You want special rules for Republicans, I just want the same rules for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
|
You want special rules for Republicans, I just want the same rules for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yeah you have your ID (papers please), YOU needed one. So everyone should need one too. RIGHT NOW!
Austin news, sports, weather, Longhorns, business | Statesman.com
Damn right, only eligible voters should get to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Fortunately, a federal court AGREES with you. Last night it REJECTED part of Florida's new election law that would have restricted the number of early voting days across the state. The court said the new law cannot take effect in five counties where the African-American vote could be key in November.
So, when the FEDS get involved, SANITY returns... That's what I THOUGHT would happen..
excon
So you believe sanity is blocking a state law in only five counties because of race?
Dude, that's not sanity. Sanity is equality, not giving preferential treatment to one race.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I didn't think keeping the polls open for EVERYBODY would give preferential treatment to one race...
It IS telling that you do..
excon
It was your article that said it, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You stand corrected.Quote:
A federal court has rejected part of Florida's new election law that would have restricted the number of early voting days across the state. The court said the new law cannot take effect in five counties where the African-American vote could be key in November.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nahhhh... But, we're getting CLOSE to the heart of the argument... Pursuant to the court, the new law cannot take effect in five counties where the African-American vote could be key in November.
So, when the playing field is LEVELED, YOU believe it gives black people a PREFERENCE... That's interesting... It follows, of course, that to make it equal for YOU, the black vote would have to be suppressed...
excon
You see I find that to be very confusing 'logic,' that giving 5 counties with a key black population 4 more early voting days than everyone else is "leveling the playing field" while requiring everyone to play by the same rules is "suppression."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Do you guys even read what you write?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's only confusing if you're UNAWARE of the HISTORY of those counties. Here's what the law says:Now, if these counties had NEVER had a history of voter suppression, your argument MIGHT have some weight... But, in the light of HISTORY, it's CLEAR what those counties are doing... It's a matter of CONTEXT. Since you don't DO context, I suspect you'll disagree with me again.Quote:
... [the counties] must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group."
Excon
Since when was being black a "language minority group?"
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yeah, I'm not a good editor... I should have ended the quote after the word color. Do you want to talk about voter suppression or my writing skills?
excon
You guys claim there is no voter fraud. Well, where's the suppression? Imagined doesn't count.
Are you crazy? If you didn't need an ID for the primary, why need one for the general election, since you were verified legit in the primary? That's what makes this suppression, that and the fact one of your own RNC in PA said so, without one shred of evidence there was fraud! NOT ONE!! EVER in PA!
That was from YOU guys! Admit it, You guys want a small government for the people, and churches and corporations to have unfettered power over YOU, us, and anybody else that doesn't go along with YOUR idea of the way the country should be run!
Hell we can't even have a reasonable debate without you hollering about what somebody is doing to YOUR freedom, but have no problem dismissing MY concerns. No wonder you support the guys that said granny is okay but her kids and grand kids are toast. No wonder your heroes are guys that have told you they were going to lower taxes for themselves while WE pay for it.
Guess you were impressed and convinced by Romney's white board presentation between two flags out doors too huh? Of course you were.
So just be honest, you guys are desperate to get your MITTS on the money that they didn't steal the first time. That makes you an accomplice to Bush on Steroids. Mitts kids are already rich, so the ones he screws over are OUR kids! He says he wants to save things for us?? YOU take his word, I need verification myself.
That integrity of the vote ain't washing, neither is that fraud crap you guys are pushing. Suppression is a mild term for what you guys are doing, OBSTRUCTION is a better word. I have to admit, you guys are really good at what you do.
I know, liberal straw arguments. Sorry, I thought it was my turn.
You got to start somewhere. If voter fraud isn't a problem then take that up with Justice Stevens, no right-winger, who wrote the 6-3 opinion affirming Indiana's voter ID law.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So Stevens was wrong?Quote:
Once you get past the race-baiting, you will find that opponents of voter ID generally rely on two arguments, equally specious: 1) There is no need for photo ID, because there is no voter fraud in the United States; 2) This is a deliberate effort to suppress the turnout of minority voters, who often don’t have photo ID. Liberals keep repeating these false claims despite the fact that they have been disproved both in the courtroom and at the polling place.
The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous, given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indiana’s photo-ID law in 2008, “Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.” The liberal groups that fought Indiana’s law didn’t have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6–3 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance.
You haven't a shred of evidence for that claim.Quote:
That was from YOU guys! Admit it, You guys want a small government for the people, and churches and corporations to have unfettered power over YOU, us, and anybody else that doesn't go along with YOUR idea of the way the country should be run!
I fight FOR your first amendment rights, I'd expect the same in return.Quote:
Hell we can't even have a reasonable debate without you hollering about what somebody is doing to YOUR freedom, but have no problem dismissing MY concerns.
Cliché after cliché after cliché. I'm not impressed.Quote:
No wonder you support the guys that said granny is okay but her kids and grand kids are toast. No wonder your heroes are guys that have told you they were going to lower taxes for themselves while WE pay for it.
Guess you were impressed and convinced by Romney's white board presentation between two flags out doors too huh? Of course you were.
So I'm a liar?Quote:
So just be honest, you guys are desperate to get your MITTS on the money that they didn't steal the first time. That makes you an accomplice to Bush on Steroids. Mitts kids are already rich, so the ones he screws over are OUR kids! He says he wants to save things for us?? YOU take his word, I need verification myself.
And there we go, all that bobbing and weaving to offer only imagined voter suppression while I've repeatedly offered many examples of voter fraud. Like I said, you guys are under some silly impression that voter ID laws only affect your side. No sir, it applies to all equally... unless you're a black in 5 Florida counties. That sir is not fair, and I know y'all are all about fairness... it just has a warped meaning to the left.Quote:
That integrity of the vote ain't washing, neither is that fraud crap you guys are pushing. Suppression is a mild term for what you guys are doing, OBSTRUCTION is a better word. I have to admit, you guys are really good at what you do.
I know, liberal straw arguments. Sorry, I thought it was my turn.
Hello again,
Hep me out here...
I know you said there are dead people voting and that's why we need the law... But, HOW do you know dead people voted?? If you have some sort of LIST of dead people that you compared to those who voted, WHY couldn't you have used this list at the polling place to PREVENT the dead people from voting in the first place??
excon
Hello again,
Yeah, I have more to say... All during this conversation, I've been waiting for ANY of you to say, YES, my party has a HISTORY of suppressing the vote, but THIS isn't THAT. In fact, I've YET to hear ANY acknowledgement whatsoever on your part that your party has EVER engaged in voter suppression...
Earlier, we were discussing CONTEXT... If you take the need to STOP dead people from voting, OUT of the CONTEXT of the right wing's HISTORIC attempt to suppress the vote, then the report of dead people voting takes on a very different significance..
But, when taken IN the context of your party's history, one can LEGITIMATELY question whether dead peoples votes were ever counted, and one can question your motives...
That's all.
excon
Voter ID is a great idea, but the process is extremely flawed as yet again you guys have over reacted and put people in harms way of losing their RIGHT to vote. Obviously you have no regard for this obstruction of peoples right, only that they be in effect for THIS election.
There has been no evidence of the extensive voter fraud you guys have suggested, so that makes you liars about your intentions, and the judge well he gets used as an example of rights to make obstructive laws.
If you were sincere, you would be helping those that you want to comply with your new laws with time or assistance that far reaches what you wingers have done so far. I mean to solve a PROBLEM you have to round up a few million voters and make them produce PROOF they deserve the right to vote?
Its not WHAT you are doing, its HOW, that shows the true lunacy of the way you wingers address your own fears. Lie to yourselves if thats what you want, but don't think for a minute we believe you.
About 1100 felons all ineligible to vote .fraudulenty voted in the Franken -Coleman race that was decided by 312 votes . So far 177 people have been convicted and 66 await trial . The rest of them will get away with it because the rules of evidence favor the fraud .
The Franken vote was the 60 super-majority that Harry Reid needed in Obama's 1st term .
So you can say it all you want to that voter fraud isn't a problem .In 2008 ,it was a game changer.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I googled it. I found a BUNCH of right wingers SAYING the same thing, but I couldn't find any actual NEWS reports of WHO was charged, and what their sentence was, and WHY they did it... And, if there are 177 of 'em, you'd THINK you could find a local story about SOME of them... You know, REAL news. Or possibly a link to an actual courthouse, or an online case... Anything...
Now, I'm NOT saying it didn't happen... But, I can't find EVIDENCE of it.. Surely you can LINK me to some.
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm still having trouble here... Apparently, the ineligible felons, IF they're indeed real, registered under their OWN names and presented THEMSELVES at the polls to vote... Their IDENTIFICATION wasn't the issue... Their eligibility was...
How would a voter ID law fix that?
excon
Hello again, tom:
Yeah, I'm still having trouble... I'm a felon. I don't you think you could FIND another felon who wants to vote MORE than I do... But, casting a fraudulent vote ISN'T worth going to the slam.. I mean, it's NOT like they don't have my name and address. I can think of a MILLION crimes I'd rather commit than THAT.
Now, I can imagine there are one or two felons who could be convinced to risk it ALL for NOTHING in their pockets. Think about it, we're talking about FELONS risking EVERYTHING for NOTHING...
That's NOT how felons act.. It's not how ANYBODY acts. I have a problem believing that somebody convinced 1100 of them to do that...
excon
Cases of voter-ID election fraud found 'virtually non-existent' | MinnPost
Quote:
•Felons or noncitizens sometimes register to vote or cast votes because they are confused about their eligibility. The database shows 74 cases of felons voting and 56 cases of noncitizens voting.
Hello again, tal:
Thanks for that...
Let me see... We got the right wing fear merchants in one corner, and we got the legitimate press who actually conducted an investigation in the other...
I don't know about tom and Steve, but I'm going with the legitimate press..
excon
Ya know Ex, even there guys say there is no fraud, and in PA, the former state attorney now govenor says he has never seen fraud, the party leader said it was to get Mitt in the White House, and still they holler FOUL!!
Go figure! But don't say BOO, or they will soil themselves and blame OBAMA, their mama, and YOU! Good thing the sky hasn't fallen yet. And yes that's pee trickling on their heads... Hehehe! Don't tell 'em. SHHHHHHHH!!
Hello again, tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yeah, I can see it now..
"Hey Bubba", I say, "comere. I got a caper for us."
Bubba, looking upbeat, says "Cool, ex. I could use some extra bread. Who're we gonna do, and how much is our take?"
I say to Bubba, "Yeah, man... We're gonna VOTE. They'll NEVER catch us, the filthy coppers. If they do, they'll send us back, and we ain't gonna make any money, either... It's our civic duty."
Bubba looks at me crosseyed, and throws me out the door.
excon
Imagine what the wingers would say if Romney won, and they took the senate, and house, and we filibuster all their repeals.
Bwa haw haw!!
"Down the river and thru the woods to grandmas cliff we go, mitt knows the way to hire the slaves, to shovel his ice and snow OHHHH!"
Joke all you want to about it.. the fact is that the convictions are real, and in a close race like the Franken -Coleman race ,it is likely that vote irregularities were decisive . Much of the problem stems from same day registration which is a ridiculous practice begging for fraud .A legitimate voter id system would eliminate those questions .
Tal and Joe Biden... perfect together .Quote:
"Down the river and thru the woods to grandmas cliff we go, mitt knows the way to hire the slaves, to shovel his ice and snow OHHHH!"
I guess what your really saying is there are enough safegaurds in place that voter fraud can't happen? Stop living in the clouds and see what you think of the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot
No one said it can't happen, no one siad it didn't happen, what they said is the incidence is low and even it a single person said he hadn't seen it, that doesn't mean anything. The question is are people being denied their right using technicalities
Since the right is not universal (age ,citizen ,in some states felons are restricted from voting) ,then it necessary to insure the integrity of the franchise . Voter photo id is a reasonable and prudent way to ensure it . ANY fraudulent vote weakens the integrity of the entire franchise .
Also the evidence suggests that Voter id laws do not negatively impact any voting group.
Stephan Thernstrom;a professor of history emeritus at Harvard University,and Abigail Thernstrom,vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ,argue in favor of Voter id laws .
Voter ID laws boost democracy - BostonHerald.comQuote:
In the case of Indiana, whose voter ID law was in effect for the 2008 presidential election, there is some data about participation. That was a very good year for Democrats in general, but Democratic turnout rose more in Indiana, with its ID law in force, than in any other state. Georgia, which also had a new voter ID law in place that year for the first time, also had a huge jump in turnout, almost all of it from Democratic voters.
There are better and worse ID laws, and it seems obvious that the requisite proof of identity should not be needlessly burdensome to get; the process should be made as convenient as possible. The Texas Department of Public Safety, for example, provides free election identification cards to citizens who request them. Every state should make acquiring an ID equally easy.
President Ben Jealous of the NAACP has blasted voter ID laws and called for a “high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection.”
If, indeed, the voter ID laws inspire drives to register citizens and get them to the polls (and get them photo IDs), won't America be better off? More people will gain the freedom to watch an argument in a court of law, board a train or a plane, and even buy a bottle of scotch. Democracy will have been enhanced. Sensible civil rights advocates might consider that, and join the drive for ID laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
A good point. The only people who are prepared to, 'jump through the hoops' so to speak are those people who have some some of commitment to the political process. They want their vote because it is important to them. This group represents the 50 something percent that turns out on a regular basis at election time.
The apathetic minority have no political axe to grind. Unless of course they see something in in for them. So if there is even one hoop to jump through in order to get an I.D then they can't be bothered because it is just one vote.
Tut
I have repeatedly said, its not the requirement to have a valid ID that I oppose, it's the roll out of the process that I strongly disagree with. In Texas a third of the county DMV's were closed. I have already stated that in Ohio, despite the 4 hour waiting in line to get a ballot, they have cut the early voting times and this is evident in Florida as well.
Still doing the reseach for the other red states that have enacted these laws, but it seems at this time that they all have one thing and common, no thought was given to how this would cause any hardship on people who have voted before, LEGALLY, but cannot vote NOW. Even in PA its being shown that the government cannot keep there assurance that free ID's would be given to those elderly who want them.
So I ask again, to get a few must the many be denied their rights? Once you recognize that though it's a GREAT idea, you must also recognize the complexities that have to be addressed to implement that idea properly, AND FAIRLY!!
Now what's wrong with that??
I thoroughly reject the notion its okay to make people jump through hoops to exercise their right to vote. That patently straight from Jim Crow.
Boo hoo.. in other countries voters risk their lives to vote. Here a wait on line is an unreasonable inconvenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What good is this?
I am sure that if you had to stand in line for 24 hours to cast a vote your would? But how does such a system cater for the disinterested voter who would give up an go home?
Tut
I find it curious Tom you push and wave the flag of original intent but suddenly you want to use twenty first century methods to define who is eligible to vote. Tell me, Tom, what do you think the original intent was? Was it to give the vote to women, to ordinary people of various races and circumstance or was it a somewhat exclusive club? How come you are not suggesting original intent?Could it be it doesn't suit your purpose or would appear more ridiculous than this insistence on photo id? Will you want an imbedded chip next?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Why insist on reasonable and prudent measures here when you will not hear of them in any other constitutional argument?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So, we should live DOWN to their standards?? What happened to American exceptionalism? You guys are silly.
excon
A little more on original intent
It seems the same attitudes remain todayQuote:
"At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land.
John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:"
Hello! Original intent said that Amendment changes the Consititution.Voting rights were expanded through the amendment process . Therefore it satifies original intent.Quote:
I find it curious Tom you push and wave the flag of original intent but suddenly you want to use twenty first century methods to define who is eligible to vote. Tell me, Tom, what do you think the original intent was? Was it to give the vote to women, to ordinary people of various races and circumstance or was it a somewhat exclusive club? How come you are not suggesting original intent?Could it be it doesn't suit your purpose or would appear more ridiculous than this insistence on photo id? Will you want an imbedded chip next?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:44 AM. |