no..no no.
these are not voter suppression laws
It all seems like such a moot point honestly, especially when talking about national elections. Given that here in Oregon it's all by mail, mandating IDs for on site balloting seems like so much fuff.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
It all seems like such a moot point honestly, especially when talking about national elections. Given that here in Oregon it's all by mail, mandating IDs for on site balloting seems like so much fuff.
The only gay in the Romney village has quit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/richard-grenell-resigns-mitt-romney-campaign_n_1468613.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/richard-grenell-resigns-mitt-romney-campaign_n_1468613.html
The buffoons running Europe are going to feck this up for Obama, I can hardly bear to watch.
Obama has flown into Afghanistan tonight and has signed a 'strategic' treaty with Karzai and will be giving an address at 12:30 GMT.
A few interesting lines came out of this, all American personnel will leave Afghanistan by 2014 and no American bases will remain is the most substantive detail. On the more emotive and rhetorical front Obama said 'this time of war began in Afghanistan and it is where it will end'.
So, the end of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The Afghan people have certainly "endured" a whole heap of freedom at the hands of America and their allies for the past 10 years.
The Afghan people have certainly "endured" a whole heap of freedom at the hands of America and their allies for the past 10 years.
If one thing cannot be denied about Afghanistan it is that civil rights and protections of Afghans have grown exponentially and then some, this was of course the country where little more than ten years ago hangings were considered to be football half-time entertainment.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that, I was being facetious.
However, bombing the living daylights out of a country you suspect of harbouring a radical fundamentalist isn't the only way to bring about freedom (or America's version of it)...it can be done diplomatically or by doing what reasonable commentators suggested from the outset: find the perpetrator (Bin Laden) & bring him to justice. Put it another way: If you come home and find your house burgled and you have a decent idea where the perpetrator lives, you ring the police, they bring the guy in, look at the evidence and charge him. It's the lawful, just thing to do. You don't take out a shotgun and start firing at everyone in the vicinity in the hope you hit the criminal. That's essentially what America did in Afghanistan.
Jesus, I'm tired.
There's no "suspect of harboring terrorists" in the case of Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there but Afghanistan wouldn't give him up. It's not as though we went into Afghanistan guessing that they harbored and supported terrorists. It was well-known.
The saying is in reference to committing a crime, not being denied your RIGHT to vote by some arbitrary rule when you are already registered. You are born with rights and can only have them taken away if you commit a crime against society, not having photo ID, a birth certificate or a passport is not a crime.. or is it the 'privilege of voting' now?
It will take a lot of ground work for any political group to promote a change like this and assist voters in getting the suitable ID. Don't expect in the republican states that passed these laws for there to be any awareness campaigns and people (particularly poorer people) generally don't follow politics at all closely.
As has been pointed out a significant proportion of Americans would be denied to right to vote for no legitimate reason under these laws
If the states offered a free/reduced fee/subsidized ID would there still be a problem? I seriously don't see all the fuss about asking someone to prove they are a citizen to vote.
First of all, there isn't a problem of in person voter fraud that this kind of id and proof of citizenship would solve. Disenfranchising over 20 million voters when there is no problem with voter fraud is an appalling proposal.
Do you really want tax payer money going on free ID cards and proof of citizenship for over 20 million people to prevent something that doesn't happen?
There is a movement towards making voting more difficult and time consuming to try and get people who are likely democrat voters to either give up before election day, be unable to vote on the day or stretch out the voting process on the day to minimise the democratic vote.
They already make polling stations in poorer areas have to deal with larger numbers of people to the point where there are large queues outside (remember these are people who cannot afford to take the day off work so get home in the evening then go to vote at the same time as everyone else)
Imagine what it will be like when they have to ID everyone, workers have to fill in a form stating that you saw proof of citizenship or what have you and they are required to do this for every single person who votes. It would put even more strain of the 'bottleneck' of these voting centres.
Not to go all Rafa on everyone, but here's a list of facts:
So in conclusion, the anti-government regulation, fiscally conservative party is proposing laws that cost the government significant amounts of money to create intrusive bureaucracy in the name of stopping a rarely-committed crime via means that don't address the methods actually used to commit those crimes, but will make it harder for people to vote, especially groups that disproportionately vote Democratic.
Again, if you really believe these laws are about preventing voter fraud, your head is DEEPLY in the sand...
- There is a systemic effort by the state Republican parties to enact these sorts of laws.
- Incidents of "voter fraud" cited by the supporters of those laws (in those rare instances when they do cite incidents) tend to contain hefty doses of clerical errors, (wrong names, addresses on file,) simple incompetence, and pure coincidence, (e.g. an Atlanta newspaper cited an incident where a Thomas J Mandel, deceased, allegedly voted in a county near where he'd resided, when in actual fact it was an entirely different Thomas J. Mandell, two L's, that voted, entirely legally).
- There is no evidence that organized efforts to swing an election via early voting, by showing up at polls and voting via provisional or absentee ballots, or by registering "fake voters" who then show up on election day, actually exist.
- The sort of fraud that does occur takes the form of corrupt officials, such as the Waukesha County Elections Officer who left an entire city out of her county's initial count, then "found" thousands of votes in that city two days after the election that A) was significantly less than the total number of votes in the city should have been and B) somehow managed to swing an election to a member of that Elections Officer's party. Want to take a guess which party that person belonged to?
- The laws the GOP is passing do absolutely nothing to prevent THAT sort of fraud.
- Voter ID requirements, even if they don't offer subsidies to provide aid for poor people to obtain identification, (almost none do,) cost the government significant amounts of money.
So in conclusion, the anti-government regulation, fiscally conservative party is proposing laws that cost the government significant amounts of money to create intrusive bureaucracy in the name of stopping a rarely-committed crime via means that don't address the methods actually used to commit those crimes, but will make it harder for people to vote, especially groups that disproportionately vote Democratic.
Again, if you really believe these laws are about preventing voter fraud, your head is DEEPLY in the sand...
The same party is hemming and hawing over offsets for student loan bills while ignoring offsets for the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts. They'll bitch non-stop about not having offsets for certain things but then they never bothered to pay for either war, Medicare Part D, or the tax cuts. It's astounding.
a lot of people, especially old people cannot produce a birth Certificate to prove they are American Citizens but have been Registered to vote for decades.
So they should be denied their right to vote?
Where in the Consitution does it say they need to provide IDs?
This is simply Voter suppression.
We should not enact laws based on supposition and straw man arguments. There have been no proof of voter fraud. Election fraud. Yes. but that is a totally separate issue.
EDIT:Just saw Excal mention Election fraud example above.
Most States have had voter ID requirements for years. Its perfectly logical to expect people to identify themselves when they vote. You need to have paper work for a driving license FFS. BTW, a driving license also proves residency and citizenship.
The only contentious issues was expecting voters to use proof of citizenship for voting. That seems redundant for federal elections because you don't get on the registry until your a citizen.
Correct. these are Federal Elections. No need to show IDs.
And not everyone has a driving license.
Did they ever figure out how the hell Alvin Greene won the S.C democratic primary? That was certainly a very suspicious potential election fraud case. Was it even investigated?
Not everyone but a lot of people do. Everyone should have some form of ID, and the ones that don't are probably off the radar and not even voting anyway.
No necessarily disagreeing with you. However, but I think the way libs scream about voter laws echoes when repubs scream about the dream act.
And please don't trot out the 'where does it say it in the constitution' garbage. The gov't does many things that aren't expressly stated in the constitution. Hell, it passes laws that are in direct violation of constitution at times.
don't agree with you at all.
Unless you are saying we should introduce Identity Cards.
Personally I am in two minds about them. It is good documentation. But as always with such things, the powers that be can abuse.
Fair enough.
But the entire push by the GOP for such laws when no such problem exists is nothing more than a tool to supress Voters.
Why reduce early voting and taking away Sunday voting?
I was under the impression it was for the states to manage all elections, including federal, in the United States.
The tone of the screams may seem similar to you, but whether or not you agree with goals of the DREAM act, stated or unstated, it is not an attempt to place roadblocks in the path of people exercising their legal right to vote. The GOP's voter ID laws are.
Why are the idiots at Fox bringing Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright back into the debate? Didn't we do all of that 4 years ago?
what no Birth Certificate challenges??
sure they will be playing their 'greatest hits'
Desperation.
They hope it will keep people distracted from Romney's Swiss Bank and Caymen Bank accounts.
Fair and balanced Grinner, fair and balanced.
Have to say one thing I dont miss about the states is the constant right wing bullshit I had to listen to living in a red state.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...---the-anniversary-of-osama-bin-laden-s-death
At 3:22 is how GWB would have run an ad on killing OBL. Brilliant!
If somebody can embed just that section I'd be grateful.
At 3:22 is how GWB would have run an ad on killing OBL. Brilliant!
If somebody can embed just that section I'd be grateful.
Have you seen the list of acceptable ID? Everyone should easily be able to provide some form of ID now.
Which is like saying "Everyone in American should easily be able to afford health insurance"; a moral pronouncement that should in no way be mistaken for actual reality.
Meanwhile, continue to ignore the fact that there is little or no evidence that people voting fraudulently without ID is occurring at anything resembling a significant rate.
Its a tough all. I remember when Republicans blew a collective gasket when Bill Clinton in the mid 90s, proposed a national ID card for health purposes. That would've solved this type of dilemma.
cant access it over here grinner
That is the only thing that counts.
If the various challenges reach the Supreme Court, that is what needs to be proven by the proponents.
You can, gambit and cinc explained how earlier in the thread
Works like a charm for Stewart and Colbert
Got a UK site now as well - http://www.comedycentral.co.uk/show...sama-bin-laden-s-death-the-daily-show-765077/
Have you seen the list of acceptable IDs for States like Arizona? There is absolutely no way that anything but a minute percentage of people don't have the necessary IDs now. Even a couple of utility bills is sufficient.
And if the utility bill is in my wife's name? Or my roommate's? Or possibly I'm not aware I need to carry my utility bill with me to the polls?
And you're still dodging the simplest of questions: Since no one is committing this sort of fraud, why do we need laws that WILL prevent people from voting, (your irrelevant judgement of what identification people should have notwithstanding) all to prevent a crime that's not being committed?
I couldn't care less either way TBH. Many States already have voter ID requirements. If you can't be bothered to ensure you have ID then tough luck if you get turned away.
- Status