QuoteWashington (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court has limited use of a key provision in the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating the key enforcement provision that applies to all or parts of 15 states with past history of voter discrimination.
The case involved Section 5, which gives federal authorities open-ended oversight of states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Any changes in voting laws and procedures in the covered areas -- which include all or parts of 15 states -- must be "pre-cleared" with Washington.
After the provision was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years, counties in Alabama and North Carolina filed suit, saying the monitoring was burdensome and unwarranted.
Civil rights groups say Section 5 has proved to be an important tool in protecting minority voters from local governments that would set unfair, shifting barriers to the polls. If it is ruled unconstitutional, they warn, the very power and effect of the entire Voting Rights Act would crumble.
But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.
The holding: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formulacan no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.
BTW, the gay marriage rulings are coming out tomorrow at 10.
Good. Original sin has no place in jurisprudence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 09:42:48 AM
Good. Original sin has no place in jurisprudence.
There is a place for keeping an eye on previous offenders.
I have to say I think this makes sense, Raz's point notwithstanding.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 10:01:24 AM
There is a place for keeping an eye on previous offenders.
This ruling doesn't prevent anyone from keeping an eye on previous offenders.
Just fucking lovely.
But what the fuck, right? Niggers in the South have had it too good for too long, anyway.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 10:01:24 AM
There is a place for keeping an eye on previous offenders.
This ruling doesn't prevent anyone from keeping an eye on previous offenders.
That's exactly what it does. The previous offenders complained about the burden of monitoring.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 10:36:54 AM
That's exactly what it does. The previous offenders complained about the burden of monitoring.
No it doesn't. Legislation is all in the public domain. You can look up any proposed changes you want to South Carolina's voting regulations.
Quote from: Kleves on June 25, 2013, 09:32:51 AM
Quote
The case involved Section 5, which gives federal authorities open-ended oversight of states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Any changes in voting laws and procedures in the covered areas -- which include all or parts of 15 states -- must be "pre-cleared" with Washington.
The holding: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formulacan no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.
Which is it?
Section 5. Preclearance made sense for a long time, when it was extended for 25 years in 2006 I dunno that it still made sense. I remember the oral arguments from this case, didn't it come out that several of the preclearance States actually had among the very best minority voter registration rates in the country and the best rates of minority elected officials? Suggesting if there is any problem with minorities voting in the United States it doesn't follow the same map it did in the 1960s.
I'd be fine with them coming back with a new preclearance formula that applied to all fifty states if a given jurisdiction ran afoul of certain metrics, it could be put under preclearance for a set period of time (say 10 years.)
As it is, all this changes is in States that have very high minority voter participation and minority elected officials, their voting law changes no longer have to be precleared by the Justice Department. It did nothing else to Federal voting protections, so if the Justice Department looks at any voting law changes and decides they violate a group's civil rights they can still take action--so this isn't at all the doors opening to a flood gate of local legislation to disenfranchise blacks or whatever. The DoJ still retains the rest of its powers to go after jurisdictions that passed discriminatory voting laws. Given they would probably get an injunction against the law taking effect a few days after it passed, the practical effect of this should basically be nothing.
Putting aside the pragmatic necessity for having it to begin with (that's not really in question is it?), the concept that a thing can be first constitutional and then later unconstitutional simply shouldn't happen. In theory.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
Niggers in the South have had it too good for too long, anyway.
Give this man a cooking show!
How long until the WhiteHouse disband the supreme court and take over its duties?
Who needs separation of powers anyway.
350 years.
GoGoGadgetCourtPacking!
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:15:11 PM
How long until the WhiteHouse disband the supreme court and take over its duties?
Who needs separation of powers anyway.
What brought this on? The White House hasn't been seriously upset with the Supreme Court in a while that I am aware of.
350?
Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.
How much would you care to wager? :)
We're going to amend it so Putin can run.
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:19:43 PM
Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.
Considering how this term has started Obama might be counting down the days until he can GTFO.
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:19:43 PM
350?
Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.
So what you are saying is that when two members of the same family hold the office of President, all is doomed? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:19:43 PM
350?
Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.
So what you are saying is that when two members of the same family hold the office of President, all is doomed? :hmm:
Well to be fair JQ Adams and GW Bush were sort of disastrous. Siege is probably right here.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2013, 11:10:26 AM
Putting aside the pragmatic necessity for having it to begin with (that's not really in question is it?), the concept that a thing can be first constitutional and then later unconstitutional simply shouldn't happen. In theory.
Uh...Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education? Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas?
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 12:39:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:19:43 PM
350?
Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.
So what you are saying is that when two members of the same family hold the office of President, all is doomed? :hmm:
Well to be fair JQ Adams and GW Bush were sort of disastrous. Siege is probably right here.
I wanted him to say that! :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:19:43 PM
Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.
Considering how this term has started Obama might be counting down the days until he can GTFO.
His thirst for power cannot be satiated.
Quote from: ulmont on June 25, 2013, 12:39:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2013, 11:10:26 AM
Putting aside the pragmatic necessity for having it to begin with (that's not really in question is it?), the concept that a thing can be first constitutional and then later unconstitutional simply shouldn't happen. In theory.
Uh...Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education? Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas?
At least Dredd Scott vs. Sandford still stands.
I'm sure this won't be the last time either.
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 12:43:45 PM
Quote from: ulmont on June 25, 2013, 12:39:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2013, 11:10:26 AM
Putting aside the pragmatic necessity for having it to begin with (that's not really in question is it?), the concept that a thing can be first constitutional and then later unconstitutional simply shouldn't happen. In theory.
Uh...Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education? Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas?
At least Dredd Scott vs. Sandford still stands.
Pretty sure it's precedential value was a wee bit undermined by the 14th amendment.
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 11:32:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
Niggers in the South have had it too good for too long, anyway.
Give this man a cooking show!
MAH WAFFLES
And it's full steam ahead.
QuoteTexas voter ID law "will take effect immediately," says Attorney General Greg Abbott
WASHINGTON — The implications of today's landmark ruling could be swift and stunning.
With the Supreme Court suspending the mechanism that forced Texas to get a federal OK before it can implement any election law change, state Attorney General Greg Abbott asserts that nothing now can stop the state from activating its controversial voter ID law.
"With today's decision, the State's voter ID law will take effect immediately," Abbott announced. "Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government."
Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU, on a call with reporters, conceded that Texas has "a very strong argument" that in light of today's Supreme Court decision, it can implement the Voter ID law and other laws that previously required federal approval.
The Texas Department of Public Safety has announced that starting Thursday, "Photo identification will now be required when voting in elections in Texas."
Starting Thursday, Texas driver license offices will begin issuing photo IDs to anyone who doesn't already have one. Under the 2011 state law creating one of the state's most strict voter ID laws, the certificates are free and valid for six years. To qualify, an applicant must show U.S. citizenship and Texas residency. The required documents are listed here to verify U.S. citizenship and identity.
Voters only need that document if they lack a current Texas drivers license, personal ID card or concealed handgun license; U.S. passport or military ID or citizenship certificate with photo.
After the Legislature enacted the voter ID law, the Justice Department invoked Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to block implementation. The Obama administration, siding with minority advocates, says the law would discriminate against low-income and minority voters. An appeal is pending at the Supreme Court.
But with preclearance suspended, Abbott tweeted after this morning's 5-4 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, US Attorney General "Eric Holder can no longer deny VoterID in Texas" and "Texas VoterID law should go into effect immediately."
In a statement, he lauded the high court for wiping away unequal treatment of Texas and other states. He acknowledged that Texas — like all states — is barred from racial discrimination and remains subject to after-the-fact lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which remains intact.
"Today's ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect," Abbott said.
Oh, boo hoo. :lol:
Save it, cracker.
The Atlantic's assessment:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/the-hubris-of-the-supreme-courts-voting-rights-ruling/277211/
QuoteFive of the nine justices negate a half-century of successful bipartisan self-government on the grounds that they could have done a better job.
[...]
As Andrew points out, in practical terms this result is bad enough. But beyond the question of voting rights lies this underlying contempt for Congress. Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan described the emerging attitude brilliantly in her recent essay, "Democracy and Disdain." We saw it displayed during oral argument in the health-care cases, when, for example, Justice Scalia suggested striking down the whole law if any part of it was unconstitutional, on the grounds that Congress couldn't be trusted to fix it to the Court's satisfaction. It has been apparent in the campaign-finance cases, which dismiss the judgments of legislators on the role of money in politics on the grounds that, in essence, they must be rigging the system to get themselves re-elected. It also glimmers as the substrate of decisions restricting anti-discrimination laws, reading broad language more and more narrowly on the cynical grounds that Congress could not have meant what the statutes seem to say.
Author sounds like a bit of an idiot. And I have to quibble with calling that "the Atlantic's assessment."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
And it's full steam ahead.
I find it hilarious that in a State with consistently horrible voter turnouts they are concerned with people voting illegally. They should have just been grateful somebody was bothering to vote.
Edit: It seems Arizona is ALSO one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country. I guess those states are always fretting whenever the turnout approaches 50%.
Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 04:10:49 PM
The Atlantic's assessment:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/the-hubris-of-the-supreme-courts-voting-rights-ruling/277211/
QuoteFive of the nine justices negate a half-century of successful bipartisan self-government on the grounds that they could have done a better job.
[...]
As Andrew points out, in practical terms this result is bad enough. But beyond the question of voting rights lies this underlying contempt for Congress. Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan described the emerging attitude brilliantly in her recent essay, "Democracy and Disdain." We saw it displayed during oral argument in the health-care cases, when, for example, Justice Scalia suggested striking down the whole law if any part of it was unconstitutional, on the grounds that Congress couldn't be trusted to fix it to the Court's satisfaction. It has been apparent in the campaign-finance cases, which dismiss the judgments of legislators on the role of money in politics on the grounds that, in essence, they must be rigging the system to get themselves re-elected. It also glimmers as the substrate of decisions restricting anti-discrimination laws, reading broad language more and more narrowly on the cynical grounds that Congress could not have meant what the statutes seem to say.
The rule of law vs Rule by lawyers ? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on June 25, 2013, 03:55:55 PM
Oh, boo hoo. :lol:
The problem with celebrating the destruction of democratic institutions that your brand of fascists may not always have the upper hand.
I'm confused as to how Texas's law will be okay but Arizona's wasn't it. So it was illegal for AZ to require people to show proof of citizenship to register to vote but you can ask prospective voters to show proof of citizenship to get an ID card that allows them to vote? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 12:39:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:19:43 PM
350?
Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.
So what you are saying is that when two members of the same family hold the office of President, all is doomed? :hmm:
Well to be fair JQ Adams and GW Bush were sort of disastrous. Siege is probably right here.
How was JQ Adams disastrous?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 03:52:52 PM
Texas voter ID law "will take effect immediately," says Attorney General Greg Abbott
How is this different from the law that Supremes struck down recently?
Does democracy only get destroyed when federal legislation gets overturned, or does it get destroyed when state legislation is overturned as well?
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:43:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 12:19:43 PM
Before the end of his presidency, Obama will amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term as a president.
If this fail, Michelle will run in 2016.
After that, all bets are off.
Considering how this term has started Obama might be counting down the days until he can GTFO.
Put your money where mouth is. Take Yi's bet.
His thirst for power cannot be satiated.
The Arizona law that was overturned required proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The wrinkle there is that there is a federal form that all states are required by federal law to accept to register to vote in federal elections.
Te issue was if Arizona could actually require the additional information from a person using the federal form.
The Texas voter id law - id at the polls - ismore like Georgia's, which iirc was found ok as long as there was provision to give out free photo ids.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 10:40:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 10:36:54 AM
That's exactly what it does. The previous offenders complained about the burden of monitoring.
No it doesn't. Legislation is all in the public domain. You can look up any proposed changes you want to South Carolina's voting regulations.
The feds were monitoring the legislation and putting obstacles in the way of "voter reform" bills because of previous bad practices of those states. I don't see how "Original Sin" fit into this.
Gotcha. Though in actual effect they likely do something similar as in both case you need proof of citizenship it's just in Texan case, you need it so that you can get an ID to then vote.
The goal in both cases is to make it as annoying as possible for one to vote, yes.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 10:40:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 10:36:54 AM
That's exactly what it does. The previous offenders complained about the burden of monitoring.
No it doesn't. Legislation is all in the public domain. You can look up any proposed changes you want to South Carolina's voting regulations.
The feds were monitoring the legislation and putting obstacles in the way of "voter reform" bills because of previous bad practices of those states. I don't see how "Original Sin" fit into this.
Raz, I'm totally stumped on how this post relates to the one you quoted.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 05:27:47 PM
Does democracy only get destroyed when federal legislation gets overturned, or does it get destroyed when state legislation is overturned as well?
Don't play dumb, Yi. You know just as well as anyone what it's really about, so spare me the routine where you're defending a weak pretext to the death. At the end of the day, democracy is about citizens voting, and we all know benefits from having less laws to deal with while trying to suppress the wrong votes.
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2013, 05:55:16 PM
Don't play dumb, Yi. You know just as well as anyone what it's really about, so spare me the routine where you're defending a weak pretext to the death. At the end of the day, democracy is about citizens voting, and we all know benefits from having less laws to deal with while trying to suppress the wrong votes.
There are times when I have patience for your hysteria and times when I don't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 05:59:33 PMThere are times when I have patience for your hysteria and times when I don't.
Two questions for you, Yi:
Do you genuinely think that there's a significant issue with voter fraud that requires action to correct in the short term?
Do you genuinely think that these voter ID laws are not motivated by a desire to keep traditionally Democratic leaning voters away from the polls?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 05:59:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2013, 05:55:16 PM
Don't play dumb, Yi. You know just as well as anyone what it's really about, so spare me the routine where you're defending a weak pretext to the death. At the end of the day, democracy is about citizens voting, and we all know benefits from having less laws to deal with while trying to suppress the wrong votes.
There are times when I have patience for your hysteria and times when I don't.
You're a better man than I am. I never have patience for insulting levels of intellectual dishonesty, no matter how politely delivered.
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:02:17 PM
Two questions for you, Yi:
Do you genuinely think that there's a significant issue with voter fraud that requires action to correct in the short term?
Do you genuinely think that these voter ID laws are not motivated by a desire to keep traditionally Democratic leaning voters away from the polls?
1. I don't know. Everyone has heard the jokes about dead people voting in Chicago. Are they true? Are they a thing of the past? I have certainly not seen a lot of evidence to suggest it is a major, current problem.
2. I don't know.
Now my question for you: how are these questions related to my post and/or this thread? Certainly you're not operating under the assumption that the USSC ruled that voter suppression is a wonderful thing, are you?
This strikes me as a kind-hearted decision, just think of all those young 20s somethings in the early 1960s fighting for and then winning the 'right' to vote in their own country.
I bet they enjoyed their new found participation in the democratic process, but now the ones still living are in their 70s and 80s, some in nursing homes, they probably don't want to be bothered with the task of voting nowadays, having to dress up, arrange for someone to take them to the voting station etc.
I just seems rather thoughtful of the likes of Texas to set about relieving them of this now onerous task; And they're probably grateful that their own grandchildren won't have to go through all of the hassle of voting when they get to maturity too. :cool:
Isn't contempt for Congress a good thing?
It didn't take too long: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/25/2212281/two-hours-after-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act-texas-ag-suppresses-minority-voters/
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:11:56 PM
It didn't take too long: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/25/2212281/two-hours-after-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act-texas-ag-suppresses-minority-voters/
What is this think progress website?
QuoteThe Center for American Progress is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Its website states that the organization is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action".[2] The Center presents a liberal[3] viewpoint on economic issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Ah, never mind. Liberal Fox News basically.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:09:36 PM1. I don't know. Everyone has heard the jokes about dead people voting in Chicago. Are they true? Are they a thing of the past? I have certainly not seen a lot of evidence to suggest it is a major, current problem.
So in the last election they found 135 cases of
possible fraud in Ohio out of more than 5.6 million votes cast:
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/05/23/ohio-election-fraud-report-released.html
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/05/investigations_recommend_135_c.html
Seems to me that the stories you hear bandied around are not true; or at the very least that there is zero evidence for them.
Quote2. I don't know.
What sort of evidence would convince you?
QuoteNow my question for you: how are these questions related to my post and/or this thread? Certainly you're not operating under the assumption that the USSC ruled that voter suppression is a wonderful thing, are you?
It seems to me that the USSC have ruled that voter suppression is not a big deal. To quote the link in my previous post:
QuoteIn 2012, the Justice Department blocked these measures under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Federal courts agreed that both the strict voter ID law and the redistricting map would disproportionately target the state's fast-growing minority communities. Still, Texas filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court over the Voting Rights Act case complaining that the DOJ had used "abusive and heavy-handed tactics" to thwart the state's attempts at voter suppression.
In the case of the new electoral map, a panel of federal judges found that "substantial surgery" was done to predominantly black districts, cutting off representatives' offices from their strongest fundraising bases. Meanwhile, white Congress members' districts were either preserved or "redrawn to include particular country clubs and, in one case, the school belonging to the incumbent's grandchildren." The new map was also drawn in secret by white Republican representatives, without notifying their black and Latino peers. After the court blocked the map, the legislature approved small changes to appease Democratic lawmakers last week. Now that they are free to use the old maps, however, Gov. Rick Perry (R) could simply veto the new plan and use the more discriminatory maps.
The strict photo ID requirement blocked by the DOJ and a federal court would require Texans to show one of a very narrow list of acceptable photo IDs. Expired gun licenses from other states are considered valid, but Social Security cards and student IDs are not. If voters do not have an ID — as many minorities, seniors, and poor people do not — they must travel at their own expense, produce their birth certificate, and in many cases pay a fee to get an ID.
That seems to fit the criteria for voter suppression by any reasonable definition, and it is an immediate result of the USSC ruling.
So not "wonderful" no, but evidently "actionable".
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:17:33 PMAh, never mind. Liberal Fox News basically.
The fact that it was reported by a liberal site does not change the reality that Texas is going ahead with a redistricting plan that a panel of Federal judges has deemed to "disproportionately target the state's fast-growing minority communities".
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:25:31 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:17:33 PMAh, never mind. Liberal Fox News basically.
The fact that it was reported by a liberal site does not change the reality that Texas is going ahead with a redistricting plan that a panel of Federal judges has deemed to "disproportionately target the state's fast-growing minority communities".
Yes it does.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:27:34 PMYes it does.
Your counter argument is not very convincing.
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:20:34 PM
What sort of evidence would convince you?
Convince me, as in make me metaphysically certain? I suppose something ridiculous such as a statement to that effect by everyone who ever voted for the legislation.
Quote
That seems to fit the criteria for voter suppression by any reasonable definition, and it is an immediate result of the USSC ruling.
So not "wonderful" no, but evidently "actionable".
That's not how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate Jake. They're not supposed to answer the question "which outcome would I prefer." They're not supposed to say do I want this particular guy to live or be executed, or to say I would really like to see these houses seized under eminent domain and a nice shopping mall built, or anything like that. They're supposed to ask themselves if the law under review conflicts or not with the Constitution.
Although as a minor semantic quibble i don't think gerrymandering falls under voter suppression.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:32:19 PMYour liberal link isnt.
I assume you consider the ACLU to be liberal and thus suspect as well?
QuoteFollowing a wave of voter suppression laws over the last few years, Texas passed a restrictive voter identification law, which unfairly burdened communities of color all across the state. The new law was rejected as discriminatory under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/shelby-itca-and-congress-role-protecting-voting-rights
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:35:28 PMConvince me, as in make me metaphysically certain? I suppose something ridiculous such as a statement to that effect by everyone who ever voted for the legislation.
I don't really care for metaphysics. I was wondering more in the context of day to day politics and the governing of your nation.
I assume that you agree that it is theoretically possible for someone to want to suppress votes. I also assume that you agree that "in theory" that someone might have incentives to do so.
So what I'm wondering is what kind of evidence would be convince you - metaphysically or not - that voter suppression was happening to such a degree that something should be done to prevent or counter it.
Presumably you agree that the various Jim Crow laws were exercises in voter suppression. Now thinking of our modern context, presume for a moment that the terribly biased liberal link I posted earlier is straight up correct that there's a deliberate effort to minimize the impact of minority voters in Texas; what sort of evidence would convince you that they were right?
QuoteThat's not how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate Jake. They're not supposed to answer the question "which outcome would I prefer." They're not supposed to say do I want this particular guy to live or be executed, or to say I would really like to see these houses seized under eminent domain and a nice shopping mall built, or anything like that. They're supposed to ask themselves if the law under review conflicts or not with the Constitution.
Although as a minor semantic quibble i don't think gerrymandering falls under voter suppression.
And neither does gerrymandering plus voter ID laws clearly impacting minority groups disproportionately?
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
Well... when the state government start shutting down DMVs in predominantly Democratic neighbourhoods, it does look like they're trying to make it as hard as possible for some people.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/31/the-gop-and-voter-disenfranchisement/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/walker-to-close-10-dmv-offices-after-passing-voter-id-law/
Then of course, there's the logistics of processing time - how many people are lacking proper ID and how long will it take them to actually get it given current processing time?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:49:41 PM
Presumably you agree that the various Jim Crow laws were exercises in voter suppression. Now thinking of our modern context, presume for a moment that the terribly biased liberal link I posted earlier is straight up correct that there's a deliberate effort to minimize the impact of minority voters in Texas; what sort of evidence would convince you that they were right?
If i presume your link is correct i don't need any evidence. :P
Look, I think the whole question of motivation and intent is just a dead end. I assume that if by some magic trick we were to find out that the motivations of the Texas legislature were pure as the driven snow, but the effect of the law was to keep half of black and Latino voters from voting, you'd still be against it. We should evaluate laws by their effects, not by what law makers hoped to achieve. Just like we should evaluate wars by their effects, not by what our Ouija Board tells us about W's desire to avenge his father.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 07:04:57 PM
If i presume your link is correct i don't need any evidence. :P
So if what my link says is correct - and corroborated by a source that's not compromised in your eyes by being too liberal - then you accept that voter suppression is happening?
QuoteLook, I think the whole question of motivation and intent is just a dead end. I assume that if by some magic trick we were to find out that the motivations of the Texas legislature were pure as the driven snow, but the effect of the law was to keep half of black and Latino voters from voting, you'd still be against it. We should evaluate laws by their effects, not by what law makers hoped to achieve. Just like we should evaluate wars by their effects, not by what our Ouija Board tells us about W's desire to avenge his father.
Sure, for the sake of argument lets disregard intent and focus on effects.
The effects of the voter ID laws and gerrymandering (and assorted administrative decisions such as closing DMVs or shortening their hours in minority areas) is to disproportionately minimize the votes of black and latino voters. Thus we have voter suppression regardless of intent, agreed?
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
Well... when the state government start shutting down DMVs in predominantly Democratic neighbourhoods, it does look like they're trying to make it as hard as possible for some people.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/31/the-gop-and-voter-disenfranchisement/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/walker-to-close-10-dmv-offices-after-passing-voter-id-law/
Then of course, there's the logistics of processing time - how many people are lacking proper ID and how long will it take them to actually get it given current processing time?
So your saying it's just too hard, so dont do it.
The ID is no big deal. It should be required.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 10:40:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 10:36:54 AM
That's exactly what it does. The previous offenders complained about the burden of monitoring.
No it doesn't. Legislation is all in the public domain. You can look up any proposed changes you want to South Carolina's voting regulations.
The feds were monitoring the legislation and putting obstacles in the way of "voter reform" bills because of previous bad practices of those states. I don't see how "Original Sin" fit into this.
Raz, I'm totally stumped on how this post relates to the one you quoted.
That's okay, I have no idea what you were on about with "original sin".
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:15:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
Well... when the state government start shutting down DMVs in predominantly Democratic neighbourhoods, it does look like they're trying to make it as hard as possible for some people.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/31/the-gop-and-voter-disenfranchisement/ (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/31/the-gop-and-voter-disenfranchisement/)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/walker-to-close-10-dmv-offices-after-passing-voter-id-law/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/walker-to-close-10-dmv-offices-after-passing-voter-id-law/)
Then of course, there's the logistics of processing time - how many people are lacking proper ID and how long will it take them to actually get it given current processing time?
So your saying it's just too hard, so dont do it.
The ID is no big deal. It should be required.
And neither was the poll tax or the literacy test. If you were white.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
Hey, it's your crowd. Don't start getting all sensitive now.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:15:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
Well... when the state government start shutting down DMVs in predominantly Democratic neighbourhoods, it does look like they're trying to make it as hard as possible for some people.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/31/the-gop-and-voter-disenfranchisement/ (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/31/the-gop-and-voter-disenfranchisement/)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/walker-to-close-10-dmv-offices-after-passing-voter-id-law/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/walker-to-close-10-dmv-offices-after-passing-voter-id-law/)
Then of course, there's the logistics of processing time - how many people are lacking proper ID and how long will it take them to actually get it given current processing time?
So your saying it's just too hard, so dont do it.
The ID is no big deal. It should be required.
And neither was the poll tax or the literacy test. If you were white.
Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:15:09 PMThe ID is no big deal. It should be required.
It's the vote, not a felony traffic stop, Buford.
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 07:09:24 PM
So if what my link says is correct - and corroborated by a source that's not compromised in your eyes by being too liberal - then you accept that voter suppression is happening?
If we define voter suppression as at least person being demotivated to vote, then sure, we have voter suppression. We have voter suppression now, without these Jim Crow laws. There are currently people who don't vote because they can't be bothered to register, or they'd rather watch Wheel of Fortune than go to the polling station, or whatever. So I have no doubt that at least one person will not bother to vote because they don't want the hassle of getting a free ID.
And that has no connection to what your goofy link says.
Quote
The effects of the voter ID laws and gerrymandering (and assorted administrative decisions such as closing DMVs or shortening their hours in minority areas) is to disproportionately minimize the votes of black and latino voters. Thus we have voter suppression regardless of intent, agreed?
As I said, it was a minor semantic quibble. Gerrymandering is not designed to reduce turnout, it's designed to reduce the impact of votes that are cast.
weee!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 07:39:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:15:09 PMThe ID is no big deal. It should be required.
It's the vote, not a felony traffic stop, Buford.
It is and nothing wrong with providing ID. You have to provide ID before doing a lot of things. To vote should be one of them.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
If you haven't seen one of the million posts here that speaks directly to that, you're not going to pay attention now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 07:30:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
Hey, it's your crowd. Don't start getting all sensitive now.
I've lots of people under my tent. And no, gun nuts are not my crowd.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
If you haven't seen one of the million posts here that speaks directly to that, you're not going to pay attention now.
and nothing is wrong with it.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
If you haven't seen one of the million posts here that speaks directly to that, you're not going to pay attention now.
and nothing is wrong with it.
Not sure what "it" is in your sentence. I would say that there is something wrong with asking boneheaded questions, if that's what you meant.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
If you haven't seen one of the million posts here that speaks directly to that, you're not going to pay attention now.
and nothing is wrong with it.
Not sure what "it" is in your sentence. I would say that there is something wrong with asking boneheaded questions, if that's what you meant.
The ID, Nancy.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:49:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
If you haven't seen one of the million posts here that speaks directly to that, you're not going to pay attention now.
and nothing is wrong with it.
Not sure what "it" is in your sentence. I would say that there is something wrong with asking boneheaded questions, if that's what you meant.
The ID, Nancy.
You're wrong and that's all the time left on today's show, folks.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:50:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:49:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
If you haven't seen one of the million posts here that speaks directly to that, you're not going to pay attention now.
and nothing is wrong with it.
Not sure what "it" is in your sentence. I would say that there is something wrong with asking boneheaded questions, if that's what you meant.
The ID, Nancy.
You're wrong and that's all the time left on today's show, folks.
No, you're wrong and liberal frothing be damned. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:36:19 PM
Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.
Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end. Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:36:19 PM
Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.
Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end. Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?
Liberal spin and hysterics.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:36:19 PM
Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.
Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end. Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?
Liberal spin and hysterics.
I didn't say they did say that, I said if they said that would you still support it?
Seedy, see that - I have liberal frothing*. :cool:
*or is that frosting? :unsure:
Frothing a frosting?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:56:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:36:19 PM
Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.
Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end. Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?
Liberal spin and hysterics.
I didn't say they did say that, I said if they said that would you still support it?
So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:56:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:36:19 PM
Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.
Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end. Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?
Liberal spin and hysterics.
I didn't say they did say that, I said if they said that would you still support it?
So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.
Because some* politicians think like that way, but what they say and do maybe be different to that; one of the basic skills in politicking.
* for a value of 0.01-0.99 of 1.
Quote from: mongers on June 25, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:56:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:36:19 PM
Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.
Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end. Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?
Liberal spin and hysterics.
I didn't say they did say that, I said if they said that would you still support it?
So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.
Because some* politicians think like that way, but what they say and do maybe be different to that; one of the basic skills in politicking.
* for a value of 0.01-0.99 of 1.
Again you are assuming if they didnt say that. Have they (Texas politicians) said that about the ID's?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.
Because I argue that motive counts, while detractors like Yi say they don't. What do you think?
If Democratic opponents of the bill admitted their opposition was based on their desire to subjuct the US to UN black helicopter domination and to adulterate our precious bodily fluids, would that change your opinion about the bill?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 08:22:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.
Because I argue that motive counts, while detractors like Yi say they don't. What do you think?
I think there is nothing wrong with the ID as I said several time before.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 08:25:01 PM
If Democratic opponents of the bill admitted their opposition was based on their desire to subjuct the US to UN black helicopter domination and to adulterate our precious bodily fluids, would that change your opinion about the bill?
Yeah, probably, but that doesn't seem likely.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 08:26:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 08:22:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.
Because I argue that motive counts, while detractors like Yi say they don't. What do you think?
I think there is nothing wrong with the ID as I said several time before.
But why have it?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
What part of the constitution allows infringement upon voting rights on those grounds?
In response to the sidecar about Voter ID laws and gerrymandering:
1. Voter ID laws don't appear to meaningfully suppress vote. Black voter turnout was very high in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and they voted overwhelmingly for the black candidate/free money party as they always will. When 20% of the votes cast in Ohio are black and 15% of the population is, I'll say if the goal was to suppress black Democrat votes someone fucked up really, really bad.
FWIW I do think the goal was to make voting more difficult under the theory that the right kind of people are good at going through government hoops and the wrong kind of people aren't. But it did not work, so to me those laws while unfortunate just don't rate much interest. They aren't at all like random poll tests and such that were impossible to ever pass and resulted in less than 7% of blacks in many Southern states being registered to vote.
2. Democrats to some degree self-gerrymander. If a political group is disproportionately geographically concentrated then they will tend to be "gerrymandered" even by "neutrally drawn" geographic districts. Take a State like Ohio and make it more extreme. Say Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati all vote 80% Democrat, the rest of the State is 60/40 Republican. What you end up with is a lot of farm counties with a Republican lean. Ohio is big enough that that is still a lot of people, but in absolute numbers maybe not as much as the 80% Democrat populations in the three really big cities. But because you try to draw Congressional districts to some standard of geographic compactness, I don't see how you avoid the fact that a lot of Democrats have chosen to live in three concentrated areas. Do you artificially split cities like Columbus into 1/3rds and Cincy/Cleveland into 1/2s and pair them with rural farm counties so the Democrats in the big city and just barely beat the rest of the people in their district, and get two seats out of the city instead of winning 80% in the city limits and only getting one Congressman?
Either way you answer that question you're making some preferential choice about an outcome you want, and that's definitely something like gerrymandering. Of course on top of all that we don't actually draw districts with maximum geographic compactness, since we intentionally gerrymander. But I'm just pointing out that even without intentional gerrymandering you can have 60% of a State vote Democrat but a majority of its Congressmen end up being Republican.
At least in part, some of the gerrymandering that happens is actually because of Civil Rights legislation. There are requirements in place in the South to maintain and create "minority-majority districts." The most gerrymandered district in South Carolina for example isn't about disenfranchising blacks, it's about drawing a funky district because of a requirement to guarantee a minority-majority district. The liberals involved in the scheme to mandate such districts felt that by guaranteeing (essentially) several black Congressmen in an era when they were unknown you were building black political leadership and etc. They were not prescient enough to realize that lumping everyone in to a gerrymandered district means the rest of the districts are going to be disproportionately white and probably Republican (in the South.)
3. As a point as to how dumb the NRA had gotten, most of what Jacob is talking about has been going on in States without preclearance requirements, while the states that were under the interminable preclearance (as it was never that straight forward, despite what people say, to get out from under preclearance) had very high rates of black voter participation. What that suggests to me is the States under preclearance over many years have proven they're serious about letting minorities vote. Is it possible they'll do bad stuff without preclearance? Sure it is, but why should they be subject to preclearance when States that aren't hypothetically doing stuff, but really are doing bad stuff (Ohio, Pennsylvania) aren't subject to preclearance? Finally, everything else in the VRA and the amendments abolishing poll taxes and all that are still parts of the Constitution as is the Barnett decision that banned voting tests and etc. None of that has gone away, and just like the Federal government busted down Arizona's law, it can continue to go after other laws it has a problem with. Maybe it should start with Ohio and Pennsylvania since that's where everyone whines the most about the Voter ID stuff.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 09:53:34 PM
for the black candidate/free money party as they always will.
Shame you made me stop reading right there, as I'm sure the rest of your post was just as lucid.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:02:52 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 09:53:34 PM
for the black candidate/free money party as they always will.
Shame you made me stop reading right there, as I'm sure the rest of your post was just as lucid.
That sentence was literally added just for you. If you don't have something to get outraged about you'll invent it, so I find it better to just throw the dog a bone. I know you need the outrage a lot more than I need you reading my entire post. :lol:
Quote from: Fate on June 25, 2013, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
What part of the constitution allows infringement upon voting rights on those grounds?
That you have to be a US citizen to vote?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: Fate on June 25, 2013, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
What part of the constitution allows infringement upon voting rights on those grounds?
That you have to be a US citizen to vote?
So a social security card doesn't prove that, but an expired gun license does? (Texas law)
Quote from: Fate on June 25, 2013, 10:15:46 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: Fate on June 25, 2013, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
What part of the constitution allows infringement upon voting rights on those grounds?
That you have to be a US citizen to vote?
So a social security card doesn't prove that, but an expired gun license does? (Texas law)
They have started putting pictures on SS cards when?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 10:08:06 PM
I know you need the outrage a lot more than I need you reading my entire post. :lol:
Not really. Been seeing your bullshit coming for ten years now.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:36:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
And neither was the poll tax or the literacy test. If you were white.
Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.
Not yet, those need a SC decision or two.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:26:28 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 10:08:06 PM
I know you need the outrage a lot more than I need you reading my entire post. :lol:
Not really. Been seeing your bullshit coming for ten years now.
Still, at least being outraged gives you something to do, right?
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2013, 10:38:04 PM
Still, at least being outraged gives you something to do, right?
Beats playing Russian-designed video games.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:48:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2013, 10:38:04 PM
Still, at least being outraged gives you something to do, right?
Beats playing Russian-designed video games.
I avoid them. Even if they seem like they'd be totally awesome and right up my alley. You can't trust a Russian.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: Fate on June 25, 2013, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:59:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 06:52:20 PM
So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?
:rolleyes:
What is wrong with getting the ID?
What part of the constitution allows infringement upon voting rights on those grounds?
That you have to be a US citizen to vote?
You don't have to be a US citizen to vote; at least it's not a Constitutional requirement. We've been over this before, but in the past, some states did allow non-citizens who were permanent residents to vote. Generally speaking, the Constitution gave the states the power to regulate who is or isn't allowed to vote. That's been heavily restricted by amendments--the states can't discriminate against citizens on the basis of their race, gender, or age if 18 or older--but the basic power still lies with the states. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits states from requiring ID.
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 12:39:33 PM
Well to be fair JQ Adams and GW Bush were sort of disastrous. Siege is probably right here.
Benjamin Harrison and FDR as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
That's okay, I have no idea what you were on about with "original sin".
The people who suppressed minority voters prior to 1965 are mostly dead and gone. The current leadership/citizenry of those states have inherited their sins, much like we all inherited Adam & Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 05:27:47 PM
Does democracy only get destroyed when federal legislation gets overturned, or does it get destroyed when state legislation is overturned as well?
I guess it depends on the legislation in question doesn't it?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2013, 05:50:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 12:39:33 PM
Well to be fair JQ Adams and GW Bush were sort of disastrous. Siege is probably right here.
Benjamin Harrison and FDR as well.
FDR doesn't count. He was like a 12th cousin of Teddy.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 10:08:44 PM
That you have to be a US citizen to vote?
Do we really have to rehash the points we have been making about this in the past 20 threads? It seems so tiresome.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 09:02:52 PM
But why have it?
Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 10:08:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:02:52 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 09:53:34 PM
for the black candidate/free money party as they always will.
Shame you made me stop reading right there, as I'm sure the rest of your post was just as lucid.
That sentence was literally added just for you. If you don't have something to get outraged about you'll invent it, so I find it better to just throw the dog a bone. I know you need the outrage a lot more than I need you reading my entire post. :lol:
:face:
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2013, 07:53:29 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2013, 10:08:44 PM
That you have to be a US citizen to vote?
Do we really have to rehash the points we have been making about this in the past 20 threads? It seems so tiresome.
:hug:
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2013, 07:54:26 AM
Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.
49% of the population willing to stand in line to cast individually worthless ballots. Clearly a sign of the death of the republic.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2013, 07:54:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 09:02:52 PM
But why have it?
Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.
I did. How did you come up with that?
Quote from: ulmont on June 25, 2013, 12:39:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2013, 11:10:26 AM
Putting aside the pragmatic necessity for having it to begin with (that's not really in question is it?), the concept that a thing can be first constitutional and then later unconstitutional simply shouldn't happen. In theory.
Uh...Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education? Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas?
That's different. In those cases, the Supreme Court ruled in the second case that they got it wrong in the first case.
What is odd and unique about this case is that the majority is essentially saying that both cases were right - that the Constitution permitted Congress to enact these legal provisions in 1966 but not in 2006. And the only way to do that is to make the outcome turn on the analysis of empirical data. To which the obvious response would be: isn't that the kind of policy judgment that is traditionally reposed in Congress?
The majority comes down to saying that strong considerations of federalism and respect of the rights of states to make their own laws justify the Court stepping in and second guessing Congress' judgment. Which is kind of funny given that the VERY NEXT DAY four out of five of those very same justices took the opposite view in the DOMA case.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2013, 07:54:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 09:02:52 PM
But why have it?
Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.
I did. How did you come up with that?
Dang you do? I was trying to use sarcasm to attack you, I guess sometimes you just get lucky :cool:
I dunno, seems to me DOMA is more federalist in a sense as it allows different states to treat gay couples differently. Now that it's gone we'll probably see more consistency from state to state.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2013, 12:04:43 PM
I dunno, seems to me DOMA is more federalist in a sense as it allows different states to treat gay couples differently. Now that it's gone we'll probably see more consistency from state to state.
??
Different states can have different marriage laws. That isn't changing.
What was being challenged in Windsor was the federal mandate overriding state marriages and imposing a uniform federal rule of recognition.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2013, 11:51:16 AM
The majority comes down to saying that strong considerations of federalism and respect of the rights of states to make their own laws justify the Court stepping in and second guessing Congress' judgment. Which is kind of funny given that the VERY NEXT DAY four out of five of those very same justices took the opposite view in the DOMA case.
That is because one case affects conservative electoral outcomes, and the other one, not as much.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2013, 12:29:27 PM
Different states can have different marriage laws. That isn't changing.
Right, which is why I found your previous post about inconsitency between DOMA and Reconstruction puzzling.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 12:44:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2013, 12:29:27 PM
Different states can have different marriage laws. That isn't changing.
Right, which is why I found your previous post about inconsitency between DOMA and Reconstruction puzzling.
Reconstruction?
What is it that you found puzzling?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2013, 12:29:27 PM
??
Different states can have different marriage laws. That isn't changing.
About who can get married in their state. But they're no longer going to be able to deny marriages from other states. Even if it's not implicit in that ruling, it is what's going to happen as a result.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
Reconstruction?
What is it that you found puzzling?
Section 4 of Voting Rights.
I thought you were saying in Voting Rights they deferred to states's rights but in DOMA they did not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2013, 01:00:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2013, 12:29:27 PM
??
Different states can have different marriage laws. That isn't changing.
About who can get married in their state. But they're no longer going to be able to deny marriages from other states. Even if it's not implicit in that ruling, it is what's going to happen as a result.
Oh I see your issue. But it is mistaken. The Court's decision did not address that part of DOMA (section 2). It only addressed section 3 which says that that federal definition of marriage will trump any contrary state provisions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 01:01:15 PM
I thought you were saying in Voting Rights they deferred to states's rights but in DOMA they did not.
I did suggest that but I still don't know what has you puzzled.
I am referring to the 4 justices who as majority in the VRA case emphasized the rights of the states to enact their own voting laws, but dissented in the DOMA case despite the apparent federal intrusion on the traditional state sphere to define the law of family relations.
Gotcha.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2013, 01:20:27 PM
I am referring to the 4 justices who as majority in the VRA case emphasized the rights of the states to enact their own voting laws, but dissented in the DOMA case despite the apparent federal intrusion on the traditional state sphere to define the law of family relations.
Doesn't that kind of cut both ways? I mean yesterday the dissenters were willing to defer to the learned judgment of Congress that the south in 2013 had precisely the same problems as the south in 1965, but in the majority today they said that Congress' action deserved no deference because they have suspicions about Congress' judgment and motivation.
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2013, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2013, 01:20:27 PM
I am referring to the 4 justices who as majority in the VRA case emphasized the rights of the states to enact their own voting laws, but dissented in the DOMA case despite the apparent federal intrusion on the traditional state sphere to define the law of family relations.
Doesn't that kind of cut both ways? I mean yesterday the dissenters were willing to defer to the learned judgment of Congress that the south in 2013 had precisely the same problems as the south in 1965, but in the majority today they said that Congress' action deserved no deference because they have suspicions about Congress' judgment and motivation.
This is Languish, so you're supposed to ignore that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2013, 06:15:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
That's okay, I have no idea what you were on about with "original sin".
The people who suppressed minority voters prior to 1965 are mostly dead and gone. The current leadership/citizenry of those states have inherited their sins, much like we all inherited Adam & Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit.
But the law doesn't alter what people can do, only state governments. And those are the same states.
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2013, 01:56:02 PM
Doesn't that kind of cut both ways? I mean yesterday the dissenters were willing to defer to the learned judgment of Congress that the south in 2013 had precisely the same problems as the south in 1965, but in the majority today they said that Congress' action deserved no deference because they have suspicions about Congress' judgment and motivation.
So Kennedy is the one honorable justice?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 02:06:12 PM
But the law doesn't alter what people can do, only state governments. And those are the same states.
Governors and members of state legislatures are people. Politicians, granted, but still people.
There's an interesting passage in the DOMA dissent that really shows how tangled up the Justices are in the various tensions in their positions:
QuoteBut no one questions the power of the States to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is thepoint of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is? Even after the opinion hasformally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism,mentions of "the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage" continue. See, e.g., ante,at 20. What to make of this? The opinion never explains.My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of "marriage" in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government'senumerated powers,4 nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today's prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to bedropped later, maybe next Term).
Scalia is onto something here. The phrase that not explicitly mentioned but implicity here is "commerce power." Scalia knows that most of the majority doesn't want to say that Congress lacks authority over marriage laws because that would imply a diminution of the commerce power and its subordination to traditional spheres of authority between the feds and states. He is highlighting a tension in the majority's reasoning that is just a little embarrassing.
Problem is - it is also embarrassing to Scalia, the originalist. Because for the purposes of his dissent, he has to conclude that the federal government DOES have the power to enact marriage regulations. And where exactly does that come from? Scalia, who also doesn't want to say the magic word "commerce," relegates his answer to that knotty question to a very curious footnote:
Quote4 Such a suggestion [no federal power over marriage regs] would be impossible, given the Federal Government's long history of making pronouncements regarding marriage—for example, conditioning Utah's entry into the Union upon its prohibition of polygamy. See Act of July 16, 1894, ch. 138, §3, 28 Stat. 108 ("Theconstitution [of Utah]" must provide "perfect toleration of religioussentiment," "Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited").
My reaction: :huh:
Utah's territorial status and admission as state were governed by Article IV Section 3 of the constitution, which vests in the Congress very extensive powers to make rules for the territories and to establish the terms, conditions for admission as state. The Act for admission of Utah stems from that extensive authority. The New States clause has been interpreted as giving Congress the power to vet proposed state constitutions - exactly what it did with Utah. But that doesn't imply in way that Congress otherwise has plenary authority to make rules about marriage. There must be some other source of authority for that. And Scalia is silent what that authority is.
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2013, 01:56:02 PM
[Doesn't that kind of cut both ways? I mean yesterday the dissenters were willing to defer to the learned judgment of Congress that the south in 2013 had precisely the same problems as the south in 1965, but in the majority today they said that Congress' action deserved no deference because they have suspicions about Congress' judgment and motivation.
Yes there is some tension both ways. But I think it is a bigger problem for the anti-VRA pro-DOMA side. In DOMA, Congress actually stated that a purpose of the law was to express moral disapproval for homosexuality. And the act itself does nothing more than single out a particular subgroup for unequal treatment under law. So there doesn't need to be a lot of analytical digging to reach conclusions about motivation - they are apparent on the face of the legislation. But in VRA, the question was an empirical one: had the "covered" jurisdictions so significantly improved as to render the categorization irrational. That is the kind of data-driven analysis that the Court tends to shy away from (well maybe not Breyer but I suspect he would read the data differently). Indeed, I did a double take seeing Scalia and Thomas sign on to a VRA opinion that among other things, contains a spreadsheet and an analytical section interpeting the data.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2013, 12:00:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2013, 07:54:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2013, 09:02:52 PM
But why have it?
Because 11B4V thinks that having the outrageously high turnout of 49% means there must be tons of voter fraud going on I guess.
I did. How did you come up with that?
Dang you do? I was trying to use sarcasm to attack you, I guess sometimes you just get lucky :cool:
No. Should have been a question mark. I sse you werent serious so no foul. :P
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 05:59:33 PMThere are times when I have patience for your hysteria and times when I don't.
Two questions for you, Yi:
Do you genuinely think that there's a significant issue with voter fraud that requires action to correct in the short term?
Do you genuinely think that these voter ID laws are not motivated by a desire to keep traditionally Democratic leaning voters away from the polls?
I got a question for you, Jacob.
Do you genuinely think that these illegal immigration annesty laws are not motivated by a desire to bring traditionally Democratic leaning voters into the polls?
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:24:36 PM
Do you genuinely think that these illegal immigration annesty laws are not motivated by a desire to bring traditionally Democratic leaning voters into the polls?
Oh they probably are. But the difference is immigration is demonstrably a serious problem that needs to be addressed, whereas voter fraud is not. And actually I am fine with things that reduce voter fraud...but not ones that put burdens on the voters. They should be trying to make the process of identifying legal voters easier on the state's end.
How can people live without a fukin ID?
Dude, in Israel, if you don't have an ID, you are Fucked, dude.
You are IDF?
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:24:36 PM
I got a question for you, Jacob.
Do you genuinely think that these illegal immigration annesty laws are not motivated by a desire to bring traditionally Democratic leaning voters into the polls?
I'm genuinely sure that a significant amount of the desire for immigration amnesty laws are motivated out of a desire to do the decent thing for people who want to work hard to achieve the American dream.
That said, I expect that there's a number of Democratic politicians who are very pleased that doing so would also bring more Democratic voters into play. This is, of course, even more true now that the GOP has doubled down on xenophobia.
That said, there's a significant bit of difference between wanting to grant more people who reside in your country the vote on one hand, and trying to restrict the ability of citizens to vote on the other hand.
There is nothing at all wrong about trying to get more people to vote for you, even if those people are not currently valid voters - as long as the process for doing so involves making them valid voters.
That is not even remotely similar to trying to keep valid voters from being able to vote because you think they won't vote for you.
This is not a case where the reverse is the same.
One case is despicable, the other is either neutral or even potentially admirable.
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
How can people live without a fukin ID?
Dude, in Israel, if you don't have an ID, you are Fucked, dude.
Amazing really. I believe the ID is free also.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 04:54:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
How can people live without a fukin ID?
Dude, in Israel, if you don't have an ID, you are Fucked, dude.
Amazing really. I believe the ID is free also.
It's almost as if your personal experiences don't reflect the reality for everyone in the US.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 04:54:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
How can people live without a fukin ID?
Dude, in Israel, if you don't have an ID, you are Fucked, dude.
Amazing really. I believe the ID is free also.
It's almost as if your personal experiences don't reflect the reality for everyone in the US.
Normally people want free shit. Especially the takers or 47 percenters. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 05:07:55 PMNormally people want free shit. Especially the takers or 47 percenters. :P
Exactly.
So perhaps it's not free, and you're failing to see where the costs are.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2013, 02:17:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 02:06:12 PM
But the law doesn't alter what people can do, only state governments. And those are the same states.
Governors and members of state legislatures are people. Politicians, granted, but still people.
Yes, but their offices are not.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 04:54:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
How can people live without a fukin ID?
Dude, in Israel, if you don't have an ID, you are Fucked, dude.
Amazing really. I believe the ID is free also.
It has to be free, otherwise it's a poll tax. One of the problems has been that state employees have been ordered to conceal that it is free. This happened in Wisconsin where you are charged money unless you specifically ask to waive the fee, and state employees at the DMV were ordered not to tell people they could waive the fee unless specifically asked. It's a chicken shit way of trying to get around the constitution.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 05:07:55 PMNormally people want free shit. Especially the takers or 47 percenters. :P
Exactly.
So perhaps it's not free, and you're failing to see where the costs are.
All they have to do is walk in.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 05:34:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 05:07:55 PMNormally people want free shit. Especially the takers or 47 percenters. :P
Exactly.
So perhaps it's not free, and you're failing to see where the costs are.
All they have to do is walk in.
Where?
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:24:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 25, 2013, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 05:59:33 PMThere are times when I have patience for your hysteria and times when I don't.
Two questions for you, Yi:
Do you genuinely think that there's a significant issue with voter fraud that requires action to correct in the short term?
Do you genuinely think that these voter ID laws are not motivated by a desire to keep traditionally Democratic leaning voters away from the polls?
I got a question for you, Jacob.
Do you genuinely think that these illegal immigration annesty laws are not motivated by a desire to bring traditionally Democratic leaning voters into the polls?
Serious question for you, then. When Republicans passed amnesty laws in the 1980's what were they motivated by?
It's a very inefficient way to get voters because the path to citizenship is so long (10+ years)
If the GOP manages to get its act together, it has plenty of time to swing those distant future voters.
So . . .
I guess it probably favors the Democrats after all. ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 05:34:14 PMAll they have to do is walk in.
If it's that easy, why are people saying it's not?
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 06:04:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 05:34:14 PMAll they have to do is walk in.
If it's that easy, why are people saying it's not?
or if they have one of these photo ID's. Oh man how crushing and hard. :rolleyes:
Quote
The voter must present one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of identification:
Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person's photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person's photograph
United States passport
QuoteWho can vote in Texas?
To be eligible to register to vote in Texas, a person must be:
A United States citizen;
A resident of the Texas county in which application for registration is made;
At least 18 years old on Election Day;
Not finally convicted of a felony, or, if so convicted must have (1) fully discharged the sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by any court; or (2) been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disability to vote; and
Not determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be (1) totally mentally incapacitated; or (2) partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote.
I don't have any of those.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:38:29 PM
I don't have any of those.
You dont live in texas now do you.
No.
Still, you haven't told me why we need these laws. All you've said is that it's not too burdensome.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:44:27 PM
No.
Still, you haven't told me why we need these laws. All you've said is that it's not too burdensome.
You should be showing a picture ID to vote.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:44:27 PM
No.
Still, you haven't told me why we need these laws. All you've said is that it's not too burdensome.
You should be showing a picture ID to vote.
Why?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:51:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:44:27 PM
No.
Still, you haven't told me why we need these laws. All you've said is that it's not too burdensome.
You should be showing a picture ID to vote.
To show who you are.
Why?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 06:53:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:51:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:44:27 PM
No.
Still, you haven't told me why we need these laws. All you've said is that it's not too burdensome.
You should be showing a picture ID to vote.
To show who you are.
Why?
I could do this before.
With a picture ID yes.
Without! In Missouri you did not require such an ID 20 years ago. Or 30 years ago. Or 40 years ago. Or 50 years ago etc. Why do we need to change that? What is the pressing reason for it?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:59:28 PM
Without! In Missouri you did not require such an ID 20 years ago. Or 30 years ago. Or 40 years ago. Or 50 years ago etc. Why do we need to change that? What is the pressing reason for it?
To show who you are.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
or if they have one of these photo ID's. Oh man how crushing and hard. :rolleyes:
You still haven't articulated why it's necessary to require ID for voting. What's the problem that's being solved by requiring them? Why is it a problem? And how will requiring ID fix it?
Nor have you actually addressed the impact of requiring IDs to vote, except by rolling your eyes like a girl from a 90s teen-flick.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 07:00:55 PMTo show who you are.
Why is this important all of a sudden?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:59:28 PM
Without! In Missouri you did not require such an ID 20 years ago. Or 30 years ago. Or 40 years ago. Or 50 years ago etc. Why do we need to change that? What is the pressing reason for it?
To show who you are.
As I said, that's has already been accomplished. Since I can show who I am now without a picture ID, there should be no fuss and this law is useless.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:07:11 PM
Since I can show who I am now without a picture ID
Not really. You can attest who your are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:07:11 PM
Since I can show who I am now without a picture ID
Not really. You can attest who your are.
Yes really! I can legally vote without a picture ID. I have legally demonstrated who I am and this has proven adequate for a very long time. Why the change?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:12:10 PM
Yes really! I can legally vote without a picture ID. I have legally demonstrated who I am and this has proven adequate for a very long time. Why the change?
No really! You can legally vote and legally attest who you are without showing who you are.
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
Oh man how crushing and hard. :rolleyes:
They're not aimed at you.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
I know what you look like. You don't have to show me what you look like. Election officials dont' know what you look like. And your bank statement doesn't tell them what you look like either.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:38:29 PM
I don't have any of those.
you don't have a driver license?
or passport?
i smell loser......
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
:lol:
If your bank statement doesnt have a pic on it, then it shouldnt be acceptable..
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
Oh man how crushing and hard. :rolleyes:
They're not aimed at you.
Granted, but dont they need a picture ID to get food stamps and/or welfare at some point.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 08:03:21 PM
Granted, but dont they need a picture ID to get food stamps and/or welfare at some point.
Who is "they"?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
Oh man how crushing and hard. :rolleyes:
They're not aimed at you.
Yeah, they're aimed at people for whom we should have really, really low expectations. Right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 08:03:21 PM
Granted, but dont they need a picture ID to get food stamps and/or welfare at some point.
Who is "they"?
Those people. :ph34r: j/k
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 08:25:22 PM
Yeah, they're aimed at people for whom we should have really, really low expectations. Right?
No, they're aimed at the people you don't want voting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 08:35:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 08:25:22 PM
Yeah, they're aimed at people for whom we should have really, really low expectations. Right?
No, they're aimed at the people you don't want voting.
People too lazy to get an ID? Then yeah.
Yeah, I suppose "lazy" is easier for you to type out than "spics" or "niggers".
LOLZ WHOS LAZY NOW
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 06:38:29 PM
I don't have any of those.
you don't have a driver license?
or passport?
i smell loser......
In Texas? No...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 07:41:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
I know what you look like. You don't have to show me what you look like. Election officials dont' know what you look like. And your bank statement doesn't tell them what you look like either.
That is not a requirement for identification.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 07:41:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
I know what you look like. You don't have to show me what you look like. Election officials dont' know what you look like. And your bank statement doesn't tell them what you look like either.
That is not a requirement for identification.
Then why would you bring a bank statement?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
:lol:
If your bank statement doesnt have a pic on it, then it shouldnt be acceptable..
Bank statement satisfies the requirement needed for voter identification in the state of Missouri. I never got a bank statement with my photo on it. Is that normal?
Still, none of you have given me an answer as to why the current means of identification are no longer valid.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:01:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 07:41:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
I know what you look like. You don't have to show me what you look like. Election officials dont' know what you look like. And your bank statement doesn't tell them what you look like either.
That is not a requirement for identification.
Then why would you bring a bank statement?
What I look like is not a requirement.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
Yeah, I suppose "lazy" is easier for you to type out than "spics" or "niggers".
LOLZ WHOS LAZY NOW
You are. Sittin' on your ass all day watching the TV...
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
:lol:
If your bank statement doesnt have a pic on it, then it shouldnt be acceptable..
Still, none of you have given me an answer as to why the current means of identification are no longer valid.
Again, to prove who you are.
QuoteBank statement satisfies the requirement needed for voter identification in the state of Missouri. I never got a bank statement with my photo on it. Is that normal?
Then why fret or give a shit what Texas does?
As much as I hate to side with Raz, I'd consider a bank statement fairly legit ID. Not as ironclad as a photo ID, but given the Patriot Act requirements for opening a bank account, it's better than something like a utility bill.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:05:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:01:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 07:41:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
I know what you look like. You don't have to show me what you look like. Election officials dont' know what you look like. And your bank statement doesn't tell them what you look like either.
That is not a requirement for identification.
Then why would you bring a bank statement?
What I look like is not a requirement.
Sure it is, to prove who you are.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
:lol:
If your bank statement doesnt have a pic on it, then it shouldnt be acceptable..
Still, none of you have given me an answer as to why the current means of identification are no longer valid.
Again, to prove who you are.
QuoteBank statement satisfies the requirement needed for voter identification in the state of Missouri. I never got a bank statement with my photo on it. Is that normal?
Then why fret or give a shit what Texas does?
You brought up Texas. I simply pointed out that the criteria you showed me didn't fit me.
Are you telling me that every election from here to the beginning of our country is now suspect because nobody knew who anyone was?
Bank statements and other official mail is confirmation of your residency for the district you are polling in.
It's to make sure you're voting at the right polling place in your district according to the poll rolls, not to establish identity.
Fucking mutts.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:16:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
I am showing you by standing in front of you and you seeing me and me showing you a bank statement. This has been adequate for a long time, why the change, Yi?
:lol:
If your bank statement doesnt have a pic on it, then it shouldnt be acceptable..
Still, none of you have given me an answer as to why the current means of identification are no longer valid.
Again, to prove who you are.
QuoteBank statement satisfies the requirement needed for voter identification in the state of Missouri. I never got a bank statement with my photo on it. Is that normal?
Then why fret or give a shit what Texas does?
You brought up Texas. I simply pointed out that the criteria you showed me didn't fit me.
Are you telling me that every election from here to the beginning of our country is now suspect because nobody knew who anyone was?
Nope, but it needs to change.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:00:22 PM
That is not a requirement for identification.
Of course not. There is no requirement for identification. In case you missed it, that's the subject of the thread.
Watching the voter suppressors squirm is mildly entertaining. Face it, we all know why they want these laws, but every attempt to defend their position just exposes them even more.
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2013, 09:32:04 PM
Watching the voter suppressors squirm is mildly entertaining. Face it, we all know why they want these laws, but every attempt to defend their position just exposes them even more.
Just as with the other sides hysterics to defend theirs.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:33:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2013, 09:32:04 PM
Watching the voter suppressors squirm is mildly entertaining. Face it, we all know why they want these laws, but every attempt to defend their position just exposes them even more.
Just as with the other sides hysterics to defend theirs.
The other side is trying to protect people from having their votes suppressed. If there are hysterics there, it's from the dismay that in this day and age fellow American citizens can still be so shamelessly cynical, and that so many are willing to surrender this country's values for partisan gain.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:24:52 PM
Nope, but it needs to change.
Okay, why then? If the means to ascertain the eligibility to vote in the past were sufficient why are the ones now insufficient?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:24:52 PM
Nope, but it needs to change.
Okay, why then? If the means to ascertain the eligibility to vote in the past were sufficient why are the ones now insufficient?
To prove who you are.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:51:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:24:52 PM
Nope, but it needs to change.
Okay, why then? If the means to ascertain the eligibility to vote in the past were sufficient why are the ones now insufficient?
To prove who you are.
No, why does it need to change? You have already indicated that in the past elections were valid so presumably people could prove who they were. So the "prove who you are" hurdle has been passed.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:54:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:51:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:24:52 PM
Nope, but it needs to change.
Okay, why then? If the means to ascertain the eligibility to vote in the past were sufficient why are the ones now insufficient?
To prove who you are.
No, why does it need to change? You have already indicated that in the past elections were valid so presumably people could prove who they were. So the "prove who you are" hurdle has been passed.
Apparently the hurdle is not passed. If the hurdle was past all states would require picture ID.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:54:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:51:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:24:52 PM
Nope, but it needs to change.
Okay, why then? If the means to ascertain the eligibility to vote in the past were sufficient why are the ones now insufficient?
To prove who you are.
No, why does it need to change? You have already indicated that in the past elections were valid so presumably people could prove who they were. So the "prove who you are" hurdle has been passed.
Apparently the hurdle is not passed. If the hurdle was past all states would require picture ID.
That's some impressive circular reasoning. :lol: Was the last election valid? If no voter ID laws are passed between now in 2014 will the next election be valid?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 10:03:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:54:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:51:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:24:52 PM
Nope, but it needs to change.
Okay, why then? If the means to ascertain the eligibility to vote in the past were sufficient why are the ones now insufficient?
To prove who you are.
No, why does it need to change? You have already indicated that in the past elections were valid so presumably people could prove who they were. So the "prove who you are" hurdle has been passed.
Apparently the hurdle is not passed. If the hurdle was past all states would require picture ID.
Was the last election valid? If no voter ID laws are passed between now in 2014 will the next election be valid?
Of course, but it needs to change.
They are valid but they still need to change? That doesn't really make sense, unless you don't want them to be valid. Is this "prove who you are" thing actually related to elections and voting or is this just some personal thing where you want everyone to carry a picture ID with them at all times. Cause at this point it doesn't seem linked anymore.
Here's what I'm seeing: US elections have been valid. They are currently valid. They will be valid next time if nobody does anything. We should change the election laws so that you must "prove who you are". The last part isn't follow from the rest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 07:41:50 PM
I know what you look like. You don't have to show me what you look like. Election officials dont' know what you look like. And your bank statement doesn't tell them what you look like either.
Why does it matter what you look like when you're voting?
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2013, 09:43:07 PM
The other side is trying to protect people from having their votes suppressed. If there are hysterics there, it's from the dismay that in this day and age fellow American citizens can still be so shamelessly cynical, and that so many are willing to surrender this country's values for partisan gain.
Yeah, exactly.
Now, if all these "photo ID to vote" also advocated putting significant resources and effort into providing acceptable ID to the millions who do not have them they might have a convincing case. But as long as their main response to people talking about the practical obstacles is "lol is it really hard :rolleyes:" and "well, if they're too lazy to do even
that then it's their own fault" then they're not going to shake the stink of partisan voter suppression.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 10:26:55 PM
Why does it matter what you look like when you're voting?
No one said it did. Well, Before implied it. Ask him.
I was responding to Raz' comment that he already shows who he is when he votes.
Now my question for you is, if I point out to Raz that in fact he does not show who he is, how does it lead to your question about mattering? What's the train of thought? What's the logical progression that gets you from point A to point B?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 10:15:38 PM
They are valid but they still need to change? That doesn't really make sense, unless you don't want them to be valid. Is this "prove who you are" thing actually related to elections and voting or is this just some personal thing where you want everyone to carry a picture ID with them at all times. Cause at this point it doesn't seem linked anymore.
Here's what I'm seeing: US elections have been valid. They are currently valid. They will be valid next time if nobody does anything. We should change the election laws so that you must "prove who you are". The last part isn't follow from the rest.
You think it doesnt need to change..cool beans on you.
I think it needs to change.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:45:41 PM
No one said it did. Well, Before implied it. Ask him.
I was responding to Raz' comment that he already shows who he is when he votes.
Now my question for you is, if I point out to Raz that in fact he does not show who he is, how does it lead to your question about mattering? What's the train of thought? What's the logical progression that gets you from point A to point B?
So far, the most coherent argument that has been given in this thread for requiring ID to vote is so that voters can "show what they look like."
I'm trying to find out why that matters. Maybe you can help me out?
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 11:01:07 PM
So far, the most coherent argument that has been given in this thread for requiring ID to vote is so that voters can "show what they look like."
I'm trying to find out why that matters. Maybe you can help me out?
That's not answering my question. How did you get from my assertion that Raz is not showing who he is to "it matters that he show who he is?"
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 10:15:38 PM
They are valid but they still need to change? That doesn't really make sense, unless you don't want them to be valid. Is this "prove who you are" thing actually related to elections and voting or is this just some personal thing where you want everyone to carry a picture ID with them at all times. Cause at this point it doesn't seem linked anymore.
Here's what I'm seeing: US elections have been valid. They are currently valid. They will be valid next time if nobody does anything. We should change the election laws so that you must "prove who you are". The last part isn't follow from the rest.
You think it doesnt need to change..cool beans on you.
I think it needs to change.
I'd really rather not have cold beans on me. Is there particular reason why it's important to "Know what what they look like" and is this actually related to voting?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 11:04:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 11:01:07 PM
So far, the most coherent argument that has been given in this thread for requiring ID to vote is so that voters can "show what they look like."
I'm trying to find out why that matters. Maybe you can help me out?
That's not answering my question. How did you get from my assertion that Raz is not showing who he is to "it matters that he show who he is?"
And you're not answering any of the questions I've asked you in this thread.
In fact, no one has even attempted to answer the questions at the heart of the matter, namely:
"Why it's necessary to require ID for voting? What's the problem that's being solved by requiring them? Why is it a problem? And how will requiring ID fix it?"
Tangents about how to get from some random Raz comment two steps closer the substance of the issue are just that, tangents.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 11:10:17 PM
And you're not answering any of the questions I've asked you in this thread.
In fact, no one has even attempted to answer the questions at the heart of the matter, namely:
"Why it's necessary to require ID for voting? What's the problem that's being solved by requiring them? Why is it a problem? And how will requiring ID fix it?"
Tangents about how to get from some random Raz comment two steps closer the substance of the issue are just that, tangents.
You're right. I did not answer your question. My apologies.
So to answer your question, it matters because voter fraud is a bad thing. Now if the next question is do the benefits of reducing voter fraud outweigh the costs of voter suppression, my answer is I don't know. I'm not really emotionally committed one way or the other. If it passes I won't be bent out of shape, and if it fails I won't be bent out of shape.
Now to answer my question to you, the connection between Raz not showing who he is and it mattering is an incorect assumption on your part. Because I point out a factual error on Raz' part does not necessarily mean I am in favor of voter IDs. Just as if I were to point out a factual error by Before would not prove that I am opposed.
I suspect Yi is bit half-hearted on this because he doesn't believe the conspiracy theories. There is a significant portion of the electorate that believes that the last election was stolen using illegal immigrants. I don't know how much of the leadership believes this, probably some, but they have to cater to them. When I'm talking about significant I'm talking over 40%.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/almost-half-of-republicans-indulge-the-stolen-election-delusion/265949/
As the article points out the poll could have done a better job asking the question, but even the most charitable interpretation would put it at a significant number I'd say at least 25%. It certainly no secret that Republicans believe that Voter ID will help them, many of them were caught on camera saying so. Whether by reducing voter fraud (which I guess only hurts Democrats), or by driving away minorities voters.
Popular myths notwithstanding I haven't seen evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country. The last person to be convicted on voter fraud in Missouri was in the 1930's. If voter fraud is common in Missouri and not be prosecuted then, the Republicans would really be shooting themselves in the foot since they've dominated the House here for almost two decades after a long, long time in the minority.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 11:08:57 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 10:15:38 PM
They are valid but they still need to change? That doesn't really make sense, unless you don't want them to be valid. Is this "prove who you are" thing actually related to elections and voting or is this just some personal thing where you want everyone to carry a picture ID with them at all times. Cause at this point it doesn't seem linked anymore.
Here's what I'm seeing: US elections have been valid. They are currently valid. They will be valid next time if nobody does anything. We should change the election laws so that you must "prove who you are". The last part isn't follow from the rest.
You think it doesnt need to change..cool beans on you.
I think it needs to change.
I'd really rather not have cold beans on me. Is there particular reason why it's important to "Know what what they look like" and is this actually related to voting?
To prove who you are.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 12:40:53 AM
I suspect Yi is bit half-hearted on this because he doesn't believe the conspiracy theories. There is a significant portion of the electorate that believes that the last election was stolen using illegal immigrants.
I dont by that, sorry to disappoint.
QuoteAs the article points out the poll could have done a better job asking the question, but even the most charitable interpretation would put it at a significant number I'd say at least 25%. It certainly no secret that Republicans believe that Voter ID will help them, many of them were caught on camera saying so. Whether by reducing voter fraud (which I guess only hurts Democrats), or by driving away minorities voters.
I do not care if it helps or hurts the GOP or the Dems.
It's irrelevant if you buy into the conspiracy or not, it's clear that a significant portion of population does.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:26:05 AM
It's irrelevant if you buy into the conspiracy or not, it's clear that a significant portion of population does.
I dont think it's a significant portion.
While it's possible you can delude yourself into believing that, the amount of dodging you've done in this thread indicates there is something you don't want to take into consideration. You can tell yourself whatever you want to believe all you like. If you do it long enough, you may succeed! It happens all the time. Some people use aids in that. It's called "Talk Radio".
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 01:05:48 AM
I do not care if it helps or hurts the GOP or the Dems.
I care that it puts all the burden on the voters for no particular reason. The innocent have to put up with this because maybe there are a few people breaking the rules, same crap with everything else. The government should be the ones who have the burden here.
Ah well. Now that a few states are going to have this we will see what its impact will be.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 02:30:03 AM
I dont think it's a significant portion.
The Justice Department said there was, using Texas' own statistics from the DPS. Ergo, that made it a biased ID program, which is why it was shitcanned under the CRA last year.
But now you don't have to worry about that anymore.
It seems to me pretty common sense that we want to make sure that voters are who they say they are, and that picture ID would be a good (though not the only) way to get that. I don't buy that we have to wait until there is massive voter fraud to put in some basic safeguards. The whole issue for me, then, is how easy it is to get photo ID.
Quote from: Kleves on June 28, 2013, 09:22:29 AM
It seems to me pretty common sense that we want to make sure that voters are who they say they are, and that picture ID would be a good (though not the only) way to get that. I don't buy that we have to wait until there is massive voter fraud to put in some basic safeguards. The whole issue for me, then, is how easy it is to get photo ID.
We do have basic safeguards already. The question is why should we introduce more? And as I said if they just gave everybody who is a registered voter a free picture ID, or did something else that is basically them doing the work, I would be fine with it. Demanding we all put in extra effort as if we are all guilty is ridiculous.
Then make it easy. Don't pick and choose specific types of photo ID and not others. That's what the problem is.
Hell, the civil rights leaders of the 50s and 60s would've given their eye teeth for a mandated Federal photo ID voting system to ensure voter rights, but not this ham-handed approach where expired handgun permits are OK, but state university IDs aren't. And oh, and by the way you have to pay for it.
You want voter IDs, fine. Make them free. Or accept all forms of photo ID, not just specific ones. Give it a 4 year ramp up time for those that don't have them to get them.
But no, these suppression efforts with their bullshit requirements and speed-clock attempts to affect as much of the next election as possible are exactly that: suppression efforts. And that doesn't count the fucking around with reducing poll hours, reducing early voting time, eliminating polling stations. All attempts to reduce voter turnout.
The vote is free, so should the means to do it. Anything else is a bona fide poll tax, and you know it.
QuoteThe whole issue for me, then, is how easy it is to get photo ID.
Not everybody is you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 09:34:15 AM
Hell, the civil rights leaders of the 50s and 60s would've given their eye teeth for a mandated Federal photo ID voting system to ensure voter rights, but not this ham-handed approach where expired handgun permits are OK, but state university IDs aren't.
QuoteAnd oh, and by the way you have to pay for it.
Actually, election-only IDs are going to be free.
QuoteYou want voter IDs, fine. Make them free. Or accept all forms of photo ID, not just specific ones. Give it a 4 year ramp up time for those that don't have them to get them.
Yeah, hurry up and make it stick is bullshit.
QuoteBut no, these suppression efforts with their bullshit requirements and speed-clock attempts to affect as much of the next election as possible are exactly that: suppression efforts. And that doesn't count the fucking around with reducing poll hours, reducing early voting time, eliminating polling stations. All attempts to reduce voter turnout.
I didn't even know what this "early voting" thing was until I moved to Texas, and I thought it was only for special groups of people. :P
Yeah, huge burden that photo ID is. So difficult to snag one.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 10:20:35 AM
Yeah, huge burden that photo ID is. So difficult to snag one.
Well paying a $1.00 poll tax was hardly a huge burden. I just get annoyed having more crap to worry about for not particular reason.
Weren't you the guy who didn't like the government messing with him? Changing the rules, putting a greater onus on the voters, for no reason is just cool eh?
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 10:20:35 AM
Yeah, huge burden that photo ID is. So difficult to snag one.
Yeah, here's another one. A creepy ass cracker, applying his disproportionally retrogressive perspective on somebody other than himself.
And photo IDs are a huge burden when you make them a huge burden. Once again, that's the fucking problem.
Fuck, your forehead is as dense as vM's bed frame.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 28, 2013, 10:17:34 AM
Actually, election-only IDs are going to be free.
They are? Exxxxcelent. I hope they make them at the polling places the first couple times, just for convenience.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2013, 10:24:37 AM
Weren't you the guy who didn't like the government messing with him? Changing the rules, putting a greater onus on the voters, for no reason is just cool eh?
That's why I don't ever buy his or Yi's or Otto's or 11Bravo's or any of the other "Libertardianism for All" crowd's bullshit.
All their bullshit over Rights and Libertyness and Freedomtude go out the window when it comes to any other class other than themselves, whether it's women's reproductive rights and whore pills or voter rights for spics and niggers.
Each and every one of them are so full of shit.
Those guys aren't libertarians...
I don't care. They have all been judged, and sentence has been passed. Guilty of bullshit, with intent to manufacture and distribute. Case closed.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2013, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 10:20:35 AM
Yeah, huge burden that photo ID is. So difficult to snag one.
Well paying a $1.00 poll tax was hardly a huge burden. I just get annoyed having more crap to worry about for not particular reason.
Weren't you the guy who didn't like the government messing with him? Changing the rules, putting a greater onus on the voters, for no reason is just cool eh?
I've always shown my ID to vote (even when not asked), so this would be no additional burden to me. Dunno why you keep trotting out that line when it doesn't really apply.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 10:32:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2013, 10:24:37 AM
Weren't you the guy who didn't like the government messing with him? Changing the rules, putting a greater onus on the voters, for no reason is just cool eh?
That's why I don't ever buy his or Yi's or Otto's or 11Bravo's or any of the other "Libertardianism for All" crowd's bullshit.
All their bullshit over Rights and Libertyness and Freedomtude go out the window when it comes to any other class other than themselves, whether it's women's reproductive rights and whore pills or voter rights for spics and niggers.
Each and every one of them are so full of shit.
I don't think I nor any of the rest of us claimed 100% Libertarian purity. I'd put myself at about 75%, maybe 80% on a good day.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 10:26:08 AM
And photo IDs are a huge burden when you make them a huge burden. Once again, that's the fucking problem.
Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:58:58 AM
While it's possible you can delude yourself into believing that, the amount of dodging you've done in this thread indicates there is something you don't want to take into consideration. You can tell yourself whatever you want to believe all you like. If you do it long enough, you may succeed! It happens all the time. Some people use aids in that. It's called "Talk Radio".
Stay Razzy.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 10:52:05 AM
I've always shown my ID to vote (even when not asked), so this would be no additional burden to me. Dunno why you keep trotting out that line when it doesn't really apply.
:huh: It does. The government's processes do not work, supposedly, so the voters must do more work. I guess I thought this was an ideological stance but I guess it only applies to you?
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 10:55:54 AMAh, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
No.
The medium-firm bigotry of deliberately putting in as many obstacles as you can get away with.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 10:32:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2013, 10:24:37 AM
Weren't you the guy who didn't like the government messing with him? Changing the rules, putting a greater onus on the voters, for no reason is just cool eh?
That's why I don't ever buy his or Yi's or Otto's or 11Bravo's or any of the other "Libertardianism for All" crowd's bullshit.
All their bullshit over Rights and Libertyness and Freedomtude go out the window when it comes to any other class other than themselves, whether it's women's reproductive rights and whore pills or voter rights for spics and niggers.
Each and every one of them are so full of shit.
Now I'm a libertarian. :lol:
What the fuck is wrong with yoy people?
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Why is this so hard to understand?
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
What the fuck is wrong with yoy people?
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Why is this so hard to understand?
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
Their liberals and a free ID is just a burden to get. :D
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
Not registering them to vote? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2013, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
Not registering them to vote? :hmm:
How do you accomplish that?
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 11:33:45 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2013, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
Not registering them to vote? :hmm:
How do you accomplish that?
Deny their registration application.
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
What the fuck is wrong with yoy people?
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Can you demonstrate where this is happening?
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
What the fuck is wrong with yoy people?
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Why is this so hard to understand?
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
We seem to be doing a great job stopping non-citizens from voting so clearly we can.
But what is so hard to understand about my position? Just make everybody a free photo ID if they are already a registered voter. Then make one whenever a new person registers to vote...for free.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2013, 11:51:19 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
What the fuck is wrong with yoy people?
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Can you demonstrate where this is happening?
Happened here in Cincy last year.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2013, 12:05:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
What the fuck is wrong with yoy people?
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Why is this so hard to understand?
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
We seem to be doing a great job stopping non-citizens from voting so clearly we can.
But what is so hard to understand about my position? Just make everybody a free photo ID if they are already a registered voter. Then make one whenever a new person registers to vote...for free.
No problems with that.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:11:24 PMNo problems with that.
If that was part of the proposals regarding IDs for voting, you'd see 95% of "hysteria" vanish.
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 12:13:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:11:24 PMNo problems with that.
If that was part of the proposals regarding IDs for voting, you'd see 95% of "hysteria" vanish.
The ID is free in Texas and you can use other forms of pic ID too. Sooo why all the hysteria?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:15:24 PM
The ID is free in Texas and you can use other forms of pic ID too. Sooo why all the hysteria?
If the free part is true I am alright with it. As I said, it will be interesting to see what it's impact will be in 2014.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2013, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:15:24 PM
The ID is free in Texas and you can use other forms of pic ID too. Sooo why all the hysteria?
If the free part is true I am alright with it. As I said, it will be interesting to see what it's impact will be in 2014.
I really dont think it will impact much. The GOP has a fucked up message. The Dems "ground game" is soooo much better. So they will mobilize to help people in Texas to get the ID. Wouldnt be surprised if they have not started already.
The ID is free.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:15:24 PMThe ID is free in Texas and you can use other forms of pic ID too. Sooo why all the hysteria?
Alleged shenanigans about the accessibility of these proclaimed free IDs.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:26:16 PMI really dont think it will impact much. The GOP has a fucked up message. The Dems "ground game" is soooo much better.
Even in Texas? Interesting.
Do you agree with the narrative that sees Texas swinging Democratic in the next 10-15-20 years?
QuoteSo they will mobilize to help people in Texas to get the ID. Wouldnt be surprised if they have not started already.
The ID is free.
If it turns out that the impact is minimal, I'll cop to having succumbed to hysteria.
Right now I'm still suspicious, though.
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:15:24 PMThe ID is free in Texas and you can use other forms of pic ID too. Sooo why all the hysteria?
Alleged shenanigans about the accessibility of these proclaimed free IDs.
and the right wingers allege voter fraud. Doesnt mean it's true.
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 12:29:40 PM
Even in Texas? Interesting.
Do you agree with the narrative that sees Texas swinging Democratic in the next 10-15-20 years?
I do not. But it would be hilarious if it happens. My wife would certainly be happy.
But strangly I do not think it would really change much down here, after all Rick Perry used to be a Democrat back when it was cool. His ilk would just jump on whatever the winning horse is.
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Why is this so hard to understand?
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
Says the guy that votes in two countries. Fuck off.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:26:16 PM
I really dont think it will impact much. The GOP has a fucked up message. The Dems "ground game" is soooo much better. So they will mobilize to help people in Texas to get the ID. Wouldnt be surprised if they have not started already.
The ID is free.
Can't find issue with any of these sentences individually, yet putting them together reads like you expect Dems to make big gains in Texas. :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 28, 2013, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 12:26:16 PM
I really dont think it will impact much. The GOP has a fucked up message. The Dems "ground game" is soooo much better. So they will mobilize to help people in Texas to get the ID. Wouldnt be surprised if they have not started already.
The ID is free.
Can't find issue with any of these sentences individually, yet putting them together reads like you expect Dems to make big gains in Texas. :huh:
Could be, maybe. Dont know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Why is this so hard to understand?
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
Says the guy that votes in two countries. Fuck off.
I'm not!
I only vote in the States.
Not that I did last election, since I was deployed and my vote didn't count.
So you fuck off, faggot!
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
You have to identify yourself with a picture id so YOU cannot cheat and vote twice or thrice like some democrats do.
Why is this so hard to understand?
and how do you stop non-citizens from voting without photo id? explain this to me.
Says the guy that votes in two countries. Fuck off.
I'm not!
I only vote in the States.
Not that I did last election, since I was deployed and my vote didn't count.
So you fuck off, faggot!
Do let them get to you. They are just mad because their hysteria is for not.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 02:06:49 PM
Do let them get to you. They are just mad because their hysteria is for not.
Talk about somebody that should take a literacy test before he can vote...
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 02:06:49 PM
Do let them get to you. They are just mad because their hysteria is for not.
Leaving aside the hysteria angle, I don't think anyone should be happy that their state is going to spending money fixing a problem that by most accounts does not exist or barely exists.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2013, 02:09:12 PM
Leaving aside the hysteria angle, I don't think anyone should be happy that their state is going to spending money fixing a problem that by most accounts does not exist or barely exists.
Eh, making a sheet of plastic with somebody's picture on isn't that expensive. And the states already do it for like 90% of adults.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 02:08:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 02:06:49 PM
Do let them get to you. They are just mad because their hysteria is for not.
Talk about somebody that should take a literacy test before he can vote...
Not required. :blurgh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 28, 2013, 02:26:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2013, 02:09:12 PM
Leaving aside the hysteria angle, I don't think anyone should be happy that their state is going to spending money fixing a problem that by most accounts does not exist or barely exists.
Eh, making a sheet of plastic with somebody's picture on isn't that expensive. And the states already do it for like 90% of adults.
They sure typically charge a lot for that shit. Besides, there's also the money that was spent on making such things into law in the first place.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 10:57:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:58:58 AM
While it's possible you can delude yourself into believing that, the amount of dodging you've done in this thread indicates there is something you don't want to take into consideration. You can tell yourself whatever you want to believe all you like. If you do it long enough, you may succeed! It happens all the time. Some people use aids in that. It's called "Talk Radio".
Stay Razzy. Honest.
Fix it for you.
Those congressmen are going to get paid anyway.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 10:57:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:58:58 AM
While it's possible you can delude yourself into believing that, the amount of dodging you've done in this thread indicates there is something you don't want to take into consideration. You can tell yourself whatever you want to believe all you like. If you do it long enough, you may succeed! It happens all the time. Some people use aids in that. It's called "Talk Radio".
Stay Razzy. Honest.
Fix it for you.
Whatever makes you feel better in your little world.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 10:57:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:58:58 AM
While it's possible you can delude yourself into believing that, the amount of dodging you've done in this thread indicates there is something you don't want to take into consideration. You can tell yourself whatever you want to believe all you like. If you do it long enough, you may succeed! It happens all the time. Some people use aids in that. It's called "Talk Radio".
Stay Razzy. Honest.
Fix it for you.
Whatever makes you feel better in your little world.
This works better if you aren't actually repeating me. C'mon 11b4whatever, you're smarter then this.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2013, 02:09:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 02:06:49 PM
Do let them get to you. They are just mad because their hysteria is for not.
Leaving aside the hysteria angle, I don't think anyone should be happy that their state is going to spending money fixing a problem that by most accounts does not exist or barely exists.
This is something I've been wondering about. Defenders of the voter ID law say that it's "Free", like they fall out of the sky. Someone, somewhere is paying for it.
Oh yeah, *now* you start worrying about spending :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 02:47:29 PM
Oh yeah, *now* you start worrying about spending :lol:
Him or me?
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 02:47:29 PM
Oh yeah, *now* you start worrying about spending :lol:
Nah, it's more like he's wondering about you not worrying about spending.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 02:47:29 PM
Oh yeah, *now* you start worrying about spending :lol:
That's just priceless. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 02:47:29 PM
Oh yeah, *now* you start worrying about spending :lol:
How it's going to be be paid for never occurred to you?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 02:47:29 PM
Oh yeah, *now* you start worrying about spending :lol:
How it's going to be be paid for never occurred to you?
Find out for me how much it costs & then we'll discuss.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 03:05:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 02:47:29 PM
Oh yeah, *now* you start worrying about spending :lol:
How it's going to be be paid for never occurred to you?
Find out for me how much it costs & then we'll discuss.
Uh, try again. That's impossible since it will be an ongoing cost. There is no end date to people getting the "free" IDs. Early costs will be several million dollars in every state I've looked at.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
Uh, try again. That's impossible since it will be an ongoing cost. There is no end date to people getting the "free" IDs. Early costs will be several million dollars in every state I've looked at.
Okay, cost per year.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 03:41:12 PMOkay, cost per year.
Aren't you the one who's supposed to be the fiscal conservative, concerned about ill defined budget items and the foolishness of implementing programs without considering their cost?
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 03:41:12 PMOkay, cost per year.
Aren't you the one who's supposed to be the fiscal conservative, concerned about ill defined budget items and the foolishness of implementing programs without considering their cost?
Yessir.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
Uh, try again. That's impossible since it will be an ongoing cost. There is no end date to people getting the "free" IDs. Early costs will be several million dollars in every state I've looked at.
Okay, cost per year.
Unknown. The bills I looked at didn't allocate funds.
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 03:41:12 PMOkay, cost per year.
Aren't you the one who's supposed to be the fiscal conservative, concerned about ill defined budget items and the foolishness of implementing programs without considering their cost?
A small price to pay for Republican victory.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 04:05:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
Uh, try again. That's impossible since it will be an ongoing cost. There is no end date to people getting the "free" IDs. Early costs will be several million dollars in every state I've looked at.
Okay, cost per year.
Unknown. The bills I looked at didn't allocate funds.
So we dont know. :rolleyes:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 04:07:10 PMSo we dont know. :rolleyes:
So when you don't know the cost of a program, the cost concern becomes irrelevant? That seems a bit out of character for you.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 04:04:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 03:41:12 PMOkay, cost per year.
Aren't you the one who's supposed to be the fiscal conservative, concerned about ill defined budget items and the foolishness of implementing programs without considering their cost?
Yessir.
But in this case you're willing to accept that the costs are small until you get evidence to the contrary?
Of all the objections to voter ID offered so far, this is by far the most trivial.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2013, 04:24:48 PM
Of all the objections to voter ID offered so far, this is by far the most trivial.
You sure? It is not like the election commissions are super well funded.
I'm fairly confident the cost will be very small potatoes in the context of the overall state budget.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2013, 04:27:06 PM
You sure? It is not like the election commissions are super well funded.
I'm less sure than you were about the legality of screaming one's head off in the Texas Senate gallery.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2013, 04:24:48 PM
Of all the objections to voter ID offered so far, this is by far the most trivial.
Typical spendthrift liberals promoting government intrusion and dismissing the costs as trivial.
Oh wait... not the liberals. The other guys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2013, 04:24:48 PM
Of all the objections to voter ID offered so far, this is by far the most trivial.
What are the most damaging objections?
I am simply amazed to find that it turns out that supposedly "fundamental" beliefs in core principles turn out to be thrown aside for nearly trivial political expedience.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2013, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2013, 04:27:06 PM
You sure? It is not like the election commissions are super well funded.
I'm less sure than you were about the legality of screaming one's head off in the Texas Senate gallery.
Hmmmm...well that is a wide range of sureness :P
I don't think the GOP is opposed to goverment spending on principal.
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 04:36:20 PM
Typical spendthrift liberals promoting government intrusion and dismissing the costs as trivial.
Oh wait... not the liberals. The other guys.
Seriously Jake, this is the kind of line that would have the MSNBC/Bill Maher crowd roaring with laughter and high-fiving each other over the ridiculous inconsistency of those pinhead Republicans, but five bucks for each person who doesn't have a photo ID and wants one is chump change.
I had to pay 20 bucks to get my driver's license renewed.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 04:52:59 PM
I had to pay 20 bucks to get my driver's license renewed.
What does that have to do with a free vote ID?
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 04:09:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 04:07:10 PMSo we dont know. :rolleyes:
So when you don't know the cost of a program, the cost concern becomes irrelevant? That seems a bit out of character for you.
Not really.
This cost argument makes you all sound like the conservatives wanting to defund PBS.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 28, 2013, 05:09:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 04:52:59 PM
I had to pay 20 bucks to get my driver's license renewed.
What does that have to do with a free vote ID?
Unless the DMV is trying to make a profit, "Free" voter ID costs more then 5 dollars.
The DMV has a lot more expenses than just checking documents and making the card.
The DMV is the one going to be issuing a free voter ID card in most cases.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2013, 04:51:36 PMSeriously Jake, this is the kind of line that would have the MSNBC/Bill Maher crowd roaring with laughter and high-fiving each other over the ridiculous inconsistency of those pinhead Republicans, but five bucks for each person who doesn't have a photo ID and wants one is chump change.
:lol:
Yeah... you're right.
Like I said, if voter ID laws see no significant change in voter participation then I'll cop to being wrong on this. On the other hand, if there is appreciable lower turnout then the pious noises about it being "easy" and "cheap" to make sure people have the required ID will seem like they were just cover to not feel bad about voter suppression.
We'll see, in due time. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the voter ID scheme is in the participation rates.
You know, I really hate Bill Mahrer.
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 05:52:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2013, 04:51:36 PMSeriously Jake, this is the kind of line that would have the MSNBC/Bill Maher crowd roaring with laughter and high-fiving each other over the ridiculous inconsistency of those pinhead Republicans, but five bucks for each person who doesn't have a photo ID and wants one is chump change.
:lol:
Yeah... you're right.
Like I said, if voter ID laws see no significant change in voter participation then I'll cop to being wrong on this. On the other hand, if there is appreciable lower turnout then the pious noises about it being "easy" and "cheap" to make sure people have the required ID will seem like they were just cover to not feel bad about voter suppression.
We'll see, in due time. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the voter ID scheme is in the participation rates.
I think you're being overly generous. I can well see the attempt to suppress votes not succeeding, or even backfiring due to backlash. Black voters may become so infuriated that they would vote when they didn't before, and get-out-to-vote systems can be put to work to ensure that everyone remembers to get an ID and have it on hand with them. That doesn't get attempted vote suppressors off the hook.
I think we can make the verdict now, based on the fact pf how transparently weak and pathetic the advocates of these laws sound as they try to convince themselves and others that this is a legitimate action, and not what it really is.
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2013, 06:21:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 05:52:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2013, 04:51:36 PMSeriously Jake, this is the kind of line that would have the MSNBC/Bill Maher crowd roaring with laughter and high-fiving each other over the ridiculous inconsistency of those pinhead Republicans, but five bucks for each person who doesn't have a photo ID and wants one is chump change.
:lol:
Yeah... you're right.
Like I said, if voter ID laws see no significant change in voter participation then I'll cop to being wrong on this. On the other hand, if there is appreciable lower turnout then the pious noises about it being "easy" and "cheap" to make sure people have the required ID will seem like they were just cover to not feel bad about voter suppression.
We'll see, in due time. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the voter ID scheme is in the participation rates.
I think you're being overly generous. I can well see the attempt to suppress votes not succeeding, or even backfiring due to backlash. Black voters may become so infuriated that they would vote when they didn't before, and get-out-to-vote systems can be put to work to ensure that everyone remembers to get an ID and have it on hand with them. That doesn't get attempted vote suppressors off the hook.
I think we can make the verdict now, based on the fact pf how transparently weak and pathetic the advocates of these laws sound as they try to convince themselves and others that this is a legitimate action, and not what it really is.
It's rare but I think I have to fully agree with DGul. -_-
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2013, 06:21:35 PMI think you're being overly generous.
Quite possibly. I'm 35 minutes away from a long weekend, so I'm in a good mood :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 06:24:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2013, 06:21:35 PMI think you're being overly generous.
Quite possibly. I'm 35 minutes away from a long weekend, so I'm in a good mood :cheers:
Lame on Canada. Couldn't even get their own fucking month and had to mooch on Amercia's.
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2013, 06:21:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2013, 05:52:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2013, 04:51:36 PMSeriously Jake, this is the kind of line that would have the MSNBC/Bill Maher crowd roaring with laughter and high-fiving each other over the ridiculous inconsistency of those pinhead Republicans, but five bucks for each person who doesn't have a photo ID and wants one is chump change.
:lol:
Yeah... you're right.
Like I said, if voter ID laws see no significant change in voter participation then I'll cop to being wrong on this. On the other hand, if there is appreciable lower turnout then the pious noises about it being "easy" and "cheap" to make sure people have the required ID will seem like they were just cover to not feel bad about voter suppression.
We'll see, in due time. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the voter ID scheme is in the participation rates.
I think you're being overly generous. I can well see the attempt to suppress votes not succeeding, or even backfiring due to backlash. Black voters may become so infuriated that they would vote when they didn't before, and get-out-to-vote systems can be put to work to ensure that everyone remembers to get an ID and have it on hand with them. That doesn't get attempted vote suppressors off the hook.
I think we can make the verdict now, based on the fact pf how transparently weak and pathetic the advocates of these laws sound as they try to convince themselves and others that this is a legitimate action, and not what it really is.
Indeed. Failing at suppressing minority voting doesn't make the attempt ok.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2013, 06:29:54 PMLame on Canada. Couldn't even get their own fucking month and had to mooch on Amercia's.
No reason not to copy a good thing; and a long weekend in July is good. Of course, so are long weekends in most of the other months we have stat holidays (10 in BC).
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2013, 06:33:54 PMIndeed. Failing at suppressing minority voting doesn't make the attempt ok.
:hug:
That poorly-worded poll test made me think of the Color Study that DEVO put up a couple of years ago. I'd link it, but it seems to have fallen off the Internet. :(