Aaaand look how easy it is for you to dismiss what other people are saying! Do you ever feel unnerved by how certain you are of your convictions?
The AC election I mentioned in post #87 itself alone suggests more cases than that! How many cases are there of people denied a legitimate oportunity to vote, by a law requiring ID?
11% of Americans, including 25% of African Americans don't have State issued IDs. So, you are immediately eliminating them from the potential voter pool.
went to msnbc site to find the clip i had watched in passing...here it is... http://video.msnbc.msn.com/politicsnation/45850727/#45850727 If you freeze the screen at 1:30 you will see what chart i am referring to... the one that says: 311 voting fraud convictions since 1997 out of 591 milion votes cast...or 0.00005% (hey, i had all numbers correct..i guess i am eating my veggies and vitamins well enough so that my memory is still working in a great way..awesome) Furthermore, it shows the source of such info, which reads: "REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION"
OK, but do we count crimes only by convictions? How many have already registered to vote, and would be deprived of the franchise? How many cannot obtain valid IDs? How many already have valid federal IDs? How many are too young to have ID? Ultimately, if we're talking about people who have never voted, never want to vote, and never will vote, then this is just a waste of time. If people want to vote, help them register and get to the polls. I've done both. It isn't that difficult.
Funny how if someone doesn't agree with you its not you that is wrong, it's them. Who is certain about their convictions?
I have admitted faults many times on this board; in fact, MattintheHatt caught me just the other day on trying to find a constitutional basis for federal protection of abortions (there wasn't one until Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood v. Casey) as a defensible right. I have admitted mistakes in many instances in my personal life and humbly defer to the knowledge of many other people - that's why I like to use citations. I currently await your track record of admissions of faults both here and on BS. Fascinating how hard it is for you to just admit you have nuanced and sometimes contradictory beliefs - it's okay to have them. It just means you cannot bleat "four legs good, two legs bad!" There's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not passing judgment on people and I'm not telling you who has or has not voted. I'm not even telling you who is or is not registered. I'm simply addressing your earlier question. You asked how many people would be denied the right to vote by a law requiring an I'D. To start with, people without IDs. You are already making an assumption that they are not registered and do not vote. I'm not making that assumption.
If those people -- especially the African Americans -- would just move to Texas and get a concealed weapons permit, they would not only be allowed to vote, they'd get Rick Perry to crap his pants.
we determine culpability by convictions in this system of ours..... don't we? (Patriot Act aside).... About the current argument about registering it is funny (as in, not) how ACORN (the biggest driver of voter registration) was de-funded/smeared and made to go away on bogus charges.... and now the very ability to vote is under threat....something i am pretty sure they would have fought tooth and nails to protect....Of course i iblame the stupid Democrats as well for letting all of this occur....
Well the Democrats don't want unpredictability in the system as much as Republicans do. They are just too chicken shit to do the dirty work and the GOP loves that stuff. They are it it together for themselves and against the people. Vote Blood/Crypt party 2012!
I think everyone has nuanced and contradictory beliefs, especially when it comes to voting. If someone says they believe the platform of any party lock, stock and barrel they are either being dishonest or are unable to think for themselves. That was the entire argument against the labels you enjoy so much. I believe some of the government is bloated, yes, but would be willing to add to the government payroll to ensure voters are properly identified at the polls. Hey, maybe we could relocate from one government agency to another, a win for all!
To confirm, you're willing to add to the government payroll to solve a problem that doesn't exist while simultaneously disenfranchising millions of Americans?
I'm up to post 100 in this thread. Is Judge Smails still waiting? EDIT: Yes, he is. I'll bet stanger just made a mindless, Hannity/projection inspired "both sides do it" accusation without any evidence. And I'll bet further that the reason he didn't have any evidence for that is that the evidence does not exist.
So do I but not everyone does. So if you want to mandate some form of government id, that is a whole new discussion. If you don't mandate all citizens have IDs then an id should not be required to register as a voter.
Well this is an State issue, so do States that pass ID laws also require their citizens to have IDs and do they pay for those IDs? or at least help people get them? I know $20 bucks is not a lot of money, but those States should still cover that cost if they are making those laws. IMO
See post#116. What I said, Dave, is that the parties do what they can to increase their secure voting blocks. Both parties do it. And you do remind me of Judge Smails, all ego, no substance.
Your post did nothing to address the fact that GOP proposed laws to restrict access to the ballot box via ID requirements or other bureaucratic hoops do nothing to prevent the problem they purport to solve, which also happens to be a problem that doesn't exist. Can you name a single positive outcome of these laws, let alone one that overcomes the removal of millions of Americans from the voting rolls until they take the various steps required to "opt-in"?
As I have stated in previous posts, on a local level, issues and candidates are elected or passed by a handful of votes. Having some sort of proof that you are eligible to vote in a certain district doesn't seem to be ridiculous. How many of you were against the attempted disenfranchisement of the elderly voters in Florida a few years ago? You know, when a hanging chad was supposed to negate a vote? Again, the parties serve their own purposes. If it fit the Democrats to make it harder for someone to vote, they would do it in a heartbeat.
OK, then please specify situations in which liberals and/or Democrats opposed measures to increase voting in areas that aren't Democrat-friendly. I can't think of any efforts here in NC where the Dems tried to restrict absentee votes, for example. I would point out that a) you actually CAN find significant cases of fraud in absentee voting and b) this is a method of easy voting that favors GOPs. This is about as clear of a case of the GOPs/wingers projecting as I can think of in politics. THEY would do it, so they assume WE would do it. But we don't. Because we are, intrinsically, superior human beings to them.
