CNN) - A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday decided not to restrict a controversial voter ID law from going into place.
The law, which requires voters to present a state issued photo ID, has been met with fierce opposition by those who claim that the law discriminates against minorities.
In the Keystone State, the issue has largely been divided along party lines. Republicans argue the new law helps to fight fraud, while Democrats make the case that the new law aids Republicans in the voting booth by limiting turnout by minorities in the crucial battleground state.
But Judge Robert Simpson, with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, on Wednesday issued an order expressing no constitutional reason to stop the law from taking effect, despite writing in his decision that he had "sympathy" for the witnesses.
"At the end of the day, however, I do not have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses or my esteem for the counsel. Rather, I must analyze the law, and apply it to the evidence of facial unconstitutionality brought forth in the courtroom, tested by our adversarial system," Simpson wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, the Advancement Project, and the law firm of Arnold & Porter will be appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to a statement from the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
"Given clear evidence that impersonation fraud is not a problem, we had hoped that the court would show greater concern for the hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised by this law," Witold 'Vic' Walczak, legal director for the state's ACLU, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania GOP chairman praised the judge's decision.
"I applaud the Commonwealth Court for displaying courage and conviction in this ruling. With sensational headlines and half-truths about this legislation being touted by partisan critics, we are fortunate that the Commonwealth Court realized that the sanctity of our elections was at stake – and took appropriate action to protect a cherished right," Rob Gleason said in a statement.
Pennsylvania represents a crucial battleground state this fall in the presidential election. While a Republican candidate hasn't won the state since 1988, the state made big GOP gains in recent years and has a Republican governor and one U.S. senator.
A recent poll released August 1 suggests President Barack Obama leads Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania by a margin of 53% to 42%, though Romney has in the past predicted he'll win the state in November.
In late July, the Justice Department began a formal investigation into whether the state's requirement violates civil rights laws, saying the state had 30 days to provide the requested documents.
Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated. To date the Justice Department has already filed suit against two states: South Carolina and Texas. Officials are awaiting a ruling by a panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., on a Texas case argued in early July. Judges have scheduled a hearing on the South Carolina case later this summer.
The Civil Rights Division has taken an aggressive approach to challenging voter photo-ID laws, which many Democratic and minority groups claim is an effort by Republican-controlled state governments to suppress voter turnout. Republicans have charged the challenges reflect purely partisan politics designed to enhance minority turnout at the polls.
– CNN's Ashley Killough, Terry Frieden, Karan Olson, Sarah Hoye and Carol Cratty contributed to this report.
I've no issue for photo required to vote.
Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated.
I did not know this. I thought it was across the board but it just deal with the former confederate states.
I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.
Will be interesting to see how this turns out.
I do think this is one area where our judicial system sucks. Not the outcome (with which I don't agree with, but I'm no constitutional judge), but that it takes so long to get something decided. At this stage a court decision doesn't mean anything (no matter which side wins) because it can just get overturned at the next step only to be reversed again at the next step.
CNN) - A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday decided not to restrict a controversial voter ID law from going into place.
The law, which requires voters to present a state issued photo ID, has been met with fierce opposition by those who claim that the law discriminates against minorities.
In the Keystone State, the issue has largely been divided along party lines. Republicans argue the new law helps to fight fraud, while Democrats make the case that the new law aids Republicans in the voting booth by limiting turnout by minorities in the crucial battleground state.
But Judge Robert Simpson, with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, on Wednesday issued an order expressing no constitutional reason to stop the law from taking effect, despite writing in his decision that he had "sympathy" for the witnesses.
"At the end of the day, however, I do not have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses or my esteem for the counsel. Rather, I must analyze the law, and apply it to the evidence of facial unconstitutionality brought forth in the courtroom, tested by our adversarial system," Simpson wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, the Advancement Project, and the law firm of Arnold & Porter will be appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to a statement from the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
"Given clear evidence that impersonation fraud is not a problem, we had hoped that the court would show greater concern for the hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised by this law," Witold 'Vic' Walczak, legal director for the state's ACLU, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania GOP chairman praised the judge's decision.
"I applaud the Commonwealth Court for displaying courage and conviction in this ruling. With sensational headlines and half-truths about this legislation being touted by partisan critics, we are fortunate that the Commonwealth Court realized that the sanctity of our elections was at stake – and took appropriate action to protect a cherished right," Rob Gleason said in a statement.
Pennsylvania represents a crucial battleground state this fall in the presidential election. While a Republican candidate hasn't won the state since 1988, the state made big GOP gains in recent years and has a Republican governor and one U.S. senator.
A recent poll released August 1 suggests President Barack Obama leads Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania by a margin of 53% to 42%, though Romney has in the past predicted he'll win the state in November.
In late July, the Justice Department began a formal investigation into whether the state's requirement violates civil rights laws, saying the state had 30 days to provide the requested documents.
Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated. To date the Justice Department has already filed suit against two states: South Carolina and Texas. Officials are awaiting a ruling by a panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., on a Texas case argued in early July. Judges have scheduled a hearing on the South Carolina case later this summer.
The Civil Rights Division has taken an aggressive approach to challenging voter photo-ID laws, which many Democratic and minority groups claim is an effort by Republican-controlled state governments to suppress voter turnout. Republicans have charged the challenges reflect purely partisan politics designed to enhance minority turnout at the polls.
– CNN's Ashley Killough, Terry Frieden, Karan Olson, Sarah Hoye and Carol Cratty contributed to this report.
I've no issue for photo required to vote.
Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated.
I did not know this. I thought it was across the board but it just deal with the former confederate states.
Yup... all confederate southern states are under the purvue.
I don't see the problem with voter ID. The left screams about disenfranchising minorities, but if they're legal to vote they're legal to and I believe in most states by law required to have a state I.D.
Therefore the only people getting screwed here are people who aren't legally allowed to vote.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I don't see the problem with voter ID. The left screams about disenfranchising minorities, but if they're legal to vote they're legal to and I believe in most states by law required to have a state I.D.
Therefore the only people getting screwed here are people who aren't legally allowed to vote.
I think the problem in PA is that the PA House majority leader said while ticking off a list of accomplishments "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."
Shoulda stuck with the "voter fraud" story. Because research has shown the fraud issue has been greatly exaggerated by the GOP. Not that the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the situation was reversed.
@KalashnikovMarine -- there's no PA law requiring every citizen to have official ID. Thousands in inner-city Philadelphia will be affected by this law, and that was absolutely its intent. Is mandatory state-issued ID common in other states?
@KalashnikovMarine -- there's no PA law requiring every citizen to have official ID. Thousands in inner-city Philadelphia will be affected by this law, and that was absolutely its intent. Is mandatory state-issued ID common in other states?
If they drive... driver's licence.
If they dont... how do they own a home or rent (you need valid IDs for that).
Do they rent from BlockBuster? Pretty sure you'd need a valid photo ID.
d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.
Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.
You can be pretty certain that another federal court is going to uphold voter ID in another state. Then you have two federal courts with different rulings, so a Supreme Court ruling will be required. If there is not going to be a Supreme Court case about voter ID within the next 2 years I will let your dachshund hump my legs
I guess it is, I mean where I'm from it's just something you do. Here in Colorado if you don't get your driver's license you get your state ID. Photo IDs are pretty important in modern society right? I can't think of a good reason to not have one.
I full admit this is not something I've really researched, because as I outlined my train of thought above, it's not something that requires much thought to me.
So these inner city type folks still aren't affected, cause they can go get a state ID, which as US Citizens they qualify for and probably should have to make life in general a little easier when trying to prove who they are or their age. I know I have my ID out at least four or five times a week.
Perhaps only certain types of ID are accepted. Your Blockbuster card won't be, but things that are, like passports and driving license, tend to cost money which poorer minorities are less likely to have.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So these inner city type folks still aren't affected, cause they can go get a state ID, which as US Citizens they qualify for and probably should have to make life in general a little easier when trying to prove who they are or their age. I know I have my ID out at least four or five times a week.
The problem is that for some, "just go get an ID" is not that easy.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.
People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID. People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed). People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I guess it is, I mean where I'm from it's just something you do. Here in Colorado if you don't get your driver's license you get your state ID. Photo IDs are pretty important in modern society right? I can't think of a good reason to not have one.
I full admit this is not something I've really researched, because as I outlined my train of thought above, it's not something that requires much thought to me.
So these inner city type folks still aren't affected, cause they can go get a state ID, which as US Citizens they qualify for and probably should have to make life in general a little easier when trying to prove who they are or their age. I know I have my ID out at least four or five times a week.
You can get state IDs in PA also. But if you take the bus or subway and don't drive or fly, how often do you need or show someone your photo ID?
Part of the issue is that this was passed fairly recently. People are going to show up to vote just like they did in the last election and be turned away -- even though they're on the books -- because they didn't know about the change. That's gonna get *ugly*. I expect that local churches and various organizations are doing all they can to spread the word, and that 4 years from now it won't much of an issue. I also expect the Dem machine in Philly will prevent this from becoming a disaster for Obama. But there will be issues this November.
It's funny how the GOP I grew up with wasn't such a fan of things like forced government registration of its citizens, etc. Times change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.
People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed).
People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).
Just some examples.
I just don't know what's with those "inner-city type folks." How do they even travel overseas without a passport?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.
People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed).
People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).
Just some examples.
I had a hell of a hard time getting my ID simply because I never even went for my learner's permit as a teenager, and waited quite a while to get one. This was with access to transportation, no real job in the way, and ready financial support from my grandmother. It just turned out that my mother was terrible at keeping documents and I didn't have all the multiple forms of documentation the state wanted. When it came down to it, the worker at the RMV said "Well, I'm not really supposed to process it since this [birth certificate] isn't correct. However I'll give you a break and just let it through".
I can't imagine what this would be like for someone living paycheck to paycheck in retail, with no car and a couple of squealing carpet demons at home to take care of. Especially since unlike me a lot of them aren't going to look white enough for the people to go "I'll just give you a break and let it through".
birth certificate not correct? The Birthers were right! Chongara is an alien! *
* A martian to be exact. I'm sure he's here to blow up the Earth because it obstucts his view of Venus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.
Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.
You can be pretty certain that another federal court is going to uphold voter ID in another state. Then you have two federal courts with different rulings, so a Supreme Court ruling will be required. If there is not going to be a Supreme Court case about voter ID within the next 2 years I will let your dachshund hump my legs
The Supreme Court is never required to do anything.
Besides it would still be upheld.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.
Frazzled wrote:birth certificate not correct? The Birthers were right! Chongara is an alien! *
* A martian to be exact. I'm sure he's here to blow up the Earth because it obstucts his view of Venus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.
Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.
You can be pretty certain that another federal court is going to uphold voter ID in another state. Then you have two federal courts with different rulings, so a Supreme Court ruling will be required. If there is not going to be a Supreme Court case about voter ID within the next 2 years I will let your dachshund hump my legs
The Supreme Court is never required to do anything.
Besides it would still be upheld.
Just like the usual crowd said that Obamacare would certainly be struck down.
People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor? You know you have to have ID to verify Medicare don’t you? You know most states (and this one actually) have portable ID vans that come to nursing homes etc. to register you.
People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed).
****If they have jobs they have an ID. That’s just silly willy.
People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).
****Get them. With great rights come great responsibility. If you can’t half ass it enough to get it together than you can’t half ass it enough to even moderately research the candidates or issues in the first place.
If they dont... how do they own a home or rent (you need valid IDs for that).
Do they rent from BlockBuster? Pretty sure you'd need a valid photo ID.
If you require that someone has a ID to vote, then someone who does not have that ID cannot vote -- you have effectively blocked someone's ability to vote.
In order prevent this, you must provide free IDs to everyone who wishes to have them (at cost to the taxpayers). If these free IDs are easy to access, the danger of voter fraud has been prevented and everyone is a winner. (save the taxpayers who are now paying for the free IDs and the facilities to provide them)
However, when the locations offering free IDs are located in locations that are unpractical to reach and/or have unpractical hours of operation, then poor people cannot access them. Given the poor people living in cities are majority black people, then there is a legitimate case that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 will be broken.
The question that will be posed to the courts is this "Will these voter ID laws be targeted at preventing blacks from voting?"
I, for one, am very curious to see how this plays out in the courts.
SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor?
I mean no disrespect, but this statement sounds like you have never lived in a city without a car.
I lived in San Francisco for a number of years and did not own a car. When I wanted to see the doctor or went to work, I would take the public transit system (called MUNI or BART). When I wanted to vote, I would walk 2 blocks down to the local church to vote. When I wanted a beer, I would walk to the bar down the street then stagger home.
Most big cities are like this.
If the ID office was located 20 miles outside the city with no public transportation routes, they were effectively impossible for me to get to. I would have to travel to the closest BART line and then walk for 5-6 hours after that to reach the office.
That's how you make it impossible for someone living in an inner city to get an ID. If the ID office is in the city, then its no problem. Its when the office is set up so its impossible to practically reach for citizens its a problem.
There is voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Here are some numbers to prove it:
• 4 = number of persons convicted of voter fraud in Pennsylvania since the year 2004, including the time when Gov. Tom Corbett was Attorney General. All four cases involved people registering when not eligible.
• 0 = number of persons convicted of a voter pretending to be someone he or she was not, in other words, the very thing the voter ID law is supposed to prevent, since the year 2004 including the time when Gov. Corbett was Attorney General.
• 20,000,000 = number of votes cast in Pennsylvania since 2004. That’s 4 cases of voter fraud divided by 20,000,000 votes cast, which is 1 case of voter fraud in 5,000,000 or 0.000002 percent of the votes cast. For those readers who are of a betting sort, the odds of winning a state lottery are much higher – 1 in 4,000,000 or 0.00000025 percent.
• 700,000 = the approximate number of Pennsylvania voters who do not have a valid PA driver’s license who are otherwise eligible to vote. According to the Washington Post, 11 percent of all Americans lack a photo ID, including 20 percent of voters younger than 29, 15 percent of those earning less than $35,000 per year and a full quarter of all African-Americans.
• 104-88 = Pennsylvania House vote total for the Pennsylvania voter ID law. All Republicans except 3 voted for the bill. Every Democrat voted against it.
Timothy DeWald is a former professor of mathematical sciences at Lebanon Valley College, Annville. He is also an ordained pastor
It's not remotely close to shady. In fact it's one of the most straightforward and transparent actions in a while. I don't think there is anything close to a hidden agenda or secret purpose with this law. It's been expilctly stated what this law is for.
Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor?
I mean no disrespect, but this statement sounds like you have never lived in a city without a car.
If God had intended Man to live without automobiles He would not have created Carroll Shelby. You aren't some hippy pink underwear wearin long haired tree hugger are ya boy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:birth certificate not correct? The Birthers were right! Chongara is an alien! *
* A martian to be exact. I'm sure he's here to blow up the Earth because it obstucts his view of Venus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.
Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.
You can be pretty certain that another federal court is going to uphold voter ID in another state. Then you have two federal courts with different rulings, so a Supreme Court ruling will be required. If there is not going to be a Supreme Court case about voter ID within the next 2 years I will let your dachshund hump my legs
The Supreme Court is never required to do anything.
Besides it would still be upheld.
Just like the usual crowd said that Obamacare would certainly be struck down.
Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID. ****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor? You know you have to have ID to verify Medicare don’t you? You know most states (and this one actually) have portable ID vans that come to nursing homes etc. to register you.
There are a lot more polling stations than there are DMV's. And just because a van comes to your nursing home does not mean that it fixes the other points, such as not having the right papers for your ID.
Frazzled wrote:People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed). ****If they have jobs they have an ID. That’s just silly willy.
Many might work under the table and were never required to get ID. Others can have expired IDs.
Frazzled wrote:People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example). ****Get them. With great rights come great responsibility. If you can’t half ass it enough to get it together than you can’t half ass it enough to even moderately research the candidates or issues in the first place.
Yes, because the person without transportation or that can't get a day off from work has to find out what office 10 states over is responsible for their birth certificate and then go there in person to sign the right papers to get the birth certificate that allows them to get their ID.
On a related note, let me tell you this funny little story:
My dad was in the army, stationed in Germany where he married my mom. I ended up being born in a US Military hospital in Germany and spend the first 16 years of my life in Germany. I had my German birth-certificate, German passport and whatnot. The military issued a certificate of birth to a US national abroad to prove my US citizenship when I was born. 16 years later we moved to the US and applied for my passport. At this point all I had was my all my German ID documentation and a copy of my US certificate of birth abroad. But of course the copy wasn't good enough, they asked for an original document. Easy enough then, just ask for a new copy.
The Department of State said this is a military issue and they will have all my records, just contact them and get the paperwork from the base. So I guess in order to pick up the papers in person I would just have to travel back to Germany to get them. But luckily for me the base closed about 6 years earlier, so all the records were shipped to some warehouse and are probably hanging out in some salt-mine stateside. Well, after a lot of talking to the military and a couple months of searching by them it turns out that all records of my birth were lost. As far as the military is concerned I was never born.
Eventually it took a grand total of 4 months, getting both my parents who lived in two different states together to stand in front of a federal judge and sign an affidavit that I was really their child in order for me to get a passport, and that was pre-9/11. I still don't have a US birth certificate and if my passport is ever lost I can look forward to a giant headache.
But yes, everybody can just get ID just like that. And if they can't then they must be lazy or dumb or useless and shouldn't vote to begin with
Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor?
I mean no disrespect, but this statement sounds like you have never lived in a city without a car.
I lived in San Francisco for a number of years and did not own a car. When I wanted to see the doctor or went to work, I would take the public transit system (called MUNI or BART). When I wanted to vote, I would walk 2 blocks down to the local church to vote. When I wanted a beer, I would walk to the bar down the street then stagger home.
Most big cities are like this.
If the ID office was located 20 miles outside the city with no public transportation routes, they were effectively impossible for me to get to. I would have to travel to the closest BART line and then walk for 5-6 hours after that to reach the office.
That's how you make it impossible for someone living in an inner city to get an ID. If the ID office is in the city, then its no problem. Its when the office is set up so its impossible to practically reach for citizens its a problem.
They drive to their own mailboxes in Texas.
I think it's disingenuous to claim this is something that can't be overcome. It will be. But this law is absolutely intended to disenfranchise people, if only for a short while.
The old Carville quote describes PA pretty well -- "Two big cities with Alabama in between." Five counties in PA -- Philadelphia county and the surrounding 'burb counties (Montgomery, Chester and Bucks), and Allegheny county (Pittsburgh) represent a huge chunk of the population. You really only have to win there and you'll carry the state. If the GOP can blunt the votes in Philadelphia and Allegheny counties, and pull even-ish in the three Philly suburban counties, they'll have a chance.
But I still don't think PA will go to the GOP, so it's ultimately much ado about nothing. Other than the ethical implications, of course.
Frazzled wrote:If God had intended Man to live without automobiles He would not have created Carroll Shelby. You aren't some hippy pink underwear wearin long haired tree hugger are ya boy?
LOL Think of the other thing SF is known for.
That's right. Technology companies like Oracle, Google, and Apple.
I was out there when I was doing technology work for Electronic Arts (EA).
The Department of State said this is a military issue and they will have all my records, just contact them and get the paperwork from the base. So I guess in order to pick up the papers in person I would just have to travel back to Germany to get them. But luckily for me the base closed about 6 years earlier, so all the records were shipped to some warehouse and are probably hanging out in some salt-mine stateside. Well, after a lot of talking to the military and a couple months of searching by them it turns out that all records of my birth were lost. As far as the military is concerned I was never born.
How long ago was this? Did you (father) look into DEERS. Also, I say this everyone lower enlisted, SAVE ALL YOUR DOCUMENTS. Reason why I ask is the military digitizing everything. Does your father have a AKO account?
Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor? You know you have to have ID to verify Medicare don’t you? You know most states (and this one actually) have portable ID vans that come to nursing homes etc. to register you.
My father lives in a fairly poor neighborhood, where the DMV is about 2 hours away by bus, maybe more. But the fire station where they vote is about 10 minute walk.
Then there is my situation, the DMV is only open when im at work/school. other then fridays, meaning if i want to to something to get my license or something like an ID i have to bum a ride from a friend or have my mom switch days off because the bus there runs irregularly.
The point im making at is DMV's are to far and inbetween(and evil, they failed me for nothing) then other voting places.
Frazzled wrote:If God had intended Man to live without automobiles He would not have created Carroll Shelby. You aren't some hippy pink underwear wearin long haired tree hugger are ya boy?
LOL Think of the other thing SF is known for.
That's right. Technology companies like Oracle, Google, and Apple.
I was out there when I was doing technology work for Electronic Arts (EA).
Yea we have those jobs in Austin too. Some of my best friends are Californians fleeing California.
Thats not technology. Transocean, Boeing, Weatherford, Cameron, SRD Shell, Northrup, now thats high tech.
The Department of State said this is a military issue and they will have all my records, just contact them and get the paperwork from the base. So I guess in order to pick up the papers in person I would just have to travel back to Germany to get them. But luckily for me the base closed about 6 years earlier, so all the records were shipped to some warehouse and are probably hanging out in some salt-mine stateside. Well, after a lot of talking to the military and a couple months of searching by them it turns out that all records of my birth were lost. As far as the military is concerned I was never born.
How long ago was this? Did you (father) look into DEERS. Also, I say this everyone lower enlisted, SAVE ALL YOUR DOCUMENTS. Reason why I ask is the military digitizing everything. Does your father have a AKO account?
That was in 1997. Between the shutting down of the base, moving tons of paperwork, storing it who knows where, a big warehouse fire somewhere if current rumors are correct when I hear from veterans that lost papers, and then getting stuff shuffled around to get digitized it was simply lost. We've even had our congressman on the case at one point, but nothing was ever found.
I'm the thing from the swamp. If I ever run for president they will have a field day with me .
Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID. ****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor? You know you have to have ID to verify Medicare don’t you? You know most states (and this one actually) have portable ID vans that come to nursing homes etc. to register you.
My father lives in a fairly poor neighborhood, where the DMV is about 2 hours away by bus, maybe more. But the fire station where they vote is about 10 minute walk. Then there is my situation, the DMV is only open when im at work/school. other then fridays, meaning if i want to to something to get my license or something like an ID i have to bum a ride from a friend or have my mom switch days off because the bus there runs irregularly. The point im making at is DMV's are to far and inbetween(and evil, they failed me for nothing) then other voting places.
Then absentee vote. Otherwise life sucks, man up and take your responsponbilities seriously and get an ID. How else are you going to buy booze afterall? Come on won't someone think of the children here?
@D-USA. KK your records were lost in warehouse fire at Kaiserslautern in mid 90's. Not sure to be exact but I do remember a bunch of files were lost due to a fire. I had a couple soldiers situation that mirrored yours a bit but they kept original documents and pretty much went through JAG to square it away concerning their kids.
Jihadin wrote:@D-USA. KK your records were lost in warehouse fire at Kaiserslautern in mid 90's. Not sure to be exact but I do remember a bunch of files were lost due to a fire. I had a couple soldiers situation that mirrored yours a bit but they kept original documents and pretty much went through JAG to square it away concerning their kids.
Having the passport now clears away any questions of citizenship, but I would have hated to have to go through this with all the new regulations and crap in place today.
As long as Donald Trump doesn't want to see my real birth certificate I don't expect any trouble. But it is a good example that "just go get ID" is not always as easy done as said.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I don't see the problem with voter ID. The left screams about disenfranchising minorities, but if they're legal to vote they're legal to and I believe in most states by law required to have a state I.D.
Therefore the only people getting screwed here are people who aren't legally allowed to vote.
The AP story wrote:The original Republican rationale for the law – to prevent election fraud – played little role in the court case. Government lawyers acknowledged that they are "not aware of any incidents of in person voter fraud." Instead, they insisted that lawmakers properly exercised their latitude to make election-related laws.
You should have a problem with a government wasting taxpayer time and effort to pass a law that, bu their own admission, solves a problem that literally does not exist.
Lets say 99 percent of all citizens in Pennsylvania are unaffected by this law. That's a great result, right? Congratulations, you just disenfranchised 130,000 people who have the legal right, a vote that in some instance their parents and grandparents and ancestors marched and protested and were teargassed and hung and beaten and killed to give them. These are real Americans, who live and work in this country, who no longer can participate in the political process because one side wants to play shady games with their rights to make sure no goblins or trolls or boogeymen show up. How dare you, I say.
I was just painting, and I have to say, I can't stop thinking about this. It really bothers me how conservatives can champion something like this, something so unambiguously and plainly awful.
The man said this law will hand Romney Pennsylvania, flat out said it. Instead of competing in the arena of ideas, they've decided to kick people off the rolls so they could win. Why aren't you up in arms about this? There are those of you who will scrutinize every bullet the government buys because you're sure any day now they are going to install a repressive regime to steal your freedom, and yet here we are, while they actually start doing it, while openly stating they are going to steal a precious freedom, the most basic one from which most others flow - the right to be heard by your government - and you fall silent. Worse, you applaud it, because it means a win for "your team".
It's unbelievable. Where is the Tea Party, with their no taxation without reperesentation and don't tread on me signs? Don't you guys see what hypocritical toolboxes this makes you look like to the rest of the country? Don't you see how you guys are actually hurting America with shenanigans like this?
If only you guys loved the rest of the constitution as much as you loved the goddamn second amendment.
Score one for conservative voter fraud and systematic disenfranchisement. Score 0 for democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor? You know you have to have ID to verify Medicare don’t you? You know most states (and this one actually) have portable ID vans that come to nursing homes etc. to register you.
My father lives in a fairly poor neighborhood, where the DMV is about 2 hours away by bus, maybe more. But the fire station where they vote is about 10 minute walk.
Then there is my situation, the DMV is only open when im at work/school. other then fridays, meaning if i want to to something to get my license or something like an ID i have to bum a ride from a friend or have my mom switch days off because the bus there runs irregularly.
The point im making at is DMV's are to far and inbetween(and evil, they failed me for nothing) then other voting places.
Then absentee vote. Otherwise life sucks, man up and take your responsponbilities seriously and get an ID. How else are you going to buy booze afterall? Come on won't someone think of the children here?
What a surprise, frazzled is for a worthless voter registration law specifically targeted at democratic voters. One that was admitted to be such by the laws creators. In a state where there is no evidence past or present of voter fraud. Frazzled, the modern confessed libertarian votes against freedom and for government control because it gives his boys a few extra votes.
The shock I feel at this obvious and oh so surpising admittence of corruption and the willful failure of american democracy is devastating.
Maybepeople who are up in arms about showing a ID card are assuming that there be no help for the disenfranchise to acquire a ID card of some sort. If you take a step out the box and think "hey maybe we have something here" and the next candidate for whatever office ensures everyone that needs to get an ID card of some sort will provide some sort of logistics to it. Heck that would appeal to both sides candidates and show the "people" are cared for.....reaching there I know
Jihadin wrote:Maybepeople who are up in arms about showing a ID card are assuming that there be no help for the disenfranchise to acquire a ID card of some sort. If you take a step out the box and think "hey maybe we have something here" and the next candidate for whatever office ensures everyone that needs to get an ID card of some sort will provide some sort of logistics to it. Heck that would appeal to both sides candidates and show the "people" are cared for.....reaching there I know
I don't care what the post facto justification is. There was no voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. The law authors admitted that it was a political ploy. It's a bs political ploy and by supporting it you are helping politicize the vote and disenfranchise non republicans. I know you're doing it, they know you're doing it, if you don't that speaks volumes about to what degree you understand the world you live in.
C'mon, lets stop playing pretend, OK. We all know perfectly well what this law is designed to do, so lets stop winking and nodding at each other. You've known since the state law in Texas allowed gun licenses as a form of ID but not college ID's what they're doing with this, and who this is "helping".
Jihadin wrote:Ever thought about burning a vacation day to go get a photo ID? Plan ahead.
What, is every job now required to give you paid vacation?
In Europe, maybe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:C'mon, lets stop playing pretend, OK. We all know perfectly well what this law is designed to do, so lets stop winking and nodding at each other. You've known since the state law in Texas allowed gun licenses as a form of ID but not college ID's what they're doing with this, and who this is "helping".
Well yes, but some people like lying to themselves to make themselves feel better.
Like I said I've no issue with requiring a photo ID card to vote. Penn is a bit of a wild card due to that section 5 of the Civil Rights Act. The revrse is if you feel that no ID card is required then you must agree that everyone can vote including those that are here illegaly that the Democrat are protecting for their votes. Might as well throw it out there since its a republican conspiracy thats its also a democrat conspiracy to to avoid the ID card....blah blah blah battle might be over in WoT
Jihadin, could you please read the thread again? I started to write an explanation to you, then realized other people already did it and you're ignoring it.
Like I said I've no issue with requiring a photo ID card to vote. Penn is a bit of a wild card due to that section 5 of the Civil Rights Act. The revrse is if you feel that no ID card is required then you must agree that everyone can vote including those that are here illegaly that the Democrat are protecting for their votes.
No, you only think that if you have no idea what the world is actually like, what politics are actually like, or what that state is actually like. There is no case for illegals committing voter fraud by voting en masse in Penn. Pretending that people are defending the rights of non citizens to vote by being against this is both plainly factually wrong and it's intellectually lazy. That's like thinking heavier things fall faster.
Might as well throw it out there since its a republican conspiracy thats its also a democrat conspiracy to to avoid the ID card....blah blah blah battle might be over in WoT
Pennsylvania's House majority leader, Mike Turzai, a Republican, was quoted in June saying that the law "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."
It's not a conspiracy WHEN THEY ADMITTED TOIT OPENLY IN FRONT OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
Ouze a concealed carry license is an official ID issued by the state with all the protections they build in to state IDs against forgery. You can print up college IDs look a likes at home. That's the difference there and why trying to buy beer with a college ID doesn't work in most states.
What's killing me is the solution's quite simple and honestly having a valid photo ID is pretty much mandatory to survive in the modern world. Every argument offered against that is a pretty thin excuse. Even our own member who had an issue shockingly managed to over come it by being willing to do the work for it.
I'm for this because it seems like common sense "Prove who you are and that you're a legal US citizen who's eligible to vote." That said the motivation behind it isn't less disgusting because it's sensible nor do I count this as a win for my "team" for starters there's only one team and they play the partisan game mostly to keep everyone else distracted. Personally Obama and Romney are the same kind of jackass with slightly different wrapping paper.
Personally Obama and Romney are the same kind of jackass with slightly different wrapping paper.
On one level I agree with this.
On another, people thought the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, and that most likely was the difference between making up justifications to and invading Iraq, and not doing so.
Ouze a concealed carry license is an official ID issued by the state with all the protections they build in to state IDs against forgery. You can print up college IDs look a likes at home. That's the difference there and why trying to buy beer with a college ID doesn't work in most states.
Actually, most college IDs don't give an age. That's why you can't and never will be able to use them to buy liquor. They'd also have to be specifically allowed as a form of ID accepted by a state for liquor purchasing, and given the propensity for underage drinking by college students they wouldn't do that.
In my state you can't use a gun ID to buy alcohol and the gun licenses aren't hard to forge (they're actually easier than college IDs, I could forge one in under 3 minutes with photoshop).
What's killing me is the solution's quite simple and honestly having a valid photo ID is pretty much mandatory to survive in the modern world.
A college student who doesn't drink or drive has no reason to have a "valid ID". I know I didn't have my social security card with me when I was dorming. Roll again bucko, you missed your skill check with this one.
Every argument offered against that is a pretty thin excuse.
How about "It isn't required and statistically there are millions of people who are legally able to vote but do not have a required form of ID in the state of Pennsylvania." Is that one too hard to grasp?
I'm for this because it seems like common sense
No, you're in this because you're a party soldier and have no idea what the facts are concerning this issue.
That said the motivation behind it isn't less disgusting because it's sensible nor do I count this as a win for my "team" for starters there's only one team and they play the partisan game mostly to keep everyone else distracted. Personally Obama and Romney are the same kind of jackass with slightly different wrapping paper.
And all your presents are wrapped in red. Feigning disgust doesn't really change what your your views spell out clear as day.
Mannahnin wrote:Fake IDs aren't all that hard to make.
Which means that anyone who really wants to commit voter fraud probably won't be stopped by a voter ID law.
The people it will mostly stop, are poor folks, old folks, and college kids who don't need a photo ID for day to day living.
The vast, vast majority of fraud is done via absentee ballot which doesn't require a photo ID either. This whole thing is just idiotic and corrupt to its core.
Personally Obama and Romney are the same kind of jackass with slightly different wrapping paper.
On one level I agree with this.
On another, people thought the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, and that most likely was the difference between making up justifications to and invading Iraq, and not doing so.
Eh I thought there were both donkey-caves too as it happens. There was at least a little more variety then with Romeny and Obama.
Mannahnin wrote:My point is that even though both the major parties are way more similar than I'd like, there are real and material differences between them.
If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't have wasted all those lives or all that money invading Iraq without good reason.
I honestly don't see it, both parties push for bigger government and more control. It's just what flavor they're calling that control.
Mannahnin wrote:My point is that even though both the major parties are way more similar than I'd like, there are real and material differences between them.
If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't have wasted all those lives or all that money invading Iraq without good reason.
I honestly don't see it, both parties push for bigger government and more control. It's just what flavor they're calling that control.
Given that they're both parties running for government and not anarchist groups that's sort of the nature of the beast. They're trying to control the country and via a democratic process we're supposed to choose what flavor the majority of us want.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's the difference between red kool aid and slightly thinner red kool aid is the argument I'm making.
Welcome to what you and your fellow citizens have built. This thread is a perfect example of why america deserves the gun it's putting to its own head. America is a democracy and this is what happens when the people in a democracy get accustomed to being lied to by the media.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Ouze a concealed carry license is an official ID issued by the state with all the protections they build in to state IDs against forgery. You can print up college IDs look a likes at home. That's the difference there and why trying to buy beer with a college ID doesn't work in most states.
Bollocks.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
The college ID(from a community college to boot) that I have is no different than my driving permit. They both have a holographic embossing, a bar code on the back, and a photographic identifier.
However, as of the 2008 elections I could have used either those or my voter registration/selective services cards.
Guess what? According to the people pushing this "voter ID law"--those are not "valid forms of identification" for voting.
Slow down. Think extra hard on this one.
A voter registration card is not considered to be a valid form of identification for voting.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's the difference between red kool aid and slightly thinner red kool aid is the argument I'm making.
Welcome to what you and your fellow citizens have built. This thread is a perfect example of why america deserves the gun it's putting to its own head. America is a democracy and this is what happens when the people in a democracy get accustomed to being lied to by the media.
Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.
*I don't mean 'you' as in anyone specific here, but the 'people in general' use.
Ouze wrote:C'mon, lets stop playing pretend, OK. We all know perfectly well what this law is designed to do, so lets stop winking and nodding at each other. You've known since the state law in Texas allowed gun licenses as a form of ID but not college ID's what they're doing with this, and who this is "helping".
Knowledge is power and frankly you're not using enough of it to light a night light. "Gun licenses" (I guess you mean CHLs as there is NO SUCH THING AS GUN LICENSES IN TEXAS) are actual state ID. College ID's are not state issued ID, plus there is no requirement that the holder of a college ID be a citizen.
Ouze wrote:C'mon, lets stop playing pretend, OK. We all know perfectly well what this law is designed to do, so lets stop winking and nodding at each other. You've known since the state law in Texas allowed gun licenses as a form of ID but not college ID's what they're doing with this, and who this is "helping".
Knowledge is power and frankly you're not using enough of it to light a night light. "Gun licenses" (I guess you mean CHLs as there is NO SUCH THING AS GUN LICENSES IN TEXAS) are actual state ID. College ID's are not state issued ID, plus there is no requirement that the holder of a college ID be a citizen.
That differs by state. Some college IDs have nationality specific forms. Also, this is a strawman, there is no fraud in Pennsylvania and THE AUTHORS OF THE LAW ADMITTED IN PUBLIC THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO QUASH DEMOCRATIC VOTES AND THAT THERE WAS NO VOTER FRAUD IN THAT STATE.
I also love that one group is freely throwing insults.
Frazzled wrote:The thread started talking about Texas. Put down the bong pipe and try to keep up.
CNN) - A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday decided not to restrict a controversial voter ID law from going into place.
The law, which requires voters to present a state issued photo ID, has been met with fierce opposition by those who claim that the law discriminates against minorities.
These are the first two sentences of the topic frazzled.
Well then i got an idea, if voter ID's are important to republicans why not do this, you had to pay a certain amount of taxes last year to qualify to vote(people not making enough to pay taxes or on elfare are excluded). IF you dont give to the GOVT you should have no say in how its run.
Well then i got an idea, if voter ID's are important to republicans why not do this, you had to pay a certain amount of taxes last year to qualify to vote(people not making enough to pay taxes or on elfare are excluded). IF you dont give to the GOVT you should have no say in how its run.
Won't work. Thats like going to Heinlans Federation for government
Ahtman wrote:Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.
I get what you're saying. The thing is, I could be swayed to see voter ID as being an appropriate measure if there was an actual significant problem with in-person voter fraud. If that were a real thing that was actually significantly happening, then what I consider to be an unnecessary burden placed upon the voter to no useful end would then become a necessary burden placed upon the voter a useful end - preventing an actual problem and safeguarding our political process.
You know frankly if black people wanted to vote so much, I don't see why they just don't stop being poor?
Since as we all know being wealthy and successful is simply a matter of working hard and putting enough effort, if you can't afford a car to drive to get an ID it just means you don't want it enough. Frankly why should we give the vote who don't care enough and are too lazy to to not be poor?
Ahtman wrote:Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.
I get what you're saying. The thing is, I could be swayed to see voter ID as being an appropriate measure if there was an actual significant problem with in-person voter fraud. If that were a real thing that was actually significantly happening, then what I consider to be an unnecessary burden placed upon the voter to no useful end would then become a necessary burden placed upon the voter a useful end - preventing an actual problem and safeguarding our political process.
But those aren't the facts before us.
I don't know about Penn... but in St. Louis... holy moley do we ever have voter frauds. And the sad thing is that they should NEVER need to attempt this... St. Louis will NEVER go republican.
But, back to OT (Penn)... it is dodgy as I couldn't find any programs in PENN to assist those who have "trouble" getting an ID.
Well then i got an idea, if voter ID's are important to republicans why not do this, you had to pay a certain amount of taxes last year to qualify to vote(people not making enough to pay taxes or on elfare are excluded). IF you dont give to the GOVT you should have no say in how its run.
Won't work. Thats like going to Heinlans Federation for government
ITs Satire, I no it wont work. But think about how much of a fume republicans would get? I have a question, how bad is voter fraud? 1 in every 100,000? or 1 in every 1,000,000? Is it really worth denying the right to vote to many people just because you want to stop a problem that may affect very little.
I bet a case but yor helping me to drink it. Just remind me before we do not to take certain meds. I even throw in a bottle of Gentleman Jack. You bring the coke. No we are not shooting my M4
You want to bet a case? Do you live in New England so we could share it?
Jihadin wrote:
If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't have sacraficed all those lives or all that money invading Iraq without good reason.
Using the word "waste" downgrades the the individual that paid the ultimate priced.
I used the word "wasted" very deliberately, as it corresponds to the callousness with which I believe those lives were thrown away by politicians who actively pursued and unnecessary war. Unnecessary war is about the biggest evil human beings can commit; right after genocide.
used the word "wasted" very deliberately, as it corresponds to the callousness with which I believe those lives were thrown away by politicians who actively pursued and unnecessary war. Unnecessary war is about the biggest evil human beings can commit; right after genocide.
We agree to disagree on this. We still good for beers?
Ahtman wrote:Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.
I get what you're saying. The thing is, I could be swayed to see voter ID as being an appropriate measure if there was an actual significant problem with in-person voter fraud. If that were a real thing that was actually significantly happening, then what I consider to be an unnecessary burden placed upon the voter to no useful end would then become a necessary burden placed upon the voter a useful end - preventing an actual problem and safeguarding our political process.
But those aren't the facts before us.
I don't know about Penn... but in St. Louis... holy moley do we ever have voter frauds. And the sad thing is that they should NEVER need to attempt this... St. Louis will NEVER go republican.
But, back to OT (Penn)... it is dodgy as I couldn't find any programs in PENN to assist those who have "trouble" getting an ID.
Have a source on the St. Louis voter fraud? Just curious.
streamdragon wrote:[Have a source on the St. Louis voter fraud? Just curious.
There is an article here which talks about a lot of smoke but not much fire I can see; and of course they continue to wrongly equate voter registration fraud with actual voting fraud. If there is a better source I'd also like to read it, this one is sort of poor but the others I saw were generally worse.
Ahtman wrote:Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.
I get what you're saying. The thing is, I could be swayed to see voter ID as being an appropriate measure if there was an actual significant problem with in-person voter fraud. If that were a real thing that was actually significantly happening, then what I consider to be an unnecessary burden placed upon the voter to no useful end would then become a necessary burden placed upon the voter a useful end - preventing an actual problem and safeguarding our political process.
But those aren't the facts before us.
I don't know about Penn... but in St. Louis... holy moley do we ever have voter frauds. And the sad thing is that they should NEVER need to attempt this... St. Louis will NEVER go republican.
But, back to OT (Penn)... it is dodgy as I couldn't find any programs in PENN to assist those who have "trouble" getting an ID.
Have a source on the St. Louis voter fraud? Just curious.
You can google it... try the local station's website (ksdk or kmov).
Here's quick highlight from nyt:
Ninja'ed by Ouze.
I do know that in E. St. Louis folks were actually convicted of fraud.
Back on topic, it looks like most actual vote fraud happens with absentee ballots. I'd be all for tightening up on this. It's not that I'm opposed to ever taking medicine, but I need to believe that there is an actual illness involved, and that the medicine is not worse then the illness.
Back on topic, it looks like most actual vote fraud happens with absentee ballots. I'd be all for tightening up on this. It's not that I'm opposed to ever taking medicine, but I need to believe that there is an actual illness involved, and that the medicine is not worse then the illness.
Ya... I vaguely remember that was the issue...
Also, the office (Secretary of State?) were at one point notorious not updating the registration lists... Somehow this caused certain counties to have more votes that actual residents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:Sorry guys, I guess great minds think alike?
Ahtman wrote:Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.
I get what you're saying. The thing is, I could be swayed to see voter ID as being an appropriate measure if there was an actual significant problem with in-person voter fraud. If that were a real thing that was actually significantly happening, then what I consider to be an unnecessary burden placed upon the voter to no useful end would then become a necessary burden placed upon the voter a useful end - preventing an actual problem and safeguarding our political process.
But those aren't the facts before us.
That is what I am referring to, mostly. I believe Colbert called it 'truthiness', and part of it is an assumption that a person is right in the view, and that it is everyone else that is wrong, or 'just don't get it'. Once you have determined that you have special knowledge and that the rest of the country just 'doesn't get it', you really don't need to look at other arguments or facts, and just know they are wrong out of hand. Any side can certainly be capable of such myopic viewpoint, but in this particular case we have some pretty good examples of Republican policy cognitive dissonance.
A part of the problem is that this isn't an unknown phenomena; most of the people reading are thinking that they know this and that it makes them savvy, but consistent voting patterns show otherwise. We are all to blame, even those that abstain, because that causes its own problems, as history as shown. As moderates and/or independents stop voting and taking part in the political process the extremes gain more traction in the political theatre. I'm not saying that getting 100% voting turnout would solve the problem, but the numbers as they are now are pretty abysmal.
Chongara wrote:You know frankly if black people wanted to vote so much, I don't see why they just don't stop being poor?
Since as we all know being wealthy and successful is simply a matter of working hard and putting enough effort, if you can't afford a car to drive to get an ID it just means you don't want it enough. Frankly why should we give the vote who don't care enough and are too lazy to to not be poor?
Kanluwen wrote:I find it stupid that in a move to prevent voter registration fraud, a voter registration card is not considered valid identification.
Its a stupid move, but only because its not needed. Voter cards have no photo, i.e. theoretically, I could take yours and go vote, unless I'm required to have photo ID as well (which I could still fake but hey, no one said this pointless legislation was fullproof ). That actually makes a great deal of sense if the goal is to stop voter fraud... You know. Theoretically.
Kanluwen wrote:I find it stupid that in a move to prevent voter registration fraud, a voter registration card is not considered valid identification.
Its a stupid move, but only because its not needed. Voter cards have no photo, i.e. theoretically, I could take yours and go vote, unless I'm required to have photo ID as well (which I could still fake but hey, no one said this pointless legislation was fullproof ). That actually makes a great deal of sense if the goal is to stop voter fraud... You know. Theoretically.
Something with no efficacy in it's banning does not make sense to ban in the scenario where you are advocating its banning. It makes no sense at all.
It also has to have the magnetic strip with stored information. Its the same as a state 
). That actually makes a great deal of sense if the goal is to stop voter fraud... You know. Theoretically.