PDA

View Full Version : Texas voter ID law blocked by justice dept



mrveggieman
03-12-2012, 03:26 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/texas-voter-id-justice-department_n_1339004.html

duane1969
03-12-2012, 03:48 PM
I saw this on another site and just skimmed it. I am not sure I understand why it was blocked. They said that it would possibly limit latino voters but if the latino voters are legal citizens then they shouldn't have any problem getting an ID, right?

mrveggieman
03-12-2012, 03:55 PM
I saw this on another site and just skimmed it. I am not sure I understand why it was blocked. They said that it would possibly limit latino voters but if the latino voters are legal citizens then they shouldn't have any problem getting an ID, right?


A state ID and or driver's liscence costs money and requiring such in order to vote is akin to paying a poll tax to vote which would violate the 24th amendment.

pwaldo
03-12-2012, 04:37 PM
How does one cash a paycheck, welfare check, or any type of income check without an ID?

I understand your point about the cost of an ID but the amount of people that they always claim don't have an ID doesn't make sense unless down in Texas you don't need an ID to cash checks.

INTIMADATOR2007
03-12-2012, 07:16 PM
A state ID and or driver's liscence costs money and requiring such in order to vote is akin to paying a poll tax to vote which would violate the 24th amendment.

So we should pay for their gas to the voting booth , but their lunch and put oil in there car since it is so expensive to buy a dang $6 ID card ..I am sick of these dang it cost money excuses . It cost money to be alive how do they pull that off .

duane1969
03-12-2012, 08:34 PM
A state ID and or driver's liscence costs money and requiring such in order to vote is akin to paying a poll tax to vote which would violate the 24th amendment.

Not exactly. Since everyone is required to show ID then there is no one certain group that is targeted like there was with a poll tax.

tylermckinzie
03-12-2012, 08:52 PM
In my opinion, another sensationalist idea to solve pretty much a non-existent problem.

One side can claim they just want to see proof of identity to make sure there aren't illegals voting (and since you have to register to vote and you must show some form of ID in every poll I've ever been to, I don't see how it could happen anyway).

The other side claims that it increases the chances of minorities or the poor from not getting a vote (when in all actuality it probably means they are the largest part of this group but probably not casting that many ballots numbers-wise since most people don't fall into this group to begin with).

In all, another expensive, politically-fueled legislative battle in which taxpayers foot a multi-million dollar bill to solve a problem that never really existed.

tylermckinzie
03-12-2012, 09:03 PM
And on another note, for every "You have to have an ID to open a bank account, fly, etc. etc. etc." argument I tend to feel that those aren't necessarily rights set forth in our Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Voting is. Some people tend to be a bit hypocritical when they scream to keep government out of their lives and quit playing big brother but then can't keep from proposing laws that give more power over other people.

duane1969
03-12-2012, 09:25 PM
In my opinion, another sensationalist idea to solve pretty much a non-existent problem.

One side can claim they just want to see proof of identity to make sure there aren't illegals voting (and since you have to register to vote and you must show some form of ID in every poll I've ever been to, I don't see how it could happen anyway).

The other side claims that it increases the chances of minorities or the poor from not getting a vote (when in all actuality it probably means they are the largest part of this group but probably not casting that many ballots numbers-wise since most people don't fall into this group to begin with).

In all, another expensive, politically-fueled legislative battle in which taxpayers foot a multi-million dollar bill to solve a problem that never really existed.

I don't know about Texas, but here in WV you are not required to show ID to register to vote or to vote. In fact, registering to vote is as simple as filling out a form with your name and address, signing it and mailing it in. A few weeks later your voter card shows up in the mail. When you go in to vote you sign your voter ticket and they check to see if the signature on your registration matches the signature on your voter ticket. If it does, you can vote.

The registration form asks for a driver's license number or social security number but has a check box for "I do not have a driver's license or social security number", so even those are not required.

Never at any point in time are you required to show any ID to anyone.


And on another note, for every "You have to have an ID to open a bank account, fly, etc. etc. etc." argument I tend to feel that those aren't necessarily rights set forth in our Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Voting is. Some people tend to be a bit hypocritical when they scream to keep government out of their lives and quit playing big brother but then can't keep from proposing laws that give more power over other people.

Nobody said it is a "right" to cash a check or open a bank account. The question is how do they cash checks or open a bank account without ID. Saying that latino voters could/would be excluded is implying that they have no ID. If they have no ID then how do they live?

You have to have ID to open a bank account or cash your check at a check cashing location. Heck, you have to have ID to get a post office box, use a credit/debit card, buy cigarettes and beer, pass through a border check point..if they have no ID then they essentially can do nothing.

tylermckinzie
03-12-2012, 11:33 PM
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id-state-requirements.aspx#Details

I guess this would explain it- my state does have a Voter ID requirement, and West Virginia does not. Actually surprised to find that there is so much variance- but again, I guess that just goes to show how different regions have different beliefs.

Just still seems to me this is so much more of a political gamesmanship instead of a real issue. Being the middle ground, it doesn't make sense to me that a Concealed Weapon Permit is acceptable and a Student ID is not, since both have pictures. I can definitely listen to an argument that the requirements would seemingly benefit one demographic over another. It does seem to me that there is a certain level of prejudice on the requirements, but it also seems reasonable that some form of concrete identification should be required to vote. Ultimately, I guess I fall on the side of the Justice Department with my belief that if there is some form of prejudice, then it should be blocked until a case is presented that there is not. My belief is that the law is a movement in the right direction, but has flaws that should be fixed before implementation. It's not like everything has to be so this side or that- this one should have a common ground, yet both choose to ignore it.

mrveggieman
03-13-2012, 09:07 AM
So we should pay for their gas to the voting booth , but their lunch and put oil in there car since it is so expensive to buy a dang $6 ID card ..I am sick of these dang it cost money excuses . It cost money to be alive how do they pull that off .


If it's only $6 you and your GOP/tea party buddies should have no problem buying one for everyone who needs it.

duane1969
03-13-2012, 09:53 AM
If it's only $6 you and your GOP/tea party buddies should have no problem buying one for everyone who needs it.

Voting is not another entitlement program, although I am sure the liberals in Washington would love your idea since it would provide another avenue to take money out of taxpayer' pockets and put it into non-taxpayer's pockets.

duane1969
03-13-2012, 09:58 AM
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id-state-requirements.aspx#Details

I guess this would explain it- my state does have a Voter ID requirement, and West Virginia does not. Actually surprised to find that there is so much variance- but again, I guess that just goes to show how different regions have different beliefs.

Just still seems to me this is so much more of a political gamesmanship instead of a real issue. Being the middle ground, it doesn't make sense to me that a Concealed Weapon Permit is acceptable and a Student ID is not, since both have pictures. I can definitely listen to an argument that the requirements would seemingly benefit one demographic over another. It does seem to me that there is a certain level of prejudice on the requirements, but it also seems reasonable that some form of concrete identification should be required to vote. Ultimately, I guess I fall on the side of the Justice Department with my belief that if there is some form of prejudice, then it should be blocked until a case is presented that there is not. My belief is that the law is a movement in the right direction, but has flaws that should be fixed before implementation. It's not like everything has to be so this side or that- this one should have a common ground, yet both choose to ignore it.

But where does the prejudice come in? The proposed law does not say "All latinos must provide ID to vote." It says that all people must provide ID to vote. That isn't discrimination. If a white guy walks in and says "I am Joe Schmoe and I am here to vote" and they won't let him because he doesn't have ID, does that mean they are discriminating against white people?

Asking for ID for the right to have a say in the direction of our country is not wrong. Go to just about any country in the world and try to vote and I bet they will ask for proof that you are a citizen. Why is it so wrong for the US to do the same thing?

mrveggieman
03-13-2012, 10:19 AM
But where does the prejudice come in? The proposed law does not say "All latinos must provide ID to vote." It says that all people must provide ID to vote. That isn't discrimination. If a white guy walks in and says "I am Joe Schmoe and I am here to vote" and they won't let him because he doesn't have ID, does that mean they are discriminating against white people?

Asking for ID for the right to have a say in the direction of our country is not wrong. Go to just about any country in the world and try to vote and I bet they will ask for proof that you are a citizen. Why is it so wrong for the US to do the same thing?


This voter id nonsense was started by states (coincidencentally in the south :rolleyes:) to combat voter fraud but where are the confirmed cases of voter fraud? I know there are confirmed cases of voter intimidation but what are these states doing to combat that? I hear crickets chirping.......

Star_Cards
03-13-2012, 10:34 AM
I never got the voter id issue. I'm pretty sure I have to show my ID when I sign in, but can't exactly remember. I don;t think it's unreasonable to have to have an ID to vote. I understand the fact that it costs money and could then keep someone from voting, but like mentioned above there are other things that cost money to get one to the voting both. I know there are people without money or very little but I don't think an ID is that expensive. Maybe they can take half of a percent of the campaign money being spent and buy IDs for citizens that can't afford them. Seems like identifying legitimate people who can legally vote is the best way to keep the voting system on the up and up.

duane1969
03-13-2012, 10:53 AM
This voter id nonsense was started by states (coincidencentally in the south :rolleyes:) to combat voter fraud but where are the confirmed cases of voter fraud? I know there are confirmed cases of voter intimidation but what are these states doing to combat that? I hear crickets chirping.......

Yes because the South is a bunch of racist rednecks who just want to oppress people who aren't white. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the southern states are chock full of illegal immigrants :rolleyes:

Perhaps Oregon would be more concerned with voter ID if they had a border crossing issue like Texas. Perhaps Ohio would be more adamant about voter ID laws if they had a few hundred thousand illegal Cubans rowing across Lake Erie like Florida has them coming across to the Florida Keys.


I never got the voter id issue. I'm pretty sure I have to show my ID when I sign in, but can't exactly remember. I don;t think it's unreasonable to have to have an ID to vote. I understand the fact that it costs money and could then keep someone from voting, but like mentioned above there are other things that cost money to get one to the voting both. I know there are people without money or very little but I don't think an ID is that expensive. Maybe they can take half of a percent of the campaign money being spent and buy IDs for citizens that can't afford them. Seems like identifying legitimate people who can legally vote is the best way to keep the voting system on the up and up.

I could get behind that idea. But then I am sure some idiot will complain that people are being required to prove they are a citizen to get the free ID...

ensbergcollector
03-13-2012, 11:15 AM
This voter id nonsense was started by states (coincidencentally in the south :rolleyes:) to combat voter fraud but where are the confirmed cases of voter fraud? I know there are confirmed cases of voter intimidation but what are these states doing to combat that? I hear crickets chirping.......

pretty easy seeing as how you look at things like having to prove you are who you say you are is voter intimidation.

mrveggieman
03-13-2012, 11:26 AM
pretty easy seeing as how you look at things like having to prove you are who you say you are is voter intimidation.


No try getting pulled over and harrassed by the police on the way to the voting both.

duane1969
03-13-2012, 11:27 AM
No try getting pulled over and harrassed by the police on the way to the voting both.

How would the police know that a random person driving down the road is on the way to the polling location?

mrveggieman
03-13-2012, 11:31 AM
How would the police know that a random person driving down the road is on the way to the polling location?


I have no idea Duane. I guess that they use the same factors for pulling people any other time of year for no good reason. :rolleyes:

ensbergcollector
03-13-2012, 11:42 AM
No try getting pulled over and harrassed by the police on the way to the voting both.

try people voting 6-10 times in each election because they don't have to proof who they are.


and oh yeah, thanks for throwing back in the "all police are racist republicans who are mindless drones of the white racist republican party"

mrveggieman
03-13-2012, 11:46 AM
try people voting 6-10 times in each election because they don't have to proof who they are.


and oh yeah, thanks for throwing back in the "all police are racist republicans who are mindless drones of the white racist republican party"


Have you ever been pulled over and harassed by the police because of the color of your skin?

duane1969
03-13-2012, 12:02 PM
I have no idea Duane. I guess that they use the same factors for pulling people any other time of year for no good reason. :rolleyes:

So they are pulling you over for no good reason and not because you are on the way to the poll...blowing a huge hole in the "voter intimidation" theory that you presented.

mrveggieman
03-13-2012, 12:07 PM
So they are pulling you over for no good reason and not because you are on the way to the poll...blowing a huge hole in the "voter intimidation" theory that you presented.

Some police like to pull people over because of the color of their skin. I know this from personal experience. On election day they know that minorities vote for particular canidates that support people of color and frown upon police brutality. What better wat to supress otherwise legal voters but to have the police harass and intimidate them on the way to the polls.

tylermckinzie
03-13-2012, 12:08 PM
But where does the prejudice come in? The proposed law does not say "All latinos must provide ID to vote." It says that all people must provide ID to vote. That isn't discrimination. If a white guy walks in and says "I am Joe Schmoe and I am here to vote" and they won't let him because he doesn't have ID, does that mean they are discriminating against white people?

Asking for ID for the right to have a say in the direction of our country is not wrong. Go to just about any country in the world and try to vote and I bet they will ask for proof that you are a citizen. Why is it so wrong for the US to do the same thing?

Duane, don't be shortsighted. It isn't discrimination because you have to produce an ID to vote. People are saying this is prejudiced because of the enaction in the change of the voting laws that isn't equal to everyone. Like I said, I have minor agreements with some of the things opponents say. To me, there is a level of prejudice when a concealed weapon permit (predominately higher income households in Texas) is allowed but a student ID (usually not a higher income individual) is not. I don't understand why those who are seeking an ID law won't say that cards will be available during the next election, and people will be allowed to bring in what they normally do to vote and besides casting a vote, they will also be allowed to attain a voter ID card as well. One trip they would have made anyway. Minor tweaks and I think this thing works..... but minor tweaks aren't permissible in this day and age of government.

What is the law was changed to say "Only those who drive to the polls are allowed to vote". Applies equally to whites and latinos, right? Passes your equality test, right? Doesn't make it right, right?

And if you really want to get into it, if voters are so afraid of voter fraud, why continue to allow mail in ballots? I mean, since all you have to do is register and then you can mail it in without having an ID checked, how is this secure if the other method of registering and showing up to vote isn't?

Like I said, I'm not against the idea behind the law at all, but I do think there are some legitimate concerns about the process at the moment.

duane1969
03-13-2012, 12:41 PM
Duane, don't be shortsighted. It isn't discrimination because you have to produce an ID to vote. People are saying this is prejudiced because of the enaction in the change of the voting laws that isn't equal to everyone. Like I said, I have minor agreements with some of the things opponents say. To me, there is a level of prejudice when a concealed weapon permit (predominately higher income households in Texas) is allowed but a student ID (usually not a higher income individual) is not. I don't understand why those who are seeking an ID law won't say that cards will be available during the next election, and people will be allowed to bring in what they normally do to vote and besides casting a vote, they will also be allowed to attain a voter ID card as well. One trip they would have made anyway. Minor tweaks and I think this thing works..... but minor tweaks aren't permissible in this day and age of government.

Perhaps the concealed weapon permit is allowed because it is a state issued ID, but the college student ID is not. That makes sense to me.

Additionally, I have not seen a college ID that lists the owners address and social security number/driver's license number. I believe that concealed weapons permits do contain that information. Most college IDs contain nothing more than the student's name, student ID number and the name of the college. Student IDs are not usually acceptable forms of ID for check cashing or opening a bank account or post office box. So again, that makes sense to me.

As a college student I had my ID made and given to me by fellow students in a little room in the basement. It wouldn't be that hard for a group of students to fake a few hundred of them. For that matter, with a simple laminating machine and a good color laserjet printer I could easily fake college IDs myself.

tylermckinzie
03-13-2012, 12:55 PM
Man, it's too bad college students can only fake student ID's and not real ones... there would be a great market for that :party0053:

duane1969
03-13-2012, 01:00 PM
Man, it's too bad college students can only fake student ID's and not real ones... there would be a great market for that :party0053:

College IDs are a heck of a lot easier to fake than state issued IDs. My state issued driver's license has a series of holograms in the shape of the state across the front, a 3D image of the state in the upper right corner and is actually printed on the plastic, not laminated. So it would be quite a bit harder to fake than my laminated college ID which has nothing hologram or 3D about it.

tylermckinzie
03-13-2012, 01:13 PM
And your inpenetrable defense allowing mail ballots?

AUTaxMan
03-13-2012, 09:59 PM
You guys realize there is no right to vote in a Presidential election? At least, that's what our Supreme Court says. That said, I dont see how the voter id law is unconstitutional.

tutall
03-13-2012, 10:57 PM
No try getting pulled over and harrassed by the police on the way to the voting both.

If you get pulled over most likely you have a drivers license in your possession... which would double as an ID

duane1969
03-14-2012, 12:10 AM
And your inpenetrable defense allowing mail ballots?

No, I think it is stupid. At the last election I took my ID with me. When i tried to show it to the lady at the poll she said "Oh you don't need that!" My wife shushed me when I started openly questioning the idiocy of letting people vote with no idea if they were who they said they were.

I gladly and without hesitation would show my ID for the honor to vote.

tylermckinzie
03-14-2012, 12:41 AM
No, I think it is stupid. At the last election I took my ID with me. When i tried to show it to the lady at the poll she said "Oh you don't need that!" My wife shushed me when I started openly questioning the idiocy of letting people vote with no idea if they were who they said they were.

I gladly and without hesitation would show my ID for the honor to vote.

The hopefully you can understand my point. It isn't that I don't think there shouldn't be an ID provision to vote. It's that this one doesn't really seem to be fair. One person can vote through the mail with a signature but with another person a university picture ID isn't enough. I fully support the idea that both sides should be able to sit down for about two hours and work out the details. But to me, neither side really wants to do that. This is a perfect example for one side to decry manipulation by the other, and a perfect opportunity for the other to pass a flawed law that won't work the way it is written but then blame the other for blocking it (because if it was passed and it didn't make any difference they would lose their "illegals cause it!" card :-)

Politics that ignore a real problem.....

mrveggieman
03-14-2012, 09:16 AM
If you get pulled over most likely you have a drivers license in your possession... which would double as an ID


You are missing the point. It is not about weather or not you have a driver's liscence but being pulled over illegally which violates the 4th amendment.

duane1969
03-14-2012, 10:07 AM
You are missing the point. It is not about weather or not you have a driver's liscence but being pulled over illegally which violates the 4th amendment.

The 4th Amendment does not protect you from being pulled over without just cause.

mrveggieman
03-14-2012, 10:14 AM
The 4th Amendment does not protect you from being pulled over without just cause.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Motor_vehicle

Motor vehicle

Main article: Motor vehicle exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception)
The Supreme Court also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

mrveggieman
03-14-2012, 10:26 AM
You guys realize there is no right to vote in a Presidential election? At least, that's what our Supreme Court says. That said, I dont see how the voter id law is unconstitutional.


Do you have a link to that case ruling?

duane1969
03-14-2012, 10:30 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Motor_vehicle

Motor vehicle

Main article: Motor vehicle exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception)
The Supreme Court also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

May not be randomly stopped and searched. They can be stopped and the occupants questioned tho. If they could not stop vehicles randomly and question the occupatns then DUI checkpoints would be illegal.

I go thru a DUI checkpoint 3 or 4 times a year. The police stop you, shine a light on your face, ask where you have been and where you are going and you have to present your valid driver's license, vehicle registration and insurance card.

mrveggieman
03-14-2012, 10:41 AM
May not be randomly stopped and searched. They can be stopped and the occupants questioned tho. If they could not stop vehicles randomly and question the occupatns then DUI checkpoints would be illegal.

I go thru a DUI checkpoint 3 or 4 times a year. The police stop you, shine a light on your face, ask where you have been and where you are going and you have to present your valid driver's license, vehicle registration and insurance card.


DUI checkpoints are fine and legal. Pulling over black and latino voters at random on voting day because they are not voting republican are not.

duane1969
03-14-2012, 10:41 AM
Do you have a link to that case ruling?

You have the right to not be discriminated from voting based on sex, race, religion or affiliation. There is no law guaranteeing your right to vote in Federal elections. The Supreme Court ruling on Bush v. Gore supported this.

Furthermore, if you read the Bill of Rights you will see no mention of the right to vote. http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

Additionally, if there already existed the right to vote then why would Jesse Jackson have proposed an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to vote? http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/amendment_constitutional_voting_right.html

mrveggieman
03-14-2012, 10:44 AM
You have the right to not be discriminated from voting based on sex, race, religion or affiliation. There is no law guaranteeing your right to vote in Federal elections. The Supreme Court ruling on Bush v. Gore supported this.

Furthermore, if you read the Bill of Rights you will see no mention of the right to vote. http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

Additionally, if there already existed the right to vote then why would Jesse Jackson have proposed an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to vote? http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/amendment_constitutional_voting_right.html


I see but I was still interesting in seeing a link to the court ruling that mrtaxman was referring to.

duane1969
03-14-2012, 10:47 AM
DUI checkpoints are fine and legal. Pulling over black and latino voters at random on voting day because they are not voting republican are not.

A) There is no way to prove that they are being pulled over because they are going to go vote. Just beause a black or latino is in a car on election day does not mean they are on their way to vote.

In fact, such a low percentage of blacks and latinos vote that pulling one over on election day is more likely to be one that ISN'T on the way to vote as opposed to being one that is. For that matter, only like 25-30% of all Americans vote so pulling ANYONE over only guarantees a rate of 1/4 to 1/3 being on their way to vote. How the police could figure out which ones are headed to vote as opposed to which ones are headed to the grocery store is beyond me.

B) There is no way for the police to know that they are not voting Republican. If you think that blacks and latinos only vote Dem then you know very little about voting patterns.

Have the police suddenly become psychic or something? Is Dionne Warwick and the Psychic Network working for the police department now? Suddenly the police can see a black or latino in a car and can discern that they are on their way to vote and that they are going to vote Dem...impressive.

Also, are all police suddenly Republicans now? Since when did it become fact that police are not Democrats?

Your entire logic, from beginning to end, is full of nothing but racial silliness and baseless, factless gibberish.

MadMan1978
03-14-2012, 10:52 AM
Lets stay on topic ...

I think all of you should read the article fully...I agree with this move...the Republicans of a number of states have pushed and tired to change voter laws in order the make it very difficult or prohibitive for a number of people to vote in those states...whether that be a burden or just plainly difficult for people to obtain some form of a Photo ID the GOP has tired to set the tables for the next election...the people who they will block are those who mostly vote for the Democrats....If this all the bills introduced where full supported by both parties I wouldnt take issue.

ensbergcollector
03-14-2012, 11:27 AM
Lets stay on topic ...

I think all of you should read the article fully...I agree with this move...the Republicans of a number of states have pushed and tired to change voter laws in order the make it very difficult or prohibitive for a number of people to vote in those states...whether that be a burden or just plainly difficult for people to obtain some form of a Photo ID the GOP has tired to set the tables for the next election...the people who they will block are those who mostly vote for the Democrats....If this all the bills introduced where full supported by both parties I wouldnt take issue.

question, please tell me how having to prove you are who you say you are before allowing you to vote is a burden? Or even difficult?

also, how is proving you are who you say you are an attack on apparently democratic voters? I would think that is a logical request and expectation.

duane1969
03-14-2012, 11:29 AM
Lets stay on topic ...

I think all of you should read the article fully...I agree with this move...the Republicans of a number of states have pushed and tired to change voter laws in order the make it very difficult or prohibitive for a number of people to vote in those states...whether that be a burden or just plainly difficult for people to obtain some form of a Photo ID the GOP has tired to set the tables for the next election...the people who they will block are those who mostly vote for the Democrats....If this all the bills introduced where full supported by both parties I wouldnt take issue.

But the bill isn't ever going to be supported by Democrats for the same reason. They know that by letting questionable voters vote they earn those votes and solidify their positions.

It is self-perpetuating. By fighting to ensure that someone who may not be a citizen still gets to vote you ensure that they will vote for you because they have something to gain by supporting you. They are obviously not going vote for someone who would take away or limit their opportunity to vote. They are going to vote for the person who supports letting anyone and everyone vote.

What logical reason is there to not want citizens to be the only people to have a say in who our president is? Why is it that a component of our society supports the possibility that someone who is from another country can have a say in what our country does or who our leader is?

MadMan1978
03-14-2012, 01:52 PM
But the bill isn't ever going to be supported by Democrats for the same reason. They know that by letting questionable voters vote they earn those votes and solidify their positions.

It is self-perpetuating. By fighting to ensure that someone who may not be a citizen still gets to vote you ensure that they will vote for you because they have something to gain by supporting you. They are obviously not going vote for someone who would take away or limit their opportunity to vote. They are going to vote for the person who supports letting anyone and everyone vote.

What logical reason is there to not want citizens to be the only people to have a say in who our president is? Why is it that a component of our society supports the possibility that someone who is from another country can have a say in what our country does or who our leader is?

Duane really asked this question?

90% of these bills are for that reason. To blocked or stop those for voting in the other direction. I know we wish to live in a balanced world but we both know this is not real life.

AUTaxMan
03-14-2012, 08:21 PM
Duane really asked this question?

90% of these bills are for that reason. To blocked or stop those for voting in the other direction. I know we wish to live in a balanced world but we both know this is not real life.

It really is as simple as wanting to curb voter fraud. Has nothing to do with disenfranchisement.

MadMan1978
03-14-2012, 09:31 PM
It really is as simple as wanting to curb voter fraud. Has nothing to do with disenfranchisement.

Yeah and we still see that running wild in the last few elections have we not?

AUTaxMan
03-15-2012, 03:00 PM
Good article on the topic.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/holders_department_of_injustice.html#ixzz1p5i6NJxx

mrveggieman
03-15-2012, 03:10 PM
When GWB stole the elections in 2000 and 2004 under massive complaints of voter intimidation none of the republicans did a thing. Once President Obama legally won in 2008 the republicans want to complain about voter fraud. The republicans are completly full of it and are only concerned with disenfranchising minorities and doing whatever they can do to steal elections.

AUTaxMan
03-15-2012, 04:03 PM
When GWB stole the elections in 2000 and 2004 under massive complaints of voter intimidation none of the republicans did a thing. Once President Obama legally won in 2008 the republicans want to complain about voter fraud. The republicans are completly full of it and are only concerned with disenfranchising minorities and doing whatever they can do to steal elections.

All of that is 100% conjecture.

ensbergcollector
03-15-2012, 04:55 PM
When GWB stole the elections in 2000 and 2004 under massive complaints of voter intimidation none of the republicans did a thing. Once President Obama legally won in 2008 the republicans want to complain about voter fraud. The republicans are completly full of it and are only concerned with disenfranchising minorities and doing whatever they can do to steal elections.

you need to stop drinking the kool aid my friend. the stuff they are putting in there can't be good for you

mrveggieman
03-15-2012, 05:02 PM
you need to stop drinking the kool aid my friend. the stuff they are putting in there can't be good for you


It must be nice to live in the eutopian society that you live in.

tutall
03-15-2012, 06:48 PM
Lets stay on topic ...

I think all of you should read the article fully...I agree with this move...the Republicans of a number of states have pushed and tired to change voter laws in order the make it very difficult or prohibitive for a number of people to vote in those states...whether that be a burden or just plainly difficult for people to obtain some form of a Photo ID the GOP has tired to set the tables for the next election...the people who they will block are those who mostly vote for the Democrats....If this all the bills introduced where full supported by both parties I wouldnt take issue.

Which laws are those that you speak of? You mean like in Indiana now you have to have 2 pieces of ID to get a drivers license or renew one.... How dare them...

duane1969
03-16-2012, 11:55 AM
When GWB stole the elections in 2000 and 2004 under massive complaints of voter intimidation none of the republicans did a thing. Once President Obama legally won in 2008 the republicans want to complain about voter fraud. The republicans are completly full of it and are only concerned with disenfranchising minorities and doing whatever they can do to steal elections.

1) Please provide proof that he "stole" the election. In Gore v. Bush the US Supreme Court ruled on the matter, so whatever proof you have will have to be pretty strong to prove otherwise.

2) Please provide proof of voter intimidation in the 2004 election.

3) Nobody is complaining about voter fraud. Preventing illegals from voting has been an on-going issue for decades. It has become a hot-button issue as immigration has come to the forefront of issues.

4) I find it funny that you think that preventing non-citizens from voting is stealing elections. Most logical thinking people would say that allowing non-citizens to vote is how you steal an election.

mrveggieman
03-16-2012, 12:10 PM
1) Please provide proof that he "stole" the election. In Gore v. Bush the US Supreme Court ruled on the matter, so whatever proof you have will have to be pretty strong to prove otherwise.

2) Please provide proof of voter intimidation in the 2004 election.

3) Nobody is complaining about voter fraud. Preventing illegals from voting has been an on-going issue for decades. It has become a hot-button issue as immigration has come to the forefront of issues.

4) I find it funny that you think that preventing non-citizens from voting is stealing elections. Most logical thinking people would say that allowing non-citizens to vote is how you steal an election.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-03.htm

duane1969
03-16-2012, 12:31 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-03.htm

Paragraph 1

Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election...

Paragraph 2

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons

So it provides no proof that anyone was blocked from voting and the author's biggest beef is felons not getting to vote. I asked for proof of voter intimidation, not an op-ed based on opinion that was written before the election even occured.

Please.

ensbergcollector
03-16-2012, 12:58 PM
It must be nice to live in the eutopian society that you live in.

seeing as how i reserve my outrage for things that actually happened, yeah, life is pretty peaceful. If I got angry and things that were make believe all the time life would stink. And my neck would probably hurt from all the smh's i was doing.

mrveggieman
03-16-2012, 01:01 PM
seeing as how i reserve my outrage for things that actually happened, yeah, life is pretty peaceful. If I got angry and things that were make believe all the time life would stink. And my neck would probably hurt from all the smh's i was doing.


In your world you never have to worry about being pulled over by the police for no reason, being followed around stores and having women cluthing their purses when you walk by them. It must be nice.

AUTaxMan
03-16-2012, 01:29 PM
In your world you never have to worry about being pulled over by the police for no reason, being followed around stores and having women cluthing their purses when you walk by them. It must be nice.

I'm not really sure what that has to do with the Texas voter ID law.

mrveggieman
03-16-2012, 01:46 PM
I'm not really sure what that has to do with the Texas voter ID law.


I'm not really sure either ensberg got side tracked talking about the eutopian society that he lives in. Now back to the regular scheduled discussion....

AUTaxMan
03-16-2012, 02:10 PM
I'm not really sure either ensberg got side tracked talking about the eutopian society that he lives in. Now back to the regular scheduled discussion....

Side tracked by you.

mrveggieman
03-16-2012, 02:25 PM
Side tracked by you.

Try it again. We were talking about elections and and election fraud and ensberg felt the need to add his own personal commentary and I responded back.

AUTaxMan
03-16-2012, 03:25 PM
Try it again. We were talking about elections and and election fraud and ensberg felt the need to add his own personal commentary and I responded back.

He was merely responding to your ridiculous and fact-deprived assertions.

lloydr04
03-16-2012, 03:48 PM
I'm not really sure what that has to do with the Texas voter ID law.

not sure what this had to do with you?

AUTaxMan
03-16-2012, 04:19 PM
not sure what this had to do with you?

I'm just trying to get back on topic.

mrveggieman
03-16-2012, 05:00 PM
He was merely responding to your ridiculous and fact-deprived assertions.


If that's the case why doesn't he ever respond to the ridiculous and fact deprived assertions that the conservative faction of this forum likes to spew out?

AUTaxMan
03-16-2012, 06:17 PM
If that's the case why doesn't he ever respond to the ridiculous and fact deprived assertions that the conservative faction of this forum likes to spew out?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you cite an example?

ensbergcollector
03-16-2012, 06:25 PM
If that's the case why doesn't he ever respond to the ridiculous and fact deprived assertions that the conservative faction of this forum likes to spew out?

you mean like every time the birther thing or the obama is a muslim thing comes up i post very clearly in opposition to those?

duane1969
03-16-2012, 09:22 PM
Let us stay on topic. Voter ID requirements.

AUTaxMan
03-19-2012, 12:15 PM
Let's keep the voter ID laws and just make it easier for citizens to get proof of identification.