center. It may be in there buried, or it may have been used becuase that center does a lot dealing with the issue and hoped no one would go looking to hard. I know several people of the African-American variety that do not have a drivers license and of age and then some, but they all have State ID's. The only people I have run into that don't have a state ID at least are the homeless or illegal immigrants, and they often have Social Security cards, albeit questionable ones occasionally*.
*often
221
Post by: Frazzled
Exactly.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
LoneLictor wrote:Can someone get a source besides Faux News? That article is pretty dang biased.
Yea i stopped reading after the first 2 lines where they basically made it opinion based infotainment.
"The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely. "
The bold part is where they try to discredit the entire UN which we are also a member of base don the actions of "some of the members"
Thats like saying the Eagles offensive lineup shouldn't be allowed to have pets because "some of the members" hold dog fights on the weekends...
29408
Post by: Melissia
It's quite an accurate assessment. The UN human rights council has members that have far worse violations of human rights. These need to be considered first (deal with the biggest problems first; worry about the log in your eye before trying to take the stick out of someone else's), but because the US is an easy target ,they aren't.
5534
Post by: dogma
Melissia wrote:It's quite an accurate assessment. The UN human rights council has members that have far worse violations of human rights. These need to be considered first (deal with the biggest problems first; worry about the log in your eye before trying to take the stick out of someone else's), but because the US is an easy target ,they aren't.
Well, they need to deal with the problems they want to deal with.
As I usually say, its the UN, and the UN isn't an extension of the West, which is why its susceptible to a wide variety of political influences.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Melissia wrote:It's quite an accurate assessment. The UN human rights council has members that have far worse violations of human rights. These need to be considered first (deal with the biggest problems first; worry about the log in your eye before trying to take the stick out of someone else's), but because the US is an easy target ,they aren't.
It is true, but does that discredit them? If so then they there fore acurately discredit the US based on our voting laws.
221
Post by: Frazzled
frgsinwntr wrote:Melissia wrote:It's quite an accurate assessment. The UN human rights council has members that have far worse violations of human rights. These need to be considered first (deal with the biggest problems first; worry about the log in your eye before trying to take the stick out of someone else's), but because the US is an easy target ,they aren't.
It is true, but does that discredit them? If so then they there fore acurately discredit the US based on our voting laws.
er....what? 
29408
Post by: Melissia
I never said it discredited them, only that their priorities are fethed to hell by the political gaming of backwards assed countries who wouldn't know human rights unless it was a bloody, sexually violated corpse laying on their lawn.
Even then they'd probably not care.
29110
Post by: AustonT
frgsinwntr wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Can someone get a source besides Faux News? That article is pretty dang biased.
Yea i stopped reading after the first 2 lines where they basically made it opinion based infotainment.
"The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely. "
The bold part is where they try to discredit the entire UN which we are also a member of base don the actions of "some of the members"
Thats like saying the Eagles offensive lineup shouldn't be allowed to have pets because "some of the members" hold dog fights on the weekends...
Erm no. If they wanted to discredit the ENTIRE UN they would have not have specified that "some members of the council." but don't worry when I say "you people" make generalizations I mean all of wargaming nerds on Dakka Dakka, not just you and Lone Lictor.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Melissia wrote:I never said it discredited them, only that their priorities are fethed to hell by the political gaming of backwards assed countries who wouldn't know human rights unless it was a bloody, sexually violated corpse laying on their lawn.
Even then they'd probably not care.
Ah my bad I misunderstood your post.
|
|
