US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

GOP Moving the Goal Posts Just in Time For the 2012 Election

This is a discussion on GOP Moving the Goal Posts Just in Time For the 2012 Election within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza Obviously, requiring a photo ID to register to vote will exclude all people who do not have a photo ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 03:55 PM
skookerasbil's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20360
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Not the middle of nowhere
Posts: 14,580
Thanks: 3
Thanked 3,027 Times in 2,389 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1927
skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute
skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute skookerasbil has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Obviously, requiring a photo ID to register to vote will exclude all people who do not have a photo ID. Who generally does not have a photo ID? All sorts of people. It is probably more realistic to ask, who generally DOES have a photo ID? I am going to go out on a limb here and propose that probably more people who would vote Republican have photo ID's, than people who would vote Democratic.

Hence, requiring a photo ID is going to prevent more potential Democratic votes from being cast, than it will potential Republican votes from being cast.

So what is the argument for requiring photo ID to vote? The main argument put up by the Republicans is the prevention of voting fraud. "Voting fraud" is a much-disputed issue in recent elections, evidenced by a great deal of argument and considerably less factual, proven data.

Here is an excerpt from an article which a pal of mine sent to me earlier this morning. It relates to the voting fraud argument in connection with requiring photo ID's to vote:

Quote:
PHANTOM MENACE OF FRAUD:

Conservatives’ justification for the new restrictions on voting rights is that they are necessary to head off voter fraud. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus underscored this argument, claiming that non-profit voter organizations like ACORN submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. This zeal to restrict voting rights in the name of preventing fraud was also evident in Maine last month, where the state Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster drew up a list of 206 University of Maine students with out-of-state home addresses and accused them of voter fraud. The Republican Secretary of State subsequently took this list and sent threatening letters to the students, complete with a form to cancel their voter registration in Maine.

In fact, as the Brennan Center for Justice notes in two new reports, electoral voter fraud is largely a myth. In a heralded paper titled “The Truth About Voter Fraud“, the Brennan Center notes that “It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

Indeed, most cases of voter fraud “can be traced to causes far more logical than fraud by voters,” including clerical or typographical errors, mismatched entries, and simple mistakes on either end. In Wisconsin, for instance, approximately 3 million votes were cast in 2004, of which just seven were ultimately deemed invalid – all from felons who were unaware of their ineligibility. Comedian Stephen Colbert recently mocked the need for photo ID laws, noting that fraud occurs in “a jaw dropping 44 one-millionths of one percent” of votes.
It would seem that, in piously mouthing "prevention of voting fraud" as justification for requiring photo ID's to vote, those in favor of requiring the photo ID's just may have a hidden agenda, ya think?

fcukk this...........the assholes need to get their asses down to the DMV and get a non-driver photo ID. Otherwise.........fcukk them
__________________
"America no longer has a functioning democracy" ~Jimmy Carter July 2013

What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed people will not know who is responsible, and when the problems get bad enough as they might do with another financial meltdown — some one person will come forward and say: ‘Give me total power and I will solve this problem.’
~ Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter

I drive a flex fuel vehicle! Burns rubber and gas!!
~ Skooks
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to skookerasbil For This Useful Post:
CrusaderFrank (10-31-2011)
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 03:58 PM
George Costanza's Avatar
A Friendly Liberal
Member #18703
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles area.
Posts: 5,014
Thanks: 918
Thanked 1,351 Times in 945 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 960
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by Soggy in NOLA View Post
Who needs weeks to vote? Oh, Democrats, that's who.. the same folks that were flummoxed by hanging chads.
OK - you have hit upon the one part of the OP article which, frankly, I don't understand. I can see how requiring photo ID and making it harder for students to vote would have an adverse impact on the Demorcratic vote in any election. And I can see how making it harder for Blacks and Latinos to vote would also have negative impact on the Democratic total in any election.

What has yet to be explained to me (other libs out there, help me out here) is, how does shortening the time to vote impact Blacks and Latinos any more than any other type of voter?

Anyone?
__________________
"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:00 PM
George Costanza's Avatar
A Friendly Liberal
Member #18703
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles area.
Posts: 5,014
Thanks: 918
Thanked 1,351 Times in 945 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 960
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Did you vote for Clinton?

Is that where you learned the word 'slimy'?
No, dear - I merely observed Karl Rove in operation.

Now get back on here and give me more information as to how the Dems are disenfranchising white voters.
__________________
"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:00 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 31,067
Thanks: 3,729
Thanked 10,807 Times in 6,314 Posts
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 23001
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
What - no comment from anyone on this? No one attacking the source of the article? No one disputing the basis for the article?

Come ON . . . .
Georgie...I know how concerned are as far as the voting rights of Americans....that's ALL Americans, right?

This from J. Christian Adams' book, "Injustice"...


1. Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties. The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal…. there is an open and pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes — only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter turnout.

a. Sadly, the Department did not object to the submission and therefore refused to protect the white minority in Noxubee County in the least costly, most powerful way possible — a simple letter objecting to the proposal. Why? Because it is high heresy to include discriminated-against whites within the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This attitude is common knowledge within the voting section. Justice Department Continues to Act in Non-Race-Neutral Fashion

2. Not only has the Department never lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.

Pretty 'slimy,' them Democrats, eh, Georgie?
I don't understand what all of this is trying to say. It is poorly written and does not convey any meaningful information from which anyone could even begin to make a judgment as to whether it is valid or not. What the hell are they talking about here?

Could you perhaps provide a link to this quote, so I could go there and see the entire thing?
Georgie... a guy as concerned about voting rights as you are...and you don't know of the Ike Brown case???

Here....let me fill ya' in:

1. "In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | New Black Panther Party | Impeach Obama Campaign - Part 2

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
PJ Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News)
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PoliticalChic For This Useful Post:
Jackson (10-31-2011)
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:06 PM
George Costanza's Avatar
A Friendly Liberal
Member #18703
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles area.
Posts: 5,014
Thanks: 918
Thanked 1,351 Times in 945 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 960
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post

Georgie...I know how concerned are as far as the voting rights of Americans....that's ALL Americans, right?

This from J. Christian Adams' book, "Injustice"...


1. Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties. The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal…. there is an open and pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes — only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter turnout.

a. Sadly, the Department did not object to the submission and therefore refused to protect the white minority in Noxubee County in the least costly, most powerful way possible — a simple letter objecting to the proposal. Why? Because it is high heresy to include discriminated-against whites within the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This attitude is common knowledge within the voting section. Justice Department Continues to Act in Non-Race-Neutral Fashion

2. Not only has the Department never lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.

Pretty 'slimy,' them Democrats, eh, Georgie?
I don't understand what all of this is trying to say. It is poorly written and does not convey any meaningful information from which anyone could even begin to make a judgment as to whether it is valid or not. What the hell are they talking about here?

Could you perhaps provide a link to this quote, so I could go there and see the entire thing?
Georgie... a guy as concerned about voting rights as you are...and you don't know of the Ike Brown case???

Here....let me fill ya' in:

1. "In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | New Black Panther Party | Impeach Obama Campaign - Part 2

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
PJ Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News)
I was not familiar with this case. (You weren't being a little sarcastic with your, "as concerned as you are about voting rights," now were you?)

Sure - if this is what happened, then Ike is an asshole and should be run out of town on a rail. And any administration that refused to take appropriate action to rememdy such and prevent it in the future, if that is truly what happened and was truly contemplated to happen again in the future, is subject to extreme criticism.

I abhor sliminess, trickery and hidden agendas, regardless of which party is the author. It has been my experience that, when it comes to such, the Republican party FAR outshines the Democratic party, but I also recognize that, on occasion, our poop can smell a little bad as well . . . .
__________________
"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"

Last edited by George Costanza; 10-31-2011 at 04:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to George Costanza For This Useful Post:
PoliticalChic (10-31-2011)
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:09 PM
George Costanza's Avatar
A Friendly Liberal
Member #18703
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles area.
Posts: 5,014
Thanks: 918
Thanked 1,351 Times in 945 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 960
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by skookerasbil View Post
fcukk this...........the assholes need to get their asses down to the DMV and get a non-driver photo ID. Otherwise.........fcukk them
Spoken like a true Republican.
__________________
"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:11 PM
George Costanza's Avatar
A Friendly Liberal
Member #18703
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles area.
Posts: 5,014
Thanks: 918
Thanked 1,351 Times in 945 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 960
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main View Post
Sauce for the Goose Mr Scotty, The Odds will be Even.

The Changes have no effect on Fairness. Complete non story.
Wrong. Flat wrong.
__________________
"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to George Costanza For This Useful Post:
MarcATL (11-01-2011)
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:17 PM
CrusaderFrank's Avatar
Tuscany
Member #19448
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 50,406
Thanks: 20,357
Thanked 18,391 Times in 11,563 Posts
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 11504
CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati
CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati
US Presidential election is once every 4 years. If you're too lazy or stupid to make it to the poll that day you should not be allowed to vote.

Also, spare me the, "Poor old lady on her death bed eating cat food and can't make it to the poll" story

I have 0 sympathy.
__________________
Sent from my encryption defeating Supercomputer made of Xbox and Nintendo parts sold to the Chinese

"Democrats have been in Washington, D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They've been down there for years and all the legislation they wanted to bring up they brought up and got it out of the way, and now they bring up you. You put them first and they put you last, cause you are a chump (huge applause). A political chump." -- Malcolm X
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CrusaderFrank For This Useful Post:
grunt11b (11-01-2011)
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 04:20 PM
The T's Avatar
<===TRAINZ!
Member #19484
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: WHERE *I* AM
Posts: 45,745
Thanks: 35,107
Thanked 10,564 Times in 8,340 Posts
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 9147
The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow
The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow The T is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Thumbs up

Quote: Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank View Post
US Presidential election is once every 4 years. If you're too lazy or stupid to make it to the poll that day you should not be allowed to vote.

Also, spare me the, "Poor old lady on her death bed eating cat food and can't make it to the poll" story

I have 0 sympathy.
^^This^^
__________________
Jihad THIS
"The truth has no agenda nor knows any time limits..."
Stealing LIBERTY/PROPERTY of another by writ of law is NOT caring...it's TYRANNY.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE MASTER OF YOUR DESTINY...YOU ARE.
Libs? Life giving you sour grapes? Make Whine!
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 07:24 PM
DiamondDave's Avatar
Army Vet
Member #11393
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MD, on the Potomac River
Posts: 18,000
Thanks: 6,951
Thanked 5,035 Times in 3,250 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2920
DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute
DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Obviously, requiring a photo ID to register to vote will exclude all people who do not have a photo ID. Who generally does not have a photo ID? All sorts of people. It is probably more realistic to ask, who generally DOES have a photo ID? I am going to go out on a limb here and propose that probably more people who would vote Republican have photo ID's, than people who would vote Democratic.

Hence, requiring a photo ID is going to prevent more potential Democratic votes from being cast, than it will potential Republican votes from being cast.

So what is the argument for requiring photo ID to vote? The main argument put up by the Republicans is the prevention of voting fraud. "Voting fraud" is a much-disputed issue in recent elections, evidenced by a great deal of argument and considerably less factual, proven data.

Here is an excerpt from an article which a pal of mine sent to me earlier this morning. It relates to the voting fraud argument in connection with requiring photo ID's to vote:

Quote:
PHANTOM MENACE OF FRAUD:

Conservatives’ justification for the new restrictions on voting rights is that they are necessary to head off voter fraud. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus underscored this argument, claiming that non-profit voter organizations like ACORN submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. This zeal to restrict voting rights in the name of preventing fraud was also evident in Maine last month, where the state Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster drew up a list of 206 University of Maine students with out-of-state home addresses and accused them of voter fraud. The Republican Secretary of State subsequently took this list and sent threatening letters to the students, complete with a form to cancel their voter registration in Maine.

In fact, as the Brennan Center for Justice notes in two new reports, electoral voter fraud is largely a myth. In a heralded paper titled “The Truth About Voter Fraud“, the Brennan Center notes that “It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

Indeed, most cases of voter fraud “can be traced to causes far more logical than fraud by voters,” including clerical or typographical errors, mismatched entries, and simple mistakes on either end. In Wisconsin, for instance, approximately 3 million votes were cast in 2004, of which just seven were ultimately deemed invalid – all from felons who were unaware of their ineligibility. Comedian Stephen Colbert recently mocked the need for photo ID laws, noting that fraud occurs in “a jaw dropping 44 one-millionths of one percent” of votes.
It would seem that, in piously mouthing "prevention of voting fraud" as justification for requiring photo ID's to vote, those in favor of requiring the photo ID's just may have a hidden agenda, ya think?
I thought the other post I quoted had the cream of the crop for dumb shit... but this takes the cake
__________________
Fuck the subjective notion of 'fair'
Embrace true equality in treatment in all aspects, not just ones that benefit you or your cause

Quote: Originally Posted by Truthmatters View Post
A pure Democracy is NOT Democracy.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 07:56 PM
Class Warrior
Member #31565
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,231
Thanks: 74
Thanked 206 Times in 137 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 35
Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by DiamondDave View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Sundial View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it.

Now we have States making routine changes to voting rules and you all claim it suppresses Democrats and Obama supporters. I REPEAT, explain how that is.
People who are marginal economically - people who've lost their homes, for example, who are couch-surfing, staying with friends, or sleeping in shelters or outside - people who are transients, who have legal problems, who have never had a regular job, who work for cash, under the table, or have substance-abuse problems or mental health issues or have been to jail - these are the people who are prevented from voting by government-issued-photo-ID laws.

Republicans think these people are more likely to vote Democratic if they're able to vote; therefore Republicans want to prevent them from voting.
People who have lost home, or who couch surf, or whatever have no ID?? People with legal trouble or warrants are checked?? Or they have a right to hide?? They are checked for working under the table??

This is probably the dumbest shit I have ever heard
Yeah. I have a little more experience with the world than you. But if being ignorant is your choice, it's your right to choose.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Sundial For This Useful Post:
MarcATL (11-01-2011)
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 08:08 PM
Class Warrior
Member #31565
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,231
Thanks: 74
Thanked 206 Times in 137 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 35
Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks Sundial kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by del View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Sundial View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it.

Now we have States making routine changes to voting rules and you all claim it suppresses Democrats and Obama supporters. I REPEAT, explain how that is.
People who are marginal economically - people who've lost their homes, for example, who are couch-surfing, staying with friends, or sleeping in shelters or outside - people who are transients, who have legal problems, who have never had a regular job, who work for cash, under the table, or have substance-abuse problems or mental health issues or have been to jail - these are the people who are prevented from voting by government-issued-photo-ID laws.

Republicans think these people are more likely to vote Democratic if they're able to vote; therefore Republicans want to prevent them from voting.
i have no doubt that the transient, unemployed, mentally unbalanced,crackhead vote is something the founding fathers cherished.

you should sue someone for something.

immediately.
Personally I think you should have to pass a test showing you have a working knowledge of history, civics and current events in order to vote.

That would get rid of most FOX-watchers.

But failing that, excluding people for being down-and-out, mentally ill, or desperately poor is exactly the kind of thing that gives Republicans their reputation for hypocrisy and mean-spirited chauvinism.

What did Jesus say about the down-trodden?

I'd put that on my test.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Sundial For This Useful Post:
MarcATL (11-01-2011)
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 08:12 PM
DiamondDave's Avatar
Army Vet
Member #11393
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MD, on the Potomac River
Posts: 18,000
Thanks: 6,951
Thanked 5,035 Times in 3,250 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2920
DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute
DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Sundial View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by DiamondDave View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Sundial View Post

People who are marginal economically - people who've lost their homes, for example, who are couch-surfing, staying with friends, or sleeping in shelters or outside - people who are transients, who have legal problems, who have never had a regular job, who work for cash, under the table, or have substance-abuse problems or mental health issues or have been to jail - these are the people who are prevented from voting by government-issued-photo-ID laws.

Republicans think these people are more likely to vote Democratic if they're able to vote; therefore Republicans want to prevent them from voting.
People who have lost home, or who couch surf, or whatever have no ID?? People with legal trouble or warrants are checked?? Or they have a right to hide?? They are checked for working under the table??

This is probably the dumbest shit I have ever heard
Yeah. I have a little more experience with the world than you. But if being ignorant is your choice, it's your right to choose.
Keep telling yourself that, cupcake... Especially when you have no idea of the person's background you are responding to
__________________
Fuck the subjective notion of 'fair'
Embrace true equality in treatment in all aspects, not just ones that benefit you or your cause

Quote: Originally Posted by Truthmatters View Post
A pure Democracy is NOT Democracy.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DiamondDave For This Useful Post:
Full-Auto (11-01-2011)
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 08:14 PM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 33,698
Thanks: 40
Thanked 6,515 Times in 4,020 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3218
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Sundial View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it.

Now we have States making routine changes to voting rules and you all claim it suppresses Democrats and Obama supporters. I REPEAT, explain how that is.
People who are marginal economically - people who've lost their homes, for example, who are couch-surfing, staying with friends, or sleeping in shelters or outside - people who are transients, who have legal problems, who have never had a regular job, who work for cash, under the table, or have substance-abuse problems or mental health issues or have been to jail - these are the people who are prevented from voting by government-issued-photo-ID laws.

Republicans think these people are more likely to vote Democratic if they're able to vote; therefore Republicans want to prevent them from voting.
One must HAVE a residence to register. One must actually be the person registered and one must actually RESIDE in the district one is registered in.

Pretty simple concepts.

Federal LAW requires all that be fact and provable. The only way to prove it is with ID.

Using your listed criteria above one could easily register in several locations and with the proper help vote in all those locals, how? Because no ID is required and no proof of residence.
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2011, 08:49 PM
Defiant1's Avatar
Registered User
Member #22981
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,366
Thanks: 1
Thanked 787 Times in 534 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 498
Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness Defiant1 may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main View Post
Sauce for the Goose Mr Scotty, The Odds will be Even.

The Changes have no effect on Fairness. Complete non story.
Wrong. Flat wrong.
Let me set you straight about Florida's early voting.

In 2008 the law was early voting was conducted 15 days before the election until 2 days before the election. Voting was 8 hrs per day on weekdays and an aggregate of 8 hrs per weekend. That adds up to 96 hrs.


The law now is early voting starts 10 days before the election and ends 3 days before the election. voting to be up to 12 hrs per day. That adds up to...................





You guessed it 96 hrs.

The same amount of time.


And the reason I know this...........it's my job.
__________________
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:05 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.