Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New ID voter law? [CLOSED]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 351
New ID voter law?Page 15 of 29    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
In the words of OY...hahahahahahahaha...Group Snoop and nationalcenter.org are both conservative groups...and no one is looking into their finances as they are from the fringe.

Does voter integrity=voter disenfranchisement...apparently, in the world of the evangelical uber-conservative right it does.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 352
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 1:17:29 PM
For the libs how many illegal votes are acceptable?

When they are more common than UFO sightings.

UFO Sightings Are 3,615 Times More Common than Voter Fraud
By Life's Little Mysteries Staff | LiveScience.com – Fri, Jul 6, 2012

People are 3,615 times more likely to report a UFO sighting than they are to commit in-person voter impersonation, according to national data.

The striking statistic has surfaced at the same time as the news that a new voter ID law in Pennsylvania could render nearly 10 percent of the state's residents ineligible to vote in the presidential election this fall.

National UFO Reporting Center records show there were 47,000 reports of UFO sightings between 2000 and 2010. During the same period, just 13 people were convicted of impersonating someone else in order to vote in their name, according to research by Justin Levitt, associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. [UFO Quiz: What's Really Out There]

Mother Jones assembled the numbers in order to fact-check claims by many Republican lawmakers that their states are facing rampant voter fraud.

Since 2011, 24 voting restrictions have passed in 17 states.

This fall, new laws could affect more than 5 million voters in states representing 179 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, Mother Jones reports.

Studies indicate low-income and minority voters are most often disenfranchised by laws requiring voters to have government-issued photo IDs.

For example, 25 percent of voting-age African-Americans don't have valid IDs.

Read more at: http://news.yahoo.com/ufo-sightings-3-615-times-more-common-voter-184730211.html


http://vscdn.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/UFO-More-Common_voter-fraud-e1344623353455.png
 _babblefish
Joined: 9/23/2011
Msg: 353
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 1:38:47 PM
eighteen pages of to ID or not to ID, when;

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin


Who’s Counting? exposes serious problems with our election system, from voter fraud to a slipshod system of vote counting that political scientist Walter Dean Burnham calls “the most careless of the developed world.”
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 354
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 3:08:21 PM
Who’s Counting? exposes serious problems with our election system, from voter fraud to a slipshod system of vote counting that political scientist Walter Dean Burnham calls “the most careless of the developed world.”


This was one of my arguments for voterID. A form of cross reference validation.

# of registered voters in the state:
# of verified people that showed up to vote
# of votes counted

Math for cross reference and obvious 'outcome impacting' events could be seen as well as a healthcheck of party to vote vs expectations of likely outcomes.

IOW an actual system not based on trust of any side... including the counters.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 355
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 4:39:41 PM
"Actually, this does have a relationship to voter ID"

I can see that! She might even have gotten away with it, in TWO states, with 2 ID's! Now maybe I don't have the same perspective as the peckerwoods advocating ID's...but this thread has been going for almost a year. We've seen articles about 4 people, now 1 person, in some other cases we may have had a dozen.

I doubt if you totalled them ALL up, they would have swayed one single election! IF there was widespread voter fraud, with the republicants digging for their lives, you'd think they would have uncovered thousands of cases.

But that's not what this is all about, as I've said many times. This is about "STEALING AN ELECTION!"...based on a paultry few cases, these sneak thieves would deprive MILLIONS of people their right to vote...in almost every state where these laws have been passed, they have knocked off hundreds of thousands, from the voter rolls!

AGAIN, since they incorporate changes in voting procedure, curtailed voting hours, curtailed early voting, changes to absentee ballots. What have these issues to do with voter ID?

I always harken back to those great republicans, who we have seen over the years. The ones we know who always tried to steal elections. Haldeman, Erlichman, North, Libby, Rove, Keating...all those wonderful republicans who think they know better than you or I. I only named but a few...the list is long and distinguished! hahahahahahaha!!!

But every decade brings new members to the wall of shame, that passes for "proud members of the republican party"!

You see we all knew them in grammar school...the snitches or teachers pet, who wanted so badly to be accepted. They grow up to be the "nice guys" on this dating site! Hahahahaha! Women abhor them, men don't want to associate with them...but every generation breeds a new bunch.

Now we have the new breed...the Scott Walkers(ya know, the guy who on the phone was goober smooching what he thought was one of the Koch's), and the other republicants who would sooner trash someones right to vote, than actually try and win an election fairly! One even said he would win at any cost.

So then...who wants to answer the questions about voting hours and early voting and what that has to do with this issue of voter fraud? hahahahahahaha!!!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 356
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 5:02:30 PM
But that's not what this is all about, as I've said many times. This is about "STEALING AN ELECTION!"...based on a paultry few cases, these sneak thieves would deprive MILLIONS of people their right to vote...in almost every state where these laws have been passed, they have knocked off hundreds of thousands, from the voter rolls!


No one is innocent. So, best is to actually not believe anyone and have a blind verification process. But that require some level of voter validation at vote time. It's tricky... you have a solution other then 'trust me'?


So then...who wants to answer the questions about voting hours and early voting and what that has to do with this issue of voter fraud? hahahahahahaha!!!

Claming fraud just stirs up emotions and makes people act like azz's with giant holes.
How about, Bad timing of these things has negative impacts. Please reschedule changes or provide evidence of immediate necessity. IOW Prove necessity of time line.. They don't have to prove validity for the act as much as the timing.

Getting people that view everything as "You ARE TYRING TO SCAM YOU DIRTY **stard" out of the way will move things a whole lot faster. Just like getting the "OMG WE HAQVE TO CHANGE NOW" out of the way will stabilize trust and partnership.

To bad these people don't exist in politicians or the public.

Oh well. BURN IT DOWN!!!!! WWWWQWWOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 357
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 5:54:28 PM
#437

<div class="quote">One is attached to the New York University Law School

So what? The articles it produces are still open to question. Law schools--including NYU's--are full of people with leftist agendas. We just heard a leftist from Georgetown prattling about her right to get contraceptives for free.

#439

<div class="quote">in almost every state where these laws have been passed, they have knocked off hundreds of thousands, from the voter rolls!

If those people had no right to be on the rolls, that would be a good thing. If you have any specific of evidence of any person who was unconstitutionally deprived of his vote by a state voter ID law, you haven't presented it. It's funny to see all this whining about supposed infringement of voting rights from the supporters of this President. He's been diluting the votes of millions of Americans in various covert ways ever since he took office. But when he's the one interfering with fundamental constitutional rights, apparently it's just fine.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 358
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 6:23:09 PM
Well, one answer on the ID's would have been to facilitate the change. If a state feels the need to change, give aid to those voters who need it. Open temporary offices in various locales around the state to allow people to get the new ID's. Extend hours for the 6 or 8 months after the law is enacted to allow those without the proper ID to acquire one.

Wave fees for the first change over. The state is making the change, so why does it have to encumber the poor? I know how you guys love the poor, so I guess this will set off the greatest howls...funny, these guys have no problem having the poor's children being sent off as cannon fodder for shrubs wars, but they have no issue denying them their right to vote...

"If you have any specific evidence of any person who was unconstitutionally deprived"

See, to quote one of your heros "there you go again!"...I asked about the many "thugs" at polling places, you never seemed to answer that.

As for this issue, there are any number of articles both on the net and in the newspapers, where people have been taken off the rolls, either for being a felon(since they weren't but had a similar name), or for being dead, when they weren't(again similar name). Or the many who have no freakin idea they are off and won't have until election day.

"He's been dilutung the votes of millions of Americans"

HOW??? Does he instruct someone to count his votes twice? Or not to count those cast against him?

Voting is voting, policy and executive orders are those issues in and of themselves. Are you saying because you don't like his policies, that NOW 2 wrongs make a right? He used executive orders, now I and my fellow republicants are entitled to STEAL an election? We get to pick and choose who can or can't vote...yeah right!

Very constititutional of ya! Hahhahahahaha!!!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 359
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 9:06:10 PM
#442

HOW???


He's done it in in several ways. I explained some of them in #401.



policy and executive orders are those issues in and of themselves.


When a President misuses executive orders to substitute for legislation he's unable to get Congress to pass, he is substituting his own will for the will of the majority of Americans, as expressed through their elected representatives. On any issue that Mr. Obama decides entirely by executive fiat, our votes don't mean a thing.

Mr. Obama's high-handed decision to appoint "czars"--some of them admitted communists--and to give them all sorts of powers was another way in which he diluted the votes of everyone who opposed him. The President is to appoint important officials like that *by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.* See Art. II, sec. 2, cl.2. But this man has the same contempt for the Constitution that you and many of his other supporters have.

#443


Problem with you is you equate the truth with being left wing.


You have it just backwards.



You go to the front page of the right wing "think" tank King posted as his "proof" you can find videos of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News . That is supposed to be right wing thought and analysis? That site is a joke.


I don't know who you're talking about, but I never went to that site. You can be sure, though, that I'll give your low opinion of its scholarship all the weight it deserves. I notice you don't dispute the claims on the site about the Brennan Center. It wouldn't make any difference who wrote them, if they are true.



The Brennan Center produces real and properly referanced discussion papers on the issues.


I think I know properly referenced papers when I read them--I pay a lot of attention to footnotes. But just because all the facts in an article are correct doesn't make the arguments and conclusions those facts are used to support the gospel truth. And just because some leftist law student or professor at NYU publishes an argumentative paper doesn't oblige me to agree with his arguments. Obviously the majority of the Supreme Court didn't see anything unconstitutional about Indiana's voter ID law a few years ago. I wonder if the writers at NYU mention that.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 360
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/11/2012 9:47:41 PM
I'm sure this won't make any difference to the Leftist / Progressive crowd who think the sun rises and sets at the 'Brennan Center', either ... more than likely it'll induce instant self-pleasuring ...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/82176.html?1342821766

SPAIN-OWNED INTERNET VOTING COMPANY -- SCYTL -- AND RESULTS REPORTING FIRM -- SOE SOFTWARE

In January 2012, Black Box Voting reported that Barcelona-owned Internet voting firm Scytl had purchased another company, which handles a different part of USA elections: SOE Software.

Scytl, so far, just counts military and overseas votes in a few states. SOE Software is not part of the Internet voting project; SOE reports votes coming out of ES&S, Dominion, Hart Intercivic and Sequoia touchscreens and optical scans.

Often, SOE actually hosts and runs what looks like the county election Web site. SOE pulls its information electronically from county central tabulators, either wired in directly or in some locations, through a USB stick transfer.

After information goes from voting machines into the county central tabulator, it travels to Tampa, Florida into the SOE system, and is posted on sites like ClarityElections.com (the host domain owned by SOE) or at Web sites which appear with county names, but actually come from Tampa's SOE.

IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF USA ELECTION SOFTWARE?

Not if you don't mind some unknown guys working offshore controlling whatever they choose to in the software processing votes and voters.

ELECTRONIC VOTE-COUNTING INCREASINGLY BY GLOBAL PRIVATE VENDORS

Unisyn is owned by a Malaysian gambling outfit. Another major elections industry player, Canada's Dominion, purchased the massive Diebold Election Systems division (which it shares with ES&S); Dominion also owns Smartmatic, which handles electronic vote-counting in the Philippines and Belgium. Military voting is now handled in several states by Barcelona, Spain-owned Scytl. In January 2012, Scytl acquired the largest election results reporting firm, SOE Software.

Accenture, now based in Dublin Ireland (formerly headquartered in tax-haven Bermuda), claims copyright over the massive electronic voter registration / voter history databases used in several states, including Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Colorado, Wisconsin and Arkansas. Accenture purchased its voter registration unit from Election.com, a Saudi-owned company based in the Cayman Islands.

Because a computer will only do what it's programmers and administrators tell it to do, whoever issues the commands gains ultimate control over how it receives, counts, and reports votes, voter registrations, and voter histories.

UNISYN: According to Barry Herron (formerly of Diebold Election Systems), now Director of Sales for Unisyn, "Unisyn and our business partners are actively supporting installations in the States of Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Mississippi, and Virginia. We intend to expand into other states in late 2012 and early 2013."

Unisyn also recently made inroads into Puerto Rico. Another Unisyn election product called "Inkavote" is used in 4 million-voter Los Angeles County (CA) and in Jackson County (MO).
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 361
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/12/2012 7:23:22 AM

http://concord-nh.patch.com/articles/voter-id-reminders-law-angering-some-concord-voters?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl5|sec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D204090


Look at the reasons they gave.... It is the 'show your papers' aspect the resented. The central authority verifying your right to exist.

That isn't being suggested as why this may be wrong though. The only reason it is wrong is because 'those rascally racist republicans want to be mean and suppress minorities"

The republicans have the right answer that may not be allowed because that may not be the right thing to do. In government the right answer is to always have the government control things centrally. It is rarely the right thing to do. It may be expedient but it doesn't end well.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 362
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/12/2012 8:21:15 AM
Reading the responses of people like Hale (the 'musician' and others just raises the obvious question that's usually voiced by those on the Left ...

What do they have to hide? The Left has no problem trying to force their agenda items on the rest of us over our objections, and they don't appear to lose any sleep over it. Why should we worry that some thin-skinned little 'sensitive progressive' types get 'offended' when they're asked to show the same thing they'd willingly provide to cash a check or open a bank account ... ? They confirm their hypocrisy with their complaint.

And yes, there ARE some people who should NOT vote: The dead, the illegal, the convicted felon, the underage ... you get the picture - maybe.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 363
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/12/2012 8:36:55 AM
I'm fascinated by arguments like this. Both left and right alike, make outlandish claims, and accuse the other side of "having something to hide." But one can see examples of both left and right switching sides about the same rights to privacy that they staunchly pretend to defend when it's THEM who are being asked to show proof 0f things.

I remain convinced, based on what those who want these laws created have themselves said, that despite their claim to be "protecting the sanctity of the ballot," that they actually want to stop opponents from voting.

I understand that within their frame of reference, this is not an act of voter obstruction, because they also believe that the opposition has conducted fraudulent voter registration drives.

The problem I have with how they are going about all this is, that they are NOT doing it in a manner that accepts and addresses the situations where people are being unjustly disenfranchised. If they were serious about making sure that all Americans can vote without fear of fraud at the polls, they would come up with a comprehensive solution, and not this obvious chicanery.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 364
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/12/2012 9:44:22 AM

they are NOT doing it in a manner that accepts and addresses the situations where people are being unjustly disenfranchised.


Voting is one of several rights the Supreme Court has defined as "fundamental." That means that to be constitutional, a government action that restricts the right to vote has to meet a more demanding standard than usual. But it does *not* mean voting is an absolute right that can't be restricted at all.

The state ID laws laws restrict the right to vote, but lots of state laws do that. They've always prohibited people younger than eighteen and non-residents and ex-felons from voting, for example, and most people haven't considered that an outrage. You're assuming state voter ID laws *unfairly* restricts someone's right to vote, but I haven't seen anyone make a good case for that.


I understand that within their frame of reference, this is not an act of voter obstruction, because they also believe that the opposition has conducted fraudulent voter registration drives.


I don't understand what you're saying. If crooks have registered unqualified voters, no one but the crooks and the unqualified voters themselves should want them to succeed. I don't give a damn which party the crooks are trying to help.


and not this obvious chicanery.


I don't know how it could be obvious to anyone who had not studied the various state voter ID laws carefully that any of them was "obvious chicanery."
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 365
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/12/2012 1:29:02 PM
Hahahahahahaha!!! The prosecution rests! Hahahahahahaha!!!

NO WHERE...in any of all these pages, has the issue been so clearly framed! It is funny to me, it came ALL in one post:

"Voting is one of several rights the Supreme Court has defined as "fundamental.""

OK..so far I get it, agree with it...then:

"But it does *not* mean voting is an absolute right that can't be restricted at all."

HUH???

Now I can understand if someone does not "qualify" to vote by some state law, felons, age limits, aliens both illegal and without green cards, here on student visas or such. In those cases, since they don't meet states standards for voting, they are not qualified to vote, hence have no right to vote. In some states I believe felons can vote, doesn't make sense to me, but hey...it's their state their laws...

But that terminology of "can't be restricted at all"...brings to my mind, a path to play with elections, and disenfranchise a part of the electorate. To me that post shows the mindset of the right. Just like the few politicians who were honest and said this was meant to help win republicants the election!

As to the other interesting post about the online counting of votes, the companies involved and where and how the process takes place. I believe he is right!!! We should not be outsourcing the counting of the vote to other countries. Nor have any company involved with our elections, be owned by foreign companies or controlled y them.

This would be a good job for the mittster and Bain capital, in december! After he loses the election he can onshore some of that Bermuda money, and start a company HERE in the USA, that would better the voting process. OOPs! Forgot he can't do that, he would owe taxes on that money! Oh well....

Surely there must be someone here in the states, who has the intelligence, capital and know how, to start and keep such a company. I would say this should be a function of government, but then would be labelled for trying to grow government bigger! hahahahahhaha!!!

It is truly bizarre, that we have states, using 30...40 year old voting machines, that break down regularly, for perhaps the most important thing individual citizens do. Now if this were an issue that just came up, in the last 4 years..I would get it, no money, no machines! But during the Reagan boom...the Clinton boom...nobody wanted to spend the benjamins to modernize our voting system!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 366
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/12/2012 7:56:12 PM
HUH???


You said it. I do not know what you are trying to say, and I doubt you do. You claim to be dumbfounded by my statement--which is dead true--that the fact voting is a fundamental right does not mean it is a right which cannot be restricted at all. But then you immediately repeat what I said about various classifications of people whose right to vote state laws do not recognize.

You say you understand that people in these classifications may not be "qualified" to vote by state law; but then you claim the idea that a state can restrict the right to vote is something else again. Of course those are just two ways of saying exactly the same thing. If you had any real arguments, you wouldn't need to try transparent rhetorical tricks. Your lame attempt to make a distinction without a difference is disingenuous without being clever. It's like saying, "I agree that two plus two is four. But it's outrageous for you even to suggest that four is the sum of two and two!"

What you then say about what the phrase "can't be restricted at all" brings to your mind, whose "mindset" you think it shows, etc. shows something about your thinking. But it has nothing to do with the subject--how far states can restrict the right to vote only to certain people without violating the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere do you explain how or why anything I wrote is wrong. Nor can you--but please feel free to keep trying, in your way.

There are several types of rights the Supreme Court considers fundamental--voting, privacy, and interstate travel. Each type includes several discrete rights--for example, the right of extended families to live together and the right of parents to educate their children both fall within the fundamental right of privacy.

The general right to vote involves issues that may not be obvious--for example, how far states can regulate party primaries, or whether a state can require a supermajority vote in a referendum. But things like that are far too subtle for use as leftist rope-a-dope propaganda.

The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th protect fundamental rights.

A government action that denies a fundamental right to everyone raises a due process problem. If it denies a right to some people but not to others, it raises an equal protection problem.

The 14th Amendment applies to both due process and equal protection claims against state governments. As the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, it also acts as a second "equal protection clause" that applies to claims against the federal government.

In due process or equal protection challenges involving fundamental constitutional rights, the Court applies its "strict scrutiny" standard. To meet it, the law or action must be "necessary" to protect a "compelling" government interest. Those are the magic words, and the test is the same in both due process and equal protection cases. The government has the burden of proof, and it is a heavy one. But the Constitution does not absolutely prohibit either the federal or state governments from denying even fundamental rights.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 367
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/12/2012 9:19:40 PM

The Republican lawmakers who are leading the fight for the restrictive legislation say they are doing so in the name of stopping election fraud -- and, really, who's in favor of election fraud? But the larger purpose and effect of the laws is to disenfranchise Hispanic voters, other minorities, and the poor -- most of whom, let's also be clear, vote for Democrats.

According to networks like MSNBC, and CNN, approximately 5 million American's will not be able to vote due to the new restriction.

Do you agree with the Republican party that this is done to prevent voter fraud, or is this a ruse to prevent voter turn out? Some feel that this could possibly harm President Obama in the upcoming GE. Thoughts?
Yuppers ... that about sums it up ... Voter suppression.

I have been volunteering here in Columbus on my off days to drive folks to get what they need in order to vote. We just need more people to do the same. I'm also going to be volunteering to drive people to vote as well.
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 368
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/13/2012 4:43:06 AM

have been volunteering here in Columbus on my off days to drive folks to get what they need in order to vote. We just need more people to do the same. I'm also going to be volunteering to drive people to vote as well.
Do you ask them what party they will vote for before letting them in your car? Based on your posting history I doubt you will be giving any disenfranchised Republicans assistance...
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 369
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/13/2012 12:00:12 PM
Ahhahahahahaha!!!@452...

Gotta admit at times, you make it difficult, but for the most part I get it! You quote chapter and verse on the law. You accuse me of things untrue. I think most of the other posters got it.

You see when I debate with you, occassionally I forget you see things in a certain way. I and other posters on here, tend to see things in black and white(or liberal and conservative), at times we share our views, and no consensus is reached, and it is left to the readers, to decide for themselves which is correct, for themselves. At other times, we arrive at a grey area, where while we may not agree exactly, we do have somewhat of a consensus, that a certain idea makes sense. It's just then, that we may see a different path to implementing something.

Now you, see black and white(liberal and conservative), but NO grey...in fact you seem to think there is ONLY "YOUR" black and white! Hahahahahaha!!! To me it seems delusional, but hey, whatever floats your boat!

The entire basis of this thread, is one of "voters rights"...legal voters are entitled to vote. Not be made to jump over hurdles to suppress a certain part of the population. These so called "laws" are designed to be more surrupticious than the poll tax, or the jar of jelly beans on the counter in the days of old by jim crow.

There are no reasons that a sweeping change needs to be implemented without making allowances to the legal voters of the last election and the one before and the one before that. There are no reasons to change the dates for early voting, or voting hours for certain districts.

When you do that, you are enfringing on their right to vote. You are then making it the government of the few, and not the government of ALL Americans.

Even when I spell it out for you, you choose to ignore that...I get it, it's YOUR view or NO view...sad really.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 370
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/13/2012 2:06:01 PM

legal voters are entitled to vote


You're still trying to beg the question of what is legal. If Jones is qualified by the relevant voting laws, he is entitled to vote. But those laws still restrict him from voting wherever or whenever he pleases, or for a candidate who's not qualified to be on the ballot, and so on. You claim to acknowledge that voting is not an absolute right, but turn right around and talk as if it is. I am a legal voter, but I can't vote on my computer just because I can't be bothered to go to the polling place. Those mean people who write the laws make me go almost a half-mile away to vote, and it's just unfair.


There are no reasons to change the dates for early voting, or voting hours for certain districts . . . When you do that, you are enfringing on their right to vote.


Every state indirectly infringes the right to vote in one way or another by regulating how districts are apportioned, who qualifies as a candidate, who can contribute what to a campaign, where polling places are located, what is required to prove residency, and a hundred other things that affect voting.

When you oppose changing voting dates or hours, you are suggesting that the current restrictions on those days and hours are acceptable. You're just saying that it's fine to restrict the right to vote in some ways, but not others.



Even when I spell it out for you, you choose to ignore that. I get it, it's YOUR view or NO view


If what you've presented is your idea of spelling something out, I think you need to work on your spelling. I don't find any argument you've made here at all persuasive. I'm sure it gives you a self-satisfied glow to indulge in trite emotional squawking about Jim Crow and poll taxes and mean Republicans stealing elections and the rights of the downtrodden. But that stuff doesn't cut any ice with me--and it is you who is choosing to ignore relevant facts.

I've already cited the case from a few years ago in which the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law. I think it's a pretty good guess that legislators in other states have studied that decision and changed their laws to reflect what it allows. If you have some reasoned basis for claiming a particular state's voter ID law goes beyond what the Court approved of, you haven't specified which law or explained where it goes too far.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 371
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/13/2012 6:28:47 PM
"But those laws still restrict him from voting whever or whenever he pleases"

???Ok so 4 years ago, several states had early voting, for a certain period, now they want to change that. What happened in those 4 years? Polling places have been polling places for as long as both of us have lived. To change the times, make them easier on the working man and woman, was an accepted norm, on the right and left. So if not to steal an election, what possible reason could there be?

"Every state infringes the right to vote"..."by regulating how districts are apportioned"

Something that shouldn't go on, whether democrats OR republicans are in power! What's the point? To carve something into the shape of a turkey, so a certain party can exert a larger slice of their constituents? Just another vote rigging by the party's.

"who can contribute what to a campaign"

No the bought off supreme court fixed that one with "citizens united"! Now it's survial of the richest, not one man one vote!

The rest? mehh! I can't expect you to see whats right...on one hand you take a high handed attitude about the Supreme Court and the Indiana voter ID law...then you turn around and whine about Roe V Wade and how the Supreme Court got that one wrong...

Sorry pal, can't have it both ways...because the court assumes a couple of conservative votes now with "give me the bucks" Clarence on there...doesn't make them better than they were when R v W was decided!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 372
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/13/2012 10:03:02 PM

Sorry pal, can't have it both ways


You are not my pal. And yes, I can have it both ways, just like the justices of the Supreme Court do. I can and do agree with the majority in some cases, and with the dissent in others.


No the bought off supreme court fixed that one with "citizens united"!


Citizens United was only one of a number of decisions the Court has made on political contributions. I'm sure you've never even read it, but your uninformed Mother Jones-style yammering about it is at least good for a laugh. I guess that, laced with a few cheap personal attacks on Clarence Thomas, is what passes for "thinking" among your crowd. Do you resent more that he's a black who thinks for himself, or that he's married to a white woman? Either way, I'm sure it makes him uppity to so-called liberals. You should stick to irrelevant personal insults and barnyard language--it's much easier than reasoned thought, and more your speed.


then you turn around and whine about Roe V Wade and how the Supreme Court got that one wrong


I have never "whined" about a 39-year-old decision, and it would serve no purpose. But the Court should have overruled it, outright, a long time ago. It's obvious to most people who understand Roe v. Wade that it was wrongly decided, and why--specifically. If you knew even the basic facts about it, you would know the Court came within an inch of overruling it in Casey in 1992--most legal analysts who watch the Court closely had thought it would--settling for scrapping part of it and leaving part intact. Roe, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun in his first year on the Court, is a very poor decision, about as arbitrary and lacking in legal reasoning as any case the Court has decided in the past hundred years. They don't call it "Harry's Abortion" for nothing.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 373
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/14/2012 8:44:14 AM

Do you resent more that he's a black who thinks for himself, or that he's married to a white woman? Either way, I'm sure it makes him uppity to so-called liberals.


Ahh...the convinient constitutionalist throws race into the mix...too funny since, voter ID laws are designed speciffically to disenfranchise minorities from their voting rights.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 374
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/14/2012 8:51:26 AM
"You are not my pal"

Ah gesh, that hurt my feelings...(sniff sniff)! hahahahahahaha!

"but your Mother Jones-style yammering"

Thank you, I always worry I am not being entertaining enough...it's really hard to know the balance to strike between insulting the conservatives, and mentioning facts(ya know those things republicants hate)and a breezy style of writing. Since it bothers you...I will keep it up!

"Do you resent more that he's a black who thinks for himself, or that he's married to a white woman?"

Neither! Unlike you republicants, I could care less that he is black, nor who he married. I resent a Justice, who refuses to recuse himself on many issues, based on the fact that his wife makes a truckload of money from the republican party! Since it's considerably more than he makes and affects his lifestyle, I don't see how he can be impartial on issues that affect things like elections, and anything else that would pit one party against the other.

As for the "I have never "whined"...paragraph...So you see Supreme Court decisions as only right when they come out as you see them. Interesting...I guess I can ignore in the future all that nonsense you write about the "sanctity" of the court. I guess you would be one of those guys who disagees with a constitutional amendment to get the money out of politics...shame really

"They don't call it "Harry's Abortion" for nothing."

Who exactly is "they"? Are those the guys at your bund meeting? The lawyers you clerk for? Or is it the lawyers who hang around the courthouse? Guys from the cross burning last night? The church group praying for all liberals to go to he11? Hahahahahahaha!!!

It amazes me how narrow minded you are...must be tough to date on here..hahahahahaha!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 375
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 9/14/2012 9:50:53 AM

Ahh...the convinient constitutionalist throws race into the mix...too funny since, voter ID laws are designed speciffically to disenfranchise minorities from their voting rights.


No they are not. Although I would agree that it appears that way. It appears that way because that is how the opposition presents its case. If they changed their words from 'racism' to 'disenfranchises some communities due to unexpected difficulties' then you wouldn't have a way to legitimately play the race game. By the way... I do not care what color a community is. Just the fact that an entire community could be shown, legitimately, to not be able to meet the requirements of the voterID law means that community could also be excluded from meeting the requirements for this election. Future inclusion depends on addressing this situation. However, you would never think of that would you?

Leftism clouds your mind from solutions. The only solutions sought are throwing off the oppressors. Protesting. Overthrowing rule. Demonizing.

Words matter.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New ID voter law? [CLOSED]