Ask Me Help Desk - Voter ID/Suppression

Okay explain why early voting hours were cut and no ID was required for the primaries. If fraud was the issue then and integrity of the vote was the goal, why cut the hours? That affects urban big cities a lot more than rural low population areas.

And you have never answered the question of why throw legal voters under the bus to get a few suspected illegals? Looks fishy to me in the name of integrity. Like I say sure seems like you guys are politically motivated and that's not much integrity, rigging the system.

The southern strategy Jim Crow on steroids doesn't sound so thought out or fair to me! But maybe fair was never a consideration, but the lie that makes it seem legit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

There has to be a better process than the ones you guys are using that makes a hardship for those that are legal voters. Then you may get more support.

There is no hardship, that's just a lame, lame argument. People are not as helpless as Dems want us to believe and quite frankly, I'd be offended at them portraying me as a helpless fool. Even so, what's your better process?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Look, I'm all for a guy who slips and slides around the law. I just don't think he should be president...

But, on to the thread at hand... I think all of the states voter suppression efforts will be heard in total by the Supreme Court and be ruled on BEFORE the election.. I think they'll be overturned, but the damage is already done.

excon

Brother, your guy doesn't slip and slide around the law, he just decrees it so. He don't need no stinkin' law.

And as we keep pointing out, SCOTUS has already upheld voter ID laws with a lefty on the court saying they were necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Okay explain why early voting hours were cut and no ID was required for the primaries. If fraud was the issue then and integrity of the vote was the goal, why cut the hours? That affects urban big cities a lot more than rural low population areas.

And you have never answered the question of why throw legal voters under the bus to get a few suspected illegals? Looks fishy to me in the name of integrity. Like I say sure seems like you guys are politically motivated and thats not much integrity, rigging the system.

The southern strategy Jim Crow on steroids doesn't sound so thought out or fair to me! But maybe fair was never a consideration, but the lie that makes it seem legit.

If the law is applied equally what is the problem? They didn't provide early voting hours for whites but not blacks did they? Are you still saying blacks are too dumb to realize there's an election coming up? Their guy has been campaigning for 6 years, when are they going to figure it out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Even so, what's your better process?

Hello again, Steve:

It depends on whether you believe it's in the STATES interest to see that EVERY eligible voter in the state GETS the opportunity to vote, or whether you think it's FINE for the state to throw down roadblocks, and then leave it up to the PEOPLE to overcome them...

I suppose it boils down to whether you think voting is a RIGHT or a privilege.. Me?? I think it's a right.. You? I'll bet not.

Personally, I think it's FINE that people are required to show ID's to vote.. But, when the process of getting them has the effect of VOTER SUPPRESSION, as this does, then I'm NOT OK with it...

Let's just take STUDENTS.. They don't KNOW that their OLD Id's won't work.. Nobody TOLD them. The state SHOULD have made SURE that students KNOW about the new requirements, and the state should make EVERY effort to INSURE that every possible student KNOWS what they need to do to vote...

The state didn't DO any of that... It doesn't supply them for free.. It didn't inform the communities MOST effected by the law... It did NOTHING except throw down the roadblocks and look the other way...

That's voter suppression - plain and simple..

excon

So a county of urban millions has the same hours as a county of a thousand is equal??

Quote:

Are you still saying blacks are too dumb to realize there's an election coming up?

Are you saying the white republicans are honest?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

It depends on whether you believe it's in the STATES interest to see that EVERY eligible voter in the state GETS the opportunity to vote, or whether you think it's FINE for the state to throw down roadblocks, and then leave it up to the PEOPLE to overcome them...

Come on buddy, why would you think I wouldn't want every eligible voter to have the opportunity to vote? You apparently think voting is the only right that comes at a cost. The second amendment guarantees my right to bear arms but I'm sure you're OK with putting up roadblocks like registration, background checks, permits and such, no?

The first amendment guarantees my right to free speech so why should I have to endure roadblocks such as being forced to go to a "free speech zone."

I have the right to petition the government, so who's going to eliminate roadblocks for me like paying my phone bill, internet service, buying me a PC or stamps and envelopes?

Our rights come at a cost, voting is no different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

So a county of urban millions has the same hours as a county of a thousand is equal??

OK, so which county has "urban millions?"

You do know that Holder accepted a new plan in Florida don't you? Even the court that said no was open to returning to the 96 hours of early voting with revisions. If you can't get to where you need to in 8 days you're not in this country or hiking in the Alaskan wilderness somewhere.

Quote:

Are you saying the white republicans are honest?

No worse than anyone else.

See if you can see a pattern in swing states with republican govenors, and legislatures.

List of counties in Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of counties in Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of counties in Florida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still awaiting data between voting machines per county, and polling places. Can't believe you cannot see the difference between a county with major urban areas, and rural very small towns.

The district Paul Ryan was elected in has NO major cities in it. How long does it take you to vote in Amarillo?

No, it was just a brain fart, having "rural" on the brain. See, I can admit when I'm a moron.

The question is how difficult is it to vote in those five Florida counties? Seems pretty easy to vote absentee so what's the problem?

P.S. Still waiting on your better process...

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No, it was just a brain fart, having "rural" on the brain. See, I can admit when I'm a moron.

The question is how difficult is it to vote in those five Florida counties? Seems pretty easy to vote absentee so what's the problem?

P.S. Still waiting on your better process...

I think a better approach to federal elections is a top down approach rather than a bottom up approach. In other words, the federal government oversees and runs federal elections rather than leaving it up to the states.

As I said before, I think you will always have an equal access problem when it comes to federal elections unless you extend the role of the Federal Election Commission.

Tut

Tut
That interferes with their "States" rights to influence the election. They just haven't got the concept of federal, one nation, as opposed to a collection of states and it goes even deeper than that to a local government level

Governments don't have rights ;they have powers .The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite (Madison Federalist 45) .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

governments don't have rights ;they have powers .The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite (Madison Federalist 45) .

The federalist papers are not laws but opinions, an argument for his way of thinking. Madisons opinion is his own. While the states have a lot of power to affect their own citizens, the feds still have to make sure the states stay within constitutional boundaries, or they can go to court. Given the history of the states and the federal remedies for past offenses to its own people, I can go with the courts. That's all we got in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No, it was just a brain fart, having "rural" on the brain. See, I can admit when I'm a moron.

The question is how difficult is it to vote in those five Florida counties? Seems pretty easy to vote absentee so what's the problem?

P.S. Still waiting on your better process...

Which state? Some are already addressing the issues through the courts, and some the citizens are taking an active role.

If I were a govenor though, I would have every library and state building along with every school as a place for people to go to have their issues addressed. Community centers and grocery stores. Its an abomination to have people traveling miles for registration and incurring time and costs to vote.

That's the duty and responsibility of the state to ensure the rights of its citizens is preserved. It's a simple process to do the right thing if indeed that's your intent!

How Tom loves to play with symantics, no rights but powers. People have rights and according to some so do corporations. US is not a democracy but a republic and incidentally a federal republic held captive by states powers. By the way Tom this play on words is interesting when it gets to my nation which is not a democracy either but a commonwealth

Correct people have rights... governments only have powers... but the progressives don't seem to get that... the Dems here put out an add that said that the government is the only thing we all BELONG to .
DNC Video: "The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To" - YouTube

Quote:

The federalist papers are not laws but opinions, an argument for his way of thinking. Madisons opinion is his own.

The Federalist papers explained to the people the thinking of the founders about the Constitution .They are the single best source to find out what the Founders were thinking , clause by clause ,when the wrote the Constitution . What Madison said about the power of the government is not just his own ;it was the majority opinion of the founders and was a central thought of the enlightenment . What he mentioned about the powers granted to the Federal Government and the states is an opinion shared by every signer .

Ok Tom stop saluting the flag which represents the federal government

If you look at the flag it is dominated by the States .The stripes are the 13 original States ,and the stars the 50 current States .

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Which state? Some are already addressing the issues through the courts, and some the citizens are taking an active role.

Which state doesn't provide absentee ballots and early voting?

Quote:

If I were a govenor though, I would have every library and state building along with every school as a place for people to go to have their issues addressed. Community centers and grocery stores. Its an abomination to have people traveling miles for registration and incurring time and costs to vote.

We have 53 public schools in Amarillo, do you know what it would cost to make each one a polling place? As I said before our rights come at a cost, there is no abomination in having to drive down the street, pick up the phone or mail a ballot to vote. Seriously, Tal that's over the top.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

If you look at the flag it is dominated by the States .The stripes are the 13 original States ,and the stars the 50 current States .

Absolutely...

"Act of April 4, 1818 - provided for 13 stripes and one star for each state, to be added to the flag on the 4th of July following the admission of each new state, signed by President Monroe."

Hello again,

Flag, schwag... Let's get back to the question... The Supreme Court WILL have a chance to rule on voter suppression before the election... Which way do you think they'll vote?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Flag, schwag... Let's get back to the question... The Supreme Court WILL have a chance to rule on voter suppression before the election... Which way do you think they'll vote?

Excon

With the precedent, Voter ID will be ok'd again as it was in Indiana. From Steven's majority opinion:

Quote:

Thus, under the standard applied in Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. In Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780 (1983), however, we confirmed the general rule that “evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” are not invidious and satisfy the standard set forth in Harper.

...

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.

You're fighting an uphill battle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

With the precedent, Voter ID will be ok'd again as it was in Indiana.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know WHY you keep MISSING the issue.. Is it the Texas water? Nah, it can't be that... Tal seems to be OK...

The Constitutional issue the Supreme Court will decide, is NOT voter ID, but the METHOD of IMPLEMENTING voter ID. You DO know what I mean.. You MENTION the implementation all the time when you DENIGRATE people who you think are too LAZY to jump through the government hoops...

This isn't difficult.

excon

So you are fine with the Georgia ,Indiana ,and Rhode Island photo-id laws ? Cool ,I'm OK with them too .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know WHY you keep MISSING the issue.. Is it the Texas water? Nah, it can't be that... Tal seems to be OK...

The Constitutional issue the Supreme Court will decide, is NOT voter ID, but the METHOD of IMPLEMENTING voter ID. You DO know what I mean.. You MENTION the implementation all the time when you DENIGRATE people who you think are too LAZY to jump through the government hoops...

This isn't difficult.

Excon

Stevens, the liberal dude addressed that, you didn't read it?

Quote:

While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.

What do you not get? The method may up for debate but It's been ok'd, it's coming and you can't stop it.

And that other part you have that exactly backwards, I'm the one defending the voters while you and Tal are the ones denigrating them by implying they're too helpless or too stupid to find a way to vote. I believe in the American people, it's the left that coddles and condescends and wants them dependent on government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

So you are fine with the Georgia ,Indiana ,and Rhode Island photo-id laws ? Cool ,I'm ok with them too .

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.

Hello again,

Both tal and I have said over and over, that it's NOT the ID law, it's the implementation of them...

I don't think you understand the word, "propriety", Steve. It means its FINE to do it. It DOESN'T address HOW it's done. My problem with it is HOW it's done, and HOW it's done is the issue the court will decide... Certainly, if they think they've ALREADY ruled on it, they don't have to take the case. Apparently you think that's what they'll do.. We'll see.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Both tal and I have said over and over, that it's NOT the ID law, it's the implementation of them...

I don't think you understand the word, "propriety", Steve. It means its FINE to do it.

No sir, it means proper, not "ok if you want to."

The court determined in that case that photo identification is not unconstitutional. That was the method in question, that was the method ruled constitutional. What is it YOU aren't getting here ex?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The court determined in that case that photo identification is not unconstitutional. That was the method in question, that was the method ruled constitutional. What is it YOU aren't getting here ex?

Hello again, Steve:

If you don't get it by now, you won't get it if I explain it again... But the court will, and when they rule AGAINST it, I'll tell you WHY it happened.

excon

I know, you want IDs passed out free and state-owned buses to pick everyone up, take them to the polling place, return them home and maybe pick up a few groceries for them on the way.

I've already addressed your roadblocks issue earlier:

Quote:

Come on buddy, why would you think I wouldn't want every eligible voter to have the opportunity to vote? You apparently think voting is the only right that comes at a cost. The second amendment guarantees my right to bear arms but I'm sure you're OK with putting up roadblocks like registration, background checks, permits and such, no?

The first amendment guarantees my right to free speech so why should I have to endure roadblocks such as being forced to go to a "free speech zone."

I have the right to petition the government, so who's going to eliminate roadblocks for me like paying my phone bill, internet service, buying me a PC or stamps and envelopes?

Our rights come at a cost, voting is no different.

The court agrees with me in the Indiana case:

Quote:

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.”

Again what are you missing? Which roadblocks to exercising my rights are OK and which aren't?

I know homebound and nursing home residents who have no way of getting photo IDs. I know elderly people with no cars and no way of getting to a site that provides photo IDs. Will someone come to them with an ID-making setup? Will they have another recourse when they vote via an absentee ballot?

I don't know the specifics but the Indiana law we've been discussing makes provisions for people in nursing homes. I would imagine SCOTUS would have shot it down as it was written if it did not make such provisions. I would assume other states do as well.

Voter ID will be upheld again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Which roadblocks to exercising my rights are ok and which aren't?

Hello again, Steve:

It's not a matter of which ONE.. The Supreme Court will examine the totality of ALL the states efforts. The question will be, when taken as a whole, do these measures constitute voter suppression..

To me it's clear.. You? Not so much.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

It's not a matter of which ONE.. The Supreme Court will examine the totality of ALL the states efforts. The question will be, when taken as a whole, do these measures constitute voter suppression..

To me it's clear.. You? Not so much.

excon

Again you're missing the point, you are apparently OK with roadblocks to exercising SOME specifically enumerated constitutional rights but like Tal you think it's an abomination to have a minimal burden to vote.

SCOTUS has already said the MINIMAL burden of presenting ID is constitutional once, what makes you think it's going to do anything to reverse that from whatever viewpoint you think they're going to consider?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Which state doesn't provide absentee ballots and early voting?

We have 53 public schools in Amarillo, do you know what it would cost to make each one a polling place? As I said before our rights come at a cost, there is no abomination in having to drive down the street, pick up the phone or mail a ballot to vote. Seriously, Tal that's over the top.

Ohio for one and other swing states tried to restrict them both until lawsuits were filed and jugements were rendered, and I didn't say polling place, I said a registration place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Again you're missing the point, you are apparently OK with roadblocks to exercising SOME specifically enumerated constitutional rights but like Tal you think it's an abomination to have a minimal burden to vote.

SCOTUS has already said the MINIMAL burden of presenting ID is constitutional once, what makes you think it's going to do anything to reverse that from whatever viewpoint you think they're going to consider?

Is asking a senior to travel 70 miles with no car a minimal burden to exercise their rights, or spending all day on the bus line transferring from bus tobus minimal?

I don't think so.

And lets use some common sense here with YOUR rights to bear arms or free speech. YOUR rights stop where concerns for the public safety are concerned.

And do you have papers that say YOU'RE NOT crazy?? You must be if you start a process that supposed to bring instant results but looks fishy to me, while you give nopause to even the effects on such a process on the rights of others.

That's a lousy way to go about having integrity. That was your intent,to bring integrity to the process right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Ohio for one and other swing states tried to restrict them both until lawsuits were filed and jugements were rendered, and I didn't say polling place, I said a registration place.

OK, but why? There is no need, you can typically register online or by mail, even in Indiana where ID is required.

Quote:

Is asking a senior to travel 70 miles with no car a minimal burden to exercise their rights, or spending all day on the bus line transferring from bus tobus minimal?

What, seniors don't know how to use the postal service?

Quote:

And lets use some common sense here with YOUR rights to bear arms or free speech. YOUR rights stop where concerns for the public safety are concerned.

Makes no difference to me, it's my right and there are roadblocks - just as with free speech, the right to petition the government and I'm sure others. Freedom isn't free, dude.

Quote:

And do you have papers that say YOU'RE NOT crazy?? You must be if...

If I had said that a certain moderator here who shall remain nameless would be all over my a$$ for making it personal.

Quote:

you start a process that supposed to bring instant results but looks fishy to me, while you give nopause to even the effects on such a process on the rights of others.

That's like way over the top. We've addressed all of your concerns, you're just rehashing them over and over and over as if we haven't been paying attention.

Quote:

That's a lousy way to go about having integrity. That was your intent,to bring integrity to the process right.

Questioning my integrity? Again, that moderator who shall remain nameless would be all over my a$$ for making it personal... especially for questioning someone's integrity.

SCOTUS addressed that and agrees with me that ensuring the integrity of the elections is proper - even if there is no actual evidence of voter fraud. Read it yourself.

I don't question YOUR integrity, just the republicans engaged in this rigging the votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I don't question YOUR integrity, just the republicans engaged in this rigging the votes.

An even-handed law is not vote rigging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

An even-handed law is not vote rigging.

Hello again, Steve:

It can't be even handed if you can't READ it. I propose that we even handedly make sure EVERY voter can READ. That makes sense, as long as it's even handed, right?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

It can't be even handed if you can't READ it. I propose that we even handedly make sure EVERY voter can READ. That makes sense, as long as it's even handed, right?

excon

So ex let me get this straight, mandatory education is not against the constitution but mandatory voting is?