Voter ID laws: Everyone has an ID, right? Nope

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes. You? Because you made the following statement, which clearly is against our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and our founding principles:



Kinda dictator-like. Your fellow citizens don't have to meet your requirements to be able to vote. They only have to be citizens of this country. You - or I - may hate what they believe, or how they vote. Too bad. We all get to vote.

Which amendment?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Where did I say this level of proof was not OK?

You don't currently need a photo voter ID to vote in Colorado. Do you think that's fine as current, or do you think that the Colorado voting law should be changed so that a photo voter ID must be required?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Which amendment?

I didn't say amendment. Keep up.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Voter ID laws are far more than just racist, as the courts are agreeing, they are poll taxes and unfair Constitutional infringements on the right to vote of not only specifically and discriminatarily non-white minorities, but the poor, elderly, and those that don't live a specific life style or have a certain income.

What does your state say currently (current law) about what you have to show to register to vote? Tell us.

After you read up on reconstruction, keep reading through the 20th century. It's fun to demonize the current Democratic party based upon the political parties of the 1800's, especially as you all apparently read the same right-wing websites that come out with your talking points on the same day - but there's far more to that story than the superficial, shallow talking point you've been told to repeat.

Nobody told me to repeat sh!t Riot I worked all day and this is the only site I've visited. Unlike you my job doesn't involve surfing the web. You are the one who repeats the same Progressive crap that dominates the media. There is nothing wrong with making sure people are citizens. Ooooops I forgot our Prez doesn't have a birth certificate. I live in N.Y. I had to show an I.D. Please look up the regs for me you are more fluent with the Internet than I am. If there is a pie chart so much the better.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, the Founding Fathers of our country certainly disagreed with you when they wrote the Constitution. They wrote that document specifically and deliberately to prevent people who thought like you from controlling others.

And also to prevent people like you from deciding what I choose to defend myself, loved ones, and property with. How you can be a Constitutional Scholar on some subjects but completely lost on others is beyond me. I guess you see what you want to see.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Nobody told me to repeat sh!t Riot I worked all day and this is the only site I've visited. Unlike you my job doesn't involve surfing the web. You are the one who repeats the same Progressive crap that dominates the media. There is nothing wrong with making sure people are citizens. Ooooops I forgot our Prez doesn't have a birth certificate. I live in N.Y. I had to show an I.D. Please look up the regs for me you are more fluent with the Internet than I am. If there is a pie chart so much the better.

So you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion of Voter ID rights, other than to reiterate that you are a birther?

BTW: I own my own successful business, I earn six figures, and, being a massive job creator, I have the luxury of a lot of time off. The American Dream - it's awesome

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

And also to prevent people like you from deciding what I choose to defend myself, loved ones, and property with.

You don't have the right to defend your loved ones with a bazooka or tank. Yeah - the majority rest of us, in this democratic society, are good with that. You, the minority, lose on that one.

Yes, this is a society, where we all live together, and thus all our opinions count. Equally. That's why we vote on things. Like you don't get a bazooka or a tank. Majority rules. Too bad on that one.

How you can be a Constitutional Scholar on some subjects but completely lost on others is beyond me. I guess you see what you want to see.

I have made no pretense to being any Consitutional scholar. I leave that up to our judicial branch. Like reading the decisions where multiple judges have thrown out restrictive ALEC-GOP Voter ID laws as they unfairly discriminate against some minorities or are poll taxes.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

So you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion of Voter ID rights, other than to reiterate that you are a birther?

BTW: I own my own successful business, I earn six figures, and, being a massive job creator, I have the luxury of a lot of time off. The American Dream - it's awesome

First I'm a racist now I'm a birther. What's next? I'm glad you are successful. You do realize you didn't build that business right?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

First I'm a racist now I'm a birther. What's next? I'm glad you are successful. You do realize you didn't build that business right?

You don't believe much in keeping to the truth, either, do you?

I never said you were a racist.

You revealed yourself as a birther when you said this: "Ooooops I forgot our Prez doesn't have a birth certificate." (Hint: that's the definition of "A Birther")

The President never said, "You didn't build" referring to anyone's business. He said, "You didn't build that" referring to infrastructure and roads that enable businesses to thrive. In fact, Mitt Romney has said the exact same thing. Would you like to see video of it?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not to bait you at all, but just a question:

Why would the racial background or age matter when analyzing those who did not obtain official ID for themselves?

It's insane that the Justice Department would seek to not enforce laws for ID's - though your graph likely points to their motivation.

Would we do the same for other action/inaction within our society, and then shape the laws accordingly?

For instance, statistics have shown that most drunk drivers are young people in their late teens. But if you are hit by a vehicle driven by a drunk driver, the demographic of the driver is unimportant. So they passed laws where a measurable quantity (blood alcohol level) can be the key evidence of whether a driver is intoxicated. They pull over ANYBODY driving erratically. The stats are irrelevant. As these people grow up, they may still drunk drive, changing the stats, especially if the new young people do not abuse alcohol to the same degree.

It is a shame that in the past, literacy tests have been used as a mechanism for disenfranchisement. That should never have happened. It's absurd, and those people warping that policy should have been prosecuted.

However, there is a legitimate role for tests IF the ability to read and understand the language of the ballot is in question. I don't know Russian for example. I don't even know the whole Cyrillic alphabet, so where the letters differ from our Roman alphabet, I can't read the word, let alone know what it means in Russian. Giving me a ballot in Russian is pointless. If I lived in Russia and it was time to vote I would not be shocked to have to pass a test to see if I can read the ballot (or so they can tell me how to spell Putin in Cyrillic letters)

Giving someone a ballot they cannot read and interpreting the selection as meaningful is an intellectual absurdity. Obviously, places where Spanish is universal and they have the ballot in Spanish this is not an issue. But ballots are printed and therefore need to be read in order to convey the necessary information.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Very few people agree with me, there are some that are naive enough to think that Washington can be fixed. If all citizens have the right to vote (I still think this should be true, with a caveat or two), then they should also be capable of proving citizenship prior to casting a vote, regardless of voting history.

felons lose their right to vote, but that's the only group i know of that is disenfranchised-by their own actions tho.
and i do think that requiring id is common sense, but voter registration also needs to be fixed. people who live near a state line have been registered in multiple areas, and have voted multiple times from what i've read.
voter rolls shouldn't just be purged of non-voters, but states should cross reference. but id would also be a red flag in that instance. i know of a guy who lives on property straddling the ark/la border. he has all ark id, tags,works in ark, etc. but his 911 address is in la. so, yeah, he could be registered to vote twice. how many out there like that? or they move, vote absentee in home state, in person here?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Play the Race Card Riot. If you can't prove you are a Citizen, you shouldn't be voting. People have all year to get an I.D. Call ACORN and ask for some assistance. You will get all the help you need. I didn't say stupid people should be STOPPED from voting, just that maybe they shouldn't. By the way Riot do you know the history of the Democratic Party? Who it was that was actually trying to keep Blacks from voting? Who started the KKK and why? Who wanted to deny Blacks their 2nd amendment rights? You guessed it! The Democrats! Read up on the Reconstruction some time. I can't understand why any hardworking Blacks would even think about registering Democrat. You go on about the Constitution yet cry out for more gun control. The Federal Govt. has been assuming undelagated powers and ignoring the Constitution for a long time. How do those elderly white people cash their SS checks anyway? J. H. Christ I have to wait in line 20 minutes at the Pharmacy then show I.D. to buy Claritin-D just so I can frikkin breath, when I used to grab a box off the shelf and head for the cash register. You make it sound like getting an I.D. is near impossible and anyone who thinks people should prove they are a Citizen to vote is a Racist.

yeah, the constitution is all fine and dandy, til things like ndaa come along. or shooting citizens overseas without due process. the ag even tried to justfiy the latter.
the bible, and the constitution. both used by anyone in any argument to justify their point.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't say amendment. Keep up.

Huh, you keep asserting that the framers made sure that all votes counted the same when the exact opposite is true.
I assumed you must have read this somewhere so I was curious if you interpreted the Bill of Rights differently than I did.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

You don't believe much in keeping to the truth, either, do you?

I never said you were a racist.

You revealed yourself as a birther when you said this: "Ooooops I forgot our Prez doesn't have a birth certificate." (Hint: that's the definition of "A Birther")

The President never said, "You didn't build" referring to anyone's business. He said, "You didn't build that" referring to infrastructure and roads that enable businesses to thrive. In fact, Mitt Romney has said the exact same thing. Would you like to see video of it?

http://freebeacon.com/obama-if-you-h...nt-build-that/

You sure about that? If you aren't insulted by this then you are not listening.

Government research didn't create the internet either. "So that business could make money"

[dino]

Pretty sad state of affairs where you are a racist if you feel that people should have an ID to vote.
If you're not smart enough to figure out how to get an ID should you really be voting, or should I say blindly voting for Obama jut because he's black?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dino

Pretty sad state of affairs where you are a racist if you feel that people should have an ID to vote.
If you're not smart enough to figure out how to get an ID should you really be voting, or should I say blindly voting for Obama jut because he's black?

Calling someone who thinks ID is necessary to vote a racist is a tactic. The Democrats don't actually believe that. But if it gets you to shut up, then the tactic is successful.

The Democrats want (or need) the multiplicative factor of voter fraud through repeated voting - an illegal practice. This practice is easily stopped through the use of required ID and logging of poll attendance. Therefore, they will take the intellectually indefensible and ludicrous position of guaranteeing the continuation of this crime by not requiring ID and actively fighting states who are bold enough to enact their own ID requirements.

And, for the record, preferring someone because of their race is equally racist to the case of excluding someone because of their race.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Huh, you keep asserting that the framers made sure that all votes counted the same when the exact opposite is true.
I assumed you must have read this somewhere so I was curious if you interpreted the Bill of Rights differently than I did.

yeah, originally all citizens didn't have the right to vote. the framers didn't think everyone should be able to.
explains why there had to be amendments made to the constitution. and those amendments came looong after the framers had all shuffled off this mortal coil.


an excerpt from an article i found:

Some Americans hoped the Constitution would clarify, unify, and perhaps expand voting rights nationally. It did not. Hayden wrote: "Under the constitution, then, the breadth of the right to vote for both state and national elections was fixed by state law. And at the time of ratification, this meant that many people—including most women, African Americans, Native Americans and propertyless white men—could not vote."

By not addressing the suffrage issue more broadly, the Constitution's authors fostered a long-running battle over voting rights. This struggle lasted well into the twentieth century, forming a focal point for the civil rights and women's rights movements.

http://www.history.org/foundation/jo.../elections.cfm

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Calling someone who thinks ID is necessary to vote a racist is a tactic. The Democrats don't actually believe that. But if it gets you to shut up, then the tactic is successful.

The Democrats want (or need) the multiplicative factor of voter fraud through repeated voting - an illegal practice. This practice is easily stopped through the use of required ID and logging of poll attendance. Therefore, they will take the intellectually indefensible and ludicrous position of guaranteeing the continuation of this crime by not requiring ID and actively fighting states who are bold enough to enact their own ID requirements.

And, for the record, preferring someone because of their race is equally racist to the case of excluding someone because of their race.

it's a ridiculous claim by people who don't like opposition. imo, it should be considered the equivalent to Godwin's law.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Calling someone who thinks ID is necessary to vote a racist is a tactic. The Democrats don't actually believe that. But if it gets you to shut up, then the tactic is successful.

The Democrats want (or need) the multiplicative factor of voter fraud through repeated voting - an illegal practice. This practice is easily stopped through the use of required ID and logging of poll attendance. Therefore, they will take the intellectually indefensible and ludicrous position of guaranteeing the continuation of this crime by not requiring ID and actively fighting states who are bold enough to enact their own ID requirements.

And, for the record, preferring someone because of their race is equally racist to the case of excluding someone because of their race.

Coming from the King of using "Tactics" when discussing A Womens right to choose. However on this topic we concur. No ID no vote, really simple.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, originally all citizens didn't have the right to vote. the framers didn't think everyone should be able to.
explains why there had to be amendments made to the constitution. and those amendments came looong after the framers had all shuffled off this mortal coil.


an excerpt from an article i found:

Some Americans hoped the Constitution would clarify, unify, and perhaps expand voting rights nationally. It did not. Hayden wrote: "Under the constitution, then, the breadth of the right to vote for both state and national elections was fixed by state law. And at the time of ratification, this meant that many people—including most women, African Americans, Native Americans and propertyless white men—could not vote."

By not addressing the suffrage issue more broadly, the Constitution's authors fostered a long-running battle over voting rights. This struggle lasted well into the twentieth century, forming a focal point for the civil rights and women's rights movements.

http://www.history.org/foundation/jo.../elections.cfm

The electoral college system was conceived because the founders were afraid to give the full power of selection to the general public.
A correct assumption was made that people are suckers and could easily be fooled into electing someone completely unqualified.