Politics

[GoIrish41]

Personally, I've voted several times today.

sshhhhh. We're not supposed to admit it to the righties.

 

[NewBrunswickIrish]

Voter ID laws suppress vote fraud, which suppresses Democrats who like to vote early and often. So yes, it does "disenfranchise" relative to what they are use to getting away with.

Would you support the government paying for IDs for all low income people who couldn't afford it? That probably would solve both issues.

 

[DSully1995]

Funny, I suspose all people who jaywalk or speed are caught too? It is very hard to prove and more times than not it is chalked up to the cost of doing business.

You can also claim no voter intimidation in PA b/c Holder let the Panthers go, right?

**** YEA MAN AND ALIENS ARE CONTROLLING OUR MINDS, I MEAN, CANT DISPROVE CAN YOU?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Funny, I suspose all people who jaywalk or speed are caught too? It is very hard to prove and more times than not it is chalked up to the cost of doing business.

You can also claim no voter intimidation in PA b/c Holder let the Panthers go, right?

Personally, I've jaywalked several times today.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Would you support the government paying for IDs for all low income people who couldn't afford it? That probably would solve both issues.

I would if that meant we could come to some kind of agreement on a voter id law. But based upon the democrats responses, I would assume that still wouldn't be acceptable.

 

[GoIrish41]

Funny, I suspose all people who jaywalk or speed are caught too? It is very hard to prove and more times than not it is chalked up to the cost of doing business.
You can also claim no voter intimidation in PA b/c Holder let the Panthers go, right?

says who? There have been so few cases of voter fraud that it isn't even an issue. On the other hand, millions of people are caught speeding every year and are punished through fines or suspension of their licences (which incidently, might keep them from being able to vote). The only reason we are talking about it is because the republicans are trying to use this phantom problem to keep people away from the polls.

As to voter intimidation, there is no greater intimidation to voters than the state putting out FALSE information to them to keep them away from the polls. I will not comment on what that lone Black Panther is doing at the polls, because I have no idea. No real, legitamate news organization is reporting on it.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I would if that meant we could come to some kind of agreement on a voter id law. But based upon the democrats responses, I would assume that still wouldn't be acceptable.

It could work. Anything that amounts to a poll tax is, and should be, illegal. If it's easy, accessible, and transparent, I think it could work.

I think GoIrish was right about the timing on this effort. Combined with limiting early voting in several areas (see Ohio and Florida, in partuclar), it seemed to me like a very obvious ploy to depress turnout.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I wonder, if in 2016 there is no black candidate, how many blacks will turn out to vote.

 

[ab2cmiller]

It could work. Anything that amounts to a poll tax is, and should be, illegal. If it's easy, accessible, and transparent, I think it could work.

I think GoIrish was right about the timing on this effort. Combined with limiting early voting in several areas (see Ohio and Florida, in partuclar), it seemed to me like a very obvious ploy to depress turnout.

Agreed. I don't think any of the states are charging a fee for the photo ID itself. However, there is an argument that some people are incurring costs to get the proper documentation to show to the state to get the photo id. I don't know if that amounts to a poll tax or not, but in any case I would even pay for that for those that couldn't afford it.

 

[GoIrish41]

I wonder, if in 2016 there is no black candidate, how many blacks will turn out to vote.

I wonder how big a deal voter fraud will be when that happens?

 

[GoIrish41]

Agreed. I don't think any of the states are charging a fee for the photo ID itself. However, there is an argument that some people are incurring costs to get the proper documentation to show to the state to get the photo id. I don't know if that amounts to a poll tax or not, but in any case I would even pay for that for those that couldn't afford it.

I'm all for this idea. That said, I don't think this issue is going to have any legs beyond this election. I think it was pretty clear this was invented to suppress turnout.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I wonder how big a deal voter fraud will be when that happens?

Probably solved by then. A lot of these laws, even the one in PA, have been postponed until 2013. Purely coincidental...

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I'm all for this idea. That said, I don't think this issue is going to have any legs beyond this election. I think it was pretty clear this was invented to suppress turnout.

Thirty states already have voter ID laws of some sort.

 

[GoIrish41]

Thirty states already have voter ID laws of some sort.

It was the timing of implementation of NEW laws that made the courts postpone them ... I said that several posts above.

 

[DSully1995]

Probably solved by then. A lot of these laws, even the one in PA, have been postponed until 2013. Purely coincidental...

Dude, dont act like liberal nazis are running this charade, your on the losing side of this argument, Republicans are using (or tried to use) voter id to win the election, not to prevent a massive liberal conspiracy of voter fraud.

 

[IrishLax]

Voted Manti Te'o for Representative. Seriously.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'll take up the drug testing in order to receive federal aid issue.

First of all, drug testing is not cheap. So there would have to be ample evidence that welfare was being used for illegal drug usage on a wide scale to justify a program like that.

Second, and most importantly, it presumes guilt based on stereotypes. Drug testing, when done properly, is a pretty significant invasion of personal privacy (and believe me, I know, I'm in the Army). The government's default position should be minimally invasive.

Finally, why welfare? Almost every college in the country receives federal aid. Why aren't we **** testing students and professors? Farmers receive huge subsidies- should we drug test them? Churches and other religious institutions aren't taxed- how do we know they aren't using that extra money to shoot up? I could go on, but I think you see the point.

In the end, the idea of making drug-testing mandatory for welfare recipients is not a serious proposal in response to a real problem, but a deliberate attempt to make liberals look bad by voting against something that, on the surface, seems reasonable. If you really think about it, it seems thoroughly unconservative to set up a massive government program that invades privacy at such an intimate level.

 

[DSully1995]

Great post IrishinSyria, reps

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Um, the hysterical FOXNews story says that there is exactly ONE black panther at a polling place, working as a poll watcher. And my guess is that that gentleman is no more partisan, racist or likely to intimidate voters than the "Free the Vote" poll watchers. Given the transparent and shameful effort to intimidate minorities from voting in FL, OH and PA, I'm glad this dude is out there counteracting it.

But to say the "Black Panthers" are at polling places implies that a gang is out there scaring people away, and it is a little disengenuous because that clearly isn't what is happening.

Take the hysteria elsewhere. In 2008 Black Panthers were in Philly with batons, as the other poster already noted. There's a really cute video and a "speech" from the spirited soldier as well. Give that one a click and get a piece of pie. It's quite a show.

Voter ID laws are implemented to avoid voter fraud, aka 20 million dead people voting nationwide. If we need ID to drive cars, buy booze, etc. etc. getting proper ID (with proper time) is not intimidation. It's common friggin sense.

And since progressives love looking to other countries and adoring them, every other country in the world has voter ID laws.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Dude, dont act like liberal nazis are running this charade, your on the losing side of this argument, Republicans are using (or tried to use) voter id to win the election, not to prevent a massive liberal conspiracy of voter fraud.

Four letters for you: SEIU

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Dude, dont act like liberal nazis are running this charade, your on the losing side of this argument, Republicans are using (or tried to use) voter id to win the election, not to prevent a massive liberal conspiracy of voter fraud.

Dude, I'm not a Republican. I'm on no losing side. Until this year I was a registered Democrat and even voted for Obama in 2008. I personally feel that there should be voter ID laws in every state; ones that require strict photo ID. Of all the things that require ID, why is something so important as voting excluded?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Don't even bother, this is where he repeatedly tries to convince us that voter id laws are some grand conspiracy from the republicans to disenfranchise voters. He's getting out his tin foil right now. The only problem is that a majority of Americans support voter id laws, including the majority of democrats. Having a photo id to vote seems like such a unfair illogical requirement.

Usually when you explain a liberal argument I have to correct a gross mischaracterization or two, but in this case you pretty much nailed it. "Voter ID" laws, passed almost exclusively in swing states with republican election officials, supposedly address a problem that doesn't actually exist (voter fraud); in actuality, it addresses a different problem: the electorate becoming too non-white for republicans to win elections.

If reasonable ID laws were passed in isolation, maybe you could claim they're just being extra careful. But the ID laws that have been passed don't make any attempt to ensure legitimate voters are guaranteed the access to the polls that is their fundamental right, and they have been accompanied by other inexplicable voting "reforms" that restrict the times and places available for early voting (which disproportionately effects democratic core constituencies.

What could possibly be the rationale for limiting the access people have to the polls? There is one explanation, and its not a conspiracy. Watch the video IrishJayhawk posted. When a party's "election strategy" is centered around disenfranchising people and trying to assassinate the character of your opponent, what else do you need to know about that party?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What could possibly be the rationale for limiting the access people have to the polls? There is one explanation, and its not a conspiracy. Watch the video IrishJayhawk posted. When a party's "election strategy" is centered around disenfranchising people trying to assassinate the character of your opponent, what else do you need to know about that party?

I still don't know how to embed the thing...

 

[connor_in]

Usually when you explain a liberal argument I have to correct a gross mischaracterization or two, but in this case you pretty much nailed it. "Voter ID" laws, passed almost exclusively in swing states with republican election officials, supposedly address a problem that doesn't actually exist (voter fraud); in actuality, it addresses a different problem: the electorate becoming too non-white for republicans to win elections.

If reasonable ID laws were passed in isolation, maybe you could claim they're just being extra careful. But the ID laws that have been passed don't make any attempt to ensure legitimate voters are guaranteed the access to the polls that is their fundamental right, and they have been accompanied by other inexplicable voting "reforms" that restrict the times and places available for early voting (which disproportionately effects democratic core constituencies.

What could possibly be the rationale for limiting the access people have to the polls? There is one explanation, and its not a conspiracy. Watch the video IrishJayhawk posted. When a party's "election strategy" is centered around disenfranchising people trying to assassinate the character of your opponent, what else do you need to know about that party?

Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system | The Cable

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Can you test for prescription drugs?

 

[GoIrish41]

Dude, I'm not a Republican. I'm on no losing side. Until this year I was a registered Democrat and even voted for Obama in 2008. I personally feel that there should be voter ID laws in every state; ones that require strict photo ID. Of all the things that require ID, why is something so important as voting excluded?

Because it is a solution in search of a problem. And, because the very essence of our system of government, the one concrete right every citizen in this country can point to demonstrate, "that is what makes America great." As I've said before, I'm not against voter ID laws, but it should be extraordinarily easy to get said ID. That is not what most of these new laws was shooting for. Indeed, it was the opposite.

 

[DSully1995]

Dude, I'm not a Republican. I'm on no losing side. Until this year I was a registered Democrat and even voted for Obama in 2008. I personally feel that there should be voter ID laws in every state; ones that require strict photo ID. Of all the things that require ID, why is something so important as voting excluded?

Because not everyone has one! Everyone has the right to vote in da constitution, nowhere does it mention ID, also I agree with the courts in that voter id laws can be acceptable, just make enough time for people to adjust, Penn. was a clear attempt at disenfranchisment and had nothing to do with protecting the electoral process.

Btw, respect your frankness and the fact that you arent simply arguing one side because a certain party is.

 

[tadman95]

I'll take up the drug testing in order to receive federal aid issue.

First of all, drug testing is not cheap. So there would have to be ample evidence that welfare was being used for illegal drug usage on a wide scale to justify a program like that.

Second, and most importantly, it presumes guilt based on stereotypes. Drug testing, when done properly, is a pretty significant invasion of personal privacy (and believe me, I know, I'm in the Army). The government's default position should be minimally invasive.

Finally, why welfare? Almost every college in the country receives federal aid. Why aren't we **** testing students and professors? Farmers receive huge subsidies- should we drug test them? Churches and other religious institutions aren't taxed- how do we know they aren't using that extra money to shoot up? I could go on, but I think you see the point.

In the end, the idea of making drug-testing mandatory for welfare recipients is not a serious proposal in response to a real problem, but a deliberate attempt to make liberals look bad by voting against something that, on the surface, seems reasonable. If you really think about it, it seems thoroughly unconservative to set up a massive government program that invades privacy at such an intimate level.

All good points. I would add if you cleared all of these hurdles, do you take away assistance to a parent that smokes pot that has two small children. Not a very good scenario but it's real. Do you take away assistance for the children? Haven't you created a another, possibly more expensive problem?

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I'll take up the drug testing in order to receive federal aid issue.

First of all, drug testing is not cheap. So there would have to be ample evidence that welfare was being used for illegal drug usage on a wide scale to justify a program like that.

Second, and most importantly, it presumes guilt based on stereotypes. Drug testing, when done properly, is a pretty significant invasion of personal privacy (and believe me, I know, I'm in the Army). The government's default position should be minimally invasive.

Finally, why welfare? Almost every college in the country receives federal aid. Why aren't we **** testing students and professors? Farmers receive huge subsidies- should we drug test them? Churches and other religious institutions aren't taxed- how do we know they aren't using that extra money to shoot up? I could go on, but I think you see the point.

In the end, the idea of making drug-testing mandatory for welfare recipients is not a serious proposal in response to a real problem, but a deliberate attempt to make liberals look bad by voting against something that, on the surface, seems reasonable. If you really think about it, it seems thoroughly unconservative to set up a massive government program that invades privacy at such an intimate level.

So the Army assumes you're using drugs or they randomly **** test you to keep you honest? Also, if a job can choose to **** test someone before they WORK for their money... why can't the govt. test someone before they TAKE our money? Force these people to pay for their own drug testing. If they turn out clean, the money comes out of their Welfare. If they test hot, it comes out of their pockets.

 

[connor_in]

Because not everyone has one! Everyone has the right to vote in da constitution, nowhere does it mention ID, also I agree with the courts in that voter id laws can be acceptable, just make enough time for people to adjust, Penn. was a clear attempt at disenfranchisment and had nothing to do with protecting the electoral process.

Btw, respect your frankness and the fact that you arent simply arguing one side because a certain party is.

Can we at least require evryone vote in person and dip their finger into purple ink