Printable View
@ RP:
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.
Here's another:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/#ixzz1hE0jMR8E
It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the people who wish to create a new law, not the ones who wish to retain the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
Who is voting legally, how are they doing it, and how does a photo ID prohibit them from continuing to vote legally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobs
Get a grip? Because I don't want the government requiring everyone to carry identification? Because I believe in minimizing the government's role in society? And what on Earth does traveling overseas have to do with this argument? I'm pretty sure the GOP goes out of its way to avoid being anything like Europe. Why the change of heart in this instance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
I don't think it's asking too much present photo ID when you cast a vote, and I don't think it's a burden to pay 10 bucks to get one either, this objection is invented BS. BUT -- Again, if you can't afford a photo ID the taxpayer will provide you with one. How does this affect the poor and elderly then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock BeauchampGet a grip? Because I don't want the government requiring everyone to carry identification? Because I believe in minimizing the government's role in society? And what on Earth does traveling overseas have to do with this argument? I'm pretty sure the GOP goes out of its way to avoid being anything like Europe. Why the change of heart in this instance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
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.
]
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.
Are brock's posts invisible or is it your intent to avoid all directquestions/responses by posting shallow nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
Again, I do not care what policies Europe, Canada, or anyone else has regarding identification. They're not a standard I wish to hold my country to in the "freedom" department in most cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
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.
Do go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathanAre brock's posts invisible or is it your intent to avoid all directquestions/responses by posting shallow nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
[QUOTE=Brock Beauchamp;50651]
I'll respond ad loc with fallacies noted:
Earlier you didn't include this as an/the affected group, why?Quote:
Who are the people without ID? Generally, they're black.
Absurd comparison, but now you finally admit who you claim will be disenfranchised, thereby making an innocuous issue of voter integrity one of racism. This is the go-to line for anyone who wants to squelch debate. Nicely done. Do you have any proof of this motivation (to disenfranchise black would-be-voters)?Quote:
And I don't care how many people are for the passage of this law. Jim Crow laws were passed.
Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are? No Can you fail a literacy test? Yes Fallacy: false analogy The requirements of photo ID are the same for ALL voters. I don't share your thinking that some demographics, especially black Americans need special help to get an ID... This is insulting to black Americans.Quote:
Requiring people to register and identify themselves to vote isn't that far from literacy tests to vote in the old days.
Oh my - it would be impossible! If government should be involved in one thing it should ensure the integrity of elections. That an national defense and a couple other things... I do share your vision of smaller government at least.Quote:
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.
(fallacy: appeal to emotion) Here you go again. How many car-less 80 year old women in the ghetto do you suppose there are. And how many of them can't get a ride from a friend or family member.... oh my goodness, how do they get to the doctor?Quote:
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
I support cleaning up the voting rosters so that felons and other illegal would-be-voters are not registered. Once this is done, a felon may still try to use someone elses name and register in that persons name, so long as that person's name is on the registration role. A photo ID would prevent this from happening.Quote:
You bring up felons voting. I bring up how ID laws don't prevent that.
This is really sad. As with most of your statements, you are long on the claims and short on the evidence. They are a joke? Why? Because you say so? You make it hard to present proof to refute your claims if all the proof is thrown out because you don't like the source. (Fallacy: Red herring -- it's a distraction, Fallacy: Poisoning the Well -- unfairly indicting all sources and views of Fox) Good for me, there are plenty of other sources... I'll just have to get them through the Brock clearinghouse of acceptable news sources. Someone who resorts to this kind of debate tactic is unworthy of further debate. I thought you made up rules against ad hominum (poisoning the well is a form of ad hominum, but I'm sure you knew that)Quote:
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
That's why I'm asking you. You know a lot.Quote:
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]
Condescending ad hominum. As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me. If I were republican I'd sure pat you on the head for the compliment that you think 70% of the country is GOP, but it's not -- though a conservative philosophy is the majority in the country.Quote:
And when you come up blank, ask yourself one question: Why are Republicans doing this?
Ad hominumQuote:
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.
Following you logic, you must not have any black friends. How sad for you. This says more about the white guilt drizzled throughout this most current treatise on racial demagoguery.Quote:
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!
My phone didn't pull up this page, so my apologies for the crack. I won't apologize for tearing your argument apart:
So 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.Quote:
this objection is invented BS
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.Quote:
Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are?
For all your pretentious blowhard nonsense you know full well there are fallacies for bias sources of information. If you're going to claim to play the logic game, playing it without integrity and then resorting to a fallacy again to cover up your own fallacy makes it damn hard to take you seriously. Congrats, you are able to use the index in a logic book effectively - avoiding fallacies is very apparently not your intent.Quote:
Good for me, there are plenty of other sources... I'll just have to get them through the Brock clearinghouse of acceptable news sources.
I'm sorry, which part of this opinion piece are you citing as fact?Quote:
Another take from a different source. Let me know if this is admissible or not judge: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...-or-Republican
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.Quote:
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.
The courts have decided this, not me, not you.Quote:
So 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.
Quote:
Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are?
Missed the point on that. The point is that it's not like a poll tax as was suggested. No ID is full proof, but it certainly cuts down fraud, or are you suggesting driver ID, ID to buy a guy be done away with because they can be faked?Quote:
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.
Quote:
Another take from a different source. Let me know if this is admissible or not judge: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...-or-Republican
In reply to the sound bite video. Here's the context from that opinion piece which cites.... facts:Quote:
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.”"Quote:
As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me.
Self-righteous? Condescending? Since I've never engaged you, I would think we'd have a fresh start civilly. Brock flew off the handle and said some pretty insulting things before my rejoinder.Quote:
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?
. How do you know?Quote:
Voter idea is not driven by some quest for purity in the electorate
[/QUOTE] Again, see the piece linked above and the portion I've copied above. Even with this, you will still believe that this is about racism with this video as the smoking gun. Why? Because you WANT to believe that the GOP is racist. If they weren't your head would explode.Quote:
It is being pursued for exactly the reasons one idiot in Pennsylvania let slip.
Not entirely true in any version of ID verification that I've seen for any state. Each still requires documentation that would require payment to obtain, like a birth certificate. Nevermind that processing time on such requests even for those who do have the money can be months just to get a birth certificate or other such documentation (Social Security card) back to a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZf25pmgR4c&feature=related
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.
I wanted to put that out there just to argue the merits of the law if that provision were included. Yes, some states are moving towards this provision while others will require that the voter is solely responsible for procuring her own ID. It's just interesting to me that people would still argue against the measure if the IDs were 'free' -- as if this amounted to carrying one's paper's around at all times for fear that the Gestapo were coming. Interesting world.Quote:
Originally Posted by biggentlebenNot entirely true in any version of ID verification that I've seen for any state. Each still requires documentation that would require payment to obtain, like a birth certificate. Nevermind that processing time on such requests even for those who do have the money can be months just to get a birth certificate or other such documentation (Social Security card) back to a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
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?
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:
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/ar...n_on_photo_id/
Perhaps you should raise your standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock BeauchampAgain, I do not care what policies Europe, Canada, or anyone else has regarding identification. They're not a standard I wish to hold my country to in the "freedom" department in most cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
In this case, I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by twinsnorth49Perhaps you should raise your standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp
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?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem....php?ref=fpblgQuote:
A 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.
I can't tell you his intent, only the way his words come off... That the PA Voter ID law will win the state for Romney and that it has a positive impact for the GOP and a negative impact on Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
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:
Quote:
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.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169408...th-voter-fraud
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.