Proof-of-Citizenship Ruling Victory for Honest Vote

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
You are being obtuse.

People who served in the military receive training. Part of that training is you carry your ID with you.

Chances are the people who refuse to get an ID never served because they were trained to carry an ID.

Irrelevant. For the third time, military service is not a requirement for voting. Being trained to carry an id in the military has no bearing on whether or not people should need an id to vote.

You are simply babbling nonsensical bullshit.

You are being obtuse, yet again.

Not requiring people to have an ID allows people to hide from the system.

John Doe - No ID and cash only jobs, the state has a hard time finding me and I get to evade child support and back taxes. But hey, I still get to vote.

Irrelevant. The state being able to 'find you' is not a requirement for voting.

Most people have an excuse to avoid responsibility.

Being responsible is also not a requirement for exercising your right to vote.
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,167
176
106
You are being obtuse.

People who served in the military receive training. Part of that training is you carry your ID with you.

Chances are the people who refuse to get an ID never served because they were trained to carry an ID.




You are being obtuse, yet again.

Not requiring people to have an ID allows people to hide from the system.

John Doe - No ID and cash only jobs, the state has a hard time finding me and I get to evade child support and back taxes. But hey, I still get to vote.




Most people have an excuse to avoid responsibility.

I can almost guarantee there are quite a few WWII and Vietnam vets that don't have a currently valid state issued ID *or* do not always carry one like you assume they do because of their military training.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
I never said it was.

Then stop mentioning it.

And that ladies and gentlemen is how democrats get elected.

You realize that if we started putting limits on personal characteristics, intellectual capacity, and ability to reason that you would be one of the first people to be screened out, right? Be careful what you wish for.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,824
1,583
136
I don't mind requiring an id to vote. But, I believe the id should be free and convenient to get. Also there should be enough time for everyone to get it, say 2 years.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
I don't mind requiring an id to vote. But, I believe the id should be free and convenient to get. Also there should be enough time for everyone to get it, say 2 years.

The biggest problem with having and id to vote is that it's a rights issue honestly. Voting is a right as a citizen in good standing. There is no legal requirement that citizens maintain ID. And therefore a citizen should be fully within their rights to choose to not maintain an id but also not lose their legal right to vote.

I'd have less of a problem with these ID laws if it weren't so glaringly obvious the intent was to disenfranchise voters.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,824
1,583
136
The biggest problem with having and id to vote is that it's a rights issue honestly. Voting is a right as a citizen in good standing. There is no legal requirement that citizens maintain ID. And therefore a citizen should be fully within their rights to choose to not maintain an id but also not lose their legal right to vote.

I'd have less of a problem with these ID laws if it weren't so glaringly obvious the intent was to disenfranchise voters.


I do agree that the short term goals have been about voter disenfranchisement.
You make an interesting point about marinating an id. I would have thought that libertarians would be opposed to voter Id laws as well. Seems like one more mode for "the state" to track you.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Then stop mentioning it.

Stop talking about something that puts a dent in your theory?

Huh, no.


You realize that if we started putting limits on personal characteristics, intellectual capacity, and ability to reason that you would be one of the first people to be screened out, right? Be careful what you wish for.

I never said anything about any of that.

My stance is and always has been personal responsibility.

If someone is not responsible enough to get a government issued ID, they are not responsible enough to be voting.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
My stance is and always has been personal responsibility.

If someone is not responsible enough to get a government issued ID, they are not responsible enough to be voting.

You're advocating removing a right because someone chooses not to do something that they legally aren't required to do.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Stop talking about something that puts a dent in your theory?

Huh, no.

What dent in what theory? Again, this is just babbling nonsense.

I never said anything about any of that.

My stance is and always has been personal responsibility.

If someone is not responsible enough to get a government issued ID, they are not responsible enough to be voting.

If someone isn't responsible or well informed enough to know how jury selection works in our country they aren't responsible or well informed enough to be voting. Out with you.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
You're advocating removing a right because someone chooses not to do something that they legally aren't required to do.

Not remove someones right to vote. Just set the bar at having some personal responsibility before they can vote.

No different than having an ID and instant background check before someone can buy a gun.


If someone isn't responsible or well informed enough to know how jury selection works in our country they aren't responsible or well informed enough to be voting. Out with you.

What are those people who refuse to get an ID hiding from?

Back taxes?

Child support?

Maybe both?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Not remove someones right to vote. Just set the bar at having some personal responsibility before they can vote.

No different than having an ID and instant background check before someone can buy a gun.




What are those people who refuse to get an ID hiding from?

Back taxes?

Child support?

Maybe both?

Irrelevant.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I don't know if this has mentioned before (I didn't read the entire thread), but one of the most respected institutions in America (ACLU) has weighed in on this issue. Now that you are aware of this fact, do we really need go any further with this?

Voting rights are under attack in this country as state legislatures nationwide pass voter suppression laws under the pretext of preventing voter fraud and safeguarding election integrity. These voter suppression laws take many forms, and collectively lead to significant burdens for eligible voters trying to exercise their most fundamental constitutional right.

During the 2011 legislative sessions, states across the country passed measures to make it harder for Americans – particularly African-Americans, the elderly, students and people with disabilities – to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot. Over thirty states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Studies suggest that up to 11 percent of American citizens lack such ID, and would be required to navigate the administrative burdens to obtain it or forego the right to vote entirely.

https://www.aclu.org/fighting-voter-suppression
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Not remove someones right to vote. Just set the bar at having some personal responsibility before they can vote.

No different than having an ID and instant background check before someone can buy a gun.

Actually registering to vote is the equivalent of the background check. What you're advocating for is in order to legally carry a gun someone must also be certified in CPR. If you can't have the personal responsibility to know how to save a life you can't have a device capable of taking one.


I don't know why I or anyone else bothers to reply to you. You have been proven wrong in LITERALLY every thread you post in. I'm done with your BS.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
I don't know if this has mentioned before (I didn't read the entire thread), but one of the most respected institutions in America (ACLU) has weighed in on this issue.

The ACLU is a respected institution? LOL, give me a break.

All the ACLU cares about is making money off lawsuits.


I don't know why I or anyone else bothers to reply to you. You have been proven wrong in LITERALLY every thread you post in. I'm done with your BS.

Yea, I can understand how being required to take responsibility for your actions might piss people off.

I would like to dodge child support and/or back taxes by hiding. But my morals say otherwise.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
If this is true, as you say, you should have no problem showing evidence of this being the case.

You want evidence?

What is the vast majority of ACLU cases? Against government agencies, such as courts displaying religious symbols and schools.

What do government agencies have? Money, though tax payers and liability insurance.

When it comes to defending human rights and not making any money off the case, the aclu is mostly silent. Not always silent, but mostly silent.

Examples:

Life sentences for minor drug offenses.
State seizing property for minor drug offenses.
Defending death row inmates.
Prohibiting gun ownership after misdemeanor spousal abuse. How many rights are taken away after a misdemeanor crime.
The aclu will defend a womans right to abortion. But how many death row inmates does the aclu defend.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
You want evidence?

What is the vast majority of ACLU cases? Against government agencies, such as courts displaying religious symbols and schools.

What do government agencies have? Money, though tax payers and liability insurance.

When it comes to defending human rights and not making any money off the case, the aclu is mostly silent. Not always silent, but mostly silent.

Examples:

Life sentences for minor drug offenses.
State seizing property for minor drug offenses.
Defending death row inmates.
Prohibiting gun ownership after misdemeanor spousal abuse. How many rights are taken away after a misdemeanor crime.
The aclu will defend a womans right to abortion. But how many death row inmates does the aclu defend.

what do you call this then?

https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/aclus-capital-punishment-project
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
You want evidence?

What is the vast majority of ACLU cases? Against government agencies, such as courts displaying religious symbols and schools.

What do government agencies have? Money, though tax payers and liability insurance.

When it comes to defending human rights and not making any money off the case, the aclu is mostly silent. Not always silent, but mostly silent.

Examples:

Life sentences for minor drug offenses.
State seizing property for minor drug offenses.
Defending death row inmates.
Prohibiting gun ownership after misdemeanor spousal abuse. How many rights are taken away after a misdemeanor crime.
The aclu will defend a womans right to abortion. But how many death row inmates does the aclu defend.

Please post how much money the ACLU has made from this.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
You're wound really tight aren't you? I've known people like yourself as I've gone through life. You've got it a lot worse than the majority of them. You can't let anything go. When you hear something even on the fringes of what is counter to your thinking you are compelled to set them straight by an overpowering urge. What a burden to bear.

The majority that read my post would see that there was enough truth in it that they got the point. They could understand the mild hyperbole, because as you said in your argument numerous times, "not everyone...". Everything I pointed out had some degree of truth to it. But you just.can't.let.it.go. You wriggle and twitch and type in a frenzy because you have deemed that "someone on the internet is wrong".

Keep arguing. I'm no longer listening. Polling shows you to be on the wrong side of this issue by a wide margin. Your viewpoint is that of a wacko fringe minority and there is no sense in entertaining it.


Polling also shows that 25% of Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the earth.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...ricans-believe-sun-revolves-around-the-earth/

Polling shows that roughly 80% of American adults believe in angels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/


Polling shows that close to 50% of Americans believe that humans were created in their present form within the past 10,000 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Polling also shows that 25% of Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the earth.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...ricans-believe-sun-revolves-around-the-earth/

Polling shows that roughly 80% of American adults believe in angels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/


Polling shows that close to 50% of Americans believe that humans were created in their present form within the past 10,000 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

The most important thing isn't any of that. Just because people are stupid in one way doesn't mean that they are stupid in others.

The real thing here is that voting is the most fundamental aspect of our system of governance. You should be very careful when limiting that right or taking it away, and popular support for removing voting rights doesn't really sway me at all on whether or not it is a good thing to do.

EDIT: To me by far the most important thing is that those arguing for voter id laws still can't provide any evidence for why they would be a good thing. That's pretty damning.

Again, they should just have the guts to admit they want to do it to keep non-Republicans from voting. Have the balls to own it.
 
Last edited:

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Polling also shows that 25% of Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the earth.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...ricans-believe-sun-revolves-around-the-earth/

Polling shows that roughly 80% of American adults believe in angels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/


Polling shows that close to 50% of Americans believe that humans were created in their present form within the past 10,000 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
I try to make allowances for you because you're Canadian, but this post and your recent one in the Lois Lerner thread make you sound kind of special needs.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
You want evidence?

What is the vast majority of ACLU cases? Against government agencies, such as courts displaying religious symbols and schools.

What do government agencies have? Money, though tax payers and liability insurance.

When it comes to defending human rights and not making any money off the case, the aclu is mostly silent. Not always silent, but mostly silent.

Examples:

Life sentences for minor drug offenses.
State seizing property for minor drug offenses.
Defending death row inmates.
Prohibiting gun ownership after misdemeanor spousal abuse. How many rights are taken away after a misdemeanor crime.
The aclu will defend a womans right to abortion. But how many death row inmates does the aclu defend.

Damn it must suck to be so ignorant:

The ACLU consists of two separate non-profit organizations: the ACLU, and the ACLU Foundation. Both organizations engage in litigation, advocacy of civil rights, and education. The ACLU is a 501(c)(4) corporation which also engages in political lobbying, and donations to that component of the ACLU are not tax deductible. The ACLU Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, which does not engage in lobbying, and donations to it are tax deductible.[14]


In 2011, the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation had a combined income of $109 million, originating from grants (60%), membership donations (23%), and bequests (17%). Membership dues account for $25 million per year and are treated as donations; members choose the amount they pay annually, averaging $50 per member per year.[15] In 2011, the combined expenses of the ACLU and ACLU Foundation were $106 million, spent on Programs (88%), management (7%), and fundraising (5%).[16] The ACLU Foundation accounts for about 75% of the combined budget, and the ACLU about 25%.[17]


The ACLU solicits donations to its charitable foundation. The ACLU is accredited by the Better Business Bureau, and the Charity Navigator has ranked the ACLU with a four-star rating.[18][19] The local affiliates also solicit their own funding, and some receive funds from the national ACLU. The distribution and amount of funding for state affiliates varies from state to state. Smaller affiliates with fewer resources, such as that in Nebraska, receive subsidies from the national ACLU.[citation needed]
I
n October 2004, the ACLU rejected $1.5 million from both the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation because the Foundations had adopted language from the USA PATRIOT Act in their donation agreements, including a clause stipulating that none of the money would go to "underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities." The ACLU views this clause, both in Federal law and in the donors' agreements, as a threat to civil liberties, saying it is overly broad and ambiguous.[20][21]


Due to the nature of its legal work, the ACLU is often involved in litigation against governmental bodies, which are generally protected from adverse monetary judgments; a town, state or federal agency may be required to change its laws or behave differently, but not to pay monetary damages except by an explicit statutory waiver. In some cases, the law permits plaintiffs who successfully sue government agencies to collect money damages or other monetary relief. In particular, the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 leaves the government liable in some civil rights cases. Fee awards under this civil rights statute are considered "equitable relief" rather than damages, and government entities are not immune from equitable relief.[22] Under laws such as this, the ACLU and its state affiliates sometimes share in monetary judgments against government agencies. In 2006, the Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act sought to prevent monetary judgments in the particular case of violations of church-state separation.[23]


The ACLU has received court awarded fees from opponents, for example, the Georgia affiliate was awarded $150,000 in fees after suing a county demanding the removal of a Ten Commandments display from its courthouse;[24] a second Ten Commandments case in the State, in a different county, led to a $74,462 judgment.[25] The State of Tennessee was required to pay $50,000, the State of Alabama $175,000, and the State of Kentucky $121,500, in similar Ten Commandments cases.[26][27]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Funding