NAACP rally against IDs demands ID

“To go to the rally, you are asked to have “photo identification (driver’s license, passport or other valid photo id) with you and keep it on your person at all times.”

If the NAACP would get voters to do the things the list, there would never again be big problems with voting. Most of the accusations of suppression are false and this would help reveal the lies, maybe even find a case or two of true suppression.

Everybody needs and ID and everybody knows this. I know it; you know it; the NAACP knows it and we all know that they know. The whole ID thing is a false & dishonest controversy created by the left to frighten the credulous and keep the raw the wounds of racism. We all know this too.

ID protests are a kind of kabuki theater, where the actors put on their best emotional faces, stream and cry at appropriate times, and keep playing the same script over and over.

Posted by Christine & John at February 9, 2014 9:01 AM
Comments
Comment #376225

Do you seriously think the NAACP is actually checking the IDs of march participants? It just looks like this paper is a list of recommendations, not requirements. I certainly won’t hesitate to recommend that every American citizen carry proper identification, but I would never deprive someone of their unalienable natural rights just because they didn’t heed my recommendation.

ID protests are a kind of kabuki theater, where the actors put on their best emotional faces, stream and cry at appropriate times, and keep playing the same script over and over.

The people who are being denied their right to vote are real; even if they are small in number. Regardless, voter impersonation fraud is even rarer.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2014 9:42 AM
Comment #376226

Warren Porter,

What is the difference between requiring an ID be checked when a person votes and requiring them to register to vote? Why is one ok and the other is not?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2014 9:56 AM
Comment #376227

Warren

I don’t think they are checking. I do think they understand the importance of IDs, which is why they ask their participants to have them.

Re fraud v suppression - each election cycle we have convictions of fraud. We have talk about suppression every time, but when you look closely you find nothing. It is like when you are camping in the woods and see ghosts in the mist. When you go to investigate you find nothing but a few trees and lots of imagination, maybe an errant squirrel.

You and I have a slight difference here in values. We both agree that every American has a right to vote. You think this right is absolute, even if the person involved will not cooperate. I believe that citizenship comes with minimal responsibilities.

Neither of us believes that many people are denied the right to vote. I think we could agree that we could probably count on our hands. I think we would be doing these guys a favor if we helped them get IDs, since today they are not participants in our great society.

I am not absolutist about anything. I never believed that saying “If it helps only one person, it is all worth it.” I believe in helping those who need help, but I expect them to be at least as interested in their own improvement as I am.

Posted by: CJ at February 9, 2014 10:01 AM
Comment #376242

If Democrats and Republicans in office really embraced voter participation universally, there wouldn’t be Tuesday voting, nor one day voting, nor long waiting lines to vote, nor this kind of Republican bullshit going on in Texas, where my wife is told that because Republicans insisted on her driver’s license reflecting her maiden name as her middle name, her voter ID card is invalid UNLESS she forks over the money to have her Driver’s license changed to reflect her actual middle name. Republicans are making women voters in Texas jump through hoops in the hopes of discouraging their vote, especially if they can’t afford the cost of changing their driver’s license.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2014 11:54 AM
Comment #376247

David

In Brazil, they require biometrics. People prove their identity with fingerprints and everybody has to be registered this way. In most countries, IDs are require for all citizens. America is a big exception. We are much less regimented and I think this is a good thing. The flip side is that we have to take a little more responsibility. I don’t think that it too much to ask of citizens. So far the courts agree with me, so I guess it is constitutional AND just.

Posted by: CJ at February 9, 2014 12:13 PM
Comment #376248
What is the difference between requiring an ID be checked when a person votes and requiring them to register to vote? Why is one ok and the other is not?

Bringing an ID on election day is a slightly greater burden than registering to vote. Voter registration is the minimum needed in order to ensure that the election is conducted fairly, whereas bringing identification to the polls is an unnecessary burden that provides no marginal benefit over the existing voter registration system.

I do think they understand the importance of IDs, which is why they ask their participants to have them.
I am certain no one has denied the value of obtaining identification in order to succeed in the modern world. However, one has a right to be stupid and make poor decisions. We shouldn’t use the government’s cudgel to correct what we think are bad habits or attributes.
We have talk about suppression every time, but when you look closely you find nothing.
I’ve linked to anecdotes in the past; these aren’t fantasies. Many women born in the early 20th century were never given a birth certificate and they never registered for the WWII draft either. If you want to talk ghosts, you should take a look at the fallacious claim that voter impersonation fraud is actually a problem today. Those cases number on perhaps a single hand, whereas surveys indicate that as many as 11% of eligible voters do not have an ID. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2014 12:18 PM
Comment #376249

Warren

In every one of these anecdotes, the people involved COULD get IDs. The surveys are based on bad statistics. It is like asking if you COULD be hungry today. The answer would probably be yes. The reality is that you can avoid that outcome with reasonable care.

Neither suppression nor in person impersonation is a big problem today. But we can avoid BOTH with a robust system of identification. In that way, crooks could be stopped and a person showing up with a valid ID could not be prevented from voting and would have a clear and provable case if anyone tried to stop him.

Posted by: CJ at February 9, 2014 12:27 PM
Comment #376257
In every one of these anecdotes, the people involved COULD get IDs. The surveys are based on bad statistics. It is like asking if you COULD be hungry today. The answer would probably be yes. The reality is that you can avoid that outcome with reasonable care.

Before the 24th amendment, people COULD pay the poll tax. They COULD study hard and pass the literacy test. But that doesn’t justify those laws. Also, when one , lacks a birth certificate, obtaining a photo ID can be quite ddifficult.

Neither suppression nor in person impersonation is a big problem today
This is not a fair comparison. Suppression may not be a big problem today because most states don’t require an ID to vote, but you are advocating changing a system that has worked well for over 200 years to a new untested system that could deny up to 11% of eligible voters their right to vote. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2014 2:01 PM
Comment #376259
Bringing an ID on election day is a slightly greater burden than registering to vote.

How do you figure?

you should take a look at the fallacious claim that voter impersonation fraud is actually a problem today.

How would you accurately measure that? Without a means of testing a person’s identity, there is no way to really know if voter impersonation is going on, except for the most egregious instances where people get caught because they bragged about it or left some sort of paper trail.

most states don’t require an ID to vote

California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming are the only states that do not require some form of ID to vote.

So, 19 is more than 33?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2014 2:35 PM
Comment #376263
Without a means of testing a person’s identity, there is no way to really know if voter impersonation is going on.

I thought we had a controversy because a bunch of states passed laws that do test people’s identities? These laws would surely have caught plenty of offenders if violations of the law were so rampant.

So, 19 is more than 33?
Fine. Let me rephrase: Most people without IDs live in those 19 states. Nearly half of the total population lives in those 19 states. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2014 3:08 PM
Comment #376265
How do you figure?
Voter registration is a one-time event that can happen at the voter’s choice of time and place. Bringing an ID to the polls has to be done over and over again and is prone to clumsy mistakes like leaving one’s wallet at home. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2014 3:46 PM
Comment #376267
I thought we had a controversy because a bunch of states passed laws that do test people’s identities? These laws would surely have caught plenty of offenders if violations of the law were so rampant.

Are you thinking that through logically though? If a new law is in place that says you have to have ID and you were planning on impersonating someone else to vote, would you be stupid enough to continue your plan once that law is in place?

Voter registration is a one-time event that can happen at the voter’s choice of time and place.

Unless you don’t vote in a presidential election, then you have to re-register. OR if you move, you have to re-register. OR if you get married and change your name…

Bringing an ID to the polls has to be done over and over again and is prone to clumsy mistakes like leaving one’s wallet at home.

And all of those laws allow you to STILL vote and provide the ID at a later time to ensure it is counted.

Do you realize how silly you sound?

For the record, I’m not for ID laws personally, I don’t think within the US we should be required to ‘have our papers’ at all times, but for the most part I am ambivalent because it is such a minor thing. But also for the record, the claims that showing an ID (provided free by the state, btw) to vote is somehow ‘disenfranchising’ is beyond ridiculous.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2014 4:12 PM
Comment #376271
Do you seriously think the NAACP is actually checking the IDs of march participants?
Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2014 9:42 AM

They have every intention of using IDs to identify legitimate marchers and infiltrators. This is obvious by the list of Do’s and Don’ts.

Do watch for people who join the march from the public and notify a Marshal
Do immediately report any altercation, unruly behavior, or persons deviating from the rules, to a Marshal

Infiltrators need to be identified and minimized. Marshals need to be able to distinguish between infiltrators and legitimate marchers.
This is also true of marchers in altercations. Marshals must identify legitimate marchers from instigators in the event of altercations.

IDs would prevent someone from claiming they belong with marchers when they actually are there to disrupt the march or make the march look bad.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 9, 2014 11:51 PM
Comment #376274
In Brazil, they require biometrics.

C&J Are you suggesting the federal government collect fingerprints for every one? Even with out the rampant fraud and corruption in this country that has driven Brazil to start to use biometrics?


I find it odd you would go to such authoritarian extremes just to suppress the vote.

DO you also support military dictatorship for this country because Brazil has had them?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2014 1:13 AM
Comment #376276

Do they ask you to leave if you do not present I.D. to them? Probably not, right? If so do you want blacks running around with your SS numbers—slap-slap-slap-slap

Let me rephrase this….

Posted by: simpleheaded at February 10, 2014 7:52 AM
Comment #376278

If you can remember your ID when you go buy cigs, booze and lottery tickets, you can remember to bring it to vote.

This is about nothing more than keeping the ability to troll for last minute votes on election day.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2014 10:40 AM
Comment #376280
In Brazil, they require biometrics.
C&J Are you suggesting the federal government collect fingerprints for every one?
Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2014 1:13 AM

j2t2, your Telerite is showing! CJ went on to say:

America is a big exception. We are much less regimented and I think this is a good thing.
Posted by: CJ at February 9, 2014 12:13 PM

Argue for arguement’s sake?
NO!

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 10, 2014 12:03 PM
Comment #376285

CJ, there are many ways to present ID, an electric bill, a library card, a mortgage statement which match the ID on one’s voter registration card. None of these cost voters additional money. Republicans efforts are specifically designed to cost poorer voters in order to vote, by prescribing ID that costs to obtain. It is purely and effort to discourage poorer folk from voting, and that makes it disenfranchisement for political gain, pure and simple. Nothing noble like preventing virtually non-existent vote fraud. That is just a guise and ruse for really UnAmerican political motives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2014 1:54 PM
Comment #376286
Republicans efforts are specifically designed to cost poorer voters in order to vote, by prescribing ID that costs to obtain.

They must feel like failures then, since every single ID law requires that the IDs necessary for identification at voting booths must be available to everyone for free…

It’s good to know, btw, that electric service and mortgages don’t cost money for people to obtain.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 10, 2014 2:07 PM
Comment #376294

David, J2 & Warren

I consider protecting the vote something that should concern all citizens. I am disappointment that some of my fellow citizens think so little of the franchise that they are unwilling to take simple steps to protect it, such as getting a valid ID. This small number of citizens is letting down good citizens like us. They are not living up to the very simple responsibilities of citizens and in effect choosing not to vote.

Do I feel bad about that. Yes. As I said, I am a disappointment in them and sad that we have such poor citizens in America. They have failed in their responsibility to us, but we certainly have not failed them.

But I believe in redemption. I am glad that they will be able easily to do the right thing. We should encourage them to do so, not make excuses for them. They should stop letting down our team.

Posted by: CJ at February 10, 2014 5:07 PM
Comment #376317
If you can remember your ID when you go buy cigs, booze and lottery tickets, you can remember to bring it to vote.

kctim, How authoritarian to equate voting with going to a store to buy something. Unfortunately it is sad to see you throw away your ideals, your credibility, with this type of bashing. It is a silly argument to protect such an obvious voter suppression law put forth by conservatives.

Weary, We are not nearly as corrupt either, whether we are less regimented or not can be argued. The silliness of rationalizing the voter suppression law repubs are enacting around the country by telling us Brazil does it to begs the question you took exception to.

I consider protecting the vote something that should concern all citizens.

Protecting the vote from who C&J. The nonexistent fraud the authoritarians use to justify the voter suppression laws! The vote needs to be protected from the conservatives using the ALEC laws to suppress the vote.

For those conservatives and libertarians here on WB fooled by all this nonsense here is the founder of ALEC telling you why ALEC is pushing the voter suppression laws through conservative legislatures across the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw#t=26

Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2014 9:47 PM
Comment #376318
How authoritarian to

I don’t think that word means what you think it means…

Authoritarian is more about telling people how they can live their lives through laws, like what they can eat, how they pay for their health care, how they teach their children, etc…

HTH

For those conservatives and libertarians here on WB fooled by all this nonsense

Irrelevant fallacies aren’t worth of being used…

If I provided you a link to some socialist group telling you why they supported Obamacare since it would lead to a teardown of capitalism, would it mean that your reasons for supporting it aren’t valid?

If you don’t want games played against you, you shouldn’t do the same to others.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 10, 2014 10:16 PM
Comment #376323
I don’t think that word means what you think it means

Yet you go on to describe exactly what these theocratic conservative are trying to do. They want to use the law to hold political power , so they can make the rules so they can be “telling people how they can live their lives through laws, like what they can eat, how they pay for their health care, how they teach their children, etc… .
They, according to the founder of the group, cannot gain majorities unless they suppress the vote. I mean really Rhinehold a law for a practically non existent crime and you support it!

If you don’t want games played against you, you shouldn’t do the same to others.

Rhinehold, when the founder of the group tells you the advantages of suppressing the vote then the group works to get the vote suppressed it should be pretty clear why the group decided to do so. It amazes me you continue to call out the rest of us as partisans yet here you are as partisan as they come on this issue.

The guys here on WB come up with all this silliness about why the voter ID law is such a good idea. Yet the
“good idea” is for non existent fraud. The “good idea” also has other strings attached, which the consistently fail to mention. The talk only about the voter ID law yet fail to mention the other parts of these laws being passed, why is that?

Look Rhinehold you can believe you support these voter suppression laws for good reasons (although the use of so many fallacies needed to support such nonsense is suspect,IMHO) but the fact is ALEC and their supporters that have pushed the laws through didn’t have good intentions, they have told you so. So whatever game you seem to think is being played is in your mind- a figment, my friend, of your imagination. You and those who support the voter suppression laws have been hoodwinked by ALEC.

BTW what kind of crap are you running. I showed you a video of the founder of ALEC telling us why they want to suppress the vote. You come at me with “If I provided you a link to some socialist group telling you why they supported Obamacare since it would lead to a teardown of capitalism, would it mean that your reasons for supporting it aren’t valid?” Did this socialist group cause Obamacare to become law in 20 some states? Fallacies abound my friend on this issue. Yours is but one.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2014 11:41 PM
Comment #376325
Yet you go on to describe exactly what these theocratic conservative are trying to do

I described what both the Democrats and Republicans are trying to do. But that wasn’t the way you used it, was it?

Equating voting with going to the store, as you stated, is not authoritarian. It may not be a good comparison, but THAT is not authoritarian. I believe that you don’t seem to get that since you support a philosophy deeply rooted in authoritarian policies…

I mean really Rhinehold a law for a practically non existent crime and you support it!

Again, WHERE did I say I supported it? In fact I stated quite clearly “For the record, I’m not for ID laws personally, I don’t think within the US we should be required to ‘have our papers’ at all times”. But what I object to is such shoddy use of critical thought and rational thinking when it comes to opposing it. The kind you are displaying here.

Tell me, j2t2, what is the difference between requiring someone to register to vote and requiring them to display proof that they are who they say they are when they vote?

Why is one ‘suppression’ and the other is not? In fact, many called registration suppression when it was first put into place, why where they wrong and why are you right here? Be specific, quit using platitudes and quit talking about ALEC.

when the founder of the group tells you the advantages of suppressing the vote then the group works to get the vote suppressed it should be pretty clear why the group decided to do so.

Really? So when the leader of the California DNC says that the advantages of amnesty for all illegal immigrants is that they will get more votes, we should all oppose such amnesty since it is clear why the group (the democratic party in California) decided to do so?

Your logic is flawed beyond repair. One person saying one thing that you disagree with does not mean that everyone who supports voter ID laws is doing so for that reason. That’s simply idiotic.

a law for a practically non existent crime

How do you know it is a practically non existent crime? For locations without voter ID laws, where it is quite easy to say you are someone else when going to vote, and it is impossible to catch those people, how do you know that it isn’t going on? For locations WITH voter ID laws, where it is quite hard to say you are someone else when going to vote, and it is highly easy to catch those people, only idiots would even try.

So because we can’t catch people when it is easy and when it is hard it doesn’t happen, you suggest we should continue to make it easy?

There are LOTS of crimes on the books that are almost non-existent, because there are laws and easy ways of detecting them. It’s illegal to walk up to a Senator and punch him in the face on live TV, but that crime is practically non-existent? Should we therefore not have a law against it?

Apparently you forget the voting ‘irregularities’ of Chicago a few decades ago where people who were dead, but still on the rolls, were voting. And where people were being bused to voting locations, given a list of names to use of people who weren’t likely to vote and those people somehow voting, then getting back onto buses and going to different areas to do it again? (Vote early and vote often)

There is a HISTORY of this happening and we can’t say for sure that it isn’t happening now because we lack any kind of means to actually catch anyone doing it unless they are entirely moronic or leave a paper trail…

In fact, my contention is that the reason that most progressives are against Voter ID laws are not because of civil rights (since they don’t care about that in pretty much any other instance as part of their philosophy) but because they feel that what they see as part of their constituency might not go through the trouble of voting OR because they won’t be able to use those tricks that they may or may not have been using to win elections…

In other words, they oppose it because of their own self-interest.

And that doesn’t prevent me from not being in favor of Voter ID laws, because I don’t base my views on what other people who might share those views base their opinions on. A fallacy that you seem to want to be the rule.

Did this socialist group cause Obamacare to become law in 20 some states?

THE VOTERS caused those laws to be passed, not ALEC. Just because a view has a backing of a group doesn’t mean that the people who vote will buy into it, just look at all the examples of that and it doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t support a view just because some nutjob supports it. How much effort is put into destroying the 2nd amendment, yet we still have it. How much effort is put into passing laws against the Patriot Act, yet we still have it…

My main problem are people using fuzzy logic, fallacies and ignorant defenses of their positions that can easily be punched through like wet tissues to defend their positions. IF you can’t use critical thought and logic to defend your positions then you need to rethink them and come back with good defenses against them… Appealing to emotion and poising the well, among other fallacies, aren’t going to cut it with me.

Voter registration originated in the early 19th century as a method of disenfranchisement. Many states were concerned with the growing number of foreign-born transients participating in local government, and so they developed a system of registration to ensure that these non-citizens could not vote. While this did disenfranchise transients and the foreign-born, many poor citizens were also not included on the voter rolls; they were often not home when the assessors came by, which was typically during the work-day, so they were not included.

We accept voter registration today as a valid and necessary step to ensure the one person one vote rule, and that the person voting is the person who should be voting. Yet, it was only introduced as a means to disenfranchise foreign voters. Are you saying that you against voter registration since that was the original intent of the laws? Was there widespread voter fraud going on then? Or was it that it made sense to most Americans, even though the origination of the idea was suppression, to ensure that their vote be protected by ensuring that everyone else’s vote was valid and not fraudulent?

What do you say, j2t2, should we be doing away with voter registration laws? Just let people show up to the polls and vote whenever and wherever they want?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 11, 2014 8:34 AM
Comment #376329

J2

Warren stated that being expected to bring ID to vote was some kind of burden, my post was in response to that. You can’t do jack-crap in todays society without ID and as far as I am concerned, those who choose not to have ID are choosing not to participate.

I’m not throwing anything away, I have always supported freedom of choice and personal responsibility. It is interesting how you don’t believe certain people can handle those two things though.

“It is a silly argument to protect such an obvious voter suppression law put forth by conservatives.”

Yea yea. ALEC, the 1%, corps, banks etc… all holding us down because they don’t give us everything for free. I know all the conspiracies and they don’t impress me. Sorry.

You support the actual suppression of my choice, my 2nd Amendment rights, my privacy, my success, my freedoms, and you expect me to get all bent out of shape over bringing an ID to vote? Something I have done in every election I have ever voted in? I don’t think so.

Compared to everything else going on right now, this ranks near the bottom.

Posted by: kctim at February 11, 2014 9:51 AM
Comment #376330

Voter suppression is a disgusting tactic that will only harm the future electability of any advocates of this. This country is moving in the direction of diversity that sees right through the measures being used and knows well what these laws are designed to do.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 11, 2014 10:43 AM
Comment #376333

So Speak, are you for eliminating all voter registration laws too as they were put in place for the purpose of disenfranchising voters…

Are you consistent or just a mouthpiece for your party? Have you even thought it through?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 11, 2014 11:08 AM
Comment #376336

Thought it through and like it the way it has been functioning for over two hundred years. Who are you a mouthpiece for? Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind on this one.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 11, 2014 12:13 PM
Comment #376339
Thought it through and like it the way it has been functioning for over two hundred years

Over 200 years? Hmmm

“Voter registration originated in the early 19th century as a method of disenfranchisement. Many states were concerned with the growing number of foreign-born transients participating in local government, and so they developed a system of registration to ensure that these non-citizens could not vote. While this did disenfranchise transients and the foreign-born, many poor citizens were also not included on the voter rolls; they were often not home when the assessors came by, which was typically during the work-day, so they were not included.”

So explain to me, why is registration, which was clearly voter suppression at the time, ok now? And would Voter ID laws be ok in 100 years of use?

What particularly bugs you about voter ID laws that you don’t have the same abhorrence for with voter registration laws?

Should be a pretty easy question to answer for someone who is well thought out in their views…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 11, 2014 12:36 PM
Comment #376359

I like answering questions that my grandchildren ask me. You not so much. You see your questions are always something that when you get an answer are something you can use to denigrate the opinion expressed. Voter suppression is meant to impact the ability of students, elderly and minorities to vote for the people who will help them govern their country.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 11, 2014 5:50 PM
Comment #376365

j2t2

In person fraud is not a big problem but suppression is not a problem at all. Of the two, fraud is the bigger threat to our voting rights. Every fraudulent votes steals one honest vote.

Speaks

“Voter suppression is a disgusting tactic” - indeed it is. If it happens, we should enforce the law against it. If you suppress a vote, an honest voter is deprived of a right. If someone votes fraudulent, an honest voter is deprived of a right. The math is exactly equal. Of the two problems, fraud is much more common.

I think that those who are too lazy to help protect the rights voters are letting us all down. Those who refuse to get IDs are accomplices in identity fraud. We should help them do the right thing, but not encourage them in error.

Posted by: CJ at February 11, 2014 7:35 PM
Comment #376370
But what I object to is such shoddy use of critical thought and rational thinking when it comes to opposing it. The kind you are displaying here.

Rhinehold, I don’t believe you would recognize critical thought if it came and bit you on the ass. Your hatred of my opinion has negated any ability to judge what is and what isn’t critical thinking.

IN a nutshell the founder of ALEC has told us very clearly the need to suppress the vote. ALEC after growing in influence to the point it can do so has had members using a model bill introduce these into conservative legislatures in all but one state that has introduced voter ID bills. Yet you try to tell me it is illogical to put the two together? I suppose I should buy into the “well Brazil does it” school of critical thought or the ” It’s illegal to walk up to a Senator and punch him in the face on live TV, but that crime is practically non-existent? Should we therefore not have a law against it? ” type of “critical thinking”,because they some how are logical!

Your logic is flawed beyond repair. One person saying one thing that you disagree with does not mean that everyone who supports voter ID laws is doing so for that reason. That’s simply idiotic.

No the idiotic part is your inability to discern the real reason the laws were introduced. Yes many of the movement followers have been led to believe the reason for these laws are to protect us from practically nonexistent voter fraud(despite your silly question ) while the more prevalent types of voter fraud are left unchallenged by the voter ID law, and you use the term “logic”, what a joke. I suppose I should believe it is not an appeal to emotions when I am told how easy it is to go get alcohol and cigs and you need an ID for that, and all the other foolish “you need an ID for that” crap rolled out on this and previous threads on the issue by conservatives!

Your own use of illogical reasoning is also telling Rhinehold. Throwing up a red herring such as the “What do you say, j2t2, should we be doing away with voter registration laws?” because well… what… two wrongs make a right?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 11, 2014 11:01 PM
Comment #376378

j2t2

How much do you really think requiring IDs will suppress the vote, even in the worst case? We see over and over a list of a dozen or so old people who liberals say cannot get IDs because they were born before 1940 and lack proper birth certificates. Even before 1940, MOST people had birth certificates. How many people are we really talking about who cannot get IDs? Even if you suppressed ALL of them and assume that all of them would vote Democratic if not suppressed, would that really be enough to turn a presidential election or even most local ones?

My uncharitable thought is that many Democrats are aware of fraud and depend on it. Al Franken won in a close race. In some of the Franken districts, more people voted than were registered to vote. This was unlikely to be in-person fraud, but it was fraud. We need to shake out all the fraud.

The more we can make elections honest, the better off we are. I do not think it is too much to ask of our fellow citizens that they protect our rights and theirs by being willing to prove their identity, as they would need to do to cash checks, board and airplane, collect welfare, get ObamaCare, buy booze or enter most federal buildings. Even if we assume that some voters do none of these things, it is not too much to ask them to get a free ID to vote.

Posted by: CJ at February 12, 2014 4:13 AM
Comment #376381

j2t2,

You keep wanting to avoid the question, I’m sure there must be a reason for it…

I’ll try again. Voter registration laws were put forth with the purpose of disenfranchising voters. Think ALEC of 1820s. That was their stated purpose and why they were introduced.

Are you against voter registration laws? Or where they good laws that were introduced for the wrong reasons?

Answer that question and then we can discuss ALEC and the purpose behind Voter ID laws.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2014 8:12 AM
Comment #376382

C or J how about a little math lesson? I agree fraudulent voting is not right it does negate a vote from the adversarial position leaving a 0 instead of a plus 1 in either side. Voter suppression however negates the vote altogether of the person wanting to vote. This produces a -1 in support of that position. Now what is the difference between 0 and -1? Oh and multiply that by say 100. The fraudulent vote illegality still leaves a 0 even if it is done 100 times however the voter suppression taken in the same multiple ends up with -100. We know what it is attempting to do and it’s not pretty.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2014 9:08 AM
Comment #376390

Math just like those pesky news outlets (except for Fox) has a liberal bias.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2014 10:30 AM
Comment #376393
I like answering questions that my grandchildren ask me. You not so much.

Understood, their questions don’t usually challenging your thinking in any uncomfortable way… We all like to be simpler than it is.

You see your questions are always something that when you get an answer are something you can use to denigrate the opinion expressed.

No, my questions are asked to push at your thought process, to get you to question what you have previously thought and see if it still lines up with questions you may not have ever asked yourself. That is how we define better understanding of our views and make them stronger. IF they can’t hold up to uncomfortable questions, perhaps they need to be re-thought?

The idea of debating topics is not to state your opinion and have everyone go ‘ok, that’s good enough’, it is to evoke thought and self-examination of your own views and of others, who then push back and make you question your own, so that both parties can learn something from the interaction and become better people. The denigration comes in when people don’t self-examine and question their beliefs, because they are NOT based on thought and fact, but on a belief system much like that of a religion.

Voter suppression is meant to impact the ability of students, elderly and minorities to vote for the people who will help them govern their country.

No, voter suppression is keeping people (no matter who) from voting.

We already have voter suppression in place legally in multiple forms. We have voter registration, which was introduced as a form of voter suppression and stated publicly so, but apparently we are ok with that form, right? Keeping felons from voting is another for of voter suppression that people seem to be ok with.

So it isn’t that you are against voter suppression, per se… Just this one. And this one makes little sense to me if you are ok with the others. Which is why I ask the questions, so I can understand your line of thought and either agree with it or point out flaws that I might find in the way you came to that conclusion…

Unfortunately, you are uncomfortable with those types of interactions and would rather just be able to state what you believe and have everyone leave you alone with them… Which is what I’ll do in the future, I’ll just address any questions I have about your pronunciations of your beliefs to others who may or may not comment, knowing I won’t be getting any kind of healthy debate going with you, since you want your questions simple, like a child might ask.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2014 11:24 AM
Comment #376395

Posted this in a different thread but it is equally applicable here.

What is it with conservatives and their questions. Child like minds need something to divert the substance so questions are asked without real curiosity. A question asked from curiosity can be difficult to answer but is honest in it’s supposition. A question asked from animosity does not deserve an answer.

You don’t know the first thing about debate. You are used to thinking that you have the only right answer and that is not very flattering and does not contribute.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2014 11:30 AM
Comment #376398
You don’t know the first thing about debate. You are used to thinking that you have the only right answer and that is not very flattering and does not contribute.

And you avoid the topic and my questions, again, as usual…

It’s funny, I would have thought to have learned a little something about debating having been debating on teams and through politics when running for office and taking classes on it in college for decades… but apparently I know nothing because … well because YOU said so and you can’t be questions about anything…

I may be one of the few people on this site that admits when I am wrong, that’s the funny part. Because I never assume to know all the answers and try to learn something new every day. But, again, because YOU said it, it must be fact and can’t be questioned.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2014 11:56 AM
Comment #376399

BTW, here’s an exercise that I learned in debating classes that obviously have taught me nothing…

When debating the topic, always try to take the other POV and defend it. This has to be done in a intellectually honest way. That’s how you learn a) that everyone’s views are based on certain things and they are all valid to them, the issue is understanding those base views and questioning them because they are what is driving their opinions and b) everyone’s views are valuable to them and you can’t attribute your values to there’s or assume that your values are more valuable than theirs are.

But, what do I know? I mean, I’ve only been defending a viewpoint that I don’t agree with this entire thread…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2014 12:01 PM
Comment #376401

Yah, again with the lectures professor. Get over yourself. You fail on a) and b). I have witnessed you pronouncing commenting here as not to be taken seriously or even considered. Most recently with phx8,j2t2 and myself.

Look good debate starts with two opposing factions holding the belief that I believe I am right about this but I may be wrong. Convince me otherwise. Debate ensues.

Your debate starts with I believe I am right and I know I am right and you are wrong. Now let me ask you this question so that I can get this conversation going in the direction I need in order to beat you over the head with my cudgel of rightness. Pride of reason ensues.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2014 12:38 PM
Comment #376406
Your own use of illogical reasoning is also telling Rhinehold. Throwing up a red herring such as the “What do you say, j2t2, should we be doing away with voter registration laws?” because well… what… two wrongs make a right?

No, my point is that if you are basing whether or not to judge a law on who and why it was introduced, you should be consistent in that application for your basis is to have merit.

Since you don’t want to go that route with voter registration for some reason, let’s give another example.

I’m sure you are for gun control laws, I’ve seen you post to that effect several times on this blog.

Yet, the first gun control laws were put in place to disarm recently freed black men.

After the Civil War, the defeated Southern states aimed to preserve slavery in fact if not in law. The states enacted Black Codes which barred the black freedmen from exercising basic civil rights, including the right to bear arms. Mississippi’s provision was typical: No freedman “shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition.”

Under the Mississippi law, a person informing the government about illegal arms possession by a freedman was entitled to receive the forfeited firearm. Whites were forbidden to give or lend freedman firearms or knives.

What you find, when you really look closely at history, is that often times the laws that we accept as standard today were highly controversial at one time and were often introduced and supported for very unappealing reasons. Just because one moron, or a group of morons, think that a law will get them a result that is against what you believe, that doesn’t mean that is a good defense against the law, because you aren’t going to change THEIR minds, you are trying to change the minds of people who see the law as right for a variety of other reasons. To defend against such a law, defend against the law, not who is introducing it…

I would suggest using the reasons I oppose the Voter ID laws, but they require a belief in civil liberties that progressives, by design, don’t believe in. So I’m not sure where else to go with that one…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2014 2:14 PM
Comment #376407
I have witnessed you pronouncing commenting here as not to be taken seriously or even considered.

That would be because they are. Prove me wrong.

If you think I am wrong, prove it. It’s not that hard, I get things wrong all of the time. But I’m not going to just change my views or beliefs because you say ‘I think this law is GREAT’ or ‘I think this law is EVIL’. You are going to have to actually go through the work and prove it, otherwise your comments are pretty useless for consideration, they are just your faith.

That’s something that you’ve stated previously in the past, you have FAITH that Obamacare will be awesomesauce, everyone will love it and everything will be right with the world. You provide no evidence to suggest that and when pushed to do so you get offended. Fine, but don’t mistake that for what it is, it’s faith. Faith is, by definition, an absence of reason or logic in believing in something. If you had reason and logic to believe in something, you wouldn’t need faith to believe it… In other words, it is just a political religion.

And no, there is no point in trying to debate something with someone of faith. They just aren’t going to listen to you at all.

Never once, on this site, have I *EVER* seen you actually defend your position. Whether someone questions you, asked you to clarify, asks you for any kind of proof or shoots your whole viewpoint down in flames, you simply move on as if nothing happened and continue to state your faith as if nothing had ever happened. I used to be like that to, for a small time, when I was just out of high school and was preaching… But I quickly realized that I just couldn’t live that way, no matter how much being oblivious to facts and logic made one happy, it wasn’t real happiness… It was, and is, a facade.

But that’s all besides the point, isn’t it? You don’t like me and I’ll just have to find a way to live with that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2014 2:21 PM
Comment #376408

It’s not that I don’t like you, it’s that I don’t like the method you use to insinuate that you are right and no one can be as right as you. To that point you will use your castigation of others commenting here to point out your greatness.

I have always maintained that the PPACA needs work, it is not a finished product. Prove that you are wrong, not my job. Try to convince you of something I hold a belief in, might be troublesome but worth the work if it brings fruition.

Look pay attention and you might see me defending my position. It’s just that you are so caught up in trying to prove I am wrong that you can’t see the forest because of the trees.

And yes you do regularly write that phx8, j2t2 or myself or anyone else that has any degree of disagreement with you needs to be ignored and by virtue of their comments should not be considered debatable. Again you need a stiff look at yourself and some critical thinking applied. By the way how many children and grandchildren do you have?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2014 2:45 PM
Comment #376411
I don’t like the method you use to insinuate that you are right and no one can be as right as you

Then, as I said, show me I am wrong.

And I agreed with you, when comments are made that are in direct opposition with logic or facts, or are hypocrisy defined, I declare those arguments to be invalid. Give me valid ones and we’ll talk.

A good example is Rich. Rich brings it… We disagree on many things but we usually end up, after some debate, coming to some agreement at least on the facts and arguments being used. He uses critical thought and reason to make his arguments, and he brings the facts to bring them up. In fact, we actually agree on what the US healthcare system should look like through our discussions, that might actually surprise you.

j2t2 is ok at this, he steps inside both lines from time to time. There are times he surprises me with good argument and brings facts to back up his views. Other times he just parrots talking points and, in the case of above, won’t let go of arguments that are inheritely flawed.

ph8x is mostly about emotion and talking points, things I don’t really find worthwhile in discussing politics because that’s not what it should be about. If you now why you think things, then you can defend them when someone critically attempts to poke holes in them. But if you just parrot other’s thoughts, you have a harder time standing up to scrutiny. He does have his moments, but they are unfortunately few and far between.

Stephen is a different animal. He admits that his issues drive him a bit, but he focuses on trying to make every single argument be ‘democrats are right, republicans are wrong’ which just isn’t something that can stand up to any kind of scrutiny. He routinely lumps everyone into a big pool and tries to attribute what person thinks onto everyone else he has put in that pool. The phrase ‘you all…’ is a common theme with him.

My attempt is to try to get people to up their game. When they are being intellectually lazy, just pointing that out doesn’t sometimes work so I push harder and with a barb here or there to try to get them working at it. Because that is who I want to be debating with, someone who is willing to have strong beliefs and views AND be able to back them up with reason, logic and facts. Like I said, Rich is a good example, CJ is another most of the time.

(BTW, you don’t seem to have a problem when I do the same thing to Weary Willy or Royal or others that you disagree with… )

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2014 4:16 PM
Comment #376413

Speaks

It works the same way. If you have 100 voters and you suppress one vote, you have 99 valid honest votes left. If you have 100 voters and you add a dishonest vote, you have a larger total number of votes, but you have to subtract 2 votes: the dishonest vote itself and one vote that was negated by the dishonest vote. So we are again left with 99 honest valid votes.

I am in favor of protecting the right to vote. If we find examples of suppression, we should prosecute the crooks. We should also take responsibility to protect our votes and those of others. We are in this together. If some of us refuse to get IDs and so open the door to fraud, we are letting down our fellow citizens. Not protecting the vote is shameful and we have the right to ask our fellow citizens to do their parts to protect our votes as we do ours to protect theirs.

Posted by: CJ at February 12, 2014 4:36 PM
Comment #376414

No your attempt is to beat down on some one with your rightness. A while back we were involved in a discussion about procuring marijuana for your wife’s chemotherapy (hope she and you are doing as best as we can expect given the seriousness of the situation). I gave you a suggestion that you took umbrage with, I can understand that. But then you began castigating me because this illegality you have to confront was somehow my fault and I have done nothing to alleviate that situation. I gave up since you went into one of your comment posting rants with all the founding fathers sayings (thanks for not doing that so much lately).

What I didn’t tell you (because I did not think it worth it at the time since you were dead set on me being some one that you had to castigate because of your rightness) is that I’m fairly certain you were still playing cops and robbers or riding your bike at the time that I first donated to NORML and continue to this day. I was an advocate for this change before they were even a group and I am still today.

Look it’s not about you or me or our disagreements. It is about what we can agree on and your foolish attempts to use canards that only adds to the detriments of reaching an agreement.

My guess would be you don’t have children or grandchildren and that’s OK but you shouldn’t try to use them in justification of your rightness. I have not met a Libertarian that is experienced in child raising but hey I meet new people every day. I just think that they would find it difficult to believe they love some one that they are in such disagreement with sometimes.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2014 4:50 PM
Comment #376415

Glad we can agree fraudulent voting and voter suppression are both abhorrent when and if they happen. Now tell me if you think the current voter suppression efforts will affect any one group more than another. Try to be honest, most conservatives cannot and just keep bringing up the almost non-existent voter fraud canard. I am not asking you about that.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2014 5:01 PM
Comment #376416

Speaks

I have always said that both are horrible. I said it dozens times in recent posts. We should avoid both. Requiring good IDs is a step in that direction. If a person with a valid ID is “suppressed” he would have a clear proof that he was wronged. Requiring an ID would clearly make it more difficult for an invalid vote to be cast. Neither suppression nor in-person fraud are common. Of the two, fraud is more common. We find virtually no examples of suppression that pan out after investigation, but some people are convicted of fraud each election cycle. Since conviction for fraud is difficult, we can reasonably worry about it.

To repeat we need to protect the franchise. We can expect our fellow citizens to protect our rights as we protect theirs. I am disgusted by my fellow citizens who let us down by not taking the simple step of getting an ID to protect the vote. It is like somebody putting his fellow motorists at risk by refusing to fix his dangerously worn brakes or tires. He may become the “victim” of an accident because he has failed in his responsibility AND he may take innocent people with him.

Posted by: CJ at February 12, 2014 5:19 PM
Comment #376417

Re your question about if ID laws will affect one group more - indeed it will. It will affect the irresponsible much more. No reasonably intelligent, diligent and honest person will be denied his/her legitimate right to vote.

Posted by: CJ at February 12, 2014 5:21 PM
Comment #376418

I agree however I still stand by the statement that this will affect the ability of students, elderly poor, and minorities in their attempt to vote for the people that they want to help govern their country. Don’t you think that it is a shame that that group of voters may be disenfranchised? Sure they can get ID but that’s not the point. If someone has been able to vote in the past without the ID, isn’t it really just a hurdle to throw up to see how many can be disenfranchised. Not supporting their inability or inadequacy in obtaining the ID but just saying that this could be considered an effort to suppress voters that could be considered to vote for a particular party.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2014 5:41 PM
Comment #376421

Speakforhimself writes; “Now tell me if you think the current voter suppression efforts will affect any one group more than another.”

Idiotic question that assumes “voter suppression” exists.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 12, 2014 7:08 PM
Comment #376422

Speak…when did you stop beating your wife? lol

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 12, 2014 7:56 PM
Comment #376425
Even if you suppressed ALL of them and assume that all of them would vote Democratic if not suppressed, would that really be enough to turn a presidential election or even most local ones?

Interesting question Rhinehold, why not ask C&J who would tell us even one vote lost is to much.

My uncharitable thought is that many Democrats are aware of fraud and depend on it.

But the amount wouldn’t even “turn an election” Rhinehold whilst the other types of fraud are left unchallenged, perhaps because it is the realm of conservative fraudsters.


Al Franken won in a close race. In some of the Franken districts, more people voted than were registered to vote.

“Subsequent investigations of Minnesota Majority’s claims by election officials found that many of their allegations were incorrect.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2008

Need I say more ?


The more we can make elections honest, the better off we are.

Using the same 2008 election as an example Rhinehold lets look at wgat the investigation into the 110 allagations, by conservatives,of fraud found…”in October 2010, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office concluded an extensive investigation into 110 allegations of fraud, which resulted in six charges being filed — two individuals were charged with the separate felonies of registering to vote while ineligible and voting while ineligible and four others were charged with voting while ineligible.[116]”

Yet you tell us “I do not think it is too much to ask of our fellow citizens that they protect our rights and theirs by being willing to prove their identity,”

But we note not 1 case of voter ID fraud was found, yet those that cry foul the most with the least proof did not find a case of voter ID fraud. That however didn’t stop them from enacting these laws.

I’ll try again. Voter registration laws were put forth with the purpose of disenfranchising voters. Think ALEC of 1820s. That was their stated purpose and why they were introduced.

IMHO it is illogical for me to worry about registration law passed decades ago when the the discussion is the more current voter suppression laws passed recently.

No, my point is that if you are basing whether or not to judge a law on who and why it was introduced, you should be consistent in that application for your basis is to have merit.

Rhinehold two wrongs don’t make a right. Because the old law was supposedly enacted with the intent of suppressing the vote doesn’t justify the new laws backers. Nor does it negate the basis of my argument of intentional voter suppression by ALEC.

Gun control laws -see above.

… you are trying to change the minds of people who see the law as right for a variety of other reasons.

Rhinehold it is strange times we live in, many conservatives are subject to huge amounts of propaganda and defend what they have been told without question. That is why we get such nonsense as comparing voting with going to the store and many other things. Or the rush to stop the nonexistent voter ID fraud whilst turning a blind eye to other types of fraud. I cannot convince them otherwise I can only point out the foolishness of their argument and show them what their leaders are up to.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 12, 2014 11:06 PM
Comment #376429

Royal I will use a word that my 10 year old granddaughter taught me regarding your comment. Derp

Look it up you will see why it is applicable.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 13, 2014 9:14 AM
Comment #376430

J2

Playing loose with words again I see. The statement was about the act of having to show ID in today’s society. Nobody compared voting with going to the store.

Voter fraud is not “nonexistent,” you know that, so the only reason you could be intentionally supporting such a lie is politics.
It is funny though, that you mock arguments for voter ID because while it does happen, it doesn’t happen enough, but yet you loudly support arguments against it based entirely on the fear of what you think might happen.

Posted by: kctim at February 13, 2014 9:32 AM
Comment #376432
Even if you suppressed ALL of them and assume that all of them would vote Democratic if not suppressed, would that really be enough to turn a presidential election or even most local ones?
Interesting question Rhinehold, why not ask C&J who would tell us even one vote lost is to much.

You will have to ask him yourself, he’s the one who made that comment, not me.

The more we can make elections honest, the better off we are.
Using the same 2008 election as an example Rhinehold lets look at wgat the investigation into the 110 allagations, by conservatives,of fraud found…”in October 2010, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office concluded an extensive investigation into 110 allegations of fraud, which resulted in six charges being filed — two individuals were charged with the separate felonies of registering to vote while ineligible and voting while ineligible and four others were charged with voting while ineligible.[116]”

Yet you tell us “I do not think it is too much to ask of our fellow citizens that they protect our rights and theirs by being willing to prove their identity,”

Again, not sure why you are expecting me to answer for CJ here… Not sure I have enough insight on his/her views on this one to make an informed respeonse.

IMHO it is illogical for me to worry about registration law passed decades ago when the the discussion is the more current voter suppression laws passed recently.

Because that law is currently affecting every single american today whereas the voter ID law would only affect less than 10% of them?

It’s not illogical to at least admit that you don’t view the topic consistently… Once you do that, then you know you are open to the charge of why is *THIS* “suppression” attack ok but registration, felony disenfranchisement, oversea serviceman limitations and other current laws that are suppression as well are ok.

The result that most people may come to is that you are ONLY upset with THIS form of suppression because you are afraid that the leader of ALEC is right, it will cost your side elections. I don’t agree with him, but it sure sounds like you do…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2014 11:03 AM
Comment #376436

Royal I will use a word that my 10 year old granddaughter taught me regarding your comment. Derp

Look it up you will see why it is applicable.
Posted by: Speak4all at February 13, 2014 9:14 AM

Wow…I did as you suggested and found your photo there.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2014 2:08 PM
Comment #376442
Playing loose with words again I see. The statement was about the act of having to show ID in today’s society. Nobody compared voting with going to the store.

Kctim, it was you that made one of the references to going to the store, “If you can remember your ID when you go buy cigs, booze and lottery tickets, you can remember to bring it to vote.” was your statement.

Voter fraud is not “nonexistent,” you know that, so the only reason you could be intentionally supporting such a lie is politics.

It is statistically non existent despite all the fears to the contrary, not a lie. I guess I should be consistent and say practically non existent all the time but the difference is so small.

It is funny though, that you mock arguments for voter ID because while it does happen, it doesn’t happen enough, but yet you loudly support arguments against it based entirely on the fear of what you think might happen.

Once again you have managed to spin the truth kctim.

“A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.”


http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/08/cases-voter-id-election-fraud-found-virtually-non-existent

It is not what I think might happen kctim, you are confused. It is what has happened in many states since 2003. I have showed you the actual speech in this thread of the founder of ALEC telling his audience his reasoning on voters. I have shown you links that confirm the support ALEC has given, to the point of writing template law on the issue, to conservatives in state legislatures.

Here is the results of these ALEC template, which they admit to doing.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington nonprofit that brings together conservative lawmakers and corporate representatives to craft state-level legislation, announced on Tuesday it is disbanding its Public Safety and Elections Task Force, a policy group that drafted model bills for voter-ID requirements and “stand your ground” gun laws, among other things.

Read more: ALEC Scraps Task Force on Public Safety and Elections | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/17/alec-scraps-gun-law-voter-id-task-force/#ixzz2tGIqEJRk


“Thirty-two states have now enacted voter-ID laws; those that haven’t are either liberal enclaves in the West or Northeast, had a Democratic governor veto a version of the bill or already have legislation pending. The remaining fights either lie in overriding vetoes or legal efforts against court injunctions”

Read more: ALEC Scraps Task Force on Public Safety and Elections | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/17/alec-scraps-gun-law-voter-id-task-force/#ixzz2tGI8Ctvg

Now are you seriously trying to tell me ALEC wrote these templates to prevent a virtually non existent fraud whilst not doing anything to prevent the more prevalent voter fraud because they were concerned about voter fraud!

BTW kctim, if you bother to read any of the links you will find that ALEC is funded by corporations and they were leaving once outed for their ties to these guys. SO much for your previous untruth about conspiracy theory and such.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2014 10:11 PM
Comment #376444
It’s not illogical to at least admit that you don’t view the topic consistently…

But what is illogical Rhinehold is to comment upon it based solely upon the information presented in this thread. You are asking me to take what you have claimed about some historical event as fact. I haven’t thought about it nor researched it. It isn’t the issue at hand so why go off on a tangent?

Once you do that, then you know you are open to the charge of why is *THIS* “suppression” attack ok but registration, felony disenfranchisement, oversea serviceman limitations and other current laws that are suppression as well are ok.

AH yes the fallacy of many question Rhinehold. You have assumed quite a bit. One has to wonder why these issue weren’t addressed in the ALEC model legislation if their intentions were good.

The result that most people may come to is that you are ONLY upset with THIS form of suppression

Perhaps if one would not have read any of my other rantings on this subject in previous threads. Or perhaps because it benefited one to do so. Or perhaps if they wanted to jump to conclusions then yes I can agree with you.

because you are afraid that the leader of ALEC is right, it will cost your side elections. I don’t agree with him, but it sure sounds like you do…

No I tend to think more along the lines of if I do nothing when they come for you then who will help me when they come for me.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2014 11:26 PM
Post a comment