How is it that republican voters justify voting suppression by the GOP?

[BluesLegend]

Lib please YOU PEOPLE demand multiple forms of ID just to get a fishing license in your Dem run states, enough with your faux voter suppression crap.

I think that the right to vote is fundamental, and far more important than the right to go fishing. Hence, I am more sensitive to problems caused by placing unnecessary burdens on voting than I am to problems caused by placing unnecessary burdens on fishing. That seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, you could probably convince me that states should reduce the amount of bureaucracy around hunting/fishing licenses, I'm just less likely to focus as much on it as a problem because it's less important.

Do you have to be an American citizen to get a fishing lisence too?

Why do Dem's hate poor people? The just want to catch some fish to feed themselves and Dem's charge them a fee for the privilege and require a bunch of ID.

 

[well named]

The poor trying to feed themselves you people charge them a fee and require multiple forms of ID for the privilege of fishing. Yet selecting a POTUS should require no ID whatsoever? Get real.

A couple things:

1) You seem to have forgotten that I agreed that we should probably reduce the burden on people getting a fishing license.

2) I'm skeptical of your claim that many poor people are feeding themselves by fishing, but I'll chalk that up to you stretching your analogy past its breaking point, rather than you being intentionally disingenuous.

3) I did not say that "selecting a POTUS should require no ID whatsoever". I said that people registering to vote should be required to establish their eligibility, but that voting laws should aim at making the burden on voters as small as reasonably possible because voting is a fundamental right. I also said that voting laws which purport to solve a problem but which can't demonstrate the existence of said problem are unnecessary, and that voting laws which are intentionally aimed at disenfranchising voters for partisan benefit are illegitimate.

4) If you want to have a conversation with me it would be helpful if you could make more of an effort to read and understand my posts (re: (1) and (3))

 

[JGalt]

Here are some important points to consider:

1) No one even thought this was a problem before Obama’s administration. Hmm what interesting timing. Why did no one care about it? Because it has always been statistically very RARE and therefore pointless to come up with policy to fight it. All it really accomplishes is keeping legal voters from casting their votes.

2) It goes beyond new extra ID requirements. It also involves closing voting stations in key democratic voting areas. How in the hell do you justify shit like that?

3) Do republican voters not care the GOP is doing this simply because it helps their side win? Is that the real truth?

4) Oh and just to state the obvious, just because dead people are still on voting records, it doesn’t somehow magically mean actual votes are being cast from these dead people. This shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

What is ironic is the vast majority of illegal votes are for republicans.

You can't just make up some of kind off the wall shit and expect it to be factual, especially without some form of notational evidence to substantiate your made up shit.

But it is a fact that the majority of Democrats do support allowing illegal aliens to vote..

Rasmussen: Majority of Democrats support letting illegal immigrants vote

Given that piece of factual evidence, anyone can assess that not only are you full of shit, but also that the majority of voter fraud in this country is being committed by Democrats.

 

[sartre play]

IF you stop & think about it why would your color or nationality make a difference in how you vote? don't we all vote for who we think will do the best job for our self's & our country?
so why do most minority groups think Republicans are not working in there best interest ?

if this board represents how a majority of Republicans feel about minority's then it becomes pretty clear why yes?
so it makes it understandable why Republicans have gone to a lot of trouble to mess with who where how & why people vote.
ONLY of late after over 120 years of voting has this become a problem, think about it for a while,

 

[Billy000]

Here are some important points to consider:

1) No one even thought this was a problem before Obama’s administration. Hmm what interesting timing. Why did no one care about it? Because it has always been statistically very RARE and therefore pointless to come up with policy to fight it. All it really accomplishes is keeping legal voters from casting their votes.

2) It goes beyond new extra ID requirements. It also involves closing voting stations in key democratic voting areas. How in the hell do you justify shit like that?

3) Do republican voters not care the GOP is doing this simply because it helps their side win? Is that the real truth?

4) Oh and just to state the obvious, just because dead people are still on voting records, it doesn’t somehow magically mean actual votes are being cast from these dead people. This shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

What is ironic is the vast majority of illegal votes are for republicans.

You can't just make up some of kind off the wall shit and expect it to be factual, especially without some form of notational evidence to substantiate your made up shit.

But it is a fact that the majority of Democrats do support allowing illegal aliens to vote..

Rasmussen: Majority of Democrats support letting illegal immigrants vote

Given that piece of factual evidence, anyone can assess that not only are you full of shit, but also that the majority of voter fraud in this country is being committed by Democrats.

Lol “school board elections”. You people are hilarious.

 

[BS Filter]

The poor trying to feed themselves you people charge them a fee and require multiple forms of ID for the privilege of fishing. Yet selecting a POTUS should require no ID whatsoever? Get real.

A couple things:

1) You seem to have forgotten that I agreed that we should probably reduce the burden on people getting a fishing license.

2) I'm skeptical of your claim that many poor people are feeding themselves by fishing, but I'll chalk that up to you stretching your analogy past its breaking point, rather than you being intentionally disingenuous.

3) I did not say that "selecting a POTUS should require no ID whatsoever". I said that people registering to vote should be required to establish their eligibility, but that voting laws should aim at making the burden on voters as small as reasonably possible because voting is a fundamental right. I also said that voting laws which purport to solve a problem but which can't demonstrate the existence of said problem are unnecessary, and that voting laws which are intentionally aimed at disenfranchising voters for partisan benefit are illegitimate.

4) If you want to have a conversation with me it would be helpful if you could make more of an effort to read and understand my posts (re: (1) and (3))

Do you have an example of voting laws that disenfranchise people from voting for your party?

 

[well named]

Do you have an example of voting laws that disenfranchise people from voting for your party?

There are good recent examples of the way voting laws can unfairly disenfranchise voters from North Carolina, Texas, Kansas, and recently Georgia. I'm citing examples where the courts intervened simply because the court cases provide evidence, and it's more difficult to provide evidence in relation to laws that haven't gone through any legal challenges. The Kansas case is relevant especially because Kobach made a lot of claims about voter fraud which he was entirely unable to provide evidence for, not just locally but nationally.

 

[BS Filter]

Do you have an example of voting laws that disenfranchise people from voting for your party?

There are good recent examples of the way voting laws can unfairly disenfranchise voters from North Carolina, Texas, Kansas, and recently Georgia. I'm citing examples where the courts intervened simply because the court cases provide evidence, and it's more difficult to provide evidence in relation to laws that haven't gone through any legal challenges. The Kansas case is relevant especially because Kobach made a lot of claims about voter fraud which he was entirely unable to provide evidence for, not just locally but nationally.

Would providing a picture ID with current address be too much to ask of people wanting to vote?

 

[JGalt]

Do you have an example of voting laws that disenfranchise people from voting for your party?

There are good recent examples of the way voting laws can unfairly disenfranchise voters from North Carolina, Texas, Kansas, and recently Georgia. I'm citing examples where the courts intervened simply because the court cases provide evidence, and it's more difficult to provide evidence in relation to laws that haven't gone through any legal challenges. The Kansas case is relevant especially because Kobach made a lot of claims about voter fraud which he was entirely unable to provide evidence for, not just locally but nationally.

Would providing a picture ID with current address be too much to ask of people wanting to vote?

Not too much.They should also have to sign the voter roll that has their name and address, like I do when I vote.

 

[well named]

Would providing a picture ID with current address be too much to ask of people wanting to vote?

I think this post already addresses the question in some detail, so I'll refer you back to it.

 

[BS Filter]

Would providing a picture ID with current address be too much to ask of people wanting to vote?

I think this post already addresses the question in some detail, so I'll refer you back to it.

If voting places are closed it's because they moved it. It's the responsibility of the voter to keep up. I don't buy the idea that the Republican party is guilty of voter suppression. I've seen real voter suppression back in the 50s and 60s in the old Jim Crow days, and those were Democrats suppressing black voters. I also seen voter intimidation by black Panthers at polling places in 2008.

 

[miketx]

Here are some important points to consider:

1) No one even thought this was a problem before Obama’s administration. Hmm what interesting timing. Why did no one care about it? Because it has always been statistically very RARE and therefore pointless to come up with policy to fight it. All it really accomplishes is keeping legal voters from casting their votes.

2) It goes beyond new extra ID requirements. It also involves closing voting stations in key democratic voting areas. How in the hell do you justify shit like that?

3) Do republican voters not care the GOP is doing this simply because it helps their side win? Is that the real truth?

4) Oh and just to state the obvious, just because dead people are still on voting records, it doesn’t somehow magically mean actual votes are being cast from these dead people. This shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

Here is the only point to consider: You are a liar. There are no new ID requirements.

 

[well named]

It's the responsibility of the voter to keep up.

And it's the responsibility of the state to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on voters, because voting is a fundamental right. The key value underlying my position is that burdens on voting should be tolerated only as far as they are necessary.

I don't buy the idea that the Republican party is guilty of voter suppression.

I linked you to 4 court cases in which the courts found that Republican-led state officials were guilty of voter suppression. The NC case in particular is egregious. From the ruling:

After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.”

Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.
​

The other cases are perhaps slightly less blatant, but similar in key ways

1) Advocates for the struck down laws claimed those laws were intended to address legitimate problems of voter fraud

2) But the courts found that those advocates could not provide any evidence of the alleged problems, nor did their proposed solutions address any problems. As the NC court put it, the new laws "constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist."

3) Law makers were intentionally targeting Democratic constituencies.

All of those points are important, but one of the major points I was making in the post I directed you back to, on the theoretical justification for voter ID laws, is highlighted by point (2). People who believe that we need stricter voting laws should demonstrate why those laws are necessary. This follows from the principle I began with.

If you are unable to provide any evidence that the laws solve a real problem, why should we tolerate any new burden on voters, regardless of motivation? Even were it the case that GOP motives for passing voter ID laws were entirely innocent, if those laws harm voters while solving no problems that is reason enough to oppose them. This argument should seem familiar. It's much the same as the argument Republicans typically make about government regulation. If you can't show that the regulation is required or accomplishes anything, why should voters tolerate the extra burdens, let alone the costs?

​

 

[BS Filter]

It's the responsibility of the voter to keep up.

And it's the responsibility of the state to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on voters, because voting is a fundamental right. The key value underlying my position is that burdens on voting should be tolerated only as far as they are necessary.

I don't buy the idea that the Republican party is guilty of voter suppression.

I linked you to 4 court cases in which the courts found that Republican-led state officials were guilty of voter suppression. The NC case in particular is egregious. From the ruling:

After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.”

Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.
​

The other cases are perhaps slightly less blatant, but similar in key ways

1) Advocates for the struck down laws claimed those laws were intended to address legitimate problems of voter fraud

2) But the courts found that those advocates could not provide any evidence of the alleged problems, nor did their proposed solutions address any problems. As the NC court put it, the new laws "constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist."

3) Law makers were intentionally targeting Democratic constituencies.

All of those points are important, but one of the major points I was making in the post I directed you back to, on the theoretical justification for voter ID laws, is highlighted by point (2). People who believe that we need stricter voting laws should demonstrate why those laws are necessary. This follows from the principle I began with.

If you are unable to provide any evidence that the laws solve a real problem, why should we tolerate any new burden on voters, regardless of motivation? Even were it the case that GOP motives for passing voter ID laws were entirely innocent, if those laws harm voters while solving no problems that is reason enough to oppose them. This argument should seem familiar. It's much the same as the argument Republicans typically make about government regulation. If you can't show that the regulation is required or accomplishes anything, why should voters tolerate the extra burdens, let alone the costs?

​

Every nation has stricter voting laws than the United States. I provided you with those facts. Democrats have a long history of voter suppression and cheating. Regarding the courts, There are many activist leftist judges that the Democrat party has put in place to "fix" things when the people don't vote Democrat like they're expected to.

 

[blackhawk]

Why do Democrats seem to think non whites don't have a photo ID or lack the ability to get one? If I was black or Hispanic I would be highly insulted by white liberals thinking I didn't already have a photo ID or I was so inept I couldn't get one.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here are some important points to consider:

1) No one even thought this was a problem before Obama’s administration. Hmm what interesting timing. Why did no one care about it? Because it has always been statistically very RARE and therefore pointless to come up with policy to fight it. All it really accomplishes is keeping legal voters from casting their votes.

2) It goes beyond new extra ID requirements. It also involves closing voting stations in key democratic voting areas. How in the hell do you justify shit like that?

3) Do republican voters not care the GOP is doing this simply because it helps their side win? Is that the real truth?

4) Oh and just to state the obvious, just because dead people are still on voting records, it doesn’t somehow magically mean actual votes are being cast from these dead people. This shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

Gotta have ID to rent a car, check out a library book, buy a gun, get into a night club, legally cross borders, board a plane, buy a car....

But, OH NO. If you make people identify themselves before they vote to limit the opportunity for voter fraud....VOTER SUPPRESSION!!!



You don't like rules requiring ID before voting because you want to cheat. It's that simple.

.

 

[Clementine]

Here are some important points to consider:

1) No one even thought this was a problem before Obama’s administration. Hmm what interesting timing. Why did no one care about it? Because it has always been statistically very RARE and therefore pointless to come up with policy to fight it. All it really accomplishes is keeping legal voters from casting their votes.

2) It goes beyond new extra ID requirements. It also involves closing voting stations in key democratic voting areas. How in the hell do you justify shit like that?

3) Do republican voters not care the GOP is doing this simply because it helps their side win? Is that the real truth?

4) Oh and just to state the obvious, just because dead people are still on voting records, it doesn’t somehow magically mean actual votes are being cast from these dead people. This shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

Cheating is far more common than the left will admit. Dishonest poll workers over the years have been reported for filling out ballots prior to the elections. And, yes, they were filling them out for Dems. This is what I think happened when that trunk load of ballots for Al Franken were magically discovered weeks after the close election.

There is no way to detect this cheating after the fact. Only 1/3 of legally registered voters even bother to vote. All the cheaters have to do is fill out a bunch of unused ballots and they would all appear to be legit. You'd have to actually call voters to find out if they actually used the ballots that they were legally registered to use. Who is going to do that?

We need to end motor voter registration. Illegal aliens get registered and, yes, they vote. Obama came out and told them to do that. A California Dem is being investigated for sending out forms to illegal aliens and the box asking about citizenship was already checked 'yes.' That is called cheating.

Hillary got most votes in an area of California where there is a very high population of illegal aliens. It's estimated that there are at least 22 million adult illegal aliens. That many can easily affect the outcome of elections. That is what you call foreign interference in elections.

It's also disgusting that the left thinks blacks are incapable of getting an ID. Seriously, give that a rest. The only people who have trouble getting a legal ID are illegal aliens and they have no business being here.

The left wants to open polling places in every neighborhood that is likely to vote for them and they could care less about the integrity of our elections. They'd open polling places at the border if they could so anyone sneaking in could cast a ballot.

 

[Crepitus]

Here are some important points to consider:

1) No one even thought this was a problem before Obama’s administration. Hmm what interesting timing. Why did no one care about it? Because it has always been statistically very RARE and therefore pointless to come up with policy to fight it. All it really accomplishes is keeping legal voters from casting their votes.

2) It goes beyond new extra ID requirements. It also involves closing voting stations in key democratic voting areas. How in the hell do you justify shit like that?

3) Do republican voters not care the GOP is doing this simply because it helps their side win? Is that the real truth?

4) Oh and just to state the obvious, just because dead people are still on voting records, it doesn’t somehow magically mean actual votes are being cast from these dead people. This shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

#3 is spot on. They don't care because it helps them win and that's all.they care about.

 

[Crepitus]

Here are some important points to consider:

1) No one even thought this was a problem before Obama’s administration. Hmm what interesting timing. Why did no one care about it? Because it has always been statistically very RARE and therefore pointless to come up with policy to fight it. All it really accomplishes is keeping legal voters from casting their votes.

2) It goes beyond new extra ID requirements. It also involves closing voting stations in key democratic voting areas. How in the hell do you justify shit like that?

3) Do republican voters not care the GOP is doing this simply because it helps their side win? Is that the real truth?

4) Oh and just to state the obvious, just because dead people are still on voting records, it doesn’t somehow magically mean actual votes are being cast from these dead people. This shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

Cheating is far more common than the left will admit. Dishonest poll workers over the years have been reported for filling out ballots prior to the elections. And, yes, they were filling them out for Dems. This is what I think happened when that trunk load of ballots for Al Franken were magically discovered weeks after the close election.

There is no way to detect this cheating after the fact. Only 1/3 of legally registered voters even bother to vote. All the cheaters have to do is fill out a bunch of unused ballots and they would all appear to be legit. You'd have to actually call voters to find out if they actually used the ballots that they were legally registered to use. Who is going to do that?

We need to end motor voter registration. Illegal aliens get registered and, yes, they vote. Obama came out and told them to do that. A California Dem is being investigated for sending out forms to illegal aliens and the box asking about citizenship was already checked 'yes.' That is called cheating.

Hillary got most votes in an area of California where there is a very high population of illegal aliens. It's estimated that there are at least 22 million adult illegal aliens. That many can easily affect the outcome of elections. That is what you call foreign interference in elections.

It's also disgusting that the left thinks blacks are incapable of getting an ID. Seriously, give that a rest. The only people who have trouble getting a legal ID are illegal aliens and they have no business being here.

The left wants to open polling places in every neighborhood that is likely to vote for them and they could care less about the integrity of our elections. They'd open polling places at the border if they could so anyone sneaking in could cast a ballot.

I call bullshit. Support that with some links.

Infowars, breightbart, and Hannity are not accepted as supporting documentation.

 

[Darkwind]

I wonder if you realize that most minorities consider people who think that the notion that they cannot get an ID because of their race is in fact, a racist thing?

That is not a claim I've made. As far as what most people believe, I'm not aware of any survey data on the question as you've asked it, but I've seen survey data which suggests that black and hispanic voters are more likely to agree with my general principle that we should make it easy to vote than white voters are.

Pretty simple really. The only claim to voter suppression lays with requiring an ID. When voiced, the overwhelming talking point is that it is far too hard for minorities to get the proper ID to vote, even though there are literally 100+ things in this country that require an ID. When asked if they thought it was too hard to get an ID or could not make it to the DMV or even know where a DMV is, they consider it an insult. Or they just think that minorities are too stupid to get an id.



Be sure to watch to the end.