|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
|
 Proof or no proof....that is the question
_______________________________________
Aug 30, 12:11 PM EDT
FEDERAL COURT REJECTS TEXAS VOTER ID LAW
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.
A three-judge panel in Washington ruled Thursday that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.
The decision involves an increasingly contentious political issue: a push, largely by Republican-controlled legislatures and governor's offices, to impose strict identification requirements on voters.
The ruling comes in the same week that South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected in time for the November election.
|
|
Dok ...
... as a poll worker living here in Arizona, a conservative state, a photo ID is required, but two forms of name/address can substitute for this (utility bill, voter registration card, etc.). But it's true that proof of citizenship is not otherwise required to vote. This Tuesday's primary here worked out OK. Local press says there has been extraordinarily little voter fraud. Is this really an issue?
|
|
What is the big argument against having people prove they are citizen to vote? What is the problem that the left has with this on principle?
|
|
They believe it is racist because minorities are too poor to provide ID's....
Is this really an issue? Apparently, otherwise liberals would not feel threatened by the requirement of ID's. Which I find strange...Americans should protect the ballot box...the hurdle to vote is not that high with an ID, is it?
|
|
Why would anyone be too poor to provide an identification?
|
|
Requiring ID is racist?
Can someone come up with a list of things where you're required to provide an ID before you can get or do it?
- Cash a check
- Get a telephone
- Buy alcohol
- Rent a movie
- Rent a steam cleaner, etc.
Can you add to the list?
|
dmaestro
30-Aug-12, 11:55
|
There are marginal populations where this is the case, particularly those who do not drive, college students, and the very poor and disabled. The real issue is that these laws and the choices of acceptable IDs have the practical effect of making it harder for those in demographics who tend to vote liberal in larger percentages, and there is evidence that is the intent in some cases. A voter ID in itself is not a problem if it has neutral impact. There is a good article in wikipedia that explains that there is a negative impact and not just deterrence of ineligible to vote. A better interim solution is to have those without ID sign a affidavit under penalty of perjury, and make conditional votes that can be followed up in case there is a challenge or recount. The reality is that politics is hardball and the gop is pushing these laws because it benefits them as analysis shows, while dems lose legitimate voters so they oppose the laws.
|
|
Those who don't drive can still get an ID card.
Students need ID to go to school.
Wikipedia is as biased as the people that post there.
I have seen ZERO evidence of the intent you claim. I would like to see it if it were the case because I think its wrong. But I don't see the intent being that at all.
The intent is to stop illegals, and non-Americans from voting---->many vote liberal, it is true, but that is irrelevant. Democrats want to see illegals vote because it supports their candidates. That is the truth. They aren't defending some bogus number of disenfranchised people.
The issue here is simply this: Only Americans should vote.
You cannot argue that point, without undermining the entire voting idea.
I am okay with interim solutions---->and a one time waiver for the interim. If you cannot get an ID that says you're an American, you have a problem, don't you think?
It is a very low hurdle. And the number of people that might claim they are disenfranchised is insignificant compared with the number trying to vote illegally.
A perfect example of this is found in the billions of dollars refunded from fraudulent tax returns done to scam American citizens by illegals.
If people want to vote, they should be willing to get and ID card.
It isn't that hard.
|
|
... if there is so remarkably little voter fraud, why is there such an issue surfacing now? Is it just a political issue? Or, is there any other substance to it beyond these remarks above?
|
|
Q - Who can legally vote in an American election?
A - Americans
Q - Who profits from illegal votes?
A - Ds
Q - Who promises to be sugar-daddy for votes?
A - Ds
Q - Who's desperately screaming, contorting and posturing to block verification of legality?
A - Ds
It's pretty simple really. All the rest is noise.
|
|
That is actually the deal, chaz. And it is a fair question.
thumper strips away the rhetoric and that is what is left.
|
dmaestro
30-Aug-12, 17:37
|
The gop is well aware of the impact and the primary purpose of these laws is to benefit republicans and hurt democrats, but because of the way it skews LEGAL votes, not illegal ones. That is what motivates the passion once you clear away the smoke. I edit on wikipedia and for all its problems, when wikipedia directly cites relevant reliable sources accurately it is informative. Dismissing the studies out of hand which show disparate impact and why it occurs with canned talking points indicates no further desire for serious discussions and possible compromise. Understood, rebuttal made and finished. Politics as usual.
|
anomalocaris
30-Aug-12, 18:15
|
DM
In my experience when someone does that much talking and makes a simple thing as complicated as possible its because they are twisting an answer. IN what way would an I.D. card benefit Republicans??
We are simply saying citizens only....ANYONE can get an I.D. its very easy and its very cheap. The only smoke being blown is by you.
Here without the smoke. GET AN ID, THE END.
|
|
Stinky
They're in effect saying that blacks and Latinos are too stupid to get an ID and at the same time saying these same 'stupid' blacks and Latinos are their voting base. What a howler!!
|
dmaestro
30-Aug-12, 18:44
|
Stinky, since you haven't even read the studies you have no concept of the barriers or their disparate impact. In theory you are right but in practice the devil is in the details. These courts are not a stupid as that. One of the things I analyze is barriers. I do not like barriers to voting by CITIZENS period. When a practice has disparate impact to LEGAL voters it needs to be corrected. Make it easier for students and the poor and mobility impaired to get ID, allow some provisional voting to ensure they are not disenfanchised, an comd there would be less restrictions put on voter id laws. Serious dialogue reuires a little reasearch. When I am not having fun with righties, I have sources to support all my serious assertions. We can debate research or talking points. If research we can find a compromise that gets what we both want. Your choice.
|
dmaestro
30-Aug-12, 18:51
|
Hmmm, I find no reference to stupidity being a barrier in any references or assertion I have made. Not in the studies either. Wonder where that "insight" came from? Talking points?
No that is NOT the barrier.
|
anomalocaris
30-Aug-12, 19:33
|
DM
I honestly don't know if you have read any of the studies yourself. I think you have cited the word studies at least 1000 times. Besides, you do know studies don't mean something is true or factual right? Someone studied something and came up with their own assessment. I be you and I could study a political subject and come up with different conclusions. They are studies, not facts. I would say studies about political subjects almost always sway to the preconceived notions of the person or group doing the study. It's not like they are studying bacteria, or chimps. I am surprised that as intelligent as you think you are that you would think these studies are without bias, especially when its a conservative study done by liberals.
DM, Ann Coulter has written many book about liberals, have you read them? They are right on the money, she has studied liberals for years. she knows liberals better than they know themselves.
|
dmaestro
30-Aug-12, 20:20
|
Analysis deals with everyone of your concerns about studies, for the record, but you lack the experience to see that. You cite ann coulter as an authority? Yes, I am demonic just like she says and you have learned how to talk AT liberals if you must. Obviously you want to end the conversation here then. Wish granted. Another topic later maybe, this one is over done. Carry on. This is entertaining.
|
|
It is over because you refuse to cite your sources.
Cite your sources....
Go ahead...I dare you.
You would love to end it here before being exposed for not being able to cite your sources.
Is it that hard? It must be. It is sad that you cannot cite your works....
Very sad.
|
anomalocaris
30-Aug-12, 21:29
|
dm
Never read an Ann Coulter book in my life. I can see tho that you are fine with, time after time, citing studies that basically show how conservatives are dumb. I reference Ann Coulter and you want to stop. Perhaps you see why conservatives have trouble talking about issues with you. I do not read Ann Coulter. Never said you were demonic. You came up with a lot all on your own.
|
|
DM has a history (in almost every thread) of saying that "polls show", "studies indicate", or "research determines".... I don't remember any specific references except recently (wikipedia) which has been shown to be as truthful and reliable as the people posting there.
|
|
Stinky
Ann Coulter has a best selling book called 'Demonic - How the liberal mob is endangering America'.
DM seems to find the title personally insulting and has made reference to it several times. Apparently he sees no problem wishing conservatives dead but takes great umbrage if a liberal is insulted by a lawyer.
In the book Coulter talks about:
Liberal Groupthink, Liberal Schemes, Liberal Enemies, Liberal Justice and Liberal Violence.
"The demon is the mob and the mob is demonic. The Democrat Party activates mobs, depends on mobs, coddles mobs, publicizes and celebrates mobs - it is the mob. Sweeping in it's scope and relentless in it's argument, 'Demonic' explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard group-think behavior. To understand mobs is to understand liberals."
A very entertaining read.
|
dmaestro
31-Aug-12, 06:24
|
Conclude what you want. I will not expend such additional efforts on uninterested parties. Obviously the courts found merit in the evidence it is claimed does not exist. that these laws had an adverse impact on legal voters. That is really what matters. Next topic.
|
|
"Conclude what you want. I will not expend such additional efforts on uninterested parties", says the fleeing dm as he is caught in his own bologna.
This is a perfect example of getting called out and then making a pitiful excuse not to provide the sources...
Why?! Because you don't have them.
You can clearly see we are interested. What other excuses do you have? The dog ate it?
Having been exposed, I see you trying to switch topics and act obtuse as well. But, it isn't working. Not here...not with us.
You make wild accusations and attempt to make opinion and conjecture appear as sound data. You blame others for not being as 'professional' as you at understanding the vast references you cite---'studies show' and 'research indicates'...but now we see that these studies are illusions. Fabrications. Crap.
You mock others but you are in the spotlight now...caught by your own unsubstantiated extremism.
The truth is you have no studies, no research or any material that is not extremely biased and will make you look foolish.
So, once again--I go to Mitt Romney's response; Put up or shut up.
--------------->my guess is that you will be angry, avoid or move on.
|
|
I'd be genuinely interested in seeing the studies that support voter ID would disenfranchise the poor.
|
illinawek
31-Aug-12, 09:22
|
Studies? How about examples?
|
dmaestro
31-Aug-12, 09:29
|
I have to get to a computer first. I will get some links for you in the next few days. The wikipedia article on voter id laws under the studies section provides a good outline of pro and con issues regarding impact.
|
|
DOK
I'm sure he does well with a gullible, impressionable and willing audience. By his own admission, that's what he prefers. I'll take that one step further. That's what he requires to peddle the snake-oil. A facile and unskeptical following.
|
|
Illi...he isn't talking about examples----he makes claims of unbiased, fact based studies that he doesn't have.
Now he needs a computer to go find them...the illusory studies.
|
|
I'm sure he'll find some 'studies' to present. There are enough DMs running around creating 'studies' to support their claims about... well... everything.
|
|
|
