democratic election themes and daily talking points

[wesw]

redheads need carrot cake, ma am. this is not your ID

"i m not a natural redhead..."

I m sorry, ma am. if you will please show me your pubic hair you may proceed to the next empty booth.....

[Long Run]

But it's going to take time and cost a lot [to make getting an ID even easier]. is it worth the money

but I stand with Sue on voting being a fundamental right

Seems like you answered your own question.

[Gob]

Gob--other countries do a lot of things which are accepted by their people that those in the US would not want, and vice versa. We have different views on some issues, but no big surprise there.

So proving who you are before you vote is a problem, why exactly? You have electoral rolls there don't you?

[Lord Jim]

Commonsense on this issue seems to be prevailing nationally, despite the concerted efforts of Democratic activists, their allied organizations, and their friends in the media, to smear voter ID requirements as racist and unnecessary :

Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Voter ID Laws

A new poll by Rasmussen Reports finds that a strong majority still favors a requirement for voters to show a photo ID before being allowed to vote.

Following several years of similar results, the June poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly support Voter ID laws.

Rasmussen found that 76 percent of respondents favor voter ID laws and even a majority of Democrats, 58 percent, agree that voter ID is a good idea.

The new poll hews closely to last year’s findings that fully 78 percent favored proof of citizenship before being allowed to vote.

Voter ID laws have been a particular target of derision among Democrats and liberals, but with numbers like this it appears that they have not yet won over the American populace to rejecting Voter ID laws.

The new survey of 952 “Likely Voters” was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on May 27-28, 2015.

[MajGenl.Meade]

or freedom to actually practice religion - that one has to be set aside to comport with "American notions of favorite perversions"

Feel free to raise it in another thread if you want to discuss it. No need to derail this one..

Well, no I didn't want to discuss that particular issue. But what is relevant is how "American notions of freedom" is whipped out by liberals when they want to belabor a reasonable requirement to prove who the f*** you are - but that same "American notions of freedom" is laughed off by liberals when the subject of guns or religious freedom not to make cakes for perverts is brought up

That there is, uh, hypocrisy son. Hypocrisy

[Big RR]

Meade--Perhaps some people do what you complain of, but I do try to be open minded on all freedom issues. On freedom of religion I tend to go more overboard toward insisting religions should be openly allowed to practice their religious principles, no matter how abhorrent I may find them, absent a compelling interest. Thus, I fully support the RC church in refusing to marry divorced individuals (absent the granting of a church annulment), and I would support any church that refuses to marry same sex couples (or interracial or any other couples for that matter) on their religious principles as well. What I do not accept is the power of any religious institution to impose its views on the rest of the populace and on civil law--so we can have civil divorce and same sex marriage, despite many religious institutions condemning it. I see no hypocrisy there.

Likewise, while the second amendment is not as important to me as some here, I do see it as the law of the land which should be respected. I accept some restrictions on that right based on compelling governmental interests, just as I would here if a similarly compelling interest interest could be shown (but I have not seen it), but I have not called for a complete rollback of the second amendment rights. Absent a repeal of the second amendment, I personally don't think anything approaching that could be constitutionally achieved. Again, no hypocrisy.

And FWIW, we are not discussing any particular requirement to prove "who the f*** you are", we are discussing conditioning the right to vote based on a specific requirement to produce a specific form of identification. Big difference IMHO.

Gob--I do think the difference has to do with the requirement of government issued ID which must be produced for any manner of things; most countries have no problem with it, while in the American psyche it is a big thing. Indeed, when social security was instituted, the law specifically stated that the social security card and the number could only be sued for that purpose and were not for identification purposes to silence the objections to it based on saying it was tantamount to creating a national ID.


We accept such ID for a number of reasons (like passports, e.g.) because of compelling governmental interests, but not at the whim of bureaucrats or legislators.

right now, we do have voting rolls, and the precincts are local. Each political party, and the other candidates on the ballot, have the ability to send challengers to each polling place who can challenge the ability of anyone to vote (this may not be in all states, but it is the practice in every state I am aware of); usually these challengers live in the locality (as do many of the poll workers) and will know most persons there. If a challenge is made, it will go first to the supervisor of that polling place and, if upheld, will result in either a provisional ballot being voted (but not opened or counted until the situation si resolved, usually after the election) or to the court (most county courthouses have one or two judges there on election day to hear such matters, and local bar associations (and political parties) will provide lawyers free of charge to aid in the hearings. This is not an argument that those who are not permitted to vote should be able to do so, but only that the ID laws provide another obstacle in the way of casting a vote (although many here dispute that). the question comes down to, why is the current system so deficient that it should be changed--and I have seen no evidence here that the system is deficient.

[Sue U]

But what is relevant is how "American notions of freedom" is whipped out by liberals when they want to belabor a reasonable requirement to prove who the f*** you are - but that same "American notions of freedom" is laughed off by liberals when the subject of guns or religious freedom not to make cakes for perverts is brought up

Meade, your quote reproduced above is, of course, complete and utter horseshit.

First, you have totally missed the point of "American notions of freedom" -- and the concept of having a "right" -- if you think a "requirement to prove who the f*** you are" is "reasonable." If you have a presumptive right to do something -- say, vote -- the onus is on the state to show some reason why you should be denied that right until you meet some additional requirement. That is one of the primary features that makes it a right, not a qualified privilege.

And please show me where I have "laughed off" the "same 'American notions of freedom'" with respect to guns. Be specific. Because what I have actually said about guns is that the constitutional right should be repealed and made into a qualified and regulated privilege. Which is exactly what "voter ID" laws do to the constitutional right to vote, but without the necessary process to actually strip the right to vote from the constitution first.

And how does it violate the "religious freedom" of any commercial cake baker selling to the public to sell a homosexual couple the same cake he sells to a heterosexual couple? What constitutional right to "religious freedom" is any merchant denied by being required to offer the same goods to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, gender or sexual orientation when operating a business open to the general public?

ETA:

Everything that BigRR just said, also too.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Commonsense on this issue seems to be prevailing nationally

Which means the gov will do the exact opposite.

[Long Run]

Commonsense on this issue seems to be prevailing nationally

Which means the gov will do the exact opposite.

Pessimism is a learned behavior, the good news being you weren't born that way.

[Gob]

So, he asked again, what is the problem with producing ID to vote? Do you just rock up to your banks and say:" "My name is Elton John, and I'd like a million dollars cash from my account please"?

[Big RR]

So, he said again, taking money out of a bank is not a right, it is a privilege which is based on a contractual relationship between the bank and the person. Voting is a right, not a privilege and is not based on any such contract. Andy restriction, however great or small, on the right to vote ought to be viewed with suspicion and should only be permitted if there is a compelling interest it protects.

So, he asked again, where is the evidence of the compelling interest that shows such a restriction is needed?

[rubato]

Exhaustive research has failed to show that there is any reason other than depriving those who know from first hand the value of compassion of the ability to vote.


Yrs,
Rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Where's the evidence that requiring voters to prove they are the same person as the "registered" person will actually rob votes from anyone? All I ever see is anecdotal evidence that really inept people don't think they can identify themselves - and somehow they are all supposed to be democrats (because it's a republican plot).

Voting is a right that should be jealously and closely protected from cheats, fakers and people too stupid to have an ID

[Gob]

So, he said again, taking money out of a bank is not a right, it is a privilege which is based on a contractual relationship between the bank and the person. Voting is a right, not a privilege and is not based on any such contract. Andy restriction, however great or small, on the right to vote ought to be viewed with suspicion and should only be permitted if there is a compelling interest it protects.

So, he asked again, where is the evidence of the compelling interest that shows such a restriction is needed?

Or;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/florida-voter-fraud/

(Its not good when repubbies do it, apparently...)

Well, not identifying yourself when you vote is hardly "a restriction," is it?

But you guys carry one.

As I've said here and there before, American politics is the greatest comedy series of our generation.....

[Econoline]

Did you even read the links you posted, Gob? Here's one example:

Who is responsible for Florida's second infamous elections debacle since 2000?

There will be plenty of blame to go around, especially when Miami-Dade County finally finishes counting provisional ballots and gets to the bottom of who declined to shore up voting operations, and when. But blame will also likely fall on conservative state legislators, who fought for two years to reduce the number of early voting days and limit registration after heavy 2008 turnout in the state for Democrats.

"Obama won the most where the lines were the longest," former state Sen. Dan Gelber (D-Miami Beach) told the Tampa Bay Times, speaking of the 2012 turnout.

Gelber called the law reducing early voting "hubris and overreaching by the Republicans, who may learn a lesson that 'Maybe we shouldn't abuse our prisoners that much because sometimes they'll get back at you.'"

Citing admittedly non-existent fraud, the GOP gang reduced the number of early voting days from 14 to 8, eliminating the Sunday before Election Day disproportionately preferred, in large numbers, by blacks, Hispanics, young people and first-time voters.

As a result, many voters were squished onto a final Saturday of early voting, with lines so long the last voters in Miami cast their ballots at 1 a.m. Some voters were forced to leave lines to care for children or keep appointments, sending even more South Floridians back to the lines on Tuesday.

But prohibitively long lines didn't just come at the end of early voting and on Election Day: they happened all week long. University of Miami student Blake Yagman told The Huffington Post he ultimately tried early voting four different times in three different locations, unable to stay in lines that stretched from three to five hours because of his class and work schedule. His mother waited eight and a half hours to vote early.

"I figured because of the early voting process I wouldn't have to file absentee," Yagman said. "But I was wrong."

Unable to vote on Election Day because of work, his voice was never heard.

Amid the chaos, the backers of House Bill 1355 defended its role, pointing out that the maximum number of early voting hours remained the same, blaming problems at the polls on unpreparedness and denying that long lines served to suppress votes.

But numbers collected by the Tampa Bay Times indicate otherwise: in relatively pain-free Hillsborough County, early voting turnout was up 14 percent from 2008, while in delay-plagued Miami-Dade, 28 percent fewer people cast ballots early.

Check out some of the politicians who, against great protest from voters' rights group, helped make voting in Florida more difficult:

...and here are just a couple of examples from the slide show that follows:

Governor Rick Scott
Republican Rick Scott bills himself as a champion of "fair" elections, but falsely claimed fraud when signing reduced early voting hours into law. He has largely ignored evidence of absentee ballot fraud, while focusing on purging the state's voter rolls.

"I don't want to disenfranchise anybody in their voting rights," Scott said, rolling out an initial list of 182,000 Floridians who he claimed could potentially be non-citizens. Of the list, reporters and activists quickly found hundreds of natural-born and naturalized U.S. citizens. From that list, 58 percent of which was black or Hispanic, Scott fought -- against the Department of Justice -- to ultimately refer 196 people who had possibly voted illegally to prosecutors.

Dennis Baxley
Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala), the original co-sponsor of HB 1355, the bill limiting early voting, admitted on MSNBC that there was no widespread voter fraud in Florida. Instead, he insisted the bill was a preventative measure and that its attached crackdown on third-party registration "makes people more comfortable and secure."

Almost all the examples of "voter fraud" cited were of fraudulent absentee ballots and of fraudulent manipulation of the voter rolls by (Republican) government officials. None of the examples cited would have been prevented by proof of ID at the polls.

[Lord Jim]

Well, that Florida TV news piece certainly should make it more difficult for the excuse makers to cling to the self-evidently silly fiction that just because thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who are not legally qualified to vote are on the registration rolls all over the country, doesn't necessarily mean that any of them are actually voting...

And it fully backs up my assertion that the proof of citizenship requirements in the registration process have completely broken down, making the polling place the last line of defense to try to insure the integrity of our elections...

What that investigative news team did is what the government should be doing...

Of course the real reason that many Democrats* and liberals don't see non-citizens voting as a problem isn't because it isn't happening...

It's because most non citizens vote Democratic, and they don't want to lose those votes...(even though the votes aren't legitimate; the Democrats see themselves as being on the side of the angels, so their noble ends justify the means...)

One doesn't have to be a scientist, (or even a pseudo-scientist) to figure that one out...if this weren't the case they wouldn't give two hoots about voter ID laws...in fact if most non-citizens were voting the Republican, they'd be leading the charge for voter ID laws, in fact they'd be arguing that they aren't tough enough...





*Note I said many Democrats, not all... in fact not even a majority...

As the recent Rasmussen poll I posted shows, 58% of Democrats have sufficient respect for the integrity of our election process that they favor voter ID laws that help to prevent non-citizens from voting, even though their party benefits significantly from the non-citizen votes. They would prefer to win legitimately and legally. They should be applauded.

[Gob]

Almost all the examples of "voter fraud" cited were of fraudulent absentee ballots and of fraudulent manipulation of the voter rolls by (Republican) government officials. None of the examples cited would have been prevented by proof of ID at the polls.

Fair comment, but they are indicative of how badly run your electoral system is...

[Joe Guy]

How can we know the extent of voter fraud if people are getting away with it?

For all we know, most elections of our government officials and propositions that become law are being decided by the illegal alien vote...

[Crackpot]

No that's being decided buy our actual alien overlords.

[rubato]

Where's the evidence that requiring voters to prove they are the same person as the "registered" person will actually rob votes from anyone? All I ever see is anecdotal evidence that really inept people don't think they can identify themselves - and somehow they are all supposed to be democrats (because it's a republican plot).

Voting is a right that should be jealously and closely protected from cheats, fakers and people too stupid to have an ID

So you're a missionary for EST? Fuck them if they are too occupied trying to make a living deal with a different language and take care of their children?

You really are a bastard.

Yrs.
Rubato