Tal,Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Come on dude, no one cried foul on the judge. You're the only one misplacing blame here.
|
Tal,Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Come on dude, no one cried foul on the judge. You're the only one misplacing blame here.
I guess you don't think the repubs should be blamed for a lousy process of implementing their law?
Hello again:
"Voter ID, which is going to allow Romney to win" UNDONE!
Bwa, ha ha ha.
excon
They'll get it right and you'll find something else to b*tch about.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Not me.. I LOVE honest elections. I think ID's are great.
But, it's a matter of how we define "right", isn't it? You thought "right" meant passing laws that threw down a gauntlet for voters to run through... You called them lazy and stupid if they wouldn't or couldn't run through it...
The courts ruled, of course, that it WASN'T right, at all.
I think "right" means that if you're going to require ID, that you make SURE every eligible voter has one. A states JOB is to see that MORE people vote - not less..
excon
I did? I don't recall that at all. In fact I did say I give the people more credit than your side does who thinks they're too stupid and helpless to take care of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
A temporary setback.Quote:
The courts ruled, of course, that it WASN'T right, at all.
What is this opposite day? I've pointed out several times that SCOTUS believes ensuring an honest election ENCOURAGES people to participate, and I agree wholeheartedly. YOU still think it's fine if I'm disenfranchised by fraudulent voters and I'm not fine with that at all. You may not care if your vote counts but I do.Quote:
I think "right" means that if you're going to require ID, that you make SURE every eligible voter has one. A states JOB is to see that MORE people vote - not less..
Hello again,
Fortunately, much of the right wing voter suppression efforts have been blocked by the courts.. Activist judges, no doubt.. The latest effort to end early voting in Ohio was shot down yesterday...
I never DID understand how limiting early voting stopped voter fraud.. Maybe you guys can explain it to me.
excon
Guess it could end 'vote early ,vote often' . But that is not my big issue with early voting . I think it is a bad practice to do it months ahead of time while the campaign is still in progress.Quote:
I never DID understand how limiting early voting stopped voter fraud..
Voters do not have all the key information yet to make that determination. Yesterday the jobs forecasts was favorable to the reelection.. in a few days there will be adjustments .4 years ago at this time the financial crisis was just beginning ,and McCain was talking of suspending his campaign. A lot can and does happen in October
Also there is some research that suggests that early voting depresses voter turn out .
Early Voting May Depress Voter Turnout - Megan McArdle - The Atlantic
My other objection ;and it would be the key reason why I would object to it locally is the cost of keeping a polling location open . As an example ; in Franklin County Ohio ,the Board of Elections is paying $93,000 to keep and secure an early voting station.
I don't suppose the circus court would donate from it's operating budget the funds necessary to finance the expanded cost of their decision for local governments that are already cash strapped ? Nah. Expand the cost of the 1 county to the whole state ,and you are talking about some real money. In 2008 ,the 1st year for early voting in Ohio ,the cost to run the elections statewide balloned from $67.3 million to $122.4 million.
Congress tried to give active service personel a break when it passed the 'Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act.' l. Does this decision mean that the court is overturning Congress ?
As usual we disagree Tom, with the suppression of turn out article, with the vote early vote often, and letting the military be given a special preference that citizens should enjoy also. Its not going against the congress granting early voting for all since it's a lot easier on the populated areas, and the voters, especially the ones that work.
I can agree on the extra costs but who said exercising rights, or freedom to do so is free? As it appears the taxpayers want early voting, and its tax dollars that pay for it, all is well.
Let not forget the events that made the states go for early voting in the first place, those darn long lines.
Any way by my count that's 8 for 8 court decisions against voter supression tactics even though I fully agree with the idea of having ID to vote. The states should take these rulings to heart and do a better job of procedure.
Could you please point me to where those decisions said it was suppression?
Suppression would be my word for republican tactics but the courts mainly said it was disenfranchisement due to poor implementation from what I have read of the 8 rulings. They were still blocked, or struck down for whatever reason.
Specifics and references please.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You mean besides the ones that have already been cited?
Voter ID Laws Struck Down in Texas, Wisconsin - ABC News
And then we have history,Quote:
Federal judges struck down two states' voter ID laws today, throwing out government-issued identification requirements at the polls in both Texas and Wisconsin.
In Texas, the Justice Department ruled that the ID requirement would disproportionately affect the state's Hispanic voters, 11 percent of which do not have the necessary identification and would thus not be able to vote.
The Wisconsin law, which went into effect last May, was struck down because, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess wrote in his ruling, it would “impermissibly eliminate the right of suffrage altogether for certain constitutionally qualified electors.”
Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Controversial PA Voter ID Laws Struck Down By Judge - WRIC Richmond News and Weather -
This will get you started while I get breakfast, and another cup of coffee. The controversy is pretty much settled for this election any way.Quote:
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said in his ruling that he was concerned by the state's stumbling efforts to create a photo ID that is easily accessible to voters and that he could not rely on the assurances of government officials at this late date that every voter would be able to get a valid ID.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't care if they called it frosted flakes, the courts SAW it for what it was, and KILLED it. You really don't think they LOVED it, do you?
excon
None of them called it a suppression tactic, that's just what YOU call it as Tal finally admitted when he said, "suppression would be my word for republican tactics".
I have no doubt most will eventually see it the way I do, that voter fraud disenfranchises qualified voters and discourages participation.
Everybody agrees with that but that's not at all what they are talking about. You just moved the goalposts.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Then, you've won.. Tal and I have agreed countless times that we think Voter ID's are just hunky dory.
excon
You're kind of like a shotgun, just pull the trigger and pellets scatter everywhere hoping to hit something.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No sir I did not move the goalpost, I've been making that same point throughout. In fact, I referenced SCOTUS' opinion in the Indiana case in support more than once.
They move the goalpost by calling it "suppression tactics" instead of what it is, protecting the integrity of and promoting confidence in the vote.Quote:
Finally, Indiana’s interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If it WAS truly "protecting the integrity and promoting confidence in the vote" do you believe that it would have been struck down - UNANIMOUSLY, in EVERY state where it was challenged? Do you really believe that ALL these judges are ACTIVIST or on the payroll of the libs??
Look... We're Going to have voter ID. We SHOULD have voter ID. Voter ID, in and of itself, does NOT suppress the vote... When the states learn HOW to administer their voter ID laws, they'll be fair. Until then, they weren't. They've got a couple years to get their act together.
What I don't get here, is you, YOURSELF admitted that the laws THREW down a gauntlet. Apparently, the right wing brain does NOT see a gauntlet as an impediment to voting.. That is realllllly bizarre..
excon
I never said anything about throwing down a gauntlet. I argued the opposite, I believe proving your identity is reasonable - free or not.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Then what was it that the people WITHOUT ID's were too "lazy" to do?
excon
I guess you're going to have to help me out again. I see plenty of times I said voters are NOT stupid and helpless but none calling them lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well, I think you did, but these search features suck, so I'm not going to look.. It's a distraction anyway. I'll take stupid and helpless.. You're referring, of course, to something they have to DO and Not who they are.
Whether voters are too stupid or not, the law REQUIRES them to DO something, or they won't emerge from the gauntlet. THAT process is what the court determined disenfranchises eligible voters from voting..
Which is voter suppression in ANY language.
excon
Ex,
Regardless, this thread has been exhausted.Quote:
I said voters are NOT stupid and helpless
Nah, it's like all Current Event threads - there are really pointless and will sway no one to change their opinions. They only serve to reinforce ones currently held beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It must suck to be so cynical.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
But it's oh so true.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What would it take for you to vote for a democrat?
You only assume I haven't or won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Have you then? When and what issue made you?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And yet you do your share of sniping... oops I mean participating .Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yes I have, recently, locally, and I really don't remember why other than I obviously did not care for the Republican.
Hello again,
The right wing Secretary of State in Ohio is appealing a decision that SUPPORTS early voting.
I'm STILL having trouble seeing how DENYING early voting adds to the integrity of the vote.. Can you explain it to me in SIMPLE terms??
excon
Early voting is a choice, not required. I have made up my mind and three more debates or sixteen thousand more ads will not sway me. It's like eloping instead of waiting until the scheduled wedding day.
Oh those poor, helpless, disenfranchised liberals that can't manage to vote in a 35 day window. Most states have a cutoff for early voting I believe, in Texas it's November 2nd, the same day Ohio wants as a cutoff. I don't see the problem... unless maybe the Dems are behind in getting busloads of out of state people to vote that weekend.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I think that about sums it up. You're FINE with the state putting LIMITS on voting. I believe the OPPOSITE...
excon
Not limits, rules. They have 35 early voting days with the new rule, 45 for military or overseas. When do you want them to vote, before they know who the candidate is? The day after the last election? What good is that October surprise if everyone voted 6 months ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
LOL you guys are counting on an October surprise to get your guy elected? That's pretty desperate. What if the surprise is about Romney and you guys have voted early?
Even though you guys were defeated in court, you still have managed to confuse EVERYBODY on what the laws are in most of the states. After being caught paying a few millions of your own money for a hit man named Sproul who got caught!
So holler all you want about integrity NOBODY believes you guys have any and the only reason you cannot admit it is then EVERYBODY would reject your obstructionism and lies.
Um, I was referring to the possibility an Obama October surprise and it was sarcasm. The rest of your post is just reflexively regurgitated rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Maybe the surprise is Obama fund raising efforts of foreign contributions out of Shanghai.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:27 PM. |