Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:
Yeah, they actually are. Whether or not a law is enforceable is a pretty significant consideration.

Um...no its not, at all.

Here's a small list of laws and regulations:
*Every drug law ever made.

I just wanna say it's hilarious that this was brought up in defense of a law that people are attacking as racist.

Seaward wrote:
I didn't say it was particularly difficult, though nor is it as easy as you make it out to be.

No, its pretty damn easy. I don't own the necessary software or hardware , but I could acquire it shortly if necessary; maybe 10-15k for a self-produced fake ID (much less for any I might distribute) completely indistinguishable from real ID.

Seaward wrote:
I said it wasn't going to be done in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars, as you claimed.

Note the word "reasonable". Its a key term, and one you should note when I use it.

Seaward wrote:
I realize you were trying to make a point by making up facts, but it's unfortunately an area in which you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Of course, you can always prove me wrong by walking into the nearest 7-Eleven and asking to browse their fake ID selection.

Why would I do that, I'm 26? When I was 17 I might take such a risk, though I'm not sure why you would accept me saying that I had as proof.

Do you want me to film a guy that sells fakes saying that you're wrong? That seems like something any seller of fakes would object to.

Seaward wrote:
It is entirely possible to get around voter ID laws. It is entirely possible to get around tax evasion laws. That the laws can be evaded is not an argument against having them.

When the law tries to prevent something that doesn't occur, the prevention is itself ineffective, and further easily circumvented, then yes, it is a sound argument.

It is, as always, an argument from degree. I can evade laws against murder, but its much harder for me to evade those laws than these ID laws regarding voter fraud; which is already illegal.

Seaward wrote:
...so that's another deterrent to entry for people who would be using them for serious crimes.

Only an idiot would get an ID with intent to commit a serious crime under it.

Seaward wrote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If I was trying to vote in Virginia, I doubt a Texas license would be acceptable to prove my identity as a registered Virginia voter.

Why not? You would need to register beforehand, or day of, anyway. The ID is just proof of face.

Frazzled wrote:
Um...no its not, at all.

Here's a small list of laws and regulations:
*Every drug law ever made.
*Laws on alcohol
*Laws on cigarettes
*Just about every felmony or misdemeanor - well all of them.
*Curfews
*EPA regulations
*Banking regulations

Unless there is a countervailing law that requires some sort of impact assessment or feasibility, its enforceability is rarely a material issue.

In a practical sense it absolutely is.

Sure, you can pass a sodomy law, but if you can't enforce it its juts political gamesmanship.

Like curfews, EPA regulations, banking regulations, etc.

Chongara wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:
Yeah, they actually are. Whether or not a law is enforceable is a pretty significant consideration.

Um...no its not, at all.

Here's a small list of laws and regulations:
*Every drug law ever made.

I just wanna say it's hilarious that this was brought up as defense of a law that people are attacking as racist.

I just wanna say its hilarious when Chongara posts...anything.

In a practical sense it absolutely is.

Sure, you can pass a sodomy law, but if you can't enforce it its juts political gamesmanship.

Like curfews, EPA regulations, banking regulations, etc.

You just attempted to move the goalposts from can they pass it to should they pass it. Sorry, do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Just to show how a ID would not help voter fraud in the slightest.

If you are going to commit voter fraud, you're not just going to walk into a bunch different voting places claiming to be a bunch of different people. That takes to much time and effort.

You are going to register these dead people, and anyone else and get mail in ballots for them. All the ballots come to you, you tick them off, you mail them back in.

of course now its a federal offense because of using the post office, but anything worth doing is worth being a federal offense

ID or no, mail in fraud is the way to go

sirlynchmob wrote:Just to show how a ID would not help voter fraud in the slightest.

If you are going to commit voter fraud, you're not just going to walk into a bunch different voting places claiming to be a bunch of different people. That takes to much time and effort.

You are going to register these dead people, and anyone else and get mail in ballots for them. All the ballots come to you, you tick them off, you mail them back in.

of course now its a federal offense because of using the post office, but anything worth doing is worth being a federal offense

ID or no, mail in fraud is the way to go

Agreed. This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.

Seaward wrote:You just mentioned a lot of different groups with no subpoena power or a myriad other useful investigative tools used by people actually appointed to investigate such things.

This response is nonsensical. You don't need to be able to issue subpoenas to investigate election fraud.

We've absolutely had issues with voter fraud before.

Please produce the study on which you are relying. And in the meantime, please consider that actual incidents of voter fraud (like the one Frazzled posted about) would not be resolved by a voter ID requirement since they do not involve individuals impersonating other individuals in person at the polls.

Frazzled wrote:
You just attempted to move the goalposts from can they pass it to should they pass it. Sorry, do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

No, you're trying to move the goal posts right now. The initial question was never about "can", it was about "should". Hence the point about being able to pass sodomy laws, but passing them being unwise.

You of all people should know I am the last person you want to get into a semantic fight with.

Frazzled wrote:This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.

Why pass laws that cannot achieve their stated aims and in fact do nothing but hypothetically disenfranchise your political enemies?

Oh right, because that's the point.

Manchu wrote:

Seaward wrote:You just mentioned a lot of different groups with no subpoena power or a myriad other useful investigative tools used by people actually appointed to investigate such things.

This response is nonsensical. You don't need to be able to issue subpoenas to investigate election fraud

You do if you want to actually get anywhere.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.

Why pass laws that cannot achieve their stated aims and in fact do nothing but hypothetically disenfranchise your political enemies?

Oh right, because that's the point.

What's the big deal about a law that will hypothetically avert voter fraud that will instead hypothetically disenfranchise political enemies? I mean, it all seems so...hypothetical.

If it would make you feel better to stick it to The Man for revenge, why don't you (hypothetically) pass a law making it illegal for Republicans to arrive at polling sites via a Lexus, BMW, or Mercedes? Make 'em ride the city bus!

Regards,

@Frazzled: I believe Nixon thought about it in a similar way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:What's the big deal about a law that will hypothetically avert voter fraud that will instead hypothetically disenfranchise political enemies? I mean, it all seems so...hypothetical.

In all seriousness, that is actually a great question. The answer is that it will not even hypothetically avert voter fraud. So when balancing, we've got potential disenfranchisement on one hand ... and absolutely nothing on the other.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You just attempted to move the goalposts from can they pass it to should they pass it. Sorry, do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

No, you're trying to move the goal posts right now. The initial question was never about "can", it was about "should". Hence the point about being able to pass sodomy laws, but passing them being unwise.

You of all people should know I am the last person you want to get into a semantic fight with.

not a semantic fight. You're arguing should on the basis that people successful criminals can get around it. Duh. Successful criminals can get around just about anything. Thats why they are still in business. The standard is nonsensical. Its like arguing because the James- Dalton gang successfully robbed trians and banks that robbery shouldn't be illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.

Why pass laws that cannot achieve their stated aims and in fact do nothing but hypothetically disenfranchise your political enemies?

Oh right, because that's the point.

Thats not the point. you keep injecting your incredibly biased opinion. You're ignoring voting machines, Tammany Hall, etc. etc. for a minimal requirement that people have to use every day. Its one thing. In an era of open borders, of legal and illegal fraud and incredible voter dissaciation, the least we can do is work to make the voting system safe.

but since we're on the subject of impugning others, why are you arguing so hard to make it easy for criminals to illegally vote? Do you have a vested interest in insuring vote fraud is carried out as easily as possible?

Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: I believe Nixon thought about it in a similar way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:What's the big deal about a law that will hypothetically avert voter fraud that will instead hypothetically disenfranchise political enemies? I mean, it all seems so...hypothetical.

In all seriousness, that is actually a great question. The answer is that it will not even hypothetically avert voter fraud. So when balancing, we've got potential disenfranchisement on one hand ... and absolutely nothing on the other.

I was hypothetically being serious. Oh, the irony!

Best,

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.

Why pass laws that cannot achieve their stated aims and in fact do nothing but hypothetically disenfranchise your political enemies?

Oh right, because that's the point.

Thats not the point.

Sure it is. And it obviously is. Because it does not do anything else.

Frazzled wrote:You're ignoring voting machines, Tammany Hall, etc. etc.

I'm ignoring them becuase a voter ID requirement doesn't address them. Can you understand that?

Frazzled wrote:but since we're on the subject of impugning others, why are you arguing so hard to make it easy for criminals to illegally vote?

I have no concern about people impersonating other people in person at the polls because, aside from conservative hoodlums, it does not occur. Similarly, I have no interest in legislating tighter restrictions on use of gumball machines. I guess you could, if you wanted to make an argument with no connection to reality, claim that I wanted to make it easy for criminals to knock over gumball machines.

Frazzled wrote:Do you have a vested interest in insuring vote fraud is carried out as easily as possible?

As a Democrat but more importantly as an American, I have a vested interest in not creating obstacles to political particpation among all eligible voters -- including the poor and minorities.

Frazzled wrote:but since we're on the subject of impugning others, why are you arguing so hard to make it easy for criminals to illegally vote? Do you have a vested interest in insuring vote fraud is carried out as easily as possible?

It does seem a little absurd that people are stridently against curbing or deterring criminal activity, now or in the future.

Is Manchu blatantly admitting that a significant percentage of democrat votes were/are/will be illegally cast?

Regards,



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:... I have a vested interest in not creating obstacles to political participation among all eligible voters -- including the poor and minorities.

I find it hard to believe that someone that is so divorced from modern society as to NOT have a valid i.d. would drag their carcass off the sofa on election day to vote.

Cheerio!

Phanatik wrote:It does seem a little absurd that people are stridently against curbing or deterring criminal activity, now or in the future.

I am stridently against creating laws that address imaginary crimes.

Phanatik wrote:I find it hard to believe that someone that is so divorced from modern society as to NOT have a valid i.d. would drag their carcass off the sofa on election day to vote.

I fully admit to sharing that same crypto-racist prejudice. But I don't think such prejudices should be the basis of legislation.

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:It does seem a little absurd that people are stridently against curbing or deterring criminal activity, now or in the future.

I am stridently against creating laws that address imaginary crimes.

Phanatik wrote:I find it hard to believe that someone that is so divorced from modern society as to NOT have a valid i.d. would drag their carcass off the sofa on election day to vote.

I fully admit to sharing that same crypto-racist prejudice. But I don't think such prejudices should be the basis of legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_you_go_again

Only someone without a leg to stand on and/or is hyper-sensitive and/or has a negligible grasp of the English language could read race or prejudice in that statement.

The characterization of people without government IDs as "divorced from modern society" and people who do not vote not being bothered to "drag their carcass off the sofa" are full of prejudice. Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people, that prejudice has obvious racial overtones. I agree that in a completely abstract way, far far away from the actual world where laws are actually made and enforced, this isn't about race or social status. In that abstract world of pure ideas, these laws are only about disenfranchising political opponents. But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:It does seem a little absurd that people are stridently against curbing or deterring criminal activity, now or in the future.

I am stridently against creating laws that address imaginary crimes.

Phanatik wrote:I find it hard to believe that someone that is so divorced from modern society as to NOT have a valid i.d. would drag their carcass off the sofa on election day to vote.

I fully admit to sharing that same crypto-racist prejudice. But I don't think such prejudices should be the basis of legislation.

I wouldn't so much as say they're imaginary crimes. But it reminds me of sopa, all they wanted to do is stop online piracy, what was so wrong with that?

The bottom line is we have laws against voter fraud already, yet the guy who stole eric's voting ballot hasn't been arrested yet. TMK. If the laws we have are not being enforced, why make new ones that won't stop voter fraud and not be enforced anyways?

Manchu wrote:The characterization of people without government IDs as "divorced from modern society" and people who do not vote not being bothered to "drag their carcass off the sofa" are full of prejudice. Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people, that prejudice has obvious racial overtones. I agree that in a completely abstract way, far far away from the actual world where laws are actually made and enforced, this isn't about race or social status. In that abstract world of pure ideas, these laws are only about disenfranchising political opponents. But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.

Is..."Manchu" an internet username for...Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson? Hi Al! <waves> Hey Jessie!

I know they see racism under every rock and prejudice under every bushel.
But they are race peddlers.
And no one takes them seriously.

Ciao

sirlynchmob wrote: If the laws we have are not being enforced, why make new ones that won't stop voter fraud and not be enforced anyways?

I'm sure the fact these laws are being largely pushed by Republican dominated legislatures, and will largely disenfranchise traditionally Democratic voters never entered into their minds; so I can't really tell you. I guess it seems silly but I'd prefer that we don't needlessly expand government and waste tax dollars to combat nonexistent problems.

sirlynchmob wrote:The bottom line is we have laws against voter fraud already, yet the guy who stole eric's voting ballot hasn't been arrested yet. TMK. If the laws we have are not being enforced, why make new ones that won't stop voter fraud and not be enforced anyways?

Well, actually, you should re-listen to the audio. O'Keefe was careful to not break a law.

O'Keefe implied he was Eric Holder.
The election worker inferred he was Eric Holder.
O'Keefe avoided signing as Eric Holder when the election worker was willing to let him do so, by saying he was uncomfortable doing so without his i.d.
O'Keefe then departed with the clever line that he would be back faster than saying "furious," a la Fast & Furious.

Best,

sirlynchmob wrote:I wouldn't so much as say they're imaginary crimes. But it reminds me of sopa, all they wanted to do is stop online piracy, what was so wrong with that?

That's a good analogy but our pseudo-conservative friends here might not catch the irony. So here's another example, based on the classic lightsaber ban suggested by Phanatik: Let's have a national registry of all firearms -- after all, it would hypothetically allow us to deal with violent crime. Oh wait, a national gun registry is just a shill against gun ownership disguised as a legitimate way to catch crooks. If you can figure this out when it has to do with guns then why can't you figure it out when it has to do with votes?

The characterization of people without government IDs as "divorced from modern society" and people who do not vote not being bothered to "drag their carcass off the sofa" are full of prejudice.

***Prejudice against the lazy yes. Anything else is being filled in by you, and maybe you should re-examine your conceptions of people.

Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people

***Objection your Honor. That assumes facts not in evidence.

that prejudice has obvious racial overtones.

***Objection your Honor. Plaintiff is substituting their personal opinion for evidence.

I agree that in a completely abstract way, far far away from the actual world where laws are actually made and enforced, this isn't about race or social status. In that abstract world of pure ideas, these laws are only about disenfranchising political opponents. But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.

Except of course, they aren’t.

Ouze wrote:I guess it seems silly but I'd prefer that we don't needlessly expand government and waste tax dollars to combat nonexistent problems.

Does that include Obamacare and the global warming hoax?

Cheers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:... based on the classic lightsaber ban suggested by Phanatik:...

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa.

I never said BAN lightsabers! omg

Phanatik wrote:

Ouze wrote:I guess it seems silly but I'd prefer that we don't needlessly expand government and waste tax dollars to combat nonexistent problems.

Does that include Obamacare and the global warming hoax?

Cheers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:... based on the classic lightsaber ban suggested by Phanatik:...

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa.

I never said BAN lightsabers! omg

Global warming is not a hoax.

Frazzled wrote:Anything else is being filled in by you, and maybe you should re-examine your conceptions of people.

I explained how we're dealing with a specific case that specifically targets black people.

Frazzled wrote:

Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people

***Objection your Honor. That assumes facts not in evidence.

Opposing counsel should have paid more attention during discovery. Facts exist whether or not he is aware of them or dislikes them.

Frazzled wrote:

that prejudice has obvious racial overtones.

***Objection your Honor. Plaintiff is substituting their personal opinion for evidence.

Opposing counsel does not understand the difference between evidence and argument.

Frazzled wrote:

But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.

Except of course, they aren’t.

That burden of proof rests with those who think the incidence of in-person voter fraud outweighs the incidence of disenfranchisement.

I see that you have once again ignored the fact that voter fraud as it actually if rarely occurs has nothing to do with photo IDs.

In the old days, we Catholics talked about a thing called invincible ignorance. This phrase described the state of those people who had never had the opportunity to hear the Gospels. These days, the same term is used to describe people who ignore evidence as an argument. I have an objection to this usage; after all, even the most ignorant could still repent.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Ouze wrote:I guess it seems silly but I'd prefer that we don't needlessly expand government and waste tax dollars to combat nonexistent problems.

Does that include Obamacare and the global warming hoax?

Cheers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:... based on the classic lightsaber ban suggested by Phanatik:...

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa.

I never said BAN lightsabers! omg

Global warming is not a hoax.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/nasa-scientists-rebel-against-global-warming-hysteria.php

sirlynchmob wrote:Global warming is not a hoax.

You haven't been reading enough of Phanatik's posts. Also, there are no health care problems in the United States, just FYI. But we're ready for those lightsabers.

Never bring a lightsaber to a blaster fight.
-Han Solo.