Common argument on voter ID law: it's not a big problem

Wait wait wait, you find voter ID to be wrong, but are perfectly fine with using fingerprints instead? Really?

As I've already noted nearly everyone has a suitable photo ID, 99%. If we just offer everyone a generic photo ID for free, problem solved. But no, people instead say we need to dip people's fingers in ink, or fingerprint all voters, because that's not intrusive, but requiring them to stop at the local government office for a few minutes is just fascist.

 

How about this:

There more people who vote, the better the expression of the people's will. (I support that concept and will be activistic about it.)

Now, if some element (Left/Right) is standing in the way of that, I'll be (and so will many others) opposed to the same.

It's as clear as that.

 

Come off it, for years Libs have said there is no voter fraud, or only a hand full. I posted several very good reasons for a National ID, especially for the poor. You have no good legitimate reason to go against it

 

You aren't relating 'truth' above. Sorry.

 

Is this clear enough. Every American can vote absentee voting. Where they can vote about a month ahead of time. They don't have to leave their home and don't even need postage. The hardest thing they have to do is mark their ballot and stick it in the mail. It doesn't get any easier than that.

 

What?! That doesn't even make sense.

I've known Liberals since I was a child and heard thousands of interviews from "Liberals". Now, they may not agree with the Right over the actual magnitude of the "voter fraud" issue... but I haven't heard anyone support the notion/idea that there is "no voter fraud".

And there, you've made that extreme (very Fox News-like) comment and it is just ludicrous.

- - - Updated - - -

Get the damned National ID and stop this nonsense!

 

What, that a national ID card isn't a prerequisite for a Fascist State?
Name a Fascist State that didn't have a National Identity card....

 

Just another excuse and you guys are coming up with a lot. But none of them make sense. A National ID is good for everyone. Takes care of a couple of major problems and is good for the old and poor. If you want government to pay for them, I'm all for it.

I'm out of here.

 

If you're having trouble communicating your views clearly you're free to refine your statements, but your previous statements make it abundantly clear that such are your views.

 

Lets see, reasons against a national ID card:

It's unnecessary
It would cost money
It opens the door to ID requirements (laws saying you need your ID on you at all times, it must be up to date within 30 days, etc)
It would be faked just like every other ID out there is

 

Papers Please....

 

Nice try.

You had to ignore two of the three examples I posted (and easily document) in order to get there.

The fact that NC's attempts to make it harder to vote are in line with the same efforts in other states, does not mean that they were not deliberatly intended to make it harder for certain people to vote. Your claim is silly. Particularly when they are in line with other red state's attempts to do the same thing. All of these efforts were advanced by ALEC, another major right wing consultant which recieves a lot of money from Chuck and Dave!

The US Supreme Court never heard a case about the GOP's voter caging operation, so they didn't rule against the Democrats at all.

The GOP did disenfranchise voters in Florida in 2000, and tried it again in Ohio in 2004. They were caught trying to spool up a multi state campaign in 2006, and again in Michigan in 2008.

I suspect you don't understand what voter caging is. I'm making that guess based in your incorrect claim regarding the USSC in Florida in 2000. You're confusing two different things.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/05/raging_caging.html

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/guide-voter-caging

 

Regardless of what may be written or how it is written, none of us can guarantee the effect on another's comprehension, subsequent perceptions or knowledge gained.

Sometimes, you have to go over things with people a few times.

That is reality.

 

maybe I should do that with you.

"If you're having trouble communicating your views clearly you're free to refine your statements, but your previous statements make it abundantly clear that such are your views."

 

Perhaps. We're all human.

 

well as it stands you support requiring voters to give their fingerprint before voting, but you oppose voter IDs. And you've refused to refine or explain your statements.

- - - Updated - - -

well as it stands you support requiring voters to give their fingerprint before voting, but you oppose voter IDs. And you've refused to refine or explain your statements.

 

Just admit it, the left is afraid of losing their illegal votes. Voter fraud is extremely rampant whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Check out this clip:
http://youtu.be/m0uedSCARlc

 

You got to the party late. My question to kurtz is not related to your claims of voter fraud. While you came late not understanding the conversation, he never showed up again. Imagine that!

 

Why put people through hoops, when they can have a voting/Social Security record that corresponds to their fingerprint?

Until the people on the Right start promoting some form of issuing a more universal ID, I'll know that they are more interested in disenfranchising certain 'groups' of people, than guaranteeing the integrity of voter eligibility.

They aren't fooling me, that's for sure.

 

They refuse to tackle or address the real issues related to voter fraud. For them ID is the only relevant conversation. And even that one they cannot make a strong case for.

And you are right. Many of us forget the injustice of 2000. It certainly could happen again. Especially with republican governors in swing states.

 

The conservative position doesn't seem to be particularly well thought out or consistant.

I advocated a universal national voter ID early in this thread, and was reflexively attacked by several conservatives for doing so. They offered no argument against it, of course. It was just a common sense idea that would have deprived the party of the ability to play games like voter caging.

Marine One and I agree on voter ID. I have no problem with it as long as it's done on a federal level with uniform standards and transparency. Personally, I think a federal agency should be created to run all elections in the US, similar to what the EU does.

Conservatives will never embrace a federal universal voter ID. It takes too much power away from state party organizations, and it precludes a lot of the voter supression tactics that the GOP has employed over the last few years.

 

That is because as long as they play with that one aspect in Red States, they can readily tinker with whatever little requirement they please. They WANT there to be questions and difficulties, because of the following:

[video=youtube;8GBAsFwPglw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw[/video]

 

Conservatives are intransigent and extreme on many issues, which will eventually have a generational effect upon them winning elections.

Simply put, they will not be able to fool everyone for all time. People WILL eventually WAKE UP, see what's going on and deny many of them the political power they (neurotically) seem to crave.

They are NOT really about freedom, liberty and justice... but they TALK VERY LOUDLY about the same.

 

How is that evidence of rampant voter fraud?
If the video is real, and it's probably fake, Mexicans can vote if an American citizen who is registered to vote, lets them use their ID to vote.
And much more to the point, this was a case where picture ID was required, so how's that working ?
You just posted a video that shows that Picture ID doesn't prevent Mexicans from voting.
If it's real, and if it is real, Elwood will find that he gets free food, free medical, free housing from the Federal Government for 3 to 5 years.......