As a Republican how do you defend voter suppression?

[cybrsage]

ivwshane, why do you support voter suppression via voter registration?

 

[ivwshane]

ivwshane, why do you support voter suppression via voter registration?

Why do you make up shit instead of addressing the actual questions being posed?

I have no stance on voter registration. I could argue for either view point.



So why do you support laws that don't stop what they were intended to stop but instead make it harder for people to vote who should be allowed to vote.

 

[cybrsage]

So you have no problem with the people whose votes are being suppressed by voter registration...passive support for voter suppression instead of active support is not any better.

EDIT: As for your last question, I already answered it. I support spending money on laws which uphold the US Constitution and the various state laws. Thank you for allowing me to ask the question again.

 

[ivwshane]

So you have no problem with the people whose votes are being suppressed by voter registration...passive support for voter suppression instead of active support is not any better.

I'll answer when you answer a fucking question.


Your dinner is getting cold, you might want to sit back down at the kids table, the adults are still talking.


Nice edit.


Where in the constitution does it say a poll tax is ok? Where in the constitution does it say voter suppression is legal? Where in the constitution does it say an ID is required to vote?

 

[cybrsage]

I'll answer when you answer a fucking question.

I did, twice. I added it the second time because you missed it the first. No sense it telling you to go back and read when I can repost it easily.

Your dinner is getting cold, you might want to sit back down at the kids table, the adults are still talking.

Aww...now you are trying to be like me. That is sweet. Keep it up and you will start making sense.

Nice edit.

Thank you, I did it to save you work.

Where in the constitution does it say a poll tax is ok? Where in the constitution does it say voter suppression is legal? Where in the constitution does it say an ID is required to vote?

Free IDs are not a poll tax. I realize that is not an easy thing for you to understand, but think hard on it and you will realize that paying no money is not the same as paying money.

The other two require a little bit of critical thinking. I will walk you through it, I do not expect you to have to do it on your own yet. With time, sure, but not now when it is such a new thing for you.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution barred the states or federal government from setting a voting age higher than eighteen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

After this was passed, ever state passed laws making the legal age of voting to be 18 years old. Some added more restrictions as well, but all have this minimum age in their laws.

Since you must be 18 years of age or older to vote, by laws created due to the 26th Constitutional Amendment, it is not unwarranted to request proof of your age.

What can be used to prove your age? Photo IDs appear to be the easiest and most widely accepted method. It is already used to buy cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, Nyquil, and much more. You must be a certain age or older to partake in these things and a photo ID is required to prove your age.

You must be 18 or older to vote. A photo ID should be required to prove your age.

 

[ivwshane]

You must be 18 or older to vote. A photo ID should be required to prove your age.

All you did was show something that does require ID and how voting should be like that but you didn't say why NEW voter ID laws are required. How did people show proof of their age before the NEW voter ID laws?
Why hasn't there been a focus around voter ID since...ever. Why only over the last four years? What prompted the focus and passage of new voter ID laws?

 

[Jhhnn]

No, photo ID is needed, citations will not stop anyone.

So you can't document blatant lies. I figured as much.

ivwshane, why do you support voter suppression via voter registration?

We've been through this red herring of yours before. Registration is absolutely free & easy, with many people being able to do so online. Most states will mail you the forms otherwise, and you can convenience yourself in filing them for the price of a stamp. You can deliver them in person if you'd rather.

The information is quite useful for election officials, helping them better allocate voting resources, like voting machines, election officials, and the paper ballots used in some hybrid voting systems.

W/O registration, officials have one less tool to insure a smooth & honest process for everybody.

You're also being your usual dishonest self because you obviously do not support a registration-less system like they have in N Dakota.

Advocate some reasonable alternative to registration if you're condemning it- otherwise, you're just trying for false equivalency.

 

[cybrsage]

So you can't document blatant lies. I figured as much.

Lies about what? I do not simply want to give citations to people without ID, I want them to prove they are old enough to vote as required by the law and brought about due to the US Constitution. That brings up the obvious question of why you do not want these laws and the Constitution followed? Why is that?

We've been through this red herring of yours before. Registration is absolutely free & easy...

As is getting a voter ID...but you "forget" that point because it destroys your argument.

You're also being your usual dishonest self because you obviously do not support a registration-less system like they have in N Dakota.

I do not have to support a registration-less system in order to expose the hypocrisy of those who cry against voter suppression while saying it is fine to suppress voters via voter registration.

Again, you fail...something that obviously makes you happy since you do it on a regular basis.

 

[nehalem256]

Where in the constitution does it say a poll tax is ok?

No where, in fact I believe it is specifically prohibited. Good thing no poll tax is being enacted.

You simply have to have photo ID to vote. Just like, since polling locations are located in public you need to wear pants to vote. Are anti-nudity laws a poll tax?

Where in the constitution does it say voter suppression is legal?

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As long as a power is not prohibited to the states (such as passing laws outlawing voting based on gender, race, age>18) it is allowed.

Where in the constitution does it say an ID is required to vote?

Where in the constitution does it say dead people cannot vote?

See the 10th Amendment as to why states can require ID to vote.

 

[cybrsage]

All you did was show something that does require ID and how voting should be like that but you didn't say why NEW voter ID laws are required. How did people show proof of their age before the NEW voter ID laws?
Why hasn't there been a focus around voter ID since...ever. Why only over the last four years? What prompted the focus and passage of new voter ID laws?

At one time you did not need to show ID to buy alcohol even though there was an age limit by law. Then, one day, a law was passed saying you had to actually prove you were following the law. Before the requirement to prove your age was put in place people did not need to prove their age (that should be obvious). Now they do.

Same with voter ID. There has always been an age limitation, but only recently have people decided they wanted to enforce it via photo ID. The precedent is set and accepted by everyone. It is both logical and makes sense.

 

[abaez]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Lorraine Minnite, a public-policy professor at Rutgers, collated decades of electoral data for her 2010 book, “The Myth of Voter Fraud,” and came up with some striking statistics. In 2005, for example, the federal government charged many more Americans with violating migratory-bird statutes than with perpetrating election fraud, which has long been a felony. She told me, “It makes no sense for individual voters to impersonate someone. It’s like committing a felony at the police station, with virtually no chance of affecting the election outcome.” A report by the Times in 2007 also found election fraud to be rare. During the Bush Administration, the Justice Department initiated a five-year crackdown on voter fraud, but only eighty-six people were convicted of any kind of election crime.

 

[piasabird]

You have to show a state ID just to enroll at a college. In fact if you dont have an ID you can not visit the white house. They have even turned pro football player in the NFL away from a team visit to the whitehouse because they did not have an ID. This is all a joke.

I got a better idea. If you show up and you dont have a valid photo ID with your address on it, they take you out back and shoot you in the head. Well maybe this is just a little too far, but I would be ok with a $5,000 fine for attempted voter fraud. Or maybe the cops could escort you to your claimed address, and if you dont live there then you get a felony and spend 3 days in jail, and also a $5,000 fine. This is why we need some kind of federal ID System.

I would go one step further. I would verify a certain amount of all absentee votes when the election is a close call. I think it should be a normal procedure to pick a few people at random and do a search on them for out of state ID'S and Internet Profiles. I think all voter registration cards should be registered with the federal government and cross-checked for duplicate or invalid ID'S. It is not like the government does not know where you live. The IRS and the SS office should know where they are sending the checks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Excuse me, but why else would the courts have stricken down various Repub/ALEC sponsored schemes?

They've been set aside because the potential for disenfranchisement is obvious & glaring, entirely & callously contrary to the principles of inclusive Democracy.

Eligibility requirements for Medicaid are immaterial, a red herring in the discussion at hand.

As a voting rights advocate, my goal is for every mentally competent citizen 18 & older to voluntarily turn out & vote in every election, every time. I want all of us to have the wind at our backs to get there, not to place obviously unnecessary obstacles in anybody's way, regardless of their politics. The process should accommodate & encourage all citizens to take part, to be involved, to fulfill their civic duty.

Strict voter ID requirements are an authoritarian power play. People who are willing & able to play the authoritarian game in order to vote are obviously more likely to vote for authoritarian candidates, which is the whole point of the "Voter Fraud" scam in the first place.

The courts can call an apple a dog but that does not make it so. People may choose not to vote. They may decide not to get an id, but that does not mean they cannot get one. People manage to jump through hoops for other things, so something easier than qualifying for medicaid can get an id. I really don't have a dog in this fight so I really don't care how it's settled, but a serious impediment? No. As far as authoritarian goes, Obamacare and the SCOTUS and their punishment tax and mandate is far more reaching than the id, but you probably embrace that.

 

[zinfamous]

No, you have to prove your assertions. Court judgements isn't evidence.

/record scratch


did I just read what I think I read?

:hmm:

 

[cybrsage]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

How can you prove in person voter fraud when you are not allowed to verify the identity of the person voting?

 

[Jhhnn]

Lies about what? I do not simply want to give citations to people without ID, I want them to prove they are old enough to vote as required by the law and brought about due to the US Constitution. That brings up the obvious question of why you do not want these laws and the Constitution followed? Why is that?

Lies about dead people & illegals voting for democrats. You couldn't prove that allegation if your life depended on it. That why I asked for a citation of some reasonable source other than your usual slander.

As is getting a voter ID...but you "forget" that point because it destroys your argument.

It's not easy for everybody, with links to that provided many times in many threads. Jim Cramer's dad couldn't get voter ID until he mentioned it on national TV, and then everything changed rather suddenly fo him. Not everybody has that kind of clout.

I do not have to support a registration-less system in order to expose the hypocrisy of those who cry against voter suppression while saying it is fine to suppress voters via voter registration.

Again, you fail...something that obviously makes you happy since you do it on a regular basis.

Except that there is no suppression wrt registration, particularly when same day registration is allowed.

Your whole song & dance wrt young first time voters is utterly dishonest, as well. No surprises in that. Federal law is apparently entirely adequate in that regard, simply because you can't prove that young people vote in any significant numbers prior to their 18th birthday.

Show us the fraud. Repubs have been on a tear about it since the Bush years, and haven't come up with significant fraud, at all, particularly not in person voter fraud. There's really nothing to be gained by it or by supporting it, either. I certainly don't.

Obviously, there's plenty to be gained by voter suppression, or Repubs wouldn't want it. Too bad that most Righties aren't as callously honest about it as Irish Scott. He knows it's unfair and unnecessary, be he doesn't care about that. His answer is just "That's politics- fuck 'em."

It's a boogeyman, like Iraqi WMD's

 

[zinfamous]

How can you prove in person voter fraud when you are not allowed to verify the identity of the person voting?

So you claim it is a massive problem, and must be addressed, but can never show that it ever truly is a problem in the first place?

I'm starting to see how you GOPers think. The brain dial seems to be stuck on: obfuscate.

 

[Jhhnn]

The courts can call an apple a dog but that does not make it so. People may choose not to vote. They may decide not to get an id, but that does not mean they cannot get one. People manage to jump through hoops for other things, so something easier than qualifying for medicaid can get an id. I really don't have a dog in this fight so I really don't care how it's settled, but a serious impediment? No. As far as authoritarian goes, Obamacare and the SCOTUS and their punishment tax and mandate is far more reaching than the id, but you probably embrace that.

Millions of Americans live their lives w/o current valid state photo ID, obviously, or this wouldn't be an issue at all. The notion that such people should be required to jump through hoops to vote because of a non-problem about alleged "voter fraud" is offensive, particularly when many of them have been voting for decades. If you actually read links, you'd see that.

If there were significant fraud, it would be proveable, and would likely exist more in states that simply follow federal requirements vs stricter standards. But that's not the way it is- Righties can't prove either in the slightest, but they persist with some rather amazing attributions & interpretations of their own fantasies as fact.

The only honest standard that can be applied is the one that the Pennsylvania supreme court demanded of the lower court when they voided the lower court's findings & instructed them as to how to proceed. That standard is "No disenfranchisement" Period. End of story.

Obviously, that's not what repub leaders intend at all, or they'd find some way to have that in their sacred quest for the grail, picture ID.

Irish Scott is correct- It's strictly an effort to gain political advantage via weaseldom, depending on the authoritarian tendencies & belief in conspiracy theories of "Conservatives" to carry it.

 

[buckshot24]

Millions of Americans live their lives w/o current valid state photo ID, obviously, or this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Get an ID so you can vote, done. Quit babying people and they will stop being babies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Get an ID so you can vote, done. Quit babying people and they will stop being babies.

More denial.

You seem to think that's easy for absolutely everybody, and it's not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Millions of Americans live their lives w/o current valid state photo ID, obviously, or this wouldn't be an issue at all. The notion that such people should be required to jump through hoops to vote because of a non-problem about alleged "voter fraud" is offensive, particularly when many of them have been voting for decades. If you actually read links, you'd see that.

If there were significant fraud, it would be proveable, and would likely exist more in states that simply follow federal requirements vs stricter standards. But that's not the way it is- Righties can't prove either in the slightest, but they persist with some rather amazing attributions & interpretations of their own fantasies as fact.

The only honest standard that can be applied is the one that the Pennsylvania supreme court demanded of the lower court when they voided the lower court's findings & instructed them as to how to proceed. That standard is "No disenfranchisement" Period. End of story.

Obviously, that's not what repub leaders intend at all, or they'd find some way to have that in their sacred quest for the grail, picture ID.

Irish Scott is correct- It's strictly an effort to gain political advantage via weaseldom, depending on the authoritarian tendencies & belief in conspiracy theories of "Conservatives" to carry it.

You can argue against it on principle, but that is not the same as materially preventing a vote. As far as authoritarian tendencies I don't think the left wants to go there. Neither side wants to have resistance to its agenda.

 

[buckshot24]

Waaaaaahhh. Life isn't fair Johnny. I don't care if it isn't as easy for one person vs another to get an ID.

Get an ID.

 

[shortylickens]

More denial.

You seem to think that's easy for absolutely everybody, and it's not.

Easy is not an argument by itself.

And how is it they can get themselves to the polls every couple of years for senate, house, and presidential elections but they cant get a voter ID ONE TIME?

 

[Jhhnn]

Waaaaaahhh. Life isn't fair Johnny. I don't care if it isn't as easy for one person vs another to get an ID.

Get an ID.

Yeh- Disenfranchisement? Who cares? Just fuck 'em, right?

All because of "Voter Fraud" you can't even prove is a real problem.

Congratulations on taking your authoritarian petticoats out of the closet, btw- they don't really look good on you, or anybody else, either.

 

[Jhhnn]

Easy is not an argument by itself.

And how is it they can get themselves to the polls every couple of years for senate, house, and presidential elections but they cant get a voter ID ONE TIME?

Asked & answered many times over, with links, ones you obviously didn't bother to read. Try it, unless you're afraid they'll burn your eyes out, poison your mind, pollute your precious bodily fluids.