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.
More than one Republican is mentioned in that article. And each of them is talking about Republican strategy to many other Republicans. Please take a close look at the article.
As to whether you're going to change my mind -- yes, you very well could change my mind. But you will need evidence and reason. You haven't been able to marshal either so far.
Manchu wrote: More than one Republican is mentioned in that article. And each of them is talking about Republican strategy to many other Republicans. Please take a close look at the article.
I did read the article and I reject the premise.
Let me flip the script. Why is it okay to give certain groups preferential voting treatments?
As to whether you're going to change my mind -- yes, you very well could change my mind. But you will need evidence and reason. You haven't been able to marshal either so far.
I'm convinced that nothing will change your mind because you're stuck on whether the necessity for such laws need to exist in the first place.
whembly wrote: I did read the article and I reject the premise.
What premise?
whembly wrote: Why is it okay to give certain groups preferential voting treatments?
I'm not arguing that certain groups should have preferential voting treatments. I'm arguing against Voter ID laws.
whembly wrote: I'm convinced that nothing will change your mind because you're stuck on whether the necessity for such laws need to exist in the first place.
What's wrong with considering as a first principal whether a law is necessary or not? Surely, that is the most important question one can ask about a policy.
whembly wrote: I did read the article and I reject the premise.
What premise?
That's it's a Republican scheme to supress voters.
whembly wrote: Why is it okay to give certain groups preferential voting treatments?
I'm not arguing that certain groups should have preferential voting treatments. I'm arguing against Voter ID laws.
What exactly about it then? Simply flashing your ID?
whembly wrote: I'm convinced that nothing will change your mind because you're stuck on whether the necessity for such laws need to exist in the first place.
What's wrong with considering as a first principal whether a law is necessary or not? Surely, that is the most important question one can ask about a policy.
Because, "considering as a first principal whether a law is necessary or not" is and will always be subjective.
whembly wrote: That's it's a Republican scheme to supress voters.
But that's what Republicans are telling other Republicans ...
Right... if you do that. So, then I can do that same stupid thing and say that since Harry Reid said "why would we want to help just one child with cancer"... he speaks for all Democrats since he's the Senator Majority Leader.... dontcha know.
It's asinine.
whembly wrote: Because, "considering as a first principal whether a law is necessary or not" is and will always be subjective.
Totally wrong.
Should we have a law requiring leashes for unicorns?
No, it is objectively unnecessary.
How about requiring photo ID for voting to preserve the legitimacy of our elections?
No, for the same reason.
Nah... I disagree. You and I will never convince each other.
whembly wrote: he speaks for all Democrats since he's the Senator Majority Leader.... dontcha know
I give you a number of Republicans teaching other Republicans about the Republican strategy around Voter ID laws ... and you give me an out-of-context soundbyte? Talking to you is rapidly losing all value.
Manchu wrote:Should we have a law requiring leashes for unicorns?
No, it is objectively unnecessary.
How about requiring photo ID for voting to preserve the legitimacy of our elections?
No, for the same reason.
Nah... I disagree. You and I will never convince each other.
So you think a law dealing with in-person voter fraud is necessary given that this kind of fraud is exceedingly rare and that there are already laws dealing with it?
whembly wrote: he speaks for all Democrats since he's the Senator Majority Leader.... dontcha know
I give you a number of Republicans teaching other Republicans about the Republican strategy around Voter ID laws ... and you give me an out-of-context soundbyte? Plus, if you actually understand what he's saying -- surprise surprise -- that is the position of Democrats. Talking to you is rapidly losing all value.
Manchu wrote:Should we have a law requiring leashes for unicorns?
No, it is objectively unnecessary.
How about requiring photo ID for voting to preserve the legitimacy of our elections?
No, for the same reason.
Nah... I disagree. You and I will never convince each other.
So you think a law dealing with in-person voter fraud is necessary given that this kind of fraud is exceedingly rare and that there are already laws dealing with it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 20:21:27
Nah... I disagree. You and I will never convince each other.
So you think a law dealing with in-person voter fraud is necessary given that this kind of fraud is exceedingly rare and that there are already laws dealing with it?
I don't know if it's exceedingly rare. There's no proof one way or another.
I don't believe it's such an over reaching burden to flash an ID at the polls.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 20:26:30
whembly wrote: I don't know if it's exceedingly rare. There's no proof one way or another.
Yes you do. You know that we currently do not have any problem with confidence in our electoral results in this country. And any we have had in the recent past had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud. You know it very well. And even if there was no proof -- how on earth could you justify passing this legislation to fix a problem you can't even prove exists???
whembly wrote: I don't believe it's such an over reaching burden to flash an ID at the polls.
We're not talking about how burdensome it is; we're talking about whether it's necessary in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 20:31:07
whembly wrote: 1) Is it too much to ask for to show an ID at the polls, whether or not that it'll have any impact to voter fraud?
It doesn't matter. This is like the scammer asking you for $1000 to bribe the officials to let them have their $1 million back and promising to pay you half as a reward. It doesn't matter that the numbers are in your favor by a huge margin, you know that the scammer is lying to you and you reject the "offer". Voter ID is the same kind of thing. You can talk all you want about how the deal is superficially a reasonable one, but it doesn't matter because the people proposing these laws are lying s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.
2) In NC's case: Reducing absentee ballots from 2 weeks to 1 weeks... everyone is bound by that if they qualify... right?
Everyone might be bound by the same law, but that doesn't mean that it isn't targeted at democrat-leaning groups.
3) In NC's case: Removed Sunday voting... why is this a problem again?
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
4) In NC's case: The program to register newly 18 year olds... so, they'll have to learn how to take initiative to pre-register / vote themselves.
And again, there's no reason why this should be ended besides the fact that younger voters lean democrat.
I really don't see it as "ermah gawd" those icky republicans are suppressing the democratic votes.
Seriously, go learn about NC politics. If you don't understand how these new laws are a blatant attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in the state legislature then you really need to learn more about recent events here.
So why is there preferential treatment to those groups that lean-democrats then?
There isn't.
(even get exemptions from the laws? wut? are you referring to expired licenses on Elderly voters?)
Yes, that's one of the things I'm referring to. It makes an absolute joke out of the idea that voter ID is about preventing fraud when you leave such a massive security hole in the plan. If the people advocating the ID law were really serious about security they'd close the hole. The only reason they don't is that that "stopping fraud" is nothing more than a flimsy pretense to keep the courts from shutting the whole thing down, and older people that would be hindered by the new law tend to lean republican.
I have no dog in this fight and I wouldn't be surprised if this NC VoterID get thrown out.
Let me rephrase the question: Why are you okay with special preferential treatment to certain groups, be it those who leans democrat or republican, and not everyone else?
Are you implying that those who usually vote on Sundays are incapable to vote on election day like everyone else?
Don't talk bs. Making Sunday available for everyone to vote is not preferential to particular groups and you know it.
whembly wrote: I don't know if it's exceedingly rare. There's no proof one way or another.
Yes you do. You know that we currently do not have any problem with confidence in our electoral results in this country. And any we have had in the recent past had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud. You know it very well. And even if there was no proof -- how on earth could you justify passing this legislation to fix a problem you can't even prove exists???
whembly wrote: I don't believe it's such an over reaching burden to flash an ID at the polls.
We're not talking about how burdensome it is; we're talking about whether it's necessary in the first place.
We're just rehashing the same arguments over and over again...
Don't talk bs. Making Sunday available for everyone to vote is not preferential to particular groups and you know it.
BS?
I was responding to peregrine's statement:
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
What if you're an atheist african-american?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 20:37:56
Agreeing to disagree sort of implies that reasonable minds can come to different conclusions on the matter. Nothing you have posted establishes reasonable disagreement with the points I've made. You're just trying to get off the hook here.
whembly wrote: I don't know if it's exceedingly rare. There's no proof one way or another.
Yes you do. You know that we currently do not have any problem with confidence in our electoral results in this country. And any we have had in the recent past had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud. You know it very well. And even if there was no proof -- how on earth could you justify passing this legislation to fix a problem you can't even prove exists???
whembly wrote: I don't believe it's such an over reaching burden to flash an ID at the polls.
We're not talking about how burdensome it is; we're talking about whether it's necessary in the first place.
We're just rehashing the same arguments over and over again...
Don't talk bs. Making Sunday available for everyone to vote is not preferential to particular groups and you know it.
BS?
I was responding to peregrine's statement:
Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".
What if you're an atheist african-american?
OK, let's open it up. Strict orthodox Jews cannot operate a machine (e.g. voting machine) on the Sabbath.
Is it specially preferential to strict orthodox Jews to allow the operation of voting machines to be done on a Thursday?
Agreeing to disagree sort of implies that reasonable minds can come to different conclusions on the matter. Nothing you have posted establishes reasonable disagreement with the points I've made. You're just trying to get off the hook here.
Absolutely NOT Manchu.
You keep looking at this in a technical sense.
I'm looking at this that the integrity of our elections means at least as much to us as our ability to rent a fething movie from Blockbuster.
We're both coming at this from completely different viewpoints... that's all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 20:57:34
Manchu wrote: I give you a number of Republicans teaching other Republicans about the Republican strategy around Voter ID laws ... and you give me an out-of-context soundbyte?
Holy feth, the irony.
Incidentally, pointing to conservative columnists and claiming they speak for the Republican party is about as accurate as pointing at Bill Maher and claiming he speaks for the Democrats. Because that's basically what your article has, aside from - wait for it - an out-of-context soundbyte from a Republican politician.
OK, let's open it up. Strict orthodox Jews cannot operate a machine (e.g. voting machine) on the Sabbath.
Is it specially preferential to strict orthodox Jews to allow the operation of voting machines to be done on a Thursday?
No.
QED.
Yup. Because most elections days falls on a Tuesday. Everyone else must play by some sort of rules in order to vote. If one segment of the population, be it social/economic/racial/religious, are given a different method to vote... I'd definitely consider that preferential.
Now the next question should be: Are we okay with it? I can see arguments for both sides.
Same arguments about those provisional ballots for military. Just about every election, we'd hear issues about how those ballots are handled.
Whembly is trying to assert that Harry Reid doesn't want to help kids with cancer because he found a YT vid named something to that effect. The actual point is clear even in the clip, where one of the Democrats asks in response to the question why can't you just help these kids with cancer instead of holding firm on the ACA, why does it have to be one or the other? Reid didn't say he's not interested in helping kids with cancer -- he said he's not interested in Republicans proposing PR-friendly legislation as a substitute for the ACA.
In contrast, the quotations from the article I linked are, when read in their context, frank statements that Voter ID laws are meant to make it harder to vote for people who are likely to vote for Democrats.
This isn't a matter of the source of the reporting -- you can disregard the headline and journalistic editorial in preference for the sources in both cases. Reid, as a source, is not saying he's doesn't want to help kids with cancer regardless of how the soundbyte is protrayed. These Republican strategists are saying they're banking on Voter ID laws to win jurisdictions, again regardless of how that soundbyte is portrayed.
So you're asserting it's a fact that conservative columnists represent the entirety of the Republican party and are privy to the motivations behind voter ID laws?
I personally think election day should be a federal holiday. If Columbus Day can be, the I figure we can add another one every 4 fething years that has an enormous impact on our country.
I do understand where you're coming from, Manchu, in that you believe enacting a voter ID law is unncessary because the percentage of voter fraud is so low. I really do. I think it's another way to get us close to zero voter fraud, and not only that, I think every adult US citizen should have some form of photo ID anyways.
I mean, they're giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in California, and that's a photo ID....so i figure it couldn't hurt for everyone to have one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 21:01:22
cincydooley wrote: I think it's another way to get us close to zero voter fraud
I can't accept that argument when it comes to limiting the people's right to bear arms and I cannot accept that argument when it comes to the people's right to vote.
cincydooley wrote: I personally think election day should be a federal holiday. If Columbus Day can be, the I figure we can add another one every 4 fething years that has an enormous impact on our country.
I do understand where you're coming from, Manchu, in that you believe enacting a voter ID law is unncessary because the percentage of voter fraud is so low. I really do. I think it's another way to get us close to zero voter fraud, and not only that, I think every adult US citizen should have some form of photo ID anyways.
I mean, they're giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in California, and that's a photo ID....so i figure it couldn't hurt for everyone to have one.
EDIT: As an aside, I have very little problem with immigrants in our country; I'd like to make the route towards citizenship for many of the illegals that are in our country working easier, quite honestly. Let em work, legalize em, and make em pay into the system.
cincydooley wrote: I think it's another way to get us close to zero voter fraud
I can't accept that argument when it comes to limiting the people's right to bear arms and I cannot accept that argument when it comes to the people's right to vote.
I honestly enjoy discourse with you, I do, but dammit your selective responses to people in this thread is no better than pulling that Reid quote out of context. It's really frustrating to maintain a dialog when you've done that for 3 pages. Gar!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 21:04:37
I have to be selective because you guys keep trying to smuggle the burden issue or the disproportionate impact issue back in. (Talk about frustrating!) We can know these are bad laws without ever needing to go that far.
Also, let me clarify about whembly "quoting" Reid. That's not what happened. It wasn't just a quotation out of context. It was a quotation taken out of context and then given another, incredibly flimsy context which was made up specifically to lie about what Reid was actually saying.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/03 21:11:51
Holy crap in the time you guys are arguing this I could have flashed my ID 10,000 times. Its ridiculous, its not an inconvenience, its not a burden. We don't have concrete figures for how much voter fraud happens, and we have no idea how much it will happen in the future. If something as unincumbersome as showing an ID will make people happy and close a potential door just do it. We didn't use to have crazy security at the airport because nobody ever flew a plane into a building either! Now it seams like some security might have been appropriate. Do we always have to wait for a disaster to happen, before we take a simple prophylactic measure.
Ounce of prevention, pound of medicine, all that jazz.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 21:19:33
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Andrew1975 wrote: Holy crap in the time you guys are arguing this I could have flashed my ID 10,000 times. Its ridiculous, its not an inconvenience.
Its not about it being an inconvenience. It's about it being unconstitutional because it's a step that could potentially prevent someone from participating in their consititutionally protected right to vote. The place it gets sticky for me is when the hypocrisy of requiring an ID to purchase a gun, another constitutionally protected right, comes into play.
The primary arguments by the Dems is not that requiring an ID is unconstitutional, it's that it puts an undue burden on the poor and the minority voter and is unfairly prejudicial. Multiple people on the right, especially in Georgia and Ohio, have stated that they want to enact Voter ID laws not because it will reduce voter fraud, but because a greater number of poor and minority voters don't have IDs.
I guess the whole argument, and why I'm honestly in the same boat as you, Andrew, confuses me because I can't fathom not having an ID.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/03 21:18:06
s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.
