twa Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I'm not overly concerned with increasing voter turnout numbers...if they care they will put out the minimum effort needed..if not, probably better off w/o them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 The "progress" that the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court was talking about when it comes to minorities being able to vote in America, did they stop to think that maybe it has been possibly because of the Voting Rights Act keeping it in tact? In fact, in 2012 when states were actively and rapidly trying to change and modify voting laws, wasn't it the Voting Rights Act that mostly prevented those states from doing it? How is that right there not clear evidence that several states are still perfectly willing to come up with voting schemes to disenfranchise certain voting demographics? If this ruling paves the way for some type of national voting rights act that every state must abide by across the board, then fine (that actually would probably be better) however the only way that would EVER happen is if the Dems were in control of the House/Senate/Whitehouse, otherwise it will never pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 yeah get back to me when you are willing to live under the same law there is a national voting rights act now ....just some of us were treated differently than others which is now ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheItalianStallion Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Larry, $75 really. It only cost me $25 to renew my drivers license. But thank you for answering my question. Bang, what you post makes sense. I got my license renewed a few months back. I did it over the phone, and it didn't cost a dime. According to the DMV website it's also free if done online. I also got my voter registration card renewed (change of address) as part of the same process. The process of getting a photo ID is literally the same one as getting registered to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 yeah get back to me when you are willing to live under the same law there is a national voting rights act now ....just some of us were treated differently than others which is now ended. I'm willing to live under the same law right now. So do we have a deal? Certain states were treated different because they were actively trying to pass voting laws with no purpose other then to disenfranchise voters. They were sued and had a hearing and the outcome of the hearing either allowed the new law or struck it down. As far as my understanding is of the law(prior to this ruling), a lawsuit could have been brought against any state by folks who felt the state was trying to do this. Don't blame the law, blame the lawmakers for trying to suppress the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I'm not overly concerned with increasing voter turnout numbers...if they care they will put out the minimum effort needed..if not, probably better off w/o them Especially if they're mostly Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I got my license renewed a few months back. I did it over the phone, and it didn't cost a dime. According to the DMV website it's also free if done online. I also got my voter registration card renewed (change of address) as part of the same process. The process of getting a photo ID is literally the same one as getting registered to vote. Could you please point us at the place where, say, a homeless person, or a senior citizen who hasn't had a driver's license for 5 years, goes to get their free photo ID, online? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I'm not overly concerned with increasing voter turnout numbers...if they care they will put out the minimum effort needed..if not, probably better off w/o them Especially if they're mostly Democrat. are you saying they inherently lazy to the point they need special accommodation? perhaps we need a study to see if it is a disease or affliction. oops... Dem policies are making more homeless every day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Wow. 3 pieces of spin to try to deflect the topic away from reality in the same post? Usually you try to only use one of them per post, so your deflections take up more room. Need coffee this morning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 whiskey would be nice the magic of politics.....photo id for all is discriminatory,preclearance for a select few not make it a double Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Photo ID voting laws are addressing an issue that doesn't exist and studies have shown it would indeed supress the vote. We can debate why it would supress the vote but the fact is it would and it would effect certain demographics disproportinately . Plus the fact there has been a failure to produce any evidence of widescale voter fraud anywhere which is the guise under which the changes were being proposed for in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Larry, in Ga. an ID costs $20 for four years, 32 for 8. Guest the cost of living is lower down here. Plus it is available to purchase online, but you need proof of citizenship. As far as the rest of your rant, you need to take your Xanax on more of a consistent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Larry, in Ga. an ID costs $20 for four years, 32 for 8. Guest the cost of living is lower down here. Plus it is available to purchase online, but you need proof of citizenship. As far as the rest of your rant, you need to take your Xanax on more of a consistent basis. And what is the cost of all the other paperwork that you have to have, to get said ID? And could you point me at the online location where someone who doesn't have ID, can get said ID online? I'd like to order a few alternate IDs for myself. And as far as your sanctimonious BS, (edited because I'm better than you are). Edit: Here's a link to what Georgia says is the paperwork which they demand, for people to obtain Photo ID. Thought I'd save you the work of finding it. Looks like, in Mom's case, I would need: 1) Birth certificate. (In her case, from Oklahoma.) 2) Marriage license. (Also from Oklahoma.) 3) 1099. (Or her Medicare card. But I don't remember if I had it at the time, or got it later.) 4) Utility bill and bank statement. What a coincidence, the exact same documents that I needed, in Florida. I will now point out that one of the groups who often lack photo ID are the homeless. In Mom's case, the 1099 and bank statements were easy to get. Just laying around the house. But I have a suspicion that very few homeless have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 yeah get back to me when you are willing to live under the same law there is a national voting rights act now ....just some of us were treated differently than others which is now ended. I'm willing to live under the same law right now. So do we have a deal? Certain states were treated different because they were actively trying to pass voting laws with no purpose other then to disenfranchise voters. They were sued and had a hearing and the outcome of the hearing either allowed the new law or struck it down. As far as my understanding is of the law(prior to this ruling), a lawsuit could have been brought against any state by folks who felt the state was trying to do this. Don't blame the law, blame the lawmakers for trying to suppress the vote. Not sure you understand a state voted to do the same thing Texas did and it is legal there yet forbidden here by virtue of the VRA preclearance rule for certain states. I'm certainly fine with contesting new laws and rules,but not being denied the ability to have the same law another state is allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Not sure you understand a state voted to do the same thing Texas did and it is legal there yet forbidden here by virtue of the VRA preclearance rule for certain states. Actually, I think that's only part of the truth. (I'm sure that's an accident.) I believe that part of the reason why VRA state's attempt to tilt their elections in the GOP's favor, by disenfranchising minorities, didn;t go through, was because the VRA imposes a higher standard of what's forbidden. As I understand it, to block Ohio from disenfranchising minorities, plaintiffs have to go to court, and prove that the law was passed for the purpose of disenfranchising minorities. (Which it is, but proving intent is tough.) Whereas, in VRA states, the DoJ is legislatively required to block laws that would have the effect of disenfranchising minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 a higher standard is just another way of saying different standards unequal under the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Obama spoke on this today, he said he disagreed with the decision to strike down section 4 of the VRA, however it has been done so that is the reality of today. He then said that there are remedies and pretty much suggested what a lot of folks are, which is to come up with a national standard for election rules. Whether or not he could ever get such a thing into law under the current House/Senate, who knows. I doubt it, but at least the solution has been said out loud publicly and will probably end up being discussed and debated. If the Dems happen to get the House back in 2014, who knows maybe they even get something done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 amusing that simply removing the preclearence BS from the 9 states singled out 50 yrs ago changes the perception to we don't have national voting standards. Since WE (the nine) clearly did I guess that means Ya'll did not.....AND YA"LL WERE PERFECTLY FINE WITH IT TILL WE WERE TREATED LIKE YA"LL. I take it back....it is not amusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Yeah Larry you are better than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Yeah Larry you are better than me. Well, one of us made a personal attack. And one of us responded in kind, and then chose to remove it. Looks to me like the evidence says "yep". Now, care to address the claim you made? The one where people without ID can get one, in Georgia, online, for 20 bucks or whatever it was? Or should we conclude that the one us us who actually posted a link to support his claim, might be the one who's actually being accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Nah, too busy for that. I was just messing with ya with the Xanax. Didn't mean to offend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.