Opinions? Do we really want people to vote that are.....

[Auctoritas 2,894]

Food for thought about photo IDs. I took a new job in October. I figured all I would need to prove my identity was a driver's license and a social security card. Nope. I had to have them both notarized and when asked why they weren't sufficient I was told its a new federal regulation. Ah, so the federal govt is going to make it THAT difficult to prove identity to go to work but is willing to let dead people, illegal aliens and imposters, who have already voted once, vote again, without any regulatory restriction because the're disenfranchised and don't have the wherewithal to go get a photo ID. Gotcha!

The idea that this is an effort to suppress the vote is ridiculous. It is troublesome that illegal aliens are getting all kinds of govt assistance ie welfare payments, food stamps, section 8 housing. These people are NOT American citizens and they are all likely to vote in a predictable fashion and democrats know that. THIS is a potential problem. They have NO RIGHT to participate in the electoral process because THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

I do not buy the idea that people are unable to get a photo ID. They can get them when their govt benefits are at stake. A photo ID should be a baseline requirement for participation in the benefits of citizenry. It is high time to stop making excuses for this kind of unwillingness to participate in good faith. Clearly there are exceptions but I do not think it's an unreasonable requirement at all.

There are lots of things wrong here.

1. The Federal Government has zero control on how individual states set up their voter registries, so long as it abides by the constitution. It is a plenary power granted to the states. So, the entire first paragraph is irrelevant.

2. Find me some good examples of thousands of illegal immigrants voting. I already provided in my list of links an example where this is completely overblown, if not downright false. Second link from the bottom of the news stories.

3. I never said it was an unreasonable requirement, but it is unreasonable to conclude that the process is as easy or quick for everyone. Hell's bells, you yourself just said how much trouble YOU had. If someone has extremely limited ability to get to a place to get an ID, and then they get turned away, do you think that trying to engineer a second visit somehow gets easier or more attractive?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Auctoritas, the quote you cite is only the statement of having accomplished their goals. You attempt to make this sound as if it were nefarious. It's a legitimate political comment. Democrats, Republicans, Independents should have such goals, whether you agree with them or not. That's the essence of politics.

I've read a couple of the links.....too many and not enough time for me to read them all. The thinkprogress link quotes Charlie Crist, a Democrat, who at the time he was quoted was an Independent, who just before that was a Republican. Crist would be a member of the Martian Party if it would get him elected. Not a reputable person of conviction. Now that he's in the Democrat camp he'll trash the Republicans. Boo hoo. The other "prominent Florida Republican" quoted is convicted felon Jim Greer, a VERY close friend of Crist, one who apparently will break the law if it will get him elected to a position of authority. Btw, Greer is still in prison.

I read the ACLU link that states voter id laws = voter suppression. To me, this equates to drivers' licenses suppressing illegal/bad drivers. It does limit who gets to drive. The ACLU quote states "These voter suppression laws take many forms, and collectively lead to significant burdens for eligible voters..." I say that obtaining a free id is no more burdensome than standing in line to collect benefits, or getting your driver's license renewed, or paying property taxes (maybe you haven't had that pleasure), or having the power company/bank/cable company correct a screw up that can't be corrected over the phone. Inconvenience ? Yes, but experienced everyday by everyone. This voter id "inconvenience" would be a one-time occurrence and would be the same kind of hassle experienced on a daily basis for all people. People stand in line all the time everyday.

Not buying the "suppression" argument. Besides, you and other progressives make this "suppression" concept to appear as if it inconveniences only minorities. It inconveniences EVERYBODY, white people too. Go figure ! It's life. Deal with it. The goal is to verify that the voter is legitimate, not to discriminate against "people of color" which is the drum beat of the Democrats. Stop drinking the progressive kool aid those links provide and realize this voter id law applies to everyone.

To be equitable you should read these links.

State Says High Turnout, No Issues Under ID Law

http://www.nbcdfw.co...-230574451.html

Despite voter ID law, minority turnout up in Georgia

http://www.ajc.com/n...n-georgi/nR2bx/

In Georgia, numbers of MINORITY voters increased sharply in both the presidential and mid-term elections (I'd post the images here but I'm being discriminated against posting them...image extension not allowed):

http://www.heritage....ence-in-georgia

When you and other "progressives" call conservatives "racists" for wanting whites, blacks, latinos, asians to verify who they are you only serve to anger people on both sides. That term is a LIE and only serves to deceive. Conservatives want only legitimate voters to vote.....AND YOU DO TOO !

[homersapien 12,172]

Apparently, it's Democrat voters who are either too lazy, stupid or both to get a FREE photo ID.

Well, stripping this of the vitriol, I think you just hit the nail on the head. The people who are more likely to be lacking a photo ID are people who would most likely vote Democratic. Therefore, the drive from the Republicans is nothing more than an attempt to suppress that vote - a fact that's not only unconstitutional, it's un-American.

Now that is being hoisted with your own petard.

[homersapien 12,172]

Do you honestly believe that the DMV along with the state wouldn't make special concessions to make this happen? Ye of little faith.

Wow! Now - all of a sudden - you have faith in government?

[homersapien 12,172]

And you know this as fact? Or did Bill Maher tell you this?

Any honest Republican political operative would tell you this.

Well, at least some of them don't hide it:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12814048-ohio-republican-admits-voter-suppression-aimed-at-african-americans

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1005250/nc-republican-don-yelton-admits-voter-id-laws-intend-to-suppress-vote/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/25/1103126/-Pennsylvania-Republican-admits-voter-suppression-is-all-about-electing-Mitt-Romney

[homersapien 12,172]

If so many people out there can't get to some place to get a photo ID, how do they get to where they need to go to sign up for food stamps and other entitlements?

Classic Tea Partier whining.

It's all about those immigrants, poor colored people and free-loaders....

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Auctoritas....I don't have a link or proof but on your point #1 above, I think the feds can control voting registries. They control school districting and lots of other things so what stops them from controlling voting registries for federal elections? Besides, the Emperor has a pen.

[homersapien 12,172]

God doesn't need an ID. Everyone else voting should. If having an ID to vote is not needed why is one needed for anything? What is terribly more important than voting? Lots of people have died for the right to vote. We owe it to them to keep voting honest even if fraud is a small percent

More irony. Defending voter suppression on the basis of people died for our right to vote.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TT....is there something wrong with states having their own agendas. The feds sure have their own agenda.

[Weegle777 78]

Do you honestly believe that the DMV along with the state wouldn't make special concessions to make this happen? Ye of little faith.

Wow! Now - all of a sudden - you have faith in government?

That was absolute sarcasm. ANYONE that places their faith and trust in a wealthy, elitist politician is a fool.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Apparently, it's Democrat voters who are either too lazy, stupid or both to get a FREE photo ID.

Well, stripping this of the vitriol, I think you just hit the nail on the head. The people who are more likely to be lacking a photo ID are people who would most likely vote Democratic. Therefore, the drive from the Republicans is nothing more than an attempt to suppress that vote - a fact that's not only unconstitutional, it's un-American.

Please give evidence of your FACT.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

I gave evidence of what I think is happening. That you disagree doesn't mean it's not evidence. The "fact" I was trying to highlight was that ANY attempt to suppress a vote is unconstitutional and Un-American.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I gave evidence of what I think is happening. That you disagree doesn't mean it's not evidence. The "fact" I was trying to highlight was that ANY attempt to suppress a vote is unconstitutional and Un-American.

Using your logic then, the mere hassle required of voters to register would suppress voting and be Un-American. Your argument is that the voter id requirement is beyond the means of these people to fulfill. If the individual can expend the effort to go vote they can do the same to have identification. In other words, they have the time to vote, just not the time to validate their vote. Your argument, and that of all the "progressives", is BS.

The inconvenience of obtaining an id is once. The opportunity to vote will be dozens and dozens of times throughout the life of the voter.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

No, my argument is that the efforts do not spring from a desire to reduce illegal voting. I have no real problem with the requirement, so long as it is done in a way that minimizes what you are considering a "minor inconvenience." Just because something is free doesn't mean it's accessible equally to everyone. To argue otherwise is short-sighted; whether or not it's deliberate short-sightedness remains to be seen.

If this was an honest effort to make sure the right people are registered to vote, then there would be safeguards in place to ensure nobody is disenfranchised. But considering that when these ID laws are passed, they are frequently tied to efforts to reduce early voting (which, comparatively, a majority of Democratic voters utilize - i've seen figures around 70% early voters are democrat), eliminate same-day registration/voting (even if they have an ID), and making it harder for students to vote (again, more likely to be democrat), it's disingenuous to argue that the main thrust of the legislation is to somehow limit fraud that nobody seems to have any evidence of.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

How long do you stand in line to vote ? For many people this in and of itself is a deterrent to voting, yet others choose to expend that effort and go vote. Don't these same people have to register to vote ? That's an inconvenience, yet we require such. The one time inconvenience of obtaining the proper id is not that big of an issue compared to the act of voting.

The practice of same day registration/voting would be ripe for fraud. The whole purpose for registering in advance is to provide time to verify the validity of the voter. Individuals could vote in multiple locations without detection before it's too late.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

How long do you stand in line to vote ? For many people this in and of itself is a deterrent to voting, yet others choose to expend that effort and go vote. Don't these same people have to register to vote ? That's an inconvenience, yet we require such. The one time inconvenience of obtaining the proper id is not that big of an issue compared to the act of voting.

The practice of same day registration/voting would be ripe for fraud. The whole purpose for registering in advance is to provide time to verify the validity of the voter. Individuals could vote in multiple locations without detection before it's too late.

Find me some evidence of it then. I've provided evidence and examples of attempts to disenfranchise Democrats, all you've got is assertions that that sort of thing happens and a seeming disregard for other people's rights.

[Auctoritas 2,894]

Oh, and I've been lucky overall. Every election I've voted in I've been in an area where the polling places were well staffed and resourced - except once. In a heavily minority area northeast of Atlanta, where I had to take a half-day off of work because the voting lines took forever. Thank goodness I had paid time off.

[homersapien 12,172]

I bet the people who are arguing there is an actual need for these efforts are the same people who declare regulations designed to shut down abortion clinics are needed to protect women seeking an abortion. :-\

Seriously. You can't really believe that. Can you?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

No, my argument is that the efforts do not spring from a desire to reduce illegal voting. I have no real problem with the requirement, so long as it is done in a way that minimizes what you are considering a "minor inconvenience." Just because something is free doesn't mean it's accessible equally to everyone. To argue otherwise is short-sighted; whether or not it's deliberate short-sightedness remains to be seen.

If this was an honest effort to make sure the right people are registered to vote, then there would be safeguards in place to ensure nobody is disenfranchised. But considering that when these ID laws are passed, they are frequently tied to efforts to reduce early voting (which, comparatively, a majority of Democratic voters utilize - i've seen figures around 70% early voters are democrat), eliminate same-day registration/voting (even if they have an ID), and making it harder for students to vote (again, more likely to be democrat), it's disingenuous to argue that the main thrust of the legislation is to somehow limit fraud that nobody seems to have any evidence of.

Voter id is equally accessible to everyone. The inconvenience is relative to the individual. You and I don't see eye to eye on this and it won't be resolved in a forum. The takeaway I suggest you consider is to understand that my concerns are legitimate and that when progressives call people like me a "racist" they only diminish themselves, it's irksome, but expected these days from progressives. Such appellations only demonstrate poor decorum and are designed to diminish, a disingenuous form of engagement.

Find me some evidence of it then. I've provided evidence and examples of attempts to disenfranchise Democrats, all you've got is assertions that that sort of thing happens and a seeming disregard for other people's rights.

Let's stick to the subject of this thread.

Oh, and I've been lucky overall. Every election I've voted in I've been in an area where the polling places were well staffed and resourced - except once. In a heavily minority area northeast of Atlanta, where I had to take a half-day off of work because the voting lines took forever. Thank goodness I had paid time off.

I guess the Republicans devised that lines be long in that polling area to subvert Democrats.

[Weegle777 78]

I bet the people who are arguing there is an actual need for these efforts are the same people who declare regulations designed to shut down abortion clinics are needed to protect women seeking an abortion. :-\/>

Seriously. You can't really believe that. Can you?

Abortion has nothing to do with voting rights, that analogy doesn't make sense.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I bet the people who are arguing there is an actual need for these efforts are the same people who declare regulations designed to shut down abortion clinics are needed to protect women seeking an abortion. :-\

Seriously. You can't really believe that. Can you?

One inflammatory subject per thread please.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

No, my argument is that the efforts do not spring from a desire to reduce illegal voting. I have no real problem with the requirement, so long as it is done in a way that minimizes what you are considering a "minor inconvenience." Just because something is free doesn't mean it's accessible equally to everyone. To argue otherwise is short-sighted; whether or not it's deliberate short-sightedness remains to be seen.

If this was an honest effort to make sure the right people are registered to vote, then there would be safeguards in place to ensure nobody is disenfranchised. But considering that when these ID laws are passed, they are frequently tied to efforts to reduce early voting (which, comparatively, a majority of Democratic voters utilize - i've seen figures around 70% early voters are democrat), eliminate same-day registration/voting (even if they have an ID), and making it harder for students to vote (again, more likely to be democrat), it's disingenuous to argue that the main thrust of the legislation is to somehow limit fraud that nobody seems to have any evidence of.

3 prominent Dems disagree with you and believe there is a need for voter id.

Carter, Clinton, Young: http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/usatoday/article/7529291

[DKW 86 7,866]

There are lots of things wrong here.

1. The Federal Government has zero control on how individual states set up their voter registries, so long as it abides by the constitution. It is a plenary power granted to the states. So, the entire first paragraph is irrelevant.

Wow, that statement is sssooo wrong i do not know where to start. In the Constitution the Federal Govt is "GRANTED" specific powers, not the other way around. It is the inherent right of the state to set voter laws. The Feds only get involved if there is a Civil Rights issue. Again, the Constitution grants only certain powers to the Federal Govt, not the other way around.

[DKW 86 7,866]

I bet the people who are arguing there is an actual need for these efforts are the same people who declare regulations designed to shut down abortion clinics are needed to protect women seeking an abortion. :-\

Seriously. You can't really believe that. Can you?

Dr Gosnell says hi.

[homersapien 12,172]

I bet the people who are arguing there is an actual need for these efforts are the same people who declare regulations designed to shut down abortion clinics are needed to protect women seeking an abortion. :-\/>

Seriously. You can't really believe that. Can you?

Abortion has nothing to do with voting rights, that analogy doesn't make sense.

Au contraire.

The comparison is not between voting and abortion. It's between the disingenuous arguments being made between the need for voter ID and the need to "upgrade" abortion clinics which are conceptually very much alike.