List of things that require photo identification

[g5000]

LOL No research capabilities?

Washington State governors race.

You should read up.

You should provide evidence.

Heres a hint The year was 2004, even the judge in the case stated quite clearly fraud had been comitted.

If you dont have the balls to do your home work just shut up.

Why are you afraid to post the evidence?

Because you have none. I am not doing your homework for you.

Man up and please provide an example of voter fraud which can only be solved by Voter ID.

 

[g5000]

Here we are, 6 or 7 pages in, and no one has a case of voter fraud in over two centures of voting which cannot be solved by anything other than Voter ID.

If this was an actual problem, you guys would have one right at your fingertips. But you don't.

This SCREAMS of a solution looking for a problem.

You are being manipulated.

Wake up.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the OP.
Nowhere in the OP is voter fraud mentioned, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

You should read your own OP:

Is there something wrong with preventing the dead, the illegal aliens, the young (under the age of suffrage) and other non-qualified people from voting just as we prevent them from engaging in the activities listed above?

Those are all examples of voter fraud! So it appears I read your OP correctly.

So please show me an actual example of one of these types of fraud which could only have been prevented by Voter ID.

 

[g5000]

G500 hijacked this thread and made it into something different than what the OP intended for discussion.

If someone started a topic that contained the statement that 2 + 2 = 5, it is not hijacking to point out their error and explain that 2 + 2 = 4.

You made an equally obvious fallacious argument in your opening post.

You also made it about voter fraud.

So there is no hijacking going on.

Sorry to make your butt hurt.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I don't know about specific voter ID but I believe a foolproof (biometric) Citizen ID Card would be a good thing. I know of no good reason why such an ID card should not be required.

Because we don't need one.

One either is a citizen or is not -- and if one is a citizen why not be willing to prove that as well as proving you are who you say you are?

I already proved my citizenship and residence when I registered to vote.

We've been doing this for well over two centuries without biometric cards. Is that amazing, or what?

Okay how about this analogy....

When you register your vehicle and get a DL you have proven who you are or else you wouldn't have been able to acquire said objects, correct?

But when you are stopped for a traffic violation, what is the first thing you are asked for? Oh that's right. ID. What happens if you tell the officer "hey I already proved who I am, I don't have to prove shit to you?"

Oh, that's right........

Why are you ignoring me? Oh that's right b/c you know that would destroy your entire "argument"

 

[g5000]

Well, it just so happens the Supreme Court..........that third branch of our government, thinks voter ID laws are OK.

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

The Supreme Court put a qualifier on that ruling.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Notice the name of the judge. Stevens.

Some states have been found to impose "excessively burdensome requirements" that are unconstitutional. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed Voter ID laws.

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/conten...upholds_voter_id_missouris_voter_id_still_out

Stevens noted that the lower court judge who denied the challenge to the law had cited examples of voter fraud from around the nation, including examples from Missouri and St. Louis. Stevens acknowledged that there was no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana and that the examples from around the country often were overstated. Still, he wrote, "there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters."

Same Supreme Court Justice as before. Stevens. "No evidence of voter fraud in Indiana and that the examples from around the country often were overstated."

The very thing I have been pounding into the pointy heads here.


Missouri's Voter ID law was struck down:

The U.S. Supreme Court decision is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. It does not affect the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution in the 2006 decision striking down Missouri's law. In that decision, the state court said Missouri's voter ID law violated the state promise of equal protection and the state constitution's guarantee of the right to vote.

So you all want a law that is completely unnecessary. Don't you think we have enough of those on the books? How can any self-respecting conservative be in favor of this garbage?

 

[g5000]

Okay how about this analogy....

When you register your vehicle and get a DL you have proven who you are or else you wouldn't have been able to acquire said objects, correct?

But when you are stopped for a traffic violation, what is the first thing you are asked for? Oh that's right. ID. What happens if you tell the officer "hey I already proved who I am, I don't have to prove shit to you?"

Oh, that's right........

False analogy. This has nothing to do with voting. This in no way proves the necessity of Voter ID. You are making the same illogical argument that was made in the OP.

Stop embarassing yourself.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Okay how about this analogy....

When you register your vehicle and get a DL you have proven who you are or else you wouldn't have been able to acquire said objects, correct?

But when you are stopped for a traffic violation, what is the first thing you are asked for? Oh that's right. ID. What happens if you tell the officer "hey I already proved who I am, I don't have to prove shit to you?"

Oh, that's right........

False analogy. This has nothing to do with voting. This in no way proves the necessity of Voter ID.

Stop embarassing yourself.

it is not a false analogy. You're saying the government should just take your word in one area, why shouldn't they in ALL areas? They should in fact be consistent and always do one or the other.

 

[g5000]

Okay how about this analogy....

When you register your vehicle and get a DL you have proven who you are or else you wouldn't have been able to acquire said objects, correct?

But when you are stopped for a traffic violation, what is the first thing you are asked for? Oh that's right. ID. What happens if you tell the officer "hey I already proved who I am, I don't have to prove shit to you?"

Oh, that's right........

False analogy. This has nothing to do with voting. This in no way proves the necessity of Voter ID.

Stop embarassing yourself.

it is not a false analogy. You're saying the government should just take your word in one area, why shouldn't they in ALL areas? They should in fact be consistent and always do one or the other.

Because there are instances involving traffic pullovers that can only be solved by requiring the driver produce a valid ID. And driving is a privilege. So introducing impediments that apply to everyone does not violate any rights.

There are no instances involving voting which can only be solved by asking the voter to produce valid ID. And voting is a right which can be violated by introducing impediments that apply to everyone.

Simple.

Appeal to common practice logical fallacy.

 

[g5000]

Why are you ignoring me? Oh that's right b/c you know that would destroy your entire "argument"

I have not ignored you. I had limited time earlier today to address all the posts I wanted to address.

But now I have answered you, probably to your regret.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

False analogy. This has nothing to do with voting. This in no way proves the necessity of Voter ID.

Stop embarassing yourself.

it is not a false analogy. You're saying the government should just take your word in one area, why shouldn't they in ALL areas? They should in fact be consistent and always do one or the other.

Because there are instances involving traffic pullovers that can only be solved by requiring the driver produce a valid ID. And driving is a privilege. So introducing impediments that apply to everyone does not violate any rights.

There are no instances involving voting which can only be solved by asking the voter to produce valid ID. And voting is a right which can be violated by introducing impediments that apply to everyone.

Simple.

Appeal to common practice logical fallacy.

Look, I disagree with the entire 15th. In fact I think we should have voter exams as a mandatory requirement to be able to vote, but asking someone to PROVE who they are is not an onerous requirement.

It's stupid to keep claiming it is. We've already suggested free IDs for those who can't afford them, although who couldn't afford a $5 a year ID is beyond me.

There is only ONE logical reason you would be against it, and it isn't because you don't see a need for it.

 

[g5000]

Here is an analogy to the arguments for voter ID.

"I do not want aliens from outer space voting in our elections. Therefore, we need to have an ID produced at voting time which proves you are not from outer space."


The Supreme Court would uphold such a law because it does not violate anyone's rights. It's a stupid law, an unnecessary law, but it is not the Supreme Court's job to strike down unnecessary laws. Their job is to determine if it is constitutional. They will sometimes opine on the necessity of a law, as they did in Crawford v. Marion County when they said they saw no evidence of fraud which required Voter ID.

If the Earthling ID law required a very specific type of ID be produced at voting time, this could prove to be too burdensome a requirement for some people, and thus it would disenfranchise them. So some Earthling ID laws would stand up in court, even if they are stupid, while others would be struck down for being too burdensome.

So if someone is opposed to an Earthling ID because it is just plain stupid and unnecessary, and risks disenfranchising people, any counter argument that a person must not care if extraterrestrials vote in our elections would sound dumber and dumber.

Therefore it would be entirely reasonable to ask for evidence of ET's voting in our elections before falling in line with the fearful mob.

And it is entirely reasonable to ask for evidence of voter fraud which can only be prevented by Voter ID.

No one has produced such evidence. That they do not have such evidence at their fingertips tells us the "need" is entirely in their imagination.

 

[g5000]

it is not a false analogy. You're saying the government should just take your word in one area, why shouldn't they in ALL areas? They should in fact be consistent and always do one or the other.

Because there are instances involving traffic pullovers that can only be solved by requiring the driver produce a valid ID. And driving is a privilege. So introducing impediments that apply to everyone does not violate any rights.

There are no instances involving voting which can only be solved by asking the voter to produce valid ID. And voting is a right which can be violated by introducing impediments that apply to everyone.

Simple.

Appeal to common practice logical fallacy.

Look, I disagree with the entire 15th. In fact I think we should have voter exams as a mandatory requirement to be able to vote, but asking someone to PROVE who they are is not an onerous requirement.

And they do so at registration time.

It's stupid to keep claiming it is. We've already suggested free IDs for those who can't afford them, although who couldn't afford a $5 a year ID is beyond me.

There is only ONE logical reason you would be against it, and it isn't because you don't see a need for it.

That is exactly the reason I have stated at least a dozen times. I see no evidence of the need for Voter ID laws.

They are unnecessary and some of them carry the risk of disenfranchising US citizens from voting.

This risk is in no way counterbalanced with anything that cannot already be solved by proper management of voter registration.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Because there are instances involving traffic pullovers that can only be solved by requiring the driver produce a valid ID. And driving is a privilege. So introducing impediments that apply to everyone does not violate any rights.

There are no instances involving voting which can only be solved by asking the voter to produce valid ID. And voting is a right which can be violated by introducing impediments that apply to everyone.

Simple.

Appeal to common practice logical fallacy.

Look, I disagree with the entire 15th. In fact I think we should have voter exams as a mandatory requirement to be able to vote, but asking someone to PROVE who they are is not an onerous requirement.

And they do so at registration time.

It's stupid to keep claiming it is. We've already suggested free IDs for those who can't afford them, although who couldn't afford a $5 a year ID is beyond me.

There is only ONE logical reason you would be against it, and it isn't because you don't see a need for it.

That is exactly the reason I have stated at least a dozen times. I see no evidence of the need for Voter ID laws.

They are unnecessary and some of them carry the risk of disenfranchising US citizens from voting.

This risk is in no way counterbalanced with anything that cannot already be solved by proper management of voter registration.

your full of shit. Voter registration can be FULLY up to date but if Bob goes in and claims to be Tom and Tom is a registered voter, then the pollsters have NOWAY to verifty that Tom is TOm and not Bill pretending to be Tom. Now if you want to pretend like this has never happened, then you are quite simply stupid and I'm done discussing it with you.

On the other hand, if you will admit that of course it happens, and then want to argue that too many people would be disenfranchised compared to who would be prevented from committing this fraud then we can talk. But I don't waste time with little children who can't accept facts.

Balls in your court.

 

[g5000]

I think our voter registration process has HUGE holes in it. Plenty of examples have been provided in this topic which demonstrates this.

Voter ID would give us a false sense of security. It would not clear dead people off the rolls. It would not prevent groups like ACORN registering people who are not qualified to vote. An ID is not evidence of your eligibility to vote. It is just evidence you are the name on the list.

If that list has been compromised, and it has been, then your ID won't fix that.

 

[alan1]

Here we are, 6 or 7 pages in, and no one has a case of voter fraud in over two centures of voting which cannot be solved by anything other than Voter ID.

If this was an actual problem, you guys would have one right at your fingertips. But you don't.

This SCREAMS of a solution looking for a problem.

You are being manipulated.

Wake up.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the OP.
Nowhere in the OP is voter fraud mentioned, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

You should read your own OP:

Is there something wrong with preventing the dead, the illegal aliens, the young (under the age of suffrage) and other non-qualified people from voting just as we prevent them from engaging in the activities listed above?

Those are all examples of voter fraud! So it appears I read your OP correctly.

So please show me an actual example of one of these types of fraud which could only have been prevented by Voter ID.

Those are all examples of non-qualified people voting.
One practice alone is not going to be the "only" way to prevent it, anymore than providing ID when cashing a check would be the "only" way to reduce fraudulent check cashing. It is merely just another means of prevention that compliments the other means being used.

 

[pete]

There is NO need for this law.

wasting tax payer money on a non problem isnt very conservative is it?

How is it wasting money? They are alraedy paid to do the job that they dont do!! and the second part when someone sits at a door (without a clb or nightstick) is usually volunteer work ...

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I think our voter registration process has HUGE holes in it. Plenty of examples have been provided in this topic which demonstrates this.

Voter ID would give us a false sense of security. It would not clear dead people off the rolls. It would not prevent groups like ACORN registering people who are not qualified to vote. An ID is not evidence of your eligibility to vote. It is just evidence you are the name on the list.

If that list has been compromised, and it has been, then your ID won't fix that.

And we're not calling it a be all end all, were simply expecting it to fix ONE specific problem. Why are you being so dishonest?

 

[alan1]

Here we are, 6 or 7 pages in, and no one has a case of voter fraud in over two centures of voting which cannot be solved by anything other than Voter ID.

If this was an actual problem, you guys would have one right at your fingertips. But you don't.

This SCREAMS of a solution looking for a problem.

You are being manipulated.

Wake up.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the OP.
Nowhere in the OP is voter fraud mentioned, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

You should read your own OP:

Is there something wrong with preventing the dead, the illegal aliens, the young (under the age of suffrage) and other non-qualified people from voting just as we prevent them from engaging in the activities listed above?

Those are all examples of voter fraud! So it appears I read your OP correctly.

So please show me an actual example of one of these types of fraud which could only have been prevented by Voter ID.

I wonder what kind of ID dead people carry?

South Carolina's Attorney General detects voter fraud - WTOC-TV: News, Weather & Sports for Savannah, GA

 

[MeBelle]

Proving his residence at registration would have prevented it.

Notice how he voted in another district? ID would not have prevented that.
<snip>

You contradict yourself in bold.

Further, every year I organize several voter registration drives.
ID is NOT required at time of registration.

He had to have given the fake address when he registered. Therefore, the registration process needs to be fixed.

And if ID is not required, then your registration needs to be fixed.

However, I have read the voter registration for a great many states, and every one of them requires some proof of identity and residence. They don't all require a photo ID or a driver's license, but they do require proof you are who you say you are.

I am sure your state is the same.

If there are holes in the registration process, then you should be pitching a bitch about it instead of calling for another bureaucratic layer.

No.

What the voter needed to do is re-register when he had a change of address.
That is the voter's responsibility. Some states purge rolls if someone has not voted in a certain amount of elections. However, this is mostly left up to the counties to perform.

What part of State rights do you not understand?
The state I live in does not require an ID to register to vote.

I bolded your statement where you contradict yourself again, since you ARE effectively requesting people prove who they are at the time of registration.

I understand where you are going with this and it is an admirable endeavor.

And BTW, I am not butthurt, so stop throwing out the insults.
You DID hijack the thread making it into something else.
You continued even after the OP asked you to stop.

 

[MeBelle]

G500 hijacked this thread and made it into something different than what the OP intended for discussion.

If someone started a topic that contained the statement that 2 + 2 = 5, it is not hijacking to point out their error and explain that 2 + 2 = 4.

You made an equally obvious fallacious argument in your opening post.

You also made it about voter fraud.

So there is no hijacking going on.

Sorry to make your butt hurt.

OWN it! YOU made it about voter fraud.