Stadium-Armory Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 My question is why do Democrats feel that their voters need so much extra help to stay within the boundaries that Republicans do not seem to have any trouble with (according to the Democrats)? It makes sense to me that poor people will elect officials that help ensure their ability to vote. The democrats represent the poor. Voila. For the record, I think IDs aren't an unreasonable requirement. How else could we ensure "one man one vote"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Exposing your bias and deliberate selective outlook is now "making **** up"?Then no. I dont plan on stopping pointing out the obvious left wing hypocrisy and bull****. well you should plan on building some credibility cause otherwise people are going to continue to think you're full of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I couldn't name a single politician who's ideas I agree with 100%. Can you? I was just claiming it's odd. The posters here (and everywhere else) who support Ron Paul seem to support & defend him on EVERY issue. It's a cult, I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 well you should plan on building some credibility cause otherwise people are going to continue to think you're full of it Typically that occurs when I expose others ignorance. Take this latest exchange for example. A great discussion until you decided to go on a personal attack. That I exposed you for it makes you mad. And as such, you are left with nothing but more insults or attacks because you lack conviction in your own position. It's not my fault you're bias is so easily exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 It makes sense to me that poor people will elect officials that help ensure their ability to vote. The democrats represent the poor. Voila.Viola. Not much motivation for the Democrats to turn poor people into rich people is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 A social security card is not proof of identity. It is an indicator though. Basically another step someone would have to take which although it would not eliminate the ability to vote in place of someone else would reduce the likelyhood someone would. (Bottomline a reasonable mitigator). I just don't see the problem with having some supporting documentation to show who you are when you vote. Frankly it is prudent and highly reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Viola. Not much motivation for the Democrats to turn poor people into rich people is there? I don't follow. Poor people electing officials that help ensure their ability to vote is helping poor people's vote be counted. In doing so, those people can elect officials who also enact policies that help the poor get educated, stay healthy, and succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I was just claiming it's odd. The posters here (and everywhere else) who support Ron Paul seem to support & defend him on EVERY issue.It's a cult, I say! Like Mormonism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I don't follow. Poor people electing officials that help ensure their ability to vote is helping poor people's vote be counted. In doing so, those people can elect officials who also enact policies that help the poor get educated, stay healthy, and succeed. Except the officials know if they enact those policies that help the poor to succeed they will lose their vote. Soooooo....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Except the officials know if they enact those policies that help the poor to succeed they will lose their vote. Soooooo....... When elected officials make a positive difference in the lives of their constituents, they get re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I was just claiming it's odd. The posters here (and everywhere else) who support Ron Paul seem to support & defend him on EVERY issue.It's a cult, I say! I'm one of the more vocal supporters here, and I often go out of my way to highlight one of the issues on which I disagree with him, such as the need for some basic environmental regulation, in order to make a larger point. (Kind of like I'm doing right now.) So you know at least one Ron Paul supporter who doesn't agree with him on EVERY issue, just a lot of issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 What data is there showing inequality? Has it occurred to you that claims of "voter denial" could just as bogus as "voter fraud"? The disenfranchisement of a single legal voter is unconstitutional. Interestingly enough this thinking would disenfranchise the Amish who do not have picture IDs for religious reasons. ---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 05:27 PM ---------- It is an indicator though. It isn't an indicator of anything, if I'm carrying my wife's SocSec card that indicates nothing more than the fact that I'm carrying her card. BTW anyone who goes around flashing their SocSec card as ID is a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 The disenfranchisement of a single legal voter is unconstitutional. Interestingly enough this thinking would disenfranchise the Amish who do not have picture IDs for religious reasons. edit: nm, missed the word 'legal' up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I just don't see having an ID as restricting a person's right to vote.You have to have ID in Maryland as an adult. If you don't, you can be charged with vagrancy. If you need an ID to walk down the street, I see no reason why it's that much of a stretch to require simply flashing the card to exercise your right to vote. It won't be that hard. Driver's license or Age of Majority card. They require it here to be an adult citizen of the state. Community organizers or other grass roots political organizations can drive around with a van doing the photos and issuing cards. I don't see how requiring an ID check to be any more advantageous to one side or another. Likewise I think trying to convince me that blue collar workers are more likely to be Dems isn't going to fly, but I have no problem with early voting and trying to give everyone access to the polls. Some people do work ridiculous hours. ~Bang I find 100% agreement with this post ---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 06:32 PM ---------- Yeah, give your name and sign on the rolls at your designated polling station. That is all that is required here.---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 11:56 AM ---------- Can you post the law requirement? I haven't been able to find it - only info about the Real ID act and MD's effort to meet it (which, isn't a mandatory ID for all adults, btw). Here is the info from the MD DMV. It sounds like an ID isn't a requirement from that language on their own DMV. Also, it's odd that even some of the Ron Paul supporters on this site are ok with this. Paul is one of the biggest opponents of the Real ID act (and I suspect, efforts like this too). This RP supporter is dead set against the real id act. That has nothing to do with this thread though. We arent discussing national ID here, we are discussing simply proving who you are if you want your vote to count via acceptable ID. ---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 06:37 PM ---------- The disenfranchisement of a single legal voter is unconstitutional. Interestingly enough this thinking would disenfranchise the Amish who do not have picture IDs for religious reasons.---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 05:27 PM ---------- It isn't an indicator of anything, if I'm carrying my wife's SocSec card that indicates nothing more than the fact that I'm carrying her card. BTW anyone who goes around flashing their SocSec card as ID is a moron. Most states simply issue the amish a special photoless ID that works just like a DL as ID for them. They get a letter from their bishop confirming its a religion issue and then they get the special ID. No disenfranchising going on, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 If they dont, maybe they should think about getting them, like virtually every other American has to. Pointing out that I've been working on getting my mother a state-issued photo ID, now, for over six months. Also pointing out that if I had to renew my driver's license, right now, I couldn't do it. (Because I don't have all of the things that Florida now demands that I have to get first, before I can renew my DL.) (Of course, the people who issue those other pieces of paper, well, they all demand that I must get the DL, before they will give me the paper that I have to have, before I can renew my DL.) But please, keep tossing out claims. ---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 08:23 PM ---------- I just don't see having an ID as restricting a person's right to vote.You have to have ID in Maryland as an adult. If you don't, you can be charged with vagrancy. If you need an ID to walk down the street, I see no reason why it's that much of a stretch to require simply flashing the card to exercise your right to vote. It won't be that hard. Driver's license or Age of Majority card. They require it here to be an adult citizen of the state. Community organizers or other grass roots political organizations can drive around with a van doing the photos and issuing cards. I don't see how requiring an ID check to be any more advantageous to one side or another. Likewise I think trying to convince me that blue collar workers are more likely to be Dems isn't going to fly, but I have no problem with early voting and trying to give everyone access to the polls. Some people do work ridiculous hours. ~Bang In Florida, in order to obtain or renew photo ID, among other things, you must furnish an original Social Security card, and a birth certificate. In order to obtain a Social Security card, you must send to the government an original birth certificate. (No copies permitted.) In order to obtain a birth certificate (from Oklahoma), you must send then state-issued photo ID. Yeah, you're right. Community organizers can just hand them out from the back of a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Most states simply issue the amish a special photoless ID that works just like a DL as ID for them. They get a letter from their bishop confirming its a religion issue and then they get the special ID. No disenfranchising going on, And how is that an ID? If it doesn't have a picture it is about as useful for identification as your SocSec card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 And how is that an ID? If it doesn't have a picture it is about as useful for identification as your SocSec card. When we show an indication that the Amish are committing ANY kind of voter fraud, we can delve deep into that .0003% crime spree. Until then, please stop the constant sidetracking. It's more the organized leadership effort at voter fraud that is needed more than individual multiple votes. I'd think you'd have to start with the crazy rules put forth by both parties that do not wish others to play before we hit individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 And how is that an ID? If it doesn't have a picture it is about as useful for identification as your SocSec card. because it is an exception practice that has been an acceptable means of identification for those whose religion prohibits photo ID's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 When we show an indication that the Amish are committing ANY kind of voter fraud, we can delve deep into that .0003% crime spree. Until then, please stop the constant sidetracking. It is not sidetracking, and just because a government decides that it is ok to discriminate against a population just because they are small then we are on the road to ruin...oh wait we already are, enjoy the ride, and get rich while you can. It's more the organized leadership effort at voter fraud that is needed more than individual multiple votes. So what part of "myth" didn't you understand, Texas spent 3 million dollars trying to prove what you suggest...actually I should have said that they wasted 3 million dollars proving no such thing exists, it is the GOP unicorn that they keep insisting is real and widespread. ---------- Post added October-11th-2011 at 08:53 AM ---------- because it is an exception practice that has been an acceptable means of identification for those whose religion prohibits photo ID's. Ok, you still didn't answer my question, if it does not have a picture on it then how can it prove identity? It can't, but you're willing to allow a form of identity that doesn't prove anything to allow people to vote and yet insist that everyone else must provide a photo ID....equal protection my butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 It is not sidetracking, and just because a government decides that it is ok to discriminate against a population just because they are small then we are on the road to ruin...oh wait we already are, enjoy the ride, and get rich while you can.So what part of "myth" didn't you understand, Texas spent 3 million dollars trying to prove what you suggest...actually I should have said that they wasted 3 million dollars proving no such thing exists, it is the GOP unicorn that they keep insisting is real and widespread. ---------- Post added October-11th-2011 at 08:53 AM ---------- Ok, you still didn't answer my question, if it does not have a picture on it then how can it prove identity? It can't, but you're willing to allow a form of identity that doesn't prove anything to allow people to vote and yet insist that everyone else must provide a photo ID....equal protection my butt. It cant with perfection, but its certainly a workaround option for these very special circumstances that will arise very rarely in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 So what part of "myth" didn't you understand, Texas spent 3 million dollars trying to prove what you suggest...actually I should have said that they wasted 3 million dollars proving no such thing exists, it is the GOP unicorn that they keep insisting is real and widespread. This is the thing I don't get. Why are people still talking about this as if this widespread voter fraud actually exists? To me, that should be the main point here. All of these new rules these states are rolling out are said to be put in place to stop all of this voter fraud. That is akin to our military spending a ton of money to develop weapons that are specifically designed to be able to kill dragons. If all of the millions of dollars spent and all of the investigations, etc had, you know, actually FOUND any real wide spread voter fraud that we're told is happening by right wing talking heads then I would be a bit more understanding. But that hasn't happened. The opposite has. Yet that just makes them yell about it louder in the hopes that people will ignore that inconvenient fact. Oh, and of course statistically the new rules to combat "voter fraud" just happen to make it more difficult for certain demographics to vote and those certain demographics just happen to tend to vote for Democrats. Its so transparent that I don't know whether to laugh or bang my head against my desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 If they choose not to have ID, then they choose not to vote. No One is taking away their right to vote but themselves in your scenario. Explain to me how that is in any way, shape or form a Libertarian position. You are arguing that the only way you can vote is if the government says you are who you say you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allannis Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I love the Right...they are all about supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States right up to the point where it gets in their way of trampling the rights of others. Change the words to, I love the left, And I can agree. The problem is we are both probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Law says citizens must have I.D.s. Why is it an issue to show your I.D.? What law requires an ID? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allannis Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Explain to me how that is in any way' date=' shape or form a Libertarian position.You are arguing that the only way you can vote is if the government says you are who you say you are.[/quote'] Yea, we should just let everyone vote,leagal or not, and as often as they want too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.