Dems are screaming about this tactic which sez the Republicans are trying to "disenfranchise" the young, the poor, the old, people who speak English as 2nd lang ( or don't speak it all ) as categories of people who don't have photo ID driver's license.

Now, I'm not gonna talk about validity of this "tactic" either way, but I am puzzled about something. I've had driver's license for over 40
years & being honest, largely have voted for Deomcratic candidates during that time.

If someone doesn't or can't drive, ok, but if one is a committed voter, what's the BFD about getting a photo ID card from the DMV ? Isn't it practical to have a photo ID card anyway ? What does one need to get a photo ID from the DMV ? 2 pieces of ID ( Birth certificate & SS card ? )

I'm a bit puzzled about this, so feedback would be welcome.

It also makes it rather difficult to vote after you are dead. lol

I am sure that WW has a different take on this, but does anybody really give a fuck what he has to say on the subject? I know I don't. lol

Seriously, you raise a valid point. You would think everyone would have a ID since you need it to open a bank account, cash a check, drive a car, board an airplane, etc. Per the Dems, this law is targeting students, minorities, elderly, and recently divorced women (name change). Think about it, they pretty much vote for Democrats. Estimates put the number @ 5M voters, not a small number.

I can't seem to find valid reasons against the law, other than Dems claim the law will disenfranchise the above named groups by making it harder for them to vote.

Obviously getting a valid ID appears to be a major roadblock for Dem voters.




-- Modified on 10/19/2011 5:49:13 PM

"You would think everyone would have a ID since you need it to open a bank account, cash a check, drive a car, board an airplane, etc." What constitutes a "valid" form of ID can be different for opening a bank account, cashing a check, driving a car, board a plane, from that which is required to vote in differing electoral precincts across the country. In a highly mobile society, say like with college students, there can be some difficulty navigating the laws regarding obtaining drives licenses or voter ID's in the voting district where they are attending school, and having them, and or their school residence be deemed valid when attempting to vote. Not an expert on the issue, but have heard the problem voiced by people I've met, who have run into such difficulty.

Remember going to vote. The little old man or lady volunteer who looked you up on their voting registry? I've had several incidences where they couldn't find me, but with much persistence on my part, they did. Now, imagine the same little old man or lady saying, I don't think that picture looks much like you. Or, that ID looks suspicious to me. I'm not going to approve you to vote. You know what. They would be wrong. And, won't know what their motives might be, or if it's just an honest error. And, later you will not doubt be deemed as a legitimate voter, but you will still not have voted. The more obstacles there are, to keep someone from voting, the easier it is to deny the right for someone to vote, purely on subjective criterion.

against the demographics listed in my OP.

Couldn't the Dems circumvent this by having a drive or campaign to get these folks picture ID's ?

This whole thing mystifies me.

...even though she's been voting since the days of Jim Crow.

...implementing their new voter fraud law even though there have not been any cases of voter fraud in S.C. for a decade.

the Republicans for.

And, in due time, the Republicans will come up with something stupid to blame the Dems for.

It's all just bullshit politics.

But the claim that you don't need a photo ID -- which almost all adults have to have to survive in the current commerce of the United States -- in order to vote is laughable.

I don't see how the Dems can even argue this with a straight face. There are much bigger issues out there.

and quit acting like you really give a shit about poor people.

You're just trying to stir up shit on this post like you do on just about every other post you cime in on.

Will you ever learn that this kind of bullshit makes you lose what little respect some other people MIGHT have for you?

Voter ID is the 21st Century version of the Jim Crow laws!  
It has nothing to do with voter fraud, and everything to do with voter suppression.
I heard an interview today with election official in a state that has implemented voter ID requirements.  He has asked if he ever had anyone vote under a false name.  His reply, "No, not ever".    
So why does the GOP keep looking for nonexistent problems?  Could it be that by suppressing a small percentage of voters they may be able sway close races in their favor?

While the post has numerous points that can be argued in opposing fashion, unfortunately the above is not one. College kids can do just like I did when I was in college, and just like any other normal registered voter who is living and or working away from their home base. They can get off their lazy behinds, take an active role in society, and vote by mail.

Its unfortunate but my non-companion business does require me to travel. And on occasion I am not in town for local or even once a national election. Its not difficult it just requires an extra hour of your time.

This is how our Military does it as well. In 2008 there were over 30 million early and absentee votes. I am not here to argue the validity of the votes cast or the suspicions of voter fraud. Only stating that mobile or not, voting is not difficult.

College Students have a right to vote in the district they live in.  Being a student does not mean you are not a resident of the area, even if your residence is the college dorm.  As long as they meet the residency requirements of that state.  (That can be as short as 10 days to up to 30 days).

and had to get a replacement ID because I was going to be flying on a mini-vacation. It took about five days in CA to get a state issued ID.

Full disclosure - because I needed it ASAP, I had to push for a rush job and fax info to Sacto, but I got it. If I had been able to wait 10 days, it would have come in the normal course of affairs.

The truth is that almost everyone has ID already, since they cash checks etc.  There is only one reason to not require fraud proof ID IN ANY AREA  and that is fraud.

The first day of school, they go to the DMV and say, "I am a resident of this state. I need to drive. I need a license." They get it.

Even if they can't get it in time, they can still vote in their state of prior residence. Absentee ballots are simple to get.

If you are in college and can't figure out how to get ID, there is something wrong with the admissions office that let in an idiot.

How does the person interviewed, an election official, know if someone voted illegally?  If he knew he would have stopped it. If someone came who was illegal, and he didn't know, the fact that he thinks no one voted under a false name is his lack of knowledge. Not the lack of existence of the problem.

Who cannot get a valid ID in a very short time?

Anyone who would oppose such a basic concept is basically a thief who wants to steal elections.  You need Id to buy liquor, cigarettes, get into some businesses and drive, but not to vote?

That is just f@@king moronic!!

Dems could start a campaign-drive for folks without photo ID's to get them. As Croix mentioned above, having a photo ID card is esssential for day-to day living, not just for voting.

Also, many states have mail in absentee ballots & early balloting. I live in Nevada which has early voting ( as do many other states ) where polls are open nearly 2 weeks before election day
( which included weekends ).

If people aren't motivated enough to borrow or scrape up $ 32 for an ID card, or take advantage of available resources, they belong in a category not mentioned by inicky : too dumb to vote. You know the kind; those who know the names of the 3 Stooges, but couldn't identify the 3 branches of government.

Convicted felons are only permanently barred from voting in 12 states & there are exceptions to that rule.

As for letting people in prison vote & having no voting age restrictions, Willy, in your words "that's retarded". You're becoming as bad as those on the other side who want to limit the vote.

-- Modified on 10/20/2011 7:21:10 AM

are the poor????

You are severely disillusioned.

ridiculous post he has ever made on this board.

Common sense says he will never top this one, but give him time and he will reach a new level of stupidity.

Moe, Larry and Curly (hell even Shemp) rule!!!!!

Just because you have a photo ID, does not automatically mean it will be accepted as being valid. The person inspecting it can deny it as being valid for numerous reasons, like they don't think you look enough like the picture on the ID, or they believe it's a fake. I've personally known people, mostly women of course, who when trying to buy liquor or get drinks in a bar, nightclub or restaurant, were turned down, despite having a valid photo ID. In those cases, those were honest mistakes.  Now, if someone doesn't want you to vote, they can claim to same, and you will not vote, even if you can prove later that your ID is valid.

Second point, is voter fraud that big of an issue when stacked up against voter suppression. I would like to see both of them eliminated. However, if you don't prevent voter suppression, which includes any means to make it more difficult to vote in one precinct than another, then using the means to reduce voter registration and voting fraud is just another tool for voter suppression.

Drill down, and it's non-hispanic blacks with a high school diploma or less. This is taking multiple elections over time. Now this is where Obama is vulnerable. He had to get the 18-30 to vote, and he did. He received 67% of that vote. If they don't turn out, he doesn't get elected. Why does this group not vote. Well, because they are drinking and getting laid.

Look out your window. Do you see any Occupy protestors? If you do, that's probably the demographic that doesn't vote. But I do know how I can disperse them in a New York minute without the police. Bring a number of employers to the street and have a job fair. Those protestors will be gone like rats, which they are.




-- Modified on 10/20/2011 9:58:48 AM

This one is off the fucking charts.

I still have no doubt he will say something much stupider given time.

1. In the late 60's-early 70's, did you ever take part in anti-Viet-nam war protests ?

2. Do you think Wall St/Banks/Corporations have played any part for being responsible for the current shitty economy ?

-- Modified on 10/20/2011 11:12:07 AM

Your original post is still stupider than this one, not by much, but still stupider.

manipulate the definition of "poor" and make the numbers work out in your favor?

Just like the Dems and the President decided that anyone making $200K or more is "rich."

1. Aren't we the same age? The only demonstration that I remember in our neighborhood was 1968 in Century City in front of the Century Plaza hotel. You remember don't you? I was a kid. I went just to see what all the shit was about. To answer your question, no. School, sports, drinking, and  trying to get laid took up all my time. Hence, my previous comment to willy about the 18-30 demographic. It hasn't changed.

2. Yes, but the protestors anger should be directed at multiple sources, and definitely including the govt. But the banks are the poster child of evil, followed by the oil companies, health care companies, big pharma.

-- Modified on 10/20/2011 11:19:16 AM

You don't "want the maximum number of people voting," you want the maximum number of citizens of voting age voting.  I'm not one of those "round up all the illegals and ship 'em home" types but I sure don't want illegal aliens and convicted felons voting.  The fact that nearly half of Americans sit out elections has little to do with voter intimidation.  It's because people are frustrated and don't give a shit because they hate the choices they're given or feel their vote is meaningless.  Some, of course, are just lazy.
You are right that Republicans have a history of trying to limit voting, but your other conclusions are more than a little fuzzy.  Both parties have been guilty of manipulating the electoral process.

Do you really assert illegal aliens should vote?  Most of them don't even speak English.  How did they earn the right to vote?  Answer: they didn't.  Personally, I'd like to see some sort of amnesty program that would put them on a track to citizenship.  In fact, McCain was in favor of this until he weasled out of it.  Even Bush supported it, which was practically the only time I agreed with him.
PS: Your belief in no age requirement is ludicrous.  Imagine Dad saying to his ten year old, "Billy, you're going to vote straight Democrat (or Republican, or Right To Life) or you don't get dinner."  LMAO! When you add letting felons still in jail vote, your alternative to what you call tyranny sounds like anarchy to me.

-- Modified on 10/20/2011 10:31:31 AM

Ever hear of the "Absentee Ballot"? Can't you afford a stamp? Gonna be away from your polling place during operating hours....get one and use it. Stop making excuses.

" China has a billion people, we only have a third of that. And we have more prisoners".

Well, duuhh. You think maybe the Chinese Government just take their prisoners out and execute them? Excellent way to thin out the prison population, don't you think?

While you always argue with passion and sometimes even seem sensible you have jumped further off the rails here than usual.
1) You do NOT earn the "right" to vote by breaking the law and illegally entering our country.  If this is not evident to you on its face, I won't even debate it further.
2) I actually don't believe you when you say you support deporting illegals.  If any President started such a campaign I think you'd bleat about these poor people who do honest work that our lazy-assed citizens won't perform and are being herded around like cattle.  That's speculation, I know, but it's consistent with many things you say, while believing you support roundups is not.  BTW, I do not support rounding up illegals.  They do honest, necessary work here.  They should be able to stay, earn citizenship and pay taxes.
3) The rules we have against voter intimidation protect adults.  What's a child who's bullied by a parent about his vote to do, go to the cops and say, "Daddy won't give me dinner unless I vote for Herman Cain?"  This is so laughable its, well, laughable.  Your point about the privacy of the voting booth is an intersting one but most kids who are physically able to work the machine would not understand how to make the choice without adult assistance.  And intimidation by a parent outside the voting booth is still wrong.  (I can't believe I am actually  arguing this point with you it's so idiotic)
4) You "earn the right to free speech" by being a citizen of this country.  There is no inalienable right to break into our country and "earn" any right.
5)  You say you're some sort of anarchist but you support the electoral process.  Do you see any contradiction in that? I guess not.
6)  You want a single reason why jailed felons shouldn't be able to vote?  Gosh, I can think of so many it's hard to pick.  How about this one.  Dear Felon: You (choose one killed, robbed, raped, etc.) another human being.  Therefore, you have lost your freedom and other rights.  Not only can  you not vote, you can't carry a firearm in jail, (etc., etc.).  Felons know the law and choose to flout it anyway.  I have no problem denying them their rights while in jail.  I do think they should be able to vote again after they complete their parole.  Enough said.

Oh, yeah, and here's a brick!  lol!  I can't wait to see him tell you again how he loves you.

But even if something is wrong with admissions, the students have a right to vote!  Even if they don't belong in college!