I'm sorry, I have no interest in continuing such a stupid line of discussion, but maybe someone else will be willing to take the bait rather than letting you suffer silently in shame.
Printable View
I'm sorry, I have no interest in continuing such a stupid line of discussion, but maybe someone else will be willing to take the bait rather than letting you suffer silently in shame.
You gonna stick with that line?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I should have perhaps elaborated. The libertarian argument is split between people who object to requiring people to take a test to drive, and people who oppose being required to register with the government to partake in an activity. I was referring more to the later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
When even Fox thinks you're wrong you're in trouble:
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/fo...gation-2017-1/
http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index....ed_closur.html
Step 1: pass a law to require photo ID.
Step 2: make it extremely difficult for people who don't support you to obtain said ID.
Step 3: profit!
"She said Texas was overreaching by "threatening severe penalties for perjury," and noted that the state's "history of voter intimidation" led her not to accept the new voter ID law as a solution for the "purposeful discrimination" in the one it attempted to improve upon."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What nonsense is this? Texas could choose to have life time prison sentence for perjury and that would be Texas's business. It is like the judge doesn't want harsh penalties for voter fraud on the basis that it would be discrimination. Uh, don't commit fraud, don't try to vote if you aren't allowed to, don't try to vote twice and you shouldn't have a problem.
If the paragraph immediately preceding that one didn't make the reasoning clear enough then you can go straight to the decision for further clarification of that particular detail, starting on p 16: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzg...V3YlFBeDQ/view
That's like making the argument that any penalty for voter fraud could potentially disenfranchise legitimate voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I would say page 19 does so more clearly, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I did look a bit askance at that section in the news report but the actual opinion does an admirable job of walking through the reasoning (and the requirements put in place by higher court rulings) point by point and in (mostly) clear language.
edit: to summarize for you Lewk, the expanded perjury section of the bill is an issue because it A) comes along with the removal of any opportunity to demonstrate ahead of time that it's not perjury, B) a mechanism that makes it harder to avoid perjury, C) relates to something which doesn't actually have a thing to do with voter fraud), and D) all this is done by a state with a history of threatening criminal prosecution exactly like that as a mechanism racially-motivated discrimination and voter suppression. This is relevant because the state has a burden to show that their new law FIXES the previous discriminatory problem(s). Since this exacerbates the voter intimidation aspect and since they were already found at fault for being discriminatory, it very clearly does not fix the problem(s).
Yes, and so to make that less likely you can include an "Other" option so that people can explain their reasons in their own words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I didn't want to shortchange him :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Thought I'd save Lewk the trouble:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...r-fraud-kobach
[Insert remark about difficulty of proving fraud, and demonstrated fraud is besides the point in an electoral system that has real theoretical security holes because of its patchwork of identification standards, which was a point highlighted by the bi-partisan commission that reviewed the 2000 election.]
Insert remark about the US sucking
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckrak...enses-voter-id
It's hard to interpret this as anything but the GOP giving up on democracy (when it gives them the wrong results).
They certainly haven't been acting like people who expect to face consequences at the ballot box recently.
Guys, this is all just in your heads.
Sure they have. They expect/fear they'll be punished by core GOP voters if they don't do these despicable things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I don't think it's that. They just want ever larger electoral majorities in states they dominate to make up for increasingly become a non-factor in other states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Maybe America should split into a red nation and a blue nation? ;)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/o...ppression.html
The villain tells you his evil plan.
You don't believe him.
Is it because nobody can be that cartoonishly evil?
Or is it because you're a little evil yourself?
You both laugh and raise a champagne toast to a better world.
Southern democracy.
I'll be moving to a new voting district, in the same county. I changed my address on-line (for which the US Postal Service required a debit or credit card to charge the $1.00 fee!), and was asked if I wanted to update my voter registration, too? Yes, please. Well, I couldn't do it without following the prompts from advertisers offering discounts. Even then, it didn't tell me my new polling place (where I actually go to vote), or what kind of ID would be required.
Would changing my mailing address be enough, or would I have to get a new driver's license, or take another photo ID? I still don't know. Moving within the same county shouldn't be so difficult. And voting shouldn't be so difficult (or expensive) that people just give up and don't show up.
You don't need a new driver's license in the same state
The $1 is to fight fraud. If you had done it in person there would not have been a fee. All government agencies are required by law to offer to change your voters registration when you create or update accounts with them. We even have to do it at the library when people get or update library cards. Most states have laws for how long you can go after moving before you have to get a new license. Your ID is still valid but can cause additional headaches if you get stopped by the police for anything. When you go to vote your voter's id card and your license (even if its got the old address) is all you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Twitter Link
Those dastardly Voter ID laws kept so many Black Alabamans away from the polls, and propelled Roy Moore to a victory!
Right?
Dread, don't debase yourself like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
In other news, Dread is still an idiot.
Way too late for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I find that pretty rich [from] people in countries that have voter ID laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
In countries where other voting-related obstacles are mainly absent. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If government provide the ID completely free of charge would y'all still be opposed to requiring photo ID to vote?
It's perfectly possible to vote without a photo ID in Sweden, and practically no significant obstacles to obtaining ID, due to Big Brother knowing everything about everyone. But the point is that your link doesn't show you to be right. It shows that you've come an extremely basic error of reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No the Tweet that Dread quoted was a nonsense "heads I win, tails you lose" twisted kind of logic.
I believe that in both this election, and nation-wide in 2012, that African American turnout was higher than white turnout.
You'd still have the barriers of fees for acquiring the documents needed for that ID, and the time away from work to get the ID, and the issue of placing ID issuing locations as far from certain communities as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Rand seems to understand what you did not. The voter ID madness is a peculiar ailment indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So basically no voter identification system is reasonable unless a concierge bureaucrat shows up at your residence to make you a free ID on the spot. Any effort required to procure that ID is somehow discrimination. Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
"Voter suppression didn't work/happen in this one specific election under unprecedented circumstances, therefore it's nothing to worry about" - Dreadnaught
"But we need to worry about voter fraud, and take steps to combat it, even though there's no evidence it actually takes place on any great scale" - Also Dreadnaught
I wouldn't say bureaucrat. My states DMV services come directly to my work, but that doesn't cover the debilitating fees (this is a long standing blind spot for you).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Also, stop being an asshole, if you can't actually debate on merit, don't try. This over the top rhetoric is childish, even for someone as immature as yourself.
Well, do you have to drive for two hours to find a government office that will actually issue you the id since the state closed every single office in your own county? Yes? Than yeah, I'll still be opposed to requiring the photo id. It doesn't matter if you make something available "for free" if you make sure people still can't get it for other reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What if you could get it in your own county? Or if you could get it by post or online?
How do people apply? Please describe the process from beginning to end.