Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Trial Set

[D-Man]

Thraashman Sorry but I stand by my previous post about your signature

I think you just called yourself a masturbating retard

Remember I am a dumb conservative but I am not the one telling the world I masturbate with my left hand cause it feels like someone else is doing it but to each his own have fun with it.

 

[thraashman]

Thraashman Sorry but I stand by my previous post about your signature

I think you just called yourself a masturbating retard

Remember I am a dumb conservative but I am not the one telling the world I masturbate with my left hand cause it feels like someone else is doing it but to each his own have fun with it.

Well, I have never in P&N accused a conservative of high levels of reading comprehension, guess I won't be starting now. You can also feel free to make some out of context "you didn't build that" comment as it would be at about the same level of reading comprehension you're showing now, 2nd-3rd grade.

 

[Xellos2099]

I am not sure the big deal on requiring ID to vote. You need ID to: Buy mature game, R rated movie, enter a casino, buying beer, cigar, use a credit card in store. And we are talking voting here, requiring ID should be a non issue.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I am not sure the big deal on requiring ID to vote. You need ID to: Buy mature game, R rated movie, enter a casino, buying beer, cigar, use a credit card in store. And we are talking voting here, requiring ID should be a non issue.

I can do all of those things right now with absolutely no need for ID.

 

[thraashman]

I can do all of those things right now with absolutely no need for ID.

So can I and in addition not one of those things is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[D-Man]

Thraashman in my previous post I did not take your signature out of context so why accuse me of further out of context words or entice me to make one.

Remember this is your signature you explained it. I explained what I believe it really says.

I take offense to your comment about conservatives BTW when you are done clean yourself up.

 

[spacejamz]

Thraashman in my previous post I did not take your signature out of context so why accuse me of further out of context words or entice me to make one.

Remember this is your signature you explained it. I explained what I believe it really says.

I take offense to your comment about conservatives BTW when you are done clean yourself up.

And we wonder why discussions end up as they do...When one does not realize how foolish they are when in their mind they think they are being so clever, the end results will never turn out well.

 

[cybrsage]

Personally I am going to go with what was actually said in court under oath.
No voter fraud. No evidence of voter fraud. No expectation that picture ID will prevent the non existent voter fraud.

How do you show a crime is happening when you are not allowed to check and see if a crime is happening?

 

[cybrsage]

"Arguing with a conservative is like masturbating with your left hand. It's fun for a while, then you just feel like you're interacting with a retard. "

Yep, that clearly says that Thraashman is a masturbating retard. 😀

 

[cybrsage]

Way to name three things that don't need a photo ID.

As he has many times before. Parroting the same dumb comments repeatedly, long after they've been refuted, seems to be one of his few competencies.

Apparently you two feel it is more important to prove legal age for purchasing these items than it is to prove who you are to vote.

Your priorities are messed up.

 

[cybrsage]

Pennsylvania’s voter photo-ID law was upheld and the Obama campaign challenged Ohio’s pre-election voting timetables, in two of a series of lawsuits in the run-up to the November presidential vote.
The American Civil Liberties Union and 10 voters in Pennsylvania today failed to overturn a rule that voters show approved photo identification at the polls. They didn’t prove voters would be disenfranchised by the law, Judge Robert E. Simpson in Harrisburg wrote.

‘Reasonable’ Requirement

“The photo ID requirement of Act 18 is a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life,” he wrote. “The commonwealth’s asserted interest in protecting public confidence in elections is a relevant and legitimate state interest sufficiently weighty to justify the burden.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-15/pennsylvania-voter-id-challengers-lose-bid-to-block-law

 

[Greenman]

Wow, a judge with some common sense.

There is simply no reason not to have to prove identity when voting.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-15/pennsylvania-voter-id-challengers-lose-bid-to-block-law

It's not over- that's just the first round.

 

[cybrsage]

😀 The next will end like the first.

 

[trenchfoot]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-15/pennsylvania-voter-id-challengers-lose-bid-to-block-law

A Republican judge. Who'd have guessed?

 

[Double Trouble]

I think I agree with the assessment of the judge in the case. The cynic in me views this as an attempt to keep a few democrats away from the polls, but I just can't get myself to view having an ID as such a big burden as to make it unconstitutional. I'm sure this is just the start though, it will be appealed all the way up the chain.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I am not sure the big deal on requiring ID to vote. You need ID to: Buy mature game, R rated movie, enter a casino, buying beer, cigar, use a credit card in store. And we are talking voting here, requiring ID should be a non issue.

I can do all of those things right now with absolutely no need for ID.

So can I and in addition not one of those things is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Probably due to your age.

Now, ignoring the age restrictions:

Can you drive a vehicle legally?

can you board an airline?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Probably due to your age.

Now, ignoring the age restrictions:

Can you drive a vehicle legally?

can you board an airline?

So we have to keep moving the goal posts in order to find validity in the point? Bottom line is everyone loves throwing out all these 'you need an ID for' scenarios and just about all are meaningless.

And neither of what you listed is a right anyway. Or should we also require ID to express speech?

 

[nehalem256]

So can I and in addition not one of those things is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

So we have to keep moving the goal posts in order to find validity in the point? Bottom line is everyone loves throwing out all these 'you need an ID for' scenarios and just about all are meaningless.

And neither of what you listed is a right anyway. Or should we also require ID to express speech?

Voting is not a universally guaranteed right. States routinely prevent incarcerated felons, and even released felons from voting.

You only Constitution only prevents discrimination on age(<18), gender, or race.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So we have to keep moving the goal posts in order to find validity in the point? Bottom line is everyone loves throwing out all these 'you need an ID for' scenarios and just about all are meaningless.

And neither of what you listed is a right anyway. Or should we also require ID to express speech?

You have judgement calls based on age. One could be asked all the time to produce an ID to prove you are age legal; however, there comes a point when it is unneeded because of physical changes

Then you have validation calls to prove who you are.
That is what the ID is for.

goal posts are not moved; just pointing ouit that people when on the wrong end through out unrealistic examples to confuse the issue.

The issue is to PROVE WHO YOU ARE in order to vote in person

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You have judgement calls based on age. One could be asked all the time to produce an ID to prove you are age legal; however, there comes a point when it is unneeded because of physical changes

Then you have validation calls to prove who you are.
That is what the ID is for.

goal posts are not moved; just pointing ouit that people when on the wrong end through out unrealistic examples to confuse the issue.

The issue is to PROVE WHO YOU ARE in order to vote in person

I view it differently. The argument for Voter ID is everyone would produce it every single time to vote without exception. All of the others listed I *may* be asked at the discretion of an individual. Once I cross a certain threshhold for that specific individual and their interpretation I will never be asked thus not requiring the ID. They are not equal.

Just saying it's a silly analogy to use.

 

[Brainonska511]

So I sort of understand the push for photo-id when voting; we'll be protected in the event some super-villain decides to try some overly elaborate, easily foiled election rigging.

But why isn't there a similar outcry to protect the election system in the more obvious places: absentee ballots, paper trails for electronic voting machines (such as using scan-tron style system to simply read and count a paper ballot), and finding ways to stop officials in charge of elections from stuffing ballot boxes.

 

[nehalem256]

So I sort of understand the push for photo-id when voting; we'll be protected in the event some super-villain decides to try some overly elaborate, easily foiled election rigging.

But why isn't there a similar outcry to protect the election system in the more obvious places: absentee ballots, paper trails for electronic voting machines (such as using scan-tron style system to simply read and count a paper ballot), and finding ways to stop officials in charge of elections from stuffing ballot boxes.

The obvious answer to your question is either

1.) Both Democrats and Republicans use those methods to cheat?
2.) Only Republicans use those methods to cheat, but Democrats are too stupid to put a stop to it.

As for preventing such problems.
1.) I agree that all voting should be done with scan-tron as it is simple to vote with, easy to count, and provides a paper trail. I will add that all counts should be done with computer, and then if necessary hand counted to verify correct machine operation lack of fraud/cheating, but unless an obvious problem occurred the machine count should stand.

2.) For absentee ballots. I think these should be greatly restricted. And you can add a requirement to put in your photo ID # on the ballot so it can be checked for fraud as well.

 

[cybrsage]

A Republican judge. Who'd have guessed?

Ah...when you cannot find fault with what the person says, attack the person instead. Logical fallacy found, complaint flushed.

 

[cybrsage]

I view it differently. The argument for Voter ID is everyone would produce it every single time to vote without exception. All of the others listed I *may* be asked at the discretion of an individual. Once I cross a certain threshhold for that specific individual and their interpretation I will never be asked thus not requiring the ID. They are not equal.

Just saying it's a silly analogy to use.

Hmmm...I agree. Reading your explainations, I have to agree the analogy I have been using is not a good one. Airplanes are a good one to use, though, as photo ID is required to board one, to prove your identity.