Score two for democracy

[Sho Nuff 720]

Nevermind...have fun arguing semantics with brickwall pilot

[jerryskids 6,829]

Voting is more a responsibility than a right. The founding fathers envisioned a voting populace which was educated on and invested in the needs of their constituency. Voters should be willing to crawl over broken glass to exercise that duty which makes us the greatest nation on this planet. Instead we drive buses around collecting up homeless people and give them a pack of cigs to go pick the levers we want them to. Pathetic.

[redtodd 7]

I got asked for identification last week when I went to the airport. I mean, I already checked in before I got the airport.

 

There is no further need for me to prove who I am.

[HenryHill9323 65]

I got asked for identification last week when I went to the airport. I mean, I already checked in before I got the airport.

 

There is no further need for me to prove who I am.

 

 

The right to fly without an ID is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence!

[drobeski 3,061]

Cheaters gotta cheat

[Sho Nuff 720]

Voting is more a responsibility than a right. The founding fathers envisioned a voting populace which was educated on and invested in the needs of their constituency. Voters should be willing to crawl over broken glass to exercise that duty which makes us the greatest nation on this planet. Instead we drive buses around collecting up homeless people and give them a pack of cigs to go pick the levers we want them to. Pathetic.

 

Should be willing to...but shouldn't be expected to.

Voting is a responsibility and a right...a right that should be protected...should be valid...and should be made as easy as possible for every citizen.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I got asked for identification last week when I went to the airport. I mean, I already checked in before I got the airport.

 

There is no further need for me to prove who I am.

 

That you continue to try this comparison may be the dumbest thing in this thread (which is saying a lot).

[MDC 7,491]

Voting is more a responsibility than a right. The founding fathers envisioned a voting populace which was educated on and invested in the needs of their constituency. Voters should be willing to crawl over broken glass to exercise that duty which makes us the greatest nation on this planet. Instead we drive buses around collecting up homeless people and give them a pack of cigs to go pick the levers we want them to. Pathetic.

Does this actually happen? Because it sounds a whole lot like one of those urban legends that gets accepted as gospel by Republican types without any actual evidence to support it.

 

Anyways your post seems to imply that road blocks are justified because people should want to vote so darn bad? I have no real issue with voter ID laws except when they're enacted in an election year just to dissuade people from voting or accompanied by actual fraud, like the misinformation that was apparently spread by right wing groups in 2012. But "If you're too lazy to get an ID you shouldn't vote!" is a really weak argument.

[KSB2424 3,148]

Even moderate blue dog Democrats are okay with voter ID's when polled. The majority of Americans want this, why? Because its mutherfocking common sense. That's why.

 

We can sit here and debate semantics all day.

 

And don't pull the "right to vote" card. Amendments are not always 100% absolute. They have common sense restrictions/exceptions all the time which have been pointed out already.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Even moderate blue dog Democrats are okay with voter ID's when polled. The majority of Americans want this, why? Because its mutherfocking common sense. That's why.

 

We can sit here and debate semantics all day.

 

And don't pull the "right to vote" card. Amendments are not always 100% absolute. They have common sense restrictions/exceptions all the time which have been pointed out already.

 

Well, I will bring up the right to vote and that you can't make it restrictive or add a cost (basically a poll tax...you know, more taxes, things Republicans are usually against).

[rholio 339]

Even moderate blue dog Democrats are okay with voter ID's when polled. The majority of Americans want this, why? Because its mutherfocking common sense. That's why.

 

We can sit here and debate semantics all day.

 

And don't pull the "right to vote" card. Amendments are not always 100% absolute. They have common sense restrictions/exceptions all the time which have been pointed out already.

 

There's quite a bit of "I've got an I.D., so who the fock cares?" in your "mutherfocking common sense.". It's a non-issue with most voters, and funny to watch the ones that get foaming at the mouh pissed off about it on either side.

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

Well, I will bring up the right to vote and that you can't make it restrictive or add a cost (basically a poll tax...you know, more taxes, things Republicans are usually against).

 

Right to bear arms is restrictive; And you add a cost. 10 fold what we are talking about here. So you can bring it up but its already done all the time so your "point" doesn't hold water.

 

As long as the law is done where a free photo Id is provided if you don't have one already then I don't see the issue. 99.5% of people either a. have an id already or b. can focking go get one for free easily. We don't make laws in this country for .05% of the public, we make laws for the 99.5%. There is always going to be some 93 year old man who has not one family member of friend who can drive (the overwhelming exception). That's grasping at straws to find any opposition arguement.

[patweisers44 848]

Does this actually happen? Because it sounds a whole lot like one of those urban legends that gets accepted as gospel by Republican types without any actual evidence to support it.

 

Anyways your post seems to imply that road blocks are justified because people should want to vote so darn bad? I have no real issue with voter ID laws except when they're enacted in an election year just to dissuade people from voting or accompanied by actual fraud, like the misinformation that was apparently spread by right wing groups in 2012. But "If you're too lazy to get an ID you shouldn't vote!" is a really weak argument.

I grew up in Detroit in the 70s. They used to distribute pamphlets, etc urging people to vote "the black ticket" and would drive people to election locations regularly. Picture the scene in the Blues Brothers where they were driving around advertising their concert via the loudspeaker mounted on top of the bluesmobile. Something similar would occur on election days. I suppose white folks had the same opportunity to accept a ride, but I don't recall my parents or any of my relatives using it. To be fair though, I never saw anyone get free cigarettes or anything like that, however.

[MDC 7,491]

I grew up in Detroit in the 70s. They used to distribute pamphlets, etc urging people to vote "the black ticket" and would drive people to election locations regularly. Picture the scene in the Blues Brothers where they were driving around advertising their concert via the loudspeaker mounted on top of the bluesmobile. Something similar would occur on election days. I suppose white folks had the same opportunity to accept a ride, but I don't recall my parents or any of my relatives using it. To be fair though, I never saw anyone get free cigarettes or anything like that, however.

I know that happens but 1) you can't tell me mega churches and other predominantly republican groups don't bus people to the polls too and 2) helping people get to the polls is now a bad thing? Provided they're not giving bribes for votes this isn't even close to fraud.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Right to bear arms is restrictive; And you add a cost. 10 fold what we are talking about here. So you can bring it up but its already done all the time so your "point" doesn't hold water.

 

As long as the law is done where a free photo Id is provided if you don't have one already then I don't see the issue. 99.5% of people either a. have an id already or b. can focking go get one for free easily. We don't make laws in this country for .05% of the public, we make laws for the 99.5%. There is always going to be some 93 year old man who has not one family member of friend who can drive (the overwhelming exception). That's grasping at straws to find any opposition arguement.

 

My point does hold water when you talk about adding costs that will be considered poll taxes by some.

BTW...your "well, if one 98 year old man argument doesn't hold a damn bit of water either.

 

And continuing to make the parallel or comparison to gun ownership is still foolish.

hth

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

 

And continuing to make the parallel or comparison to gun ownership is still foolish.

hth

Why?

 

Why is it OK to restrict and add to the cost of one Right, and not another? You have offered no reasonable explanation.

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

And continuing to make the parallel or comparison to gun ownership is still foolish.

hth

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it foolish. The point of bringing that up or any "right" is to show that they are not always absolute. The right to free speech isn't absolute. You can't assemble in front of a public elementary school with nudity. You can't yell fire in a theater. There are common sense restrictions on the right to free speech.

 

That's the point. An analogy or a parallel doesn't have to be exactly 1:1. Rarely are any two things exactly equal. But you can draw a comparison to illustrate a point or show a precedent.

[patweisers44 848]

I know that happens but 1) you can't tell me mega churches and other predominantly republican groups don't bus people to the polls too and 2) helping people get to the polls is now a bad thing? Provided they're not giving bribes for votes this isn't even close to fraud.

I wasn't really on either side of this argument. I was just answering your original question of whether or not that sort of thing happened.

 

Not sure how predominant it is, all I can say is that Detroit politics have always been shady (big surprise there, eh?) Given the state of race relations historically in Detroit, I wouldn't call it fraud necessarily, but I would certainly say it wasn't readily provided to non-black voters.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it foolish. The point of bringing that up or any "right" is to show that they are not always absolute. The right to free speech isn't absolute. You can't assemble in front of a public elementary school with nudity. You can't yell fire in a threater. There are common sense restrictions on the right to free speech.

 

That's the point. An analogy or a parallel doesn't have to be exactly 1:1. Rarely are any two things exactly equal. But you can draw a comparison to illustrate a point.

 

That they are two completely separate things...bound by separate interpretations of the intentions of the founding fathers and laws is what makes it foolish.

 

They are not close to equal or even something...well, you support restrictions on something that is a safety concern for people...so you should support something that is not a safety concern.

 

You are bringing up restrictions that deal with safety issues. There is no safety issue about voter ID laws.

It is done to gain an advantage...it is not done because of widespread fraud.

You know well that if data were showing that voter ID would affect voters that are seen as Republican...the right would not be pushing for the laws. And the left would.

Its a political move.

I support the move as it is common sense...but it has to be done in a reasonable manner that does not add a cost to the voter....and does not add burden to taxpayers as well. How to accomplish that is the problem I have with enacting these laws.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

Cheaters gotta cheat

 

Yup, that's why they attempt to disqualify legal voters of their rights to have any chance of winning, good to see you're finally on board.

[MDC 7,491]

I wasn't really on either side of this argument. I was just answering your original question of whether or not that sort of thing happened.

 

Not sure how predominant it is, all I can say is that Detroit politics have always been shady (big surprise there, eh?) Given the state of race relations historically in Detroit, I wouldn't call it fraud necessarily, but I would certainly say it wasn't readily provided to non-black voters.

I wasn't questioning whether groups bus their type of voters to the polls. I'm sure that happens on both sides of the aisle as it's not IMO necessarily a bad thing.

 

I do find the claim that democrats are registering homeless people, bribing them and then getting them to the polls to be pretty dubious.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

 

Right to bear arms is restrictive; And you add a cost. 10 fold what we are talking about here. So you can bring it up but its already done all the time so your "point" doesn't hold water.

 

As long as the law is done where a free photo Id is provided if you don't have one already then I don't see the issue. 99.5% of people either a. have an id already or b. can focking go get one for free easily. We don't make laws in this country for .05% of the public, we make laws for the 99.5%. There is always going to be some 93 year old man who has not one family member of friend who can drive (the overwhelming exception). That's grasping at straws to find any opposition arguement.

 

Actually closer to 11%, but don't let facts get in the way of your rant.

 

The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification

 

Ten states now have unprecedented restrictive voter ID laws. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin all require citizens to produce specific types of government-issued photo identification before they can cast a vote that will count. Legal precedent requires these states to provide free photo ID to eligible voters who do not have one.

 

Unfortunately, these free IDs are not equally accessible to all voters. This report is the first comprehensive assessment of the difficulties that eligible voters face in obtaining free photo ID.

 

The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:

Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.

More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.

1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population.

Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours.

 

For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays.

 

In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.

More than 1 million eligible voters in these states fall below the federal poverty line and live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25.

 

Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars.

 

The result is plain: Voter ID laws will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of poor Americans to vote. They place a serious burden on a core constitutional right that should be universally available to every American citizen.

This November, restrictive voter ID states will provide 127 electoral votes — nearly half of the 270 needed to win the presidency. Therefore, the ability of eligible citizens without photo ID to obtain one could have a major influence on the outcome of the 2012 election.

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

Yup, that's why they attempt to disqualify legal voters of their rights to have any chance of winning, good to see you're finally on board.

Link to all this disenfranchisement?

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

 

You know well that if data were showing that voter ID would affect voters that are seen as Republican...the right would not be pushing for the laws.

Where is the "data" that shows voter ID laws affecting any voters, Dem or Rep?

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

That they are two completely separate things...bound by separate interpretations of the intentions of the founding fathers and laws is what makes it foolish.

 

They are not close to equal or even something...well, you support restrictions on something that is a safety concern for people...so you should support something that is not a safety concern.

 

You are bringing up restrictions that deal with safety issues. There is no safety issue about voter ID laws.

It is done to gain an advantage...it is not done because of widespread fraud.

You know well that if data were showing that voter ID would affect voters that are seen as Republican...the right would not be pushing for the laws. And the left would.

Its a political move.

I support the move as it is common sense...but it has to be done in a reasonable manner that does not add a cost to the voter....and does not add burden to taxpayers as well. How to accomplish that is the problem I have with enacting these laws.

 

So all restrictions on rights are done so for safety reasons? That's your arguement? That "safety" is the only determinent if a right is absolute or not? Thats your arguement? Sheesh dude.

 

You're bolded is spot on (finally). So instead of harping on these semantics why not support or find ways to do it in a reasonable manner instead? The overwhelming majority of American have an ID already. So we are talking about a extreme minority of people here. There is a reasonable way to do this, free to the those folks and at a low cost to the taxpayer. I'd argue there would be a long run cost savings if old and poor people had photo ID. It would make it easier/cheaper to distribute all the other gov't entitlements they are more than likely accepting as well.

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

Actually closer to 11%, but don't let facts get in the way of your rant.

 

The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification

 

11% don't currently have an ID (based on this). That's not what I said. Read B.) in my post.

 

What percentage of that 11% do you think has a friend/family member with a car? What percentage of that 11% can walk a short distance? What percentage of that 11% has access to very cheap bus ride or subway?

 

Your 11% turns into 1% pretty quick. And any process can find ways to get them ID's too as its a relatively small subset of people.

 

Also, How are those "shut-ins" even going to vote then btw if they can't make it anywhere? How many voting places are 10 miles away from every single voter?

 

Stop acting like it can't be done.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

So all restrictions on rights are done so for safety reasons? That's your arguement? That "safety" is the only determinent if a right is absolute or not? Thats your arguement? Sheesh dude.

 

You're bolded is spot on (finally). So instead of harping on these semantics why not support or find ways to do it in a reasonable manner instead? The overwhelming majority of American have an ID already. So we are talking about a extreme minority of people here. There is a reasonable way to do this, free to the those folks and at a low cost to the taxpayer. I'd argue there would be a long run cost savings if old and poor people had photo ID. It would make it easier/cheaper to distribute all the other gov't entitlements they are more than likely accepting as well.

 

 

My argument is you specifically have brought up assembling in front of a school, gun rights, and yelling fire in a theatre as examples of restrictions in trying to justify voter ID laws.

I have rightfully pointed out that those are safety issues and far different and not really doing a thing to support your argument for voter ID laws. But you keep going on it for whatever reason.

So...propose a way to do it free to those folks and low cost to the taxpayer. Call your representatives and have them actually propose that.

My guess is you will find people resistant to providing them at any cost to the taxpayer (those who still want voter ID in place).

You find a way to do that and I support that law 100%.

As I have said many times, I support the law...but am realistic about why its really being done.

[Mungwater 597]

My argument is you specifically have brought up assembling in front of a school, gun rights, and yelling fire in a theatre as examples of restrictions in trying to justify voter ID laws.

I have rightfully pointed out that those are safety issues and far different and not really doing a thing to support your argument for voter ID laws. But you keep going on it for whatever reason.

So...propose a way to do it free to those folks and low cost to the taxpayer. Call your representatives and have them actually propose that.

My guess is you will find people resistant to providing them at any cost to the taxpayer (those who still want voter ID in place).

You find a way to do that and I support that law 100%.

As I have said many times, I support the law...but am realistic about why its really being done.

My guess is that if you offered them for free, which most states do, or offer them a ride, you won't see an influx of people trying to get one.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

 

11% don't currently have an ID (based on this). That's not what I said. Read B.) in my post.

 

What percentage of that 11% do you think has a friend/family member with a car? What percentage of that 11% can walk a short distance? What percentage of that 11% has access to very cheap bus ride or subway?

 

Your 11% turns into 1% pretty quick. And any process can find ways to get them ID's too as its a relatively small subset of people.

 

Also, How are those "shut-ins" even going to vote then btw if they can't make it anywhere? How many voting places are 10 miles away from every single voter?

 

Stop acting like it can't be done.

 

You have no clue how easy it is or isn't, all you're doing is making assuptions now.

 

Your 11% turns into 1% pretty quick. And any process can find ways to get them ID's too as its a relatively small subset of people.

---yeah right, just like Texas was going to do, but those portions of the law were stricken. That's why all of the places to get ID's are extending hours too.

 

You guys are hysterical. GOP leadership ADMITS this is done strictly to limit voting by people more likely to vote Democrat, and you guys completely ignore that and say it's to combat voter fraud. The GOP is extremely lucky to have as a base that is completely unwilling to think for themselves.

[rholio 339]

Where is the "data" that shows voter ID laws affecting any voters, Dem or Rep?

Two posts up from yours. I'd say you can't miss it, but that'd be underestimating you.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Two posts up from yours. I'd say you can't miss it, but that'd be underestimating you.

An opinion article full of "might happen" "may happen" and "more likely" isn't data.

[drobeski 3,061]

Cheaters and takers gotta cheat and take

[rholio 339]

Cheaters and takers gotta cheat and take

 

And pass laws to make it legal.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Why?

 

Why is it OK to restrict and add to the cost of one Right, and not another? You have offered no reasonable explanation.

[redtodd 7]

 

Should be willing to...but shouldn't be expected to.

Voting is a responsibility and a right...a right that should be protected...should be valid...and should be made as easy as possible for every citizen.

 

Sounds like something an ID could take care of.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Sounds like something an ID could take care of.

 

I agree...if done correctly.

But it has nothing to do with airline travel. You know, something that isn't a right at all.

[jerryskids 6,829]

You guys are hysterical. GOP leadership ADMITS this is done strictly to limit voting by people more likely to vote Democrat, and you guys completely ignore that and say it's to combat voter fraud. The GOP is extremely lucky to have as a base that is completely unwilling to think for themselves.

That is faulty logic. I support lower taxes. That would help me personally. I also think it is the right thing to do. Those two are independent.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

That is faulty logic. I support lower taxes. That would help me personally. I also think it is the right thing to do. Those two are independent.

Oh bullsh!t. You don't think the reason for seeking to pass laws has any bearing on their merit? Come on.

 

I mean half of you guys are sitting here telling us it won't disenfranchise voters when THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE LAWS IS TO SUPPRESS VOTER TURNOUT.

 

Honestly, I don't really know how you can live with yourself supporting anti-democracy garbage like this. And that's not hyperbole, I really think that you should consider yourselves traitors to the American political system

[HenryHill9323 65]

Oh bullsh!t. You don't think the reason for seeking to pass laws has any bearing on their merit? Come on.

 

I mean half of you guys are sitting here telling us it won't disenfranchise voters when THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE LAWS IS TO SUPPRESS VOTER TURNOUT.

 

Honestly, I don't really know how you can live with yourself supporting anti-democracy garbage like this. And that's not hyperbole, I really think that you should consider yourselves traitors to the American political system

Link to all the disenfranchisement that went on after these laws were put in place?

[Reality 3,121]

Oh bullsh!t. You don't think the reason for seeking to pass laws has any bearing on their merit? Come on.

 

I mean half of you guys are sitting here telling us it won't disenfranchise voters when THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE LAWS IS TO SUPPRESS VOTER TURNOUT.

 

Honestly, I don't really know how you can live with yourself supporting anti-democracy garbage like this. And that's not hyperbole, I really think that you should consider yourselves traitors to the American political system

 

Go outside and grab a breath of fresh air, Christ dude.