There's only one problem...
http://i.imgur.com/5GNgoy3.jpg
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/08/na...pe_redirect=no
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g2...40185_full.jpg
Printable View
Do not carry any object which may be misconstrued as a weapon, but there are no specific provisions for not bringing weapons.
Do not take any valuables...that's the most racist one right there!
"Remember everyone! You will be in a large group of black people! DO NOT TAKE ANY VALUABLES WITH YOU!"
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
They shouldn't have valuables anyway because they're supposed to be too poor to afford to get an ID so that they can vote because the only thing more racist than that is requiring ID to protest ID requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://i.imgur.com/G53Zj0D.jpg
Or...
Minorities are disproportionately targeted by police.
Police are really big on identifying people on arrest.
Therefore, bring ID so as to not incur police brutality.
In the same way that people ideally have a right to argue (that is, speech), people ideally have a right to not carry ID... but we have to deal with the real world. I'm not saying that if you disagree you are a stupid idealist with no understanding of the real world. I'm just saying there's a 99.7% probability that's the case.
Hey, who are we to question the police? If they've figured out that targeting minorities keeps us safe, shouldn't we as good, white, law abiding citizens trust their discretion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Let me get this straight. I advocate that every law enforcement official be placed under indefinite 24/7 surveillance, you blast me for trusting the police. Do I have it right?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Puters.
You do realize that most civil rights protest organizers hope for police brutality, right? Makes for a lot more attention to their cause if they get banged up in a peaceful protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Robuts. (Everything comes down to poo.)Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Brutality on the streets, not in the station. Why? Because only other police can see what goes on in the station. This does not at all indicate that we should have cameras in said stations, because... um... well, I'll let Wrathbringer explain why that would be bad. I respect Wrathbringer's right to have an opinion, but objectively I can't see why placing absolute trust in police and child molesters is a good thing. That's just me and what is factually, incontrovertibly correct. He's free to disagree, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tisket
But requiring ID is racist! How can these poor victims march if they can't afford to get their own proper identification?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
This is even more racist than voter ID laws!!!!11
I still don't understand the entire issue. You vote, you bring a valid ID. Duh.
It amazes me this is even an issue, let alone fodder for a protest (in which you are strongly encouraged to bring...a valid ID).
As for the whole idea of Republicans blocking votes, let me assure you that Democrats would not hesitate to use that approach if they thought it would win them an election. Don't think so? Think back to the 2000 Presidential election. No I don't mean what you think the Republicans were doing to discount ballots. I mean the absentee ballots...remember those? No?
Most of the absentee ballots were from the military - many of them from naval ships. The Democrats knew that most of these ballots were likely to vote Republican, and that was bad. According to the election law, the ballots had to be signed either on the ballot inside OR signed in a specific place on the outside envelope. When the ballots were about to be counted, the Democratic Representatives at the counting demanded that all ballot envelopes that were not signed be thrown out. There was apparently quite a shouting match over the matter, until someone pointed out the applicable election laws to these Representatives, who then promptly shut up. Although that didn't stop them from checking every little detail on every ballot attempting to get them discounted. They were unsuccessful.
Perhaps you believe that the people that the Democratic Party sent to the counting were misinformed about how the election law worked for absentee ballots. And if you believe that, I have some swampland to sell you.
I think I said before that I'd be okay with 24/7 universal surveillance if the police and politicians were the first in line to be monitored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
But I think the whole system would become so unwieldy and impossible to implement, with huge holes in coverage, that it's foolish to even speculate about it's potential efficacy. I think it'd be vast sums of money spent on a failed endeavor.
edit: I think I'm arguing across two threads here. Whatever, work it out yourself.
They tried to institute a rudimentary surveillance system in early NYC. The idea was to mount mirrors in alleys and stairwells and a person would sit in a central location with telescopes. The telescopes were aimed in such a way that you could see up stairs and around corners via the mounted mirrors.
Needless to say, it was an abject failure. Didn't want people to watch? A rock handled those mirrors nicely.
Interestingly, some of the original mirror mounts can still be found in some of the older buildings throughout the city.
One of the old mirror frames:
http://www.echonyc.com/~jhhl/images/NY301.NYV.gif
Interesting... I just read that the observation rooms doubled as late night tryst locations. I guess when you're spying on everyone, people get excited.
Everything's impossible until it's done, Tisket. We sent three guys 240,000 miles to the moon and didn't break a single one of their weak honky bones. Impossible? We did it. LeBron is the least clutch player of all time, and he personally won two Finalses. Impossible? He did it.
The only thing stopping us is us. We can whine about how our freedoms will be lost, or we can try to take extreme measures and end serial child molestation. The choice seems pretty easy to me, but then I am an amazingly rugged individual. I understand that not everyone can be as brave as me; for example, Wrathbringer. It's not a big deal that he's a sniveling coward who puts his own self-interest above all else because of what that mean old government might do. Heck, crb will probably give him a medal.Sir, if I may ask, have you tried to get a valid ID as the average black man? Or for that matter the average white man? If not, is your personal understanding of the issue worth a good Gosh darn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
I'm not arguing whether it's possible or not, I just thought it was an interesting bit of NYC history.
It turns out that we have had pretty significant advancement since the 1700s. We gave black people and female people equal rights, we established a standing military without immediately descending into tyranny, we established a central bank without immediately descending into communism, we established a republic without immediately descending into mob rule or empire, I could go on...Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
...or we could rest assured that it's not even worth trying, and it's not at all an indictment of our society that we tolerate half a million children born into molestation every year, and our high-fiving over prison rape of said molesters absolves us of any tacit complicity. We could do that, or we could grow a pair.
eta: Because of my huge testicles, I post slowly. You would understand if you had such big testicles. I have edited both posts for clarity.
You do. You regale the police state in one thread, then condemn its most critical failures toward minorities in another. That's why I facetiously took the police state side in this one since you'd switched sides. Teamwork!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
See? You really do understand me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
[QUOTE=Candor;1631350]I still don't understand the entire issue. You vote, you bring a valid ID. Duh.
It amazes me this is even an issue, let alone fodder for a protest (in which you are strongly encouraged to bring...a valid ID).
Can't get the illegal alien votes to win every election going forward if ID is required. Simple as that.
Of all people on PC you should be up in arms over voter ID laws. Some state governments are spending their time creating laws to combat a non-existent issue by curtailing the liberties of it's citizens. They are "fixing" a voting system that works great. How can you support that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Is this another one of those situations where people are taking a Latrin post seriously?
It's what governments do. People seem to be okay with it these days. Obama takes away the right to due process for our citizens, and no one bats an eye. Require an ID to vote and everyone loses their minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What is this non-existent issue you speak of?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I bet you believe democrats want amnesty just because they're good hearted people, and not because they want to import a bunch of useful idiots to vote for them too, don't you?
I'm amused if he thinks he's more of a citizen than the illegal aliens.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It's crazy isn't it. All the rhetoric about liberty and freedom...really just boils down to blame Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
sometimes I type out a response to lainstrome's logical fallacies, then I can not figure out if it a joke or not so I delete it and I feel like I lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
[QUOTE=Wrathbringer;1631375]I wish I could say that response was some sort of bad joke. I really do. But I am afraid you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
This confuses me. American citizens are American citizens, illegal aliens are people here from other countries that aren't supposed to be here. One of those is a citizen, the other is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I have a question for you Cwolff. How many illegal votes would it take for you to be ok with implementing Voter ID laws? Dems are always up in arms if there is even 1 person that feels they are disenfranchised and not allowed to vote.. but if we were to find 1 illegal vote, would you be equally up in arms? Or would it take several thousand? Several million? Or just enough that your candidate didn't win?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Well.. I got this to say.. at least you aren't as bad as Back yet. He feels every person in the entire world should get to decide who runs our country. He wants CHINA to have a say.
They've got you tilting at windmills with this voter fraud bullshit. Perfection is not possible. We are doing a damn good job with it though. It's a non-issue. It just is not a problem in our country. The only reason we are talking about this is because the GOP is threatened by voter turnout. It's shameful how otherwise patriotic Americans gobble this shut up and are so willing to keep their fellow citizens from the ballot box. Win on ideas. If you can't, then you're just going to have to get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Voting is a right given only to citizens. Citizens have to have a way to prove they're citizens in order to vote. It's not complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You're assuming that there is only one way for this to work and that way is an official identification card. The system we have been using for voter registration works and it's been working. What do you want to fix something that isn't broken? That's a rhetorical question because I already know the answer. The reason you want to "fix" it is to suppress the vote of people who are not likely to support your candidates. It's got absolutely nothing to do with fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
It does? Should this particular tax dodger have more legal rights than an alien paying taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Are you saying that you believe that voter ID laws would suppress the vote of more minorities than it would suppress the votes of those who aren't eligible to vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
And I still think cwolff and Back are the same person. Just saying.
If the tax dodger is a citizen and the alien isn't, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That doesn't mean that the tax dodger shouldn't face charges for dodging his taxes though. Even if he's white!
They both violate the laws of this country, and until that tax dodger is a convicted felon he has the right to vote.
Do you want constant surveillance? How about a subdermic chip that tracks your every move?
Honestly, we already have that. You own a smart phone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Really isn't an answer, but that's to be expected from you. I wonder if you would feel the same way if 40 million illegal people wanted to vote GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The real difference between the Repubs and the Dems on this is..
Repubs want every valid vote to count.
Dems want every vote to count valid or not.
Like I said.. if Hispanics mainly voted GOP (which oddly, their values generally more align with GOP, but go figure) Dems would be fighting for voter ID laws.
Personally, I don't have a problem with this, since I neither violate the law, nor care if people know where I am. And frankly, it would solve just about every missing person case period, (and I really do fear for my niece when she goes to the "mall" - she walks there and it's 5 miles from her house) not to mention make it insanely easy to figure out who is committing a crime in progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
That being said, I don't really want it. Because I know some people will abuse it.
An id in your pocket /= constant surveillance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Yep. Seems handy until a future government uses it for genocidal purposes just because they can. If men were angels, government could be trusted with this kind of thing. Right, wb?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I certainly don't trust the government with universal surveillance. The problem is most Americans do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Very few people in America care about privacy. In fact I'd say that we've pushed it to the point where we actively pursue personal publicity. 30 minutes on Google will tell you anything you want to know about pretty much any American. No one gives a rip about privacy. This concern about government surveillance is strange to me. We surveill ourselves just fine.
This is the most Un-american stuff that we see. You are actually saying that people should be disenfranchised depending on how they vote. That it is a fair and just campaign strategy. At least you can see that this is happening. Now you have to fight it. Stand up to it. Write your congressmen or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
As to your snarky little comment about me not answering your question; I didn't give you a number because your question was idiotic, but I did answer it. In fact, take some time to go back and read my answer. Let is sink in.
It's not about racism or illegal aliens. Each party just wants more votes.
For the record, I am not related to Ryan Strome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dendum
It's also not Constitutional BOOOOOOOOOOM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
People will abuse anything. Would you rather have that abuse be caught on tape or not discovered until Kathryn Morris wanders through 30 years later? There are 6000 murders that go unsolved every year. Don't just say "will abuse it", tell me what that abuse will constitute, and whether it's as bad. If you want to make a reasonable decision you have to look at pros and cons, not jot down a single con and dismiss the proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
This is the fundamental flaw of your argument in a nutshell. Governments (including our own) have committed genocide with rifles, with bombs, with bayonets... but those armaments are part of the status quo, so you don't question them. The United States already has the power to kill every human on the planet. You're not worried about preventing genocide, you're worried about anything that's new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
This is a lot like when you used to try to fanatically defend intelligent design. They don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
And dems want the illegal alien vote, which is why they cry racism over republicans trying to eliminate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You can drop the political football. It's just about votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Is "political football" your new answer to everything when it comes to stuff democrats don't want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Of course it's about votes. It's kind of hard not to be when voter ID requirement is the issue, no?
No idiot. It's my answer when either side gives their derp derp troll talking points rather than points to the actual issue. It's the same thing I'd tell cwolff about "racism!" You are equally irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I wasn't aware that voter ID laws would actually gain votes for republicans, as opposed to democrats simply losing a bunch of (fraudulent) votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's a good thing you're here to keep the rest of us in line by yelling "political football!" to try to dismiss and sweep under the rug those issues that would negatively impact democrats by making them play by the rules.
When in dire need, send minorities out to do the dirty work with their government issued race cards and everything will be fine in unicorn land.
You don't say shit to me about racism. Maybe you should start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
There's not derp derp talking points here. The GOP can't win with a high voter turn out. In order to fix this problem they've chosen to suppress turnout. It's as simple as that.
You are completely daft if you don't understand what the point is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
WB lives in a special world of his own. Don't you dare question him or he will say a bunch of nothing and declare you as put in your place.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I say we play a game. For every story about a person having their vote "suppressed" let's find another story about people voting illegally.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You start.
Hi. I'll be filling in for cwolff for right now because Back is unavailable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
There is no problem with voter fraud or people voting illegally. It simply doesn't exist in our country, and that's a fact and you're a bigot for thinking otherwise.
http://www.kiiitv.com/story/23761660...g-maiden-namesQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The best part: upon showing insufficient ID, all she had to do was promise promise promise she was allowed to vote, and they let her. Welcome to Obama's Texas!
No games. I tire of this. Why this PC community of seemingly educated people believes that our elections need the kind of protection that a state issued id card provides is beyond me. There are no facts to support this fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What surprises me is that the folks on here who normally bitch endlessly about government spending are willing to institute laws that force governments to spend money on getting everyone a free ID to combat the handful of actual fraud cases out of the millions upon million of votes placed. Free IDs are the only way this will fly, otherwise it's a poll tax which are unconstitutional.
So... dig into those pockets, again out of largely unfounded fears. Whatever.
I wanna play a game anyways! Latrin doesn't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Pointing out when people are unable to separate themselves from partisan politics used to be something you prided yourself on. It's just you right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Perhaps you could explain why proof of identity would not be necessary. You vote - you prove who you are. It's so basic that I am having a major problem even UNDERSTANDING how there could be opposition. It makes no sense whatsoever. You vote - you prove who are are. Duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
We could certainly have a discussion on what is acceptable proof - but it must exist.
Mom???Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What is basic and obvious is not always the same thing as what is true. This is sometimes described in terms of idealism vs. the real world, and in this case you come down on the side of the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
I addressed this already. You are making an assumption that a state issued I.D. is the only possible way to do this. That's probably because you are so used to using your I.D. for everything from check cashing to buying sinus medicine. It is not the only way though and that's what our voting history shows us. We run super clean elections with the system for registration and identification that's been in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
They don't actually believe it. They just want the Democrats to have less votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That is the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Wrong. I truly and completely believe you need to prove who you are to vote. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It may (or may not) be that Republicans are demanding unreasonable forms of identification. I'll research the issue a bit more. But you have to prove who you are, and I believe that to the core.
Let me ask what may be a stupid question here.
When I ask "why don't these people have state issued IDs", a very common response is that people can't get to the facility where they are issued. It's not so much the cost ($20 for an ID that lasts 4-5 years in my state), or that they don't have the right paperwork (in some cases, anyway), it's getting to/from the facility and getting the time off from work.
So here's the stupid question. Why doesn't the state come to them? Invest in a few large mobile vehicles and drive to the areas (perhaps in the evenings) where there are a lot of voters without state IDs.
There might be a good answer to that question, but I can't think of one offhand...
The elected officials in many states that want to reduce turnout certainly wouldn't want that result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
If concern about voter fraud was really the issue that would be the solution.
Isn't the point to prevent voter fraud before it happens? This is why I have problems with that sort of response.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I appreciate there are people who do not have the right motives. That doesn't, for me, change the issue.
We already are preventing voter fraud before it happens. The I.D.'s required under these new laws will do nothing to add integrity to our system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
Here's a study that's been done on the topic. http://brennan.3cdn.net/c176576c0065..._gxm6ib0hl.pdf
This is what the author concludes:
These voter I.D. laws are an idea from the ALEC which is a conservative think tank/lobbying group. They also brought us the castle and stand your ground laws. In 2012 they disbanded their task force which dealt with these initiatives because they were losing gobs of money from large corporations who didn't want anything to do with this stuff.Quote:
Many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire…Most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless—and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct, rather than fraud by individual voters. The type of individual voter fraud supposedly targeted by recent legislative efforts—especially efforts to require certain forms of voter ID—simply does not exist.
For the record, there is only a tiny percentage of people who support my candidates anyway, so I really don't have a dog in this fight either way. I just can't see anything wrong with making people identify themselves as citizens when they go to choose the people who run the country. Voting is sort of a big deal, imo. We have to show identification for lesser things every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I wasn't aware "paying taxes" was the measure of citizenship. Hell, for the first 100+ years of our existence as a country, we didn't even have an income tax. Still managed to build roads, schools, fight a few wars...amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Haven't they already identified themselves though? You can't just show up anywhere in the country and cast a vote right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
What about absentee ballots? They don't show up at the designated polling station and show I.D. We would have to do away mail in ballots completely since there is no official to check your photo id against the rolls.
The type of voting fraud that a state issued I.D. would stop is infintesimal. It's just too inefficient to work and the penalty is a big fine and 5 years in prison.
This is from a 2012 article and it'll give you some perspective:
Quote:
Over the past decade Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state's Attorney General Greg Abbott. Only four of those cases were for voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws prevent.
Nationwide that rate of voter impersonation is even lower.
Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.
TWENTY-SIX???? FUCK, GET OUT THE DNA TESTING KITS, THUMB PRINT MACHINES AND IRIS SCANNERS!! THIS FRAUD HAS TO STOP!
All right, I'll shut up until I read the study and do some other research. The study you reference is 32 pages and I'm too tired to read it tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
HAHA, Good luck with that. It's not exactly a page turner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
Here's some data from N.C.
Quote:
In 2012, nearly 7 million ballots were cast in the general and two primary elections. Of those 6,947,317 ballots, the state Board of Elections said 121 alleged cases of voter fraud were referred to the appropriate district attorney's office.
That means of the nearly 7 million votes cast, voter fraud accounted for 0.00174 percent of the ballots.
Looking back at the 2010 election cycle -- which was not a presidential year -- 3.79 million ballots were cast and only 28 cases of voter fraud were turned over to the appropriate DA's office. So in 2010, voter fraud accounted for 0.000738 percent of ballots cast.
Now let's think about exactly what sort of method of payment for all those things existed that you wouldn't be in favor of. My point was an avowed criminal doesn't exactly have much in the way of higher moral ground over somebody choosing to pay a smaller bribe to drug cartels instead of corrupt officials to get into our country and work for a better life. Civic responsibilities are civic responsibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Another boogeyman to scare people into believing the messenger.
There's nothing wrong with it, in theory. In application, it disproportionately disenfranchises on the basis of race. This is explicitly (:)) forbidden by the Constitution, and please note that the 15th Amendment does not require intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Latrin and Thond, do please keep in mind that we are doing a fantastic job of identifying voters at the polls. We have a system that includes registration, showing up at a local polling place and interfacing with a poll worker who identifies you from a list and checks you off. Different states/jurisdictions do things differently but the entirety of it works incredibly well as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
The same system that Mickey Mouse, the entire Raiders team, and a bunch of dead people, etc. still managed to get their votes in with, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The race argument for voter ID is pure bullshit btw. Everyone including democrats know this.
Take a look at the actual number of cases of voter fraud from any election cycle. No that there should be any... but it's surprisingly low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
What raiders team and mikey mouse? Can you verify these claims because everything I'm reading is saying that although there were some sensational headlines, they came to nothing when investigated.
I'll help you out on the Mickey Mouse story. It's a great example of the system working.
Quote:
Then there's Mickey Mouse, the cartoon face of the Disney empire, and apparently a Florida registered voter. (Take that, California!)
It turns out Mickey did fill out a voter registration application in Orange County ahead of the 2008 presidential election. Mickey checked the box indicating that he was updating his voter registration information and was changing his name.
According to the application, Mickey appears to have listed a birth date of Jan. 15, 2002, the address of "15 Ave 17 0922" in Orlando, and a zip code, 56812, that isn't on file with the United States Postal Service.
The phone number -- with a 407 area code -- was disconnected when we called on April 22.
Mickey's Social Security number started 123.
Orange County elections officials rejected his application, which was stamped with ACORN's label.
So Mickey was never officially registered to vote.
ACORN strikes again!
Not getting caught and not happening at all are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Do you seriously believe that voter ID laws are based in racism?
So basically what you are saying is you are going to believe what you want despite the facts presented to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Voter ID laws affect low income citizens some of which happen to be black.
The issue is photo ID, specifically. Every voter (except in North Dakota*) gets a voter registration card now that's mailed to them. There's just no photo attached to it.
In any case, the obvious reason that voter ID isn't really meant to combat voter fraud: nothing's been done to secure absentee ballots, which have a much higher incidence of voter fraud than in-person voting. Why is nothing being done to combat absentee voter fraud? Because absentee voters are more likely to vote Republican.
*North Dakota does not have a separate voter registration process. The primary ID used there for identification is driver's license though, so it's a non-issue.
Well they aren't allowed at this protest!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
They're not based on racist principles per se, their effect is to disenfranchize minorities. The worst part about these laws are that they are completely unnecessary and will not benefit our elections. It's strictly a partisan plan, created by right wing think tanks to suppress votes from people that are inclined to vote democrat. It's the anti-thesis of what this country's supposed to be about.
This is an important point. We have to eliminate absentee ballots if we are really concerned about this type of fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Yeah. Fuck all the deployed members of the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Exactly right. They can't be verified with photo identification so who knows what's going on with those ballots. If someone is interested in defending the integrity of our elections from personal fraud, they better start with the absentee/mail ins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Of course, no one is actually interested in this to protect us from fraud. They just want to make it more difficult to vote.
My vote wasn't counted in 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You have misunderstood the argument. It doesn't matter what the voter ID laws are based in, their effect is racial discrimination. The Constitution doesn't say "the government shall do its best not to intentionally abridge the right to vote", it says "the right to vote shall not be abridged" on the basis of race.Quote:
Do you seriously believe that voter ID laws are based in racism?
I think it's more instructive to look at why you have responded the way you have. It would be very difficult to demonstrate empirically that people clamoring for voter ID laws were consciously racist, both because that's a hard quantity to demonstrate and more importantly because most of those people aren't. It's comforting to think that IF you aren't consciously racist THEN you can't be racist, but I regret to inform you that that is not the case for any of us. This is precisely why we need to put the effort in to measure results, rather than just idly theorizing about intentions.
eta: Bottom line, you can have the truth if and only if you put in effort to find it.
I think anyone who casts a vote should be required to identify themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Anyone.
There goes your idiotic argument. Stick with "OMG U R RACIST".. and hope it hurts my feelings enough to claim the win.. it's pretty much all you have at this point.
But they are verified. Have you ever voted absentee while in the military?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
So what would you do to verify absentee ballots?
How? I'm curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
When I voted via absentee, it required it be notarized and the only notaries around were the commissioned officers we served under. Of course, every absentee ballot I ever got was hilariously late, so I put in some interesting candidate write ins.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
There is also a nifty registration process.
Nice try, but commissioned military officers are famously lax with rules and regulations. I heard one guy wrote "Mickey Mouse and the entire Raiders team and a bunch of dead people etc." as his name on his absentee ballot and a second lieutenant notarized it with his combination stamp-bong without even blinking, which he probably should have because his eyes were really red for some reason. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Not in the military but I have done absentee voting. It required nothing more than asking ahead of time for a mail-in ballot. The last one I did was for local elections and I just signed it and dropped it off at the local polling station. Not sure why yours had to be notarized. Someone in Santa Cruz Bolivia will have a tough time getting their ballot notarized. They'd have to go up to the embassy in La Paz for that. I just looked it up and it seems that the requirement for notarization is a state by state requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Today I don't think you'd have to have it notarized. Looks like they fixed that in 2010:
Most of these new procedures were implemented by the November 2010 general election. As amended by the MOVE Act, UOCAVA now requires state officials to:
provide UOCAVA voters with an option to request and receive voter registration and absentee ballot applications by electronic transmissions and establish electronic transmission options for delivery of blank absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters;
transmit validly-requested absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters no later than 45 days before an election for a federal office, when the request has been received by that date, except where an undue hardship waiver is approved by the Department of Defense for that election;
take steps to ensure that electronic transmission procedures protect the security of the balloting process and the privacy of the identity and personal data of UOCAVA voters using the procedures;
expand the acceptance of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot to all elections for federal office beginning December 31, 2010;
accept otherwise valid voter registration applications, absentee ballot applications, voted ballots, or Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots without regard to state notarization requirements, or restrictions on paper type, or envelope type;
and allow UOCAVA voters to track the receipt of their absentee ballots through a free access system.
Once again Park Bandit you've demonstrated a single minded highly disciplined ability to absolutely ignore what your fellow PCers have written if it in any way runs counter to your current convictions. I applaud your willingness to never be swayed by any information no matter how easily it's provided for you. You are an island in the stream of self education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Even though it's futile I will sum up my argument again for you: EVERYONE WHO VOTES IS IDENTIFIED IN SOME MANNER. THIS IS WHY WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME PEOPLE VOTING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKING VOTERS AGAINST THE VOTER ROLLS IS WORKING AND IT'S WORKING FANTASTICALLY WELL.
Oh oh.. Bold and capitals! The idiot is serious now!
You have such difficulty reading with any kind of comprehension I just wanted to make it as easy as possible for you. You're welcome. :welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Man, all this outcry about racism. Pretty sure racism is lax compared to a hundred years ago. I haven't seen a burning cross in someones yard in at least a couple years.
The fact is, whenever you do something that is required to prove that you are who you say you are/age/sex requires some sort of ID. Anything at a DMV requires a some form of ID, SS card, birth cert, yada yada.. When was the last time you got pulled over by a cop and they were just like, "What's your name, you got insurance right?". The people that don't want to show ID are generally the people that got something to hide. You need an ID to, buy cigarettes, beer, get in a bar, drive a car, get on an airplane, get a job, get a tattoo (Legally), get into an R rated movie, buy something with a credit card... but you don't need one to vote for the leader of your country? How does this make sense? You even need ID to get WELFARE.
Sorry about my poor sentence structuring, at work and it's time to go HOOOOMMMMEEEE!
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
beer,
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
get in a bar,
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
drive a car,
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
get on an airplane,
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
get a job,
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
get a tattoo (Legally),
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
get into an R rated movie,
Racial discrimination on use not Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
buy something with a credit card...
Racial discrimination on use Constitutionally forbidden.Quote:
but you don't need one to vote for the leader of your country?
Constitution.Quote:
How does this make sense?
Is there a squelch button on PC?
Yes. Just skip over it like everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
To be fair Jonny, you did ask the questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
and you got a response to each of your points. In another thread you complained that people ignored your questions. And in this post you apologized for the poor sentence structure. Latrin doesn't have to do that. His response was quick and clear cut.Quote:
How does this make sense?
Settings >> My Settings >> My Account >> Edit Ignore List.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
See? I always give you the correct answer to your questions. :)
What facts? That voter ID is racist against poor people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Don't worry, democrats do everything they can to not count absentee military votes anyway, since they tend to vote more republican than democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Because...the left is playing the race card like always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Need ID to vote? Racist.
Need ID to protest needing ID to vote? Not racist.
Honorable mention: Don't want Trader Joe's to open a store in your black neighborhood because it would attract white people? Not racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwng4omanIQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6E2Ucv7S8
As soon as a republican wins, cwolff will stop thinking that it's working fantastically well.
haha...Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
So what you're saying is that you believe everything black people tell you?
But really... the guy meant he came back to the polling station a couple times because the lines were too long.
And as to your point about Mickey Mouse... Why are you trying to disenfranchise Mickey Mouse? He's fucking Mickey Mouse, man. He deserves a say just like the rest of us.
Here's another fun story. You know that crying wolf on racism has gone too far when even the NAACP comes out and says to stfu with the race card.
Controversial Black History Month Lunch Menu Prompts Concord School to Apologize
CBS SF Bay Area, February 6, 2014
Officials at an East Bay private school are apologizing after a controversial lunch menu option to celebrate Black History Month.
Students at Carondelet High School for Girls in Concord wanted to come up with ways to observe the occasion during a lunchtime celebration Friday. But when the school announced a menu of fried chicken, cornbread and watermelon, other students and parents became offended.
{snip}
School officials held an assembly on campus Wednesday to discuss the issue and also sent a letter apologizing to parents.
Principal Nancy Libby wrote that the items were taken off the menu and that the school doesn’t perpetuate racial stereotypes.
Libby also wrote the school will hold a diversity assembly for students and faculty.
{snip}
While many students felt bad about the announcement, some said our society is too sensitive.
“I understand like how it would offend people. But we’re just doing something to celebrate, not bring it down,” said Morgan Hartford, a junior at the school.
Gabby Simones, a junior at the school who is Latina said, “On Cinco de Mayo we would have probably had enchiladas, rice and beans.”
Robert Jackson, a teacher at Acts Christian Academy said offering fried chicken, cornbread and watermelon is different, because the food goes back to the history of slavery. {snip}
Elizabeth Williams of the Contra Costa County Equal Opportunity Commission and a member of the NAACP had a different view. “What is the big deal?” Williams said. “Historically and even now, we like our chicken and I’m not going to stop eating my fried chicken, nor my cornbread, nor my watermelon.”
“Let’s move on. Let’s be more progressive. Let’s not be so insulted about something so minute,” Williams said.
http://www.amren.com/news/2014/02/co...-to-apologize/
If they serve anything resembling pasta during fictional Italian history month, I plan on being offended as fuck because it's the cool thing to do.
Methais has provided us a great synopsis of the problem. He and his party think that voting rights are just another political tool to be used to win elections. Right or wrong makes no difference and doesn't enter the equation. The only thing that matters is how to win. This is why we all should fight this. It's not a partisan issue, at least it shouldn't be.Quote:
As soon as a republican wins, cwolff will stop thinking that it's working fantastically well.
So your citing a paper written by a Liberal as a reason why a paper written by a conservative is invalid? Good job there. I am CERTAIN his paper is TOTALLY unbiased.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Honestly, I would much rather have fingerprint id then photo id myself. Or computers are nearly at the point where each voting district can have a preloaded database of all the people legally allowed to vote there. Person shows up, they scan his thumbprint via digital pad, it checks out, they are allowed to vote.
Now.. if a fingerprint is an undue burden.. fuck off. As for mail in ones, ok... those get a fingerprint too. Hell, the mail in ones are never even counted anyway unless the election is super close. Would also solve the Military ones as well. They would put their finger prints on the form as well. Issue Fixed.
Hell, if it's good enough for Iraq, it's good enough for us.
Excellent example of you and your party using this as just another political tool to be used to win elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So... you are saying that they CATCH every case of voter fraud? I'd say 99% of the time they don't even bother or know it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
LOL
Read it and find out for yourself. It's better than just letting the Blaze and Fox tell you what you're supposed to be upset about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Great idea. Let's spend all that money to fix a non existent problem. GO BIG GOVERNMENT! Maybe we could all get chipped too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Thumb print verification. Frankly, I think we should do away with absentee ballots period.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
My mom's Aunt is in a retirement home. The nurse "helped" her fill out the ballot. She had them tear it up because the nurse "accidentally" marked Obama over Romney. But.. Cwolff thinks our system is perfectly fine as is.
Somehow I think that even if voter ID laws were enacted there would be people crying about fraudulent IDs after they lose the next election cycle.
It is ironic that some people are calling for everyone to have IDs while also saying we need smaller government and more privacy.
Agreed. Democrats can be pretty whiney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I did read it...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
2
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Justin Levitt is counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, working on election
administration, redistricting, and other voting rights concerns. Before he joined the Center, Mr. Levitt served
as in-house counsel to America Coming Together, the largest voter mobilization campaign in history, and
as Director of Strategic Targeting for a national presidential campaign. He is the author of
Making the List:
Database Matching and Verification Processes for Voter Registration
(Brennan Center 2006), and a number of
other scholarly and popular publications on election law.
Yup.. he certainly sounds completely unpartisan. I mean, this guy I bet is 100% unable to be influenced by his beliefs or thoughts....
.... sorry.. I almost had a heart attack from laughing at that last statement.
Got to love anecdata when the data doesn't add up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
The democrats do want people to vote in order to win elections. The GOP does not want people to vote in order to win. Now who's the tool?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Actually.. funny little story. Everyone having photo ID doesn't make the government bigger. It would actually shrink it. When stopped by a cop for anything, they can ask. "show me your ID" and bam.. you show them ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
As for Privacy.. the only people that are so far off the grid that they don't HAVE an ID or WANT an ID are wack jobs. I seriously doubt anyone here that does like privacy doesn't have an ID.
You mean the part where a nurse tried to enter the wrong vote but was caught? You do realize this happens a lot more then you wish to admit right? Did you know that people suffering dementia are not stripped of their right to vote? They can be mailed a absentee ballot. Someone needs to fill it out. I'll let you put 2 and 2 together.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Thank goodness! There'd be nobody left to vote republican!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
ZING
Here's a question. Does anyone really think that voter ID laws would actually change the outcome of elections?
The effects could be many:Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
1) 11% of voting age americans can't meet the I.D. requirement some of these state legislatures are putting through.
a) the good news is that this same group isn't all gung ho to vote anyway.
2) illegal/fraudulent voters (the kind that this law would defeat) aren't enough to swing any elections. It's a miniscule amount of voters and the penalties for it are already steep.
a) It will have a chilling effect on some voters and keep them away. Things like getting a letter from the Secretary of State telling you that you have to provide proof of your right to vote prior to the next election or else you'll be purged. This will turn people away from voting and in tight races, especially local or state, it could be the difference.
3) It could also piss people off that their government is trying to stop them from voting. This motivation will backfire on the GOP and in places like Texas, where the population is shifting rapidly, could have negative repercussions to the GOP for a long long time.
Wrong technically..Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
There is no amendment to the Constitution that says you can not require proof of who you are to vote.
Proof of who you are is not discrimination to any race, no matter what people try to claim. (Frankly, there are likely MORE poor white people without ID then poor black)
Infact...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawfor...Election_Board
The Supreme court has already said that it is constitutionally legal to require ID to vote.
So.. time to move on. (HA!)
Correct- it's just illegal to CHARGE for that ID because that constitutes a poll tax, which violates the 24th amendment.
This is kind of a silly question given the two sides of the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You want Republicans to say "yes" and you want Democrats to say "no."
Well if Democrats don't believe that voter ID laws would change the outcome of elections why are they fighting so hard against them? I thought the whole argument was Republicans wanted to keep the black vote out of the elections so Republicans could win more?
1) - Nice made up Number there.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
a) - Very true
2) - Yep 40 million potential voters isn't many at all.
a) - It will have a chilling effect on two people.. those that can't legally vote, and those that think the Government is out to get them.. which are GOP votes for the second. It's the first Dems are worried about.
3) - No one is trying to stop anyone from voting..... except the people that can't legally vote. So.. yeah, don't see how this is an issue.
Most of the states that passed laws, have provisions for not being able to afford a 20$ ID. So you are still wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
What am I wrong about from that statement? All I said was that poll taxes violate the 24th amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
You're not wrong he's just adamant. It is a poll tax in certain situations which is what the DOJ is using to fight these laws. Some states have attempted to provide some sort of recompense for people who are without I.D. so that they can avoid this.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Consider that we've been using identification to vote for a long time. Things like a student I.D., utility bill etc... That's worked fine, but it's all too easy for a democrat to have these things. Hence the stricter requirements of what constitutes a valid form of identification. In Texas for example; the only things you can use are Department of Public Safety issued ID or some federal documents like a passport.
If citing the Constitution is "playing the race card", I guess we're done here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You won't hear any criticism from me for wanting to fingerprint every adult in the United States. I'm just letting you know, you are definitely going to hear criticism for that proposal on 4th Amendment grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
If you're serious about fraud, it's a must. Isn't it suggestive that so many of the people claiming to be anti-fraud aren't?Quote:
Frankly, I think we should do away with absentee ballots period.
Of course there are more poor white people... because there are more white people. Suppose 500 people apply for X, 480 white and 20 black, and you reject 48 whites and 20 blacks. Pointing out that you rejected more white people is not a credible defense against allegations of racism.Quote:
Proof of who you are is not discrimination to any race, no matter what people try to claim. (Frankly, there are likely MORE poor white people without ID then poor black)
I think you have skipped over rather critical clauses in the article.
-First, from the decision itself: "Because Indiana's cards are free".
-Second, "To have their votes counted, they must visit a designated government office within 10 days and bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they cannot afford one."
Hence, the only Constitutionally valid voter ID laws require that (1) the IDs are free and (2) if you pinky swear you can't get an ID they let you vote anyway. Let me ask you: these fraudulent voters you are so worried about, what exactly keeps them from breaking said pinky swear?Personally I don't think Republicans are consciously racist. We just aren't smart enough to realize the consequence of our actions, so we need the wise federal government to step in and correct us. It's the American way! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The fact that you can get a free ID eliminates the "poll tax" route.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You can, because you live in Pennsylvania. This is not the case in every state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
What really bothers me is that there seem to be people in both parties who are completely willing to bend or even break laws so that elections can be won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If laws are changed, both parties seem to immediately respond by hiring lawyers and asking how they can get around the new laws. The idea of a fair election just doesn't seem to enter some people's minds. Elections must be won. Concepts like honesty and integrity seem to be lost on such people.
I just hope that the numbers of people like this are small.
Doesn't it bother you that we have to issue free ID cards in order to not violate a voters constitutional rights just to solve a problem that doesn't even exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Doesn't it bother you that (if your name was Richard Bawless) and I knew where you lived, I could go and vote in your place? All I have to do is know you are registered, know where you live, and know where your polling station is.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Doesn't it bother you that 3rd world countries have more security in their elections then we do?
Doesn't it bother you that Votes don't get counted on either side for stupid reasons? (a similar name to a Felon for example.. which would be solved with requiring an ID oddly enough)
Also...
It's only their constitutional right if they are a citizen. Let me ask you this.. Why don't YOU want secure checks on the integrity of our election system? And don't give me your standard crap that "it's working perfectly fine" because blah blah blah said so. Do you Absolutely KNOW that this is the case? I said it before.. people on YOUR side get up in arms if there is even a HINT that 1 person was turned away from voting who should have been able to vote. But yet it seems you don't care at all if people that SHOULDN'T be able to vote, do vote.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local...230030371.html
Please.. tell me that the above link, is not an issue at all? I love the guy's explanation... but.. he doesn't really know for sure.
Tell me how ID laws are going to prevent clerical errors.
They can raise the dead voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Did you know that your DL has a swipe strip, and a barcode on it? I also heard of this interesting thing called a computer and a database.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
It's funny how technology can remove clerical errors. Tho I GUESS if you WANTED to do everything by hand so there could BE clerical errors.. that is another story.
Firstly, you arguing on behalf of the constitution made me chuckle. Secondly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Attachment 6187
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Your own link dismisses your worries. Did you even read it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Maybe he's not worried about fraud anymore but angry about clumsy government workers. Good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
One word:Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
ACORN
There is a famous expression for this: I'd rather let ten guilty men go free than chase them. Wait, that's not it... I'd rather let ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I've always been pro-Constitution, that's why I disagree with guys like you and Thondalar when you offer literalist interpretations. Put another way, your being incorrect about the Constitution doesn't make me anti-Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer