08-29-2012, 01:06 PM #181
So dramatic: "police state" "carrying papers" -- have you ever traveled over seas? Get a grip.
First you say: "No serious study has found voter fraud to be even a glimmer of a problem in this country"
Then you say that felons do indeed vote illegally, but there's nothing we can do about it.
You are a problem solver.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/#ixzz1hE0jMR8EMan is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
08-29-2012, 06:35 PM #182
08-29-2012, 06:45 PM #183
I never said that felons voted illegally, I said that the proposed law you support doesn't stop felons from voting (which it doesn't). You're advocating the passage of a law that won't do a damned thing to stop this supposed voter fraud. So, the law doesn't do anything about absentee voting, it doesn't stop felons from voting, it adds to our tax burden by providing free IDs to those who need them, and it's creating a "solution" to a problem that has never been substantiated outside of right wing spin factories (the people who oversaw the Franken recount have stated multiple times that there was NO indication of voter fraud in that election).
Can someone explain to me why this is considered a good idea again? I seem to be missing something. I look at the evidence and I see one reason for this bill's creation: the Republicans want to minimize the poor and elderly vote because they don't traditionally vote for the GOP.
And that's disgusting. This is all anyone should have to see about voter ID to see that the motivations behind the law have absolutely nothing to do with "cleaning up" the voting process. It's a cockblock of the vote, nothing more.
08-29-2012, 08:58 PM #184
You said: "One of the great things about this country is that it's illegal to require the citizenry to carry around "papers" to identify themselves. It's one of the things we hold dear to avoid becoming a police state, something the Republicans bitch about the Democrats creating on a daily basis."
Maybe you don't understand that the requirement is to have photo ID to vote doesn't mean you must have photo ID with you at all times, just once every two years for the most part. Since you apparently don't know this or intentionally throw it out there again, as if this is the requirement that 70% of Americans (not a GOP issue exclusively) are in favor of, I'd like point out that you apparently have an axe to grind by creating this straw man position to argue against. You make it sound as if American is Nazi Germany with the "having to carry papers" garbage. That's certainly the allusion. Nobody but the Nazi's ever asked for "your papers" -- so this is insulting in itself beside just being completely wrong and a scare tactic. GET A GRIP is correct. Do you know what other countries' policies are on these issues? I'll save you the time and let you know that most countries policies are much stricter. So yes, stop with the drama and over the top outrage. It's easy to resort to platitudes and indignant outrage at what the major parties are doing, in fact it's even fashionable.... in fact it's easy. Too easy.
What's the point of minimizing government's role in our lives if the process by which government is elected and thereby elected to grow or recede is compromised? It bothers me that someone voting illegally has the ability to cancel my vote. Voting fraud is real and while Photo ID will not and cannot stop every kind of fraud, it sure is a non-intrusive start. Can you even name three adults you know who don't have photo ID already.
Finally, If photo ID is required along with a background check in order to exercise one's second amendment right, surely it's not too much to ask for just the photo ID in order to make sure you are who you say you are when you vote. Throw another cheap shot video up, without context or analysis.
Last edited by Ultima Ratio; 08-29-2012 at 09:09 PM.Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
08-29-2012, 09:06 PM #185
08-29-2012, 09:24 PM #186
And I don't care how many people are for the passage of this law. Jim Crow laws were passed. Same-sex marriage bans have been passed. The population passes dumb ass laws on a near-daily basis. Might does not make right.
I bring up the "papers" point because it's a significant part of this country's history and it's something the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple times. Requiring people to register and identify themselves to vote isn't that far from literacy tests to vote in the old days. It's not something that's being created to curb voter fraud; if it was, it'd actually try to do something to close some of the easier loopholes to get around. It doesn't do that. It leaves them wide freakin' open. Who are the people without ID? Generally, they're black. Or they're poor. Or they're old. Do you know the pain in the ass it will require to get the government to pay for the identification? It's going to require pay stubs, welfare checks, tax receipts, that sort of thing. On top of that, you have to get the ID, which means you need time off work or you need to find transportation to the DMV. Not a big deal for a middle class white dude like me but for a car-less 80 year old woman in the ghetto, it poses a much more significant challenge. And for what? To stop voter fraud that has never been proven to be significant enough to matter? Why are we doing this? What is the end goal? I've never seen a serious study that demonstrated voter fraud was significant enough to alter an election.
You bring up felons voting. I bring up how ID laws don't prevent that. You keep deflecting this argument and actually posted a link to Fox-freakin-News, the biggest joke of a news agency in a country of partisan news channels. Come on. I expect better than that. Instead of just supposing that voter fraud exists because someone told you it did, go find actual studies that examine the situation. And when you come up blank, ask yourself one question: Why are Republicans doing this? I guarantee you're not going to like the answer if you're anything more the a hard-line member of the GOP who eats up every line of BS they feed you. You may not like that video but it's there, if you want to hear more "context", go find a longer clip. The problem is that you saw the entirety of his speech's "context" regarding voter ID laws. He flat-out admitted that it's a poll-rigging attempt by the GOP. And the public is eating this **** up. It's sad.
Democracy is supposed to be an inclusive process. If you create more obstacles, you alienate those who should be participating in the process the most (ie. those who are under-represented in the first place). And no, I cannot name three adults who do not had identification. And that's my entire point.
08-29-2012, 09:29 PM #187
08-29-2012, 10:49 PM #188
I'll respond ad loc with fallacies noted:
Who are the people without ID? Generally, they're black.
And I don't care how many people are for the passage of this law. Jim Crow laws were passed.
Requiring people to register and identify themselves to vote isn't that far from literacy tests to vote in the old days.
Do you know the pain in the ass it will require to get the government to pay for the identification? It's going to require pay stubs, welfare checks, tax receipts, that sort of thing.
On top of that, you have to get the ID, which means you need time off work or you need to find transportation to the DMV. Not a big deal for a middle class white dude like me but for a car-less 80 year old woman in the ghetto
You bring up felons voting. I bring up how ID laws don't prevent that.
You keep deflecting this argument and actually posted a link to Fox-freakin-News, the biggest joke of a news agency in a country of partisan news channels.
Another take from a different source. Let me know if this is admissible or not judge: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...-or-Republican
Come on. I expect better than that. Instead of just supposing that voter fraud exists because someone told you it did, go find actual studies that examine the situation.
Seriously, you have no idea how or why I hold this position other than what I've written. You think insulting your opponent has an effect on the argument? [fallacy: ad hominum]
And when you come up blank, ask yourself one question: Why are Republicans doing this?
I guarantee you're not going to like the answer if you're anything more the a hard-line member of the GOP who eats up every line of BS they feed you.
And no, I cannot name three adults who do not had identification. And that's my entire point.
Let me leave you with a philosophical maxim: An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
With your permission, I'd like to use this post in my logic classes. It's, well, an interesting example. In the future I'd advise you that it's okay to be impassioned and hold strong opinions, but it's not okay to only have strong opinions; and don't try to come across as some sage who can note all the ills of society/politics and then abuse your opponent with ad hominum attacks. If it were a couple times only or in jest or just a good ribbing that would be one thing, but you sir should be banned if you were not a mod yourself. Grow up!Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
08-29-2012, 11:17 PM #189
My phone didn't pull up this page, so my apologies for the crack. I won't apologize for tearing your argument apart:
this objection is invented BS
Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are?
Good for me, there are plenty of other sources... I'll just have to get them through the Brock clearinghouse of acceptable news sources.
As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me.
I think using this in your logic class would be great. If your students have a functioning mind, they'll call you out for your grandstanding hypocrisy. Voter idea is not driven by some quest for purity in the electorate. It is being pursued for exactly the reasons one idiot in Pennsylvania let slip.
08-29-2012, 11:41 PM #190So you have evidence, since the burden of proof is on you, that $10 will in no way "burden" any intending voter? Do show the evidence of that.
Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are?So your claim is that photo IDs are 100% effective? By all means, let's see evidence of that. I think your average 16 year old alcohol purchaser would happily disagree. And all the registering in the world isn't going to stop Adam Jones from using his older brother Paul's ID if they look closely enough.
I'm sorry, which part of this opinion piece are you citing as fact?
"The best example of why voter ID laws are necessary can be found in Pennsylvania, where Republicans are accused of trying to suppress the African-American vote by enacting legislation requiring proof of identity when voting. A statement by the GOP leader of the state House of Representatives, in which he claimed the voter ID law would guarantee that the state will go to Mitt Romney in November, is often cited as evidence of the law’s discriminatory or political intent. But the statement is often referenced without citing the context of the political reality in the state.As Gov. Tom Corbett repeatedly cited that context during the debate over the voter ID law, stating that a number of election precincts in Philadelphia that are reliably Democratic have produced results which showed that more than 100 percent of registered voters cast ballots in some years in districts where turnout is normally low. It is true that these areas are also largely African-American, but that does not make such results more explicable or less suspicious.Does anyone really believe Philadelphia is the only place in America where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud? The Supreme Court doesn’t. In 2008, it upheld an Indiana law requiring voter ID saying that it posed no undue burden on voters. And in his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real but...it could affect the outcome of a close election.”"As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me.Again, you climb on your high horse to cry "fallacy" and then support it with a fallacy of your own. Check your index if you need help knowing which one. And...yes....I know I used one - difference is, I'm calling you out for your hypocrisy, not claiming any self-righteous superiority myself like you.
Again, you miss that point. Of course that is ad populum (I've emboldened it so you know where I'm at). But you are wrong that I use that solely to make my case. Furthermore, the point you missed is that this is not -- cannot-- be a GOP only issue if 70% of the country agrees with it... Get it?
Voter idea is not driven by some quest for purity in the electorate
It is being pursued for exactly the reasons one idiot in Pennsylvania let slip.
Last edited by Ultima Ratio; 08-29-2012 at 11:46 PM. Reason: quoting got screwyMan is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
08-30-2012, 12:07 AM #191Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!
08-30-2012, 12:08 AM #192
Just for fun since we're posting videos. The best part is that you can't even get into the Justice Department to petition the government for redress of grievances (a constitutional right) -- if, say, you feel your vote has been disenfranchised -- without first showing photo ID.
Also to Hobbes' monster: if you say your going to destroy someone's argument, you had better follow through with it or you look impossibly foolish.Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
08-30-2012, 12:13 AM #193Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
08-30-2012, 02:51 AM #194
When someone bolds logical fallacies we know that they are new to them; it's like underlining the word-of-the-day. Killer, you used a big word; so proud!
RP and Levi are killing it plenty here, and I'm glad my liberal ass is posting in this thread to illuminate their moderation, because their points are wholly legitimate. Here's hoping I don't color their fine points more fringe by continuing on.
Look, even a biased dude like me can live with what the ****ed-up populace votes into office. That's democracy, it might be stupid, but it gets what it deserves. Voting suppression is so ugly and cynical; the whole idea is pretensed on giving up on humanity, giving up on educating people to one's insightful ideology, and actively working against the interest of people whom no ones cares to persuade. UR, can you really stand behind a party win if it's done through means that delegitimize honest votes? Indeed, part of my American pride comes from the fact that we are not Machiavelli; that we go about **** in an honest way.
(Caution: the following statements and questions form a slippery slope.)
Is the cost of preventing fraud worth delegitimizing honest votes that work against my beliefs? Do I believe that my ideology, my means of governing is worth suppressing other peoples' votes for their own good, with only their foolish opinions of their own lives as a defense? (Slips.) How, again, do we define fascism? A police state? Indeed, to what ends are individuals of a singular philosophy willing to ensure, even if by overtly malevolent means, their preferred outcome?
Last edited by PseudoSABR; 08-30-2012 at 03:41 AM.
08-30-2012, 07:38 AM #195
Jesus Christ, you cannot accuse another person of ad hominem and fallacy over and over again and then split up their post into twenty different pieces, picking and choosing the parts you want to argue and ignoring the rest. I'm not even going to bother responding to that except with one question...
If Voter ID is so vital to the "integrity" of our elections, why is only one party supporting it?
Pro Voter ID: Republican Party
Con Voter ID: Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, Democratic Farmer Labor, Green Party, Constitution Party, Independence Party, etc etc etc.
Don't you find that just a little odd? After all, you keep throwing out how 70% of America is behind this bill. Why isn't that being represented at all in party support? How do you not see that this is a voter suppression bill?
Here is a well-articulated, informative, and most importantly, sourced article on the breakdown of Republican talking points:
08-30-2012, 12:09 PM #196
08-30-2012, 12:24 PM #197
08-30-2012, 01:22 PM #198
Are you ready to admit that the so-called admission of voter suppression video clip (all 13 seconds) you posted is completely misleading and you are foolish to use it, now that the context is provided that there is voter fraud -- to the effect of precincts reporting over 100% voting participation in large democrat voting areas in Philadelphia, and if this fraud is curtailed, Romney has a much better chance of winning the state?Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
08-30-2012, 02:18 PM #199A federal court in Washington D.C. on Thursday rejected a Texas law requiring voters to show certain types of photographic identification in order to cast a ballot. The three-judge panel found that the law imposes “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” pointing out that racial minorities are more likely to live in poverty.
08-30-2012, 02:37 PM #200
Also, you keep talking about this 100%+ district. I can't find news stories about it anywhere. On the other hand, I can find the ruling of the Federal Judge on the legality of the PA Voter ID law passed:
Most striking is that the judge allowed for the law to continue even though the state was not able to produce evidence of any voter fraud occurring in Pennsylvania, which was the premise upon which Republican state legislators passed the law.
The state itself could not find provable examples of voter fraud. The bill was held up anyway (overturning legislators based on the "usefulness" of a law is certainly not at the court's discretion) but the fact that in front of sworn testimony, the state could not find examples of voter fraud is pretty damning.