For those that haven’t been passed, maybe. But I thought the concern was that some people won’t have IDs when election time comes not that asking for an ID is pernicious in itself.
They argued that no legitimate voter was prevented. If you don’t care enough to save for the poll tax, you don’t really care about your vote. Minimal and reasonable is relative. I’d argue that the existing process works fine. Now if you could show me that a ton of voting fraud was going on, you might have a case for expanding goverment bureaucracy.
Actually, plenty of people get by without it. Obviously.
They’re gaming the system and I believe the SC will find that it’s just a disguised poll tax.
Here in sunny Florida if you help people to register but are late turning in the forms to the proper authorities you are subject to fines and/or jail time. You have a mere two days to do it, by the way.
Think about that: if you were determined to insist on voter ID, but you also were willing to make sure that people who wanted to get an ID could do so (with the proper help) and with minimal red tape, why would you add this rider to the bill in question? What possible purpose does it serve other than to throw up roadblocks for any such attempt? Any wingnuts here care to answer that, or will you all just go on spewing your endless bogus justifications?
Fine, so you get the registrations and turn them in, and find out if the people have ID, if they don’t you let them know how to get it and offer them a ride to do so if they can’t manage it on their own. Crying over spilt milk doesn’t address the issue - how to get people the ID they need to vote if they need assistance. If you make sure that everybody that needs an ID has one and can vote, then you have eliminated the actual impact, plus having a better chance of winning the elections necessary to ultimately amend or repeal the law.
Why a time limit then? Your verbiage doesn’t address my main point, at all (which as this thread has amply demonstrated, is typical). :rolleyes:
Old joke, from the Dark Days:
Tricky Dicky
Better start shakin’
Today’s pig
Tomorrow’s bacon
-* Burma Shave*
For it is written that whatsoever shall go around, therefore shall it come around. Verily.
See the wall? See the Handwriting? Can you read? Let me help…
The Pubbies have lain down a marker, the lengths they are willing to go to ensure their grasp on power. And this is a good one, crystalline cynicism draped in a gauzy neligee of civic virtue. But sooner or later, its the other guy’s turn.
The beauty part is that the Dems won’t even have to reverse the laws, won’t have to rescind anything. Simply institute a civic virtue campaign of their own, get out the voter registration drives. ACORN in another form, train people in registration rules, no matter how absurdly draconian they may be. Set up procedures to proactively provide whatever documentation is necessary to whomsoever requests it. In the vast majority of cases, it will be easy-peasy, damn near everyone leaves some sort of data trail behind them in life.
Get out there and register the poor, the minorities, the students, and supply them with rock-solid and undeniable voter id. Make it as easy as falling off a log. And all in the name of civic virtue! Will that “unfairly” advantage the Dems? Well, sure it will, but we’ve already crossed that Rubik’s Con, totally legal and constitutional, we have expert opinion on that. Gander sauce for the geese, big time and downtown. The public will support it, in much the same way they support voter id laws. Hell, you can pitch it as furthering the cause of voter id laws! And remember! The Dems didn’t start this fight, this two cock is entirely of their own making.
I’m a radical lefty, and I’ve lost a lot of battles, pick myself up, dust myself off, and get back in the game. And so it goes. But usually, when I lose, it doesn’t have such an abundance of silver lining as this one does. The Pubbies are like the old joke about the guy who jumps off the tall building, and, on the way down, passing floors, is heard to say “Well, so far, so good!”
Heck, in those states where the Dems already have the advantage, they can proceed right away, who’s gonna be opposed to voter registration? I’m sure some attempt will be made, some pious bloviations will be issued, but it can proceed.
So, Bricker et. al., this might very well work, and you might snatch a temporary, if sordid and corrupt, victory. So come on down for your happy dance, and crow about the “will of the people”. Well, some of the people, at any rate.
Gloat while you can, the sand is flowing through the hourglass, and the mills are turning slowly, slowly, but they grind exceeding fine. Sow the shit, reap the shitstorm. Verily.
Well, John Di, who knows what they might get up to, if they had some extra time! Heck, they might…well, they could…never mind, there’s all kinds of sneaky things they could do if they had extra time! The fact that I can’t think of any right off the top of my head, doesn’t mean they don’t exist! In fact, the very fact that I cannot is excellent evidence for the fact, much the same way that a lack of prosecutions for voter fraud proves voter fraud! If you don’t have evidence, a lack of evidence is just as good! Hell, maybe better!
For a guy who likes to throw around the words ‘liar’ and ‘lied’ as much as you it would make sense that you actually read what I wrote and understood that I broke down the whole of the group into the subset of people who will actually be really affected, IMO. There was no lie in there, nor was there any way someone with an ounce of honesty in them would say I meant anything other than what I said.
So, what word would you use to describe someone who claims a ‘substantial’ portion of the population will be hindered or inconvenienced when it is anything but? Come on you can do it. You’ve used the word enough to describe others. Hypocrite.
Kinda depends, doesn’t it, on your definition of “substantial”? How many need be “hindered or inconvenienced” before you get bothered by it? Lead pipe cinch, the people this is happening to think they are substantial, that they count. So, they’re wrong about that?
What number of them may we safely ignore, without doing violence to our principles? Ten? A hundred? Ten thousand? At what point would you cease to shrug it off, because it has crept over the mark into “substantial”?
The choice of the word “everyone” was yours, liar.
Don’t look at me. It was tweedledum below who’s definition of ‘substantial’ was anywhere between 0 and 10% of the population. Any rational person would deem ‘substantial’ as being more than 1 in 10.
Would I be correct if I said that a substantial portion of the population have IDs? What if I then said a substantial portion of the population don’t have IDs?
I’m called a liar because he uses definitions so loosely? I might not agree with you in some things (and you’d be surprised at how much I actually do agree with you), but I’m not going to call you a liar because of it.
I said ‘not everyone’, Knothead. As it ‘not everyone in the group’. I don’t know how you find ‘liar’ in that. I think it is a tactic on your part to piss people off so they don’t question you on your assertions.
I have the pleasure to regard myself as a rational person, and to my reckoning, one in ten is quite substantial. For instance, that is (roughly) approximate to the number of black Americans.
Two statements here. It appears that the latter one puts the former one into doubt.
Yes, I know. You see black people, I see people whose skin color happens to be black. You see poor people, I see people who happen to be poor. A subtle, but important distinction that seems to be close to the heart of our disagreement.
I’ve never been black (that I know of), but I’ve been poor. Being poor wouldn’t stop me from getting an ID. I don’t know why it should stop anyone else in the same situation. I am assuming that having the adjective of ‘black’ being applied to a person wouldn’t prevent them from doing simple tasks, either.
Really? You’re sure that if picking up that ID required $30 bucks in supporting ID and processing fees to get that “free” ID, it wouldn’t matter at all if you were poor? The kind of poor that has to decide which bills to pay and how far to stretch the food budget, keeping in mind you have kids to feed?
I find that amazing.
I’ve not followed the whole thread, so please forgive me for barging in, but it does seem worth remarking that thinkers of your ilk have a different definition of “substantial” than most rationalists have. In another thread (though I disremember the actual word which might not have been “substantial”) another right-winger disagreed that a substantial number of Americans lacked health insurance: it was only 17%.
But maybe I don’t know what you’re arguing about. Disenfranchise 10% of Americans at random and it’s likely to have no effect. Disenfranchise a substantial number the way the GOP is doing it and it’s likely to have a big effect.
Right? Wrong? Decline to comment?
(ETA: I really am curious, but lack the motivation to peruse this thread – there are better sites for those who find right-wing hypocrisy amusing. So my question to rationalist Dopers with the patience to play here: Have any of the hypocrites here admitted to their hypocrisy?)
Hey, Elvisheadupyourass! No one claimed the whole 10% would be disenfranchised, huh?
And 6 jobs. You gotta add the 6 jobs into the mix to make it believable. Better if the person was a black-hispanic to get the scenario really juicy.
I’ve been there minus the kids. Most people have the necessary documentation, or can attain it easily enough. Dare I say a ‘substantial’ portion should have little problem. The $30 is also relatively easy as well because they have months, if not years, to raise it!
Interesting. So if I read this correctly, by your standards, ACORN was “unfairly” advantaging the Democrats when they were active?
Weird. The only way I could see that ACORN was unfairly giving the Democrats an advantage was by making voter registration fraud easy. But as long as they switched tactics and started correctly registering voters, acting within the law, then I would say any advantage to the Democrats is well-deserved.
Nor did I. Relevance? Zero.
So, yours is “Decline to comment … [except for mindless name-calling]”?
I guess Uzi is easy to classify…
Remarkable. Especially in a conversation where *zero *is sufficient basis for enacting a law, and for your enthusiastically defending it.
As if anyone had said otherwise! :rolleyes:
You have substantially misstated the view you are disparaging, no matter how carefully it is expressed to you, by a puerile use of the strawman fallacy. So would you rather plead to thickness than lying? The evidence could be read that way too, actually.