• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

Gie's point is apparently that I am

:rolleyes:

I guess I must be ignorant because I have no idea where this attack came from.

You dared to oppose a political belief and in doing so a target was placed upon your body. Some feel that it is easier to attack the person rather than the difficult task of attacking the idea.
 
0.00009%

That's serious?
If voter fraud could be accurately tracked, there would be no fraud. I would care to speculate this number being much higher in reality, but without a study I obviously have no facts to back it up.
 
If voter fraud could be accurately tracked, there would be no fraud. I would care to speculate this number being much higher in reality, but without a study I obviously have no facts to back it up.

Nor does anyone in this entire thread who advocates that there is a significant voter fraud problem.
 
Nor does anyone in this entire thread who advocates that there is a significant voter fraud problem.
The point is, there is absolutely no way to track voter fraud, because the state is inherently unaware of the successful ones. It follows simple logic that in the age of identity theft, a form of ID should be used to identify voters and keep the integrity of our voting system. "Taking someone's word for it" is naive.
 
Is there a reason you avoid questions? [...]
I'm sorry -- did you have a pertinent question?

If not, why should I be expected to address any other?

Now I do have a pertinent question, which I have yet to see answered: Given that all these new and proposed gov't photo ID voter laws are claimed to be in response to voting fraud, where is the evidence of this voting fraud?
 
[...] If you don't have a DL, you are still required to have ID. Why do you think there is such a thing as a ID? Dear girl, read the thread and maybe go read about your states laws about ID. Gonna learn a few things if you do. Goodnight for real. No really.
In reply nto your blanket statement in bold, and as it pertains to this thread -- No, you are not.

Feel free to teach everyone how you are correct, though.... :popcorn:
 
Last edited:
Are you implying that I cannot be intelligent because I am working class and a "liberal academic".

First, learn to read, my profile says "College Instructor" and "Dispatcher", I do what I need to get by.
Second, I work two jobs and I make time for my hobbies.
Third, apparently you cannot back up your ill-informed, misguided and ignorant assertion that we need to have ID on our persons.
Fourth, I hope you find a nice hat for hat day.
I am not implying anything. I am stating unequivocally that based upon your abilities demonstrated thus far, you can't even respond to basic English questions about your position/opinion. You probably should drop the whole "college instructor" pretense. It don't sell. Hence the reason you are going on about "hat" day and so what if just about everything else I have said to you is over your "hat"? Who cares? What do you "instruct" at a so called college? Courses in how to dodge direct challenges to you? Would you care to explain why question after question to you goes unanswered? I can, but lets us leave it to you to explain why a college instructor can't follow English! You could not even deduce that a post that quotes a poster different from you, despite the fact that I quoted that poster and his clearly labeled post is what I responded to, was not meant for you! You proved in post #554 that you lack even a high school "civics" education with your comments and you have been on the dodge weave and whine path since.

Lets says that not only can't you make a reasoned argument, but your so called occupation as an "instructor" of any kind at any level in education, should be cause for alarm! For anyone foolish enough to believe you are involved in it and I am saying I don't. So let us clarify. You sincerely argue that ID's are not a state requirement anywhere in the USA. Otherwise you would not be asking for proof that this is the case. As stupid as that is on face value, you miss college "instructor" and cab driver feign to be ignorant on the matter. Sorta like claiming you don't know about red lights and stop signs but are a seasoned cab driver, it tends to be well, just obvious as all hell BS IMO.

So let us go back! Previous (that means before you ignored and dodged around mine) to your "challenge" to me, you were presented with the following truly high school level "civics" challenges:
You are not required to have ID? Where? A DL is ID, proof that you can drive. If you don't have a DL, you are still required to have ID. Why do you think there is such a thing as a ID? Dear girl, read the thread and maybe go read about your states laws about ID. Gonna learn a few things if you do. Goodnight for real. No really.

Your thoughtful and educated answer was to ask if I know what "hat" day is. Oh and to claim that I need to prove to you by either (and this is really funny) Supreme Court decision or a newspaper article, that United States citizens are required to have identification.

Yeah it is just that stupid. Never mind I'm talking about state ID's which is the reason I used that little word "state and ID" in conjunction. I never said a word about any "US ID" (aside from a passport, what ARE you babbling about?) and I get the distinct impression you are not even a high school "instructor" and IMO that is probably a good thing! Don't like it? Who cares? Educators er "instructors" at the least should be educated or able to elaborate about common tribal knowledge the majority of high school civics class graduates have.

I'm convinced that in addition to being truly ignorant about some pretty basic matters of common sense and common knowledge, the reason you don't know better has more to do with age and posturing. Which is cutting you, miss college "instructor", a teenage break. Though I admit, at this point you could prove me wrong or make some sort of sense about why you don't know any better than to ask such puerile questions. But I bet you can't and won't. For obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
Look, Gie, if you want to find out whose posts are ignorant -- your's or taxigirl's -- put up a poll. I've got my vote ready.

Otherwise you're wasting our time (and losing the poll) with your repeated ad hominems.

Back on topic, I'm still waiting on your evidence asserting mandatory ID's.
 
Last edited:
[...] my profile says "College Instructor" and "Dispatcher", I do what I need to get by. [...]
Let this be a lesson to all: providing any type of personal information whatsoever on an internet forum such as this will only result in it being used to attack you personally -- as we see in this thread.
 
The point is, there is absolutely no way to track voter fraud, because the state is inherently unaware of the successful ones. It follows simple logic that in the age of identity theft, a form of ID should be used to identify voters and keep the integrity of our voting system. "Taking someone's word for it" is naive.

Sure there is. You cite convictions for the crime.
 
The point is, there is absolutely no way to track voter fraud, because the state is inherently unaware of the successful ones. It follows simple logic that in the age of identity theft, a form of ID should be used to identify voters and keep the integrity of our voting system. "Taking someone's word for it" is naive.
Since even the president is an illegal alien (from Kenya), what's the point? Obviously, anything can be faked. Thinking otherwise is naive.

Now if you want to go with an idea I floated recently -- the cranial implant of an RFID device at birth -- then you may be on to something. Comrade.
 
Last edited:
Read the thread which explains why some people do not have ID.


Oh, I have read it, in fact I have been involved with it since page 1. But, no one has answered this question I posed. Look, My state of SC proposed an ID law, and even said that the state would assist anyone who wanted to vote in getting an ID if they didn't have one, even if it meant going to the person to get them the ID. And Holder still sued. I can't see one good reason that people that are eligible can't obtain the ID needed. Face it, libs are so against this it lends credence to the thought that maybe they believe that they can't win an election unless they cheat.


j-mac
 
Oh, I have read it, in fact I have been involved with it since page 1. But, no one has answered this question I posed. Look, My state of SC proposed an ID law, and even said that the state would assist anyone who wanted to vote in getting an ID if they didn't have one, even if it meant going to the person to get them the ID. And Holder still sued. I can't see one good reason that people that are eligible can't obtain the ID needed. Face it, libs are so against this it lends credence to the thought that maybe they believe that they can't win an election unless they cheat.


j-mac
That is a great post and great point sir. I typed up a post about this last night but had a pet mishap take it down. Fat cat that likes to jump on the desk and land on the keyboard kind. Basically IMO the entire premise of the thread is what is generally known as a galaxy sized STRAWMAN. The premise is that if you are for photo ID voter laws you are FOR "disenfranchising" the same protected class, even if you agree to jump through rings of fire as you get them to the DMV, the court house and don't forget, the polls and anything else they need in order not to be inconvenienced! And then even if you wipe their ass for them when it is all done? You are by nature trying to disenfranchise them. Oh yes, the deep thinkers here say it is so, therefore it must be. Meanwhile, did you know that in the "information age" that you are not required by, I guess, most states or perhaps all of them, to have a state issued ID? The deep thinkers also say it is so, therefore it must be.:shock:
 
That is a great post and great point sir. I typed up a post about this last night but had a pet mishap take it down. Fat cat that likes to jump on the desk and land on the keyboard kind. Basically IMO the entire premise of the thread is what is generally known as a galaxy sized STRAWMAN. The premise is that if you are for photo ID voter laws you are FOR "disenfranchising" the same protected class, even if you agree to jump through rings of fire as you get them to the DMV, the court house and don't forget, the polls and anything else they need in order not to be inconvenienced! And then even if you wipe their ass for them when it is all done? You are by nature trying to disenfranchise them. Oh yes, the deep thinkers here say it is so, therefore it must be. Meanwhile, did you know that in the "information age" that you are not required by, I guess, most states or perhaps all of them, to have a state issued ID? The deep thinkers also say it is so, therefore it must be.:shock:


Well, it is the first thing that a police officer asks for when you are being detained for ANY reason....If you don't have one, then it could be a long night in most large cities.


j-mac
 
[...] And Holder still sued. [...] Face it, libs are so against this it lends credence to the thought that maybe they believe that they can't win an election unless they cheat.

The Justice Department must approve changes to South Carolina's election laws under the federal Voting Rights Act because of the state's past failure to protect the voting rights of blacks. It is one of nine states that require the agency's approval.

South Carolina Voter ID Law: Justice Department Blocks Controversial Legislation

It appears that "your state" of South Carolina is the one with the history of cheating.
 
Last edited:
[...] I typed up a post about this last night but had a pet mishap take it down. Fat cat that likes to jump on the desk and land on the keyboard kind. [...]
Interesting variation of "the dog ate my homework".

Here's your grade: Fail
 
Well, it is the first thing that a police officer asks for when you are being detained for ANY reason....If you don't have one, then it could be a long night in most large cities.
:lamo Oooh... here's your grade too:




Confidence_Fail.jpg



Fact: In most, if not all, states there is no law requiring a non-driver to produce ID for a police officer.
 
j-mac said:
Face it, libs are so against this it lends credence to the thought that maybe they believe that they can't win an election unless they cheat.
Face if, the cons are so intent on imposing unnecessary laws despite lack of evidence of a reason, it lends credence to the thought that they can't win an election unless they cheat.

So much so that a former Republican official admits it.

Royal Masset, the former political director for the Republican Party of Texas said, in a 2007 Houston Chronicle article, that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.
 
Face if, the cons are so intent on imposing unnecessary laws despite lack of evidence of a reason, it lends credence to the thought that they can't win an election unless they cheat.

So much so that a former Republican official admits it.

Royal Masset, the former political director for the Republican Party of Texas said, in a 2007 Houston Chronicle article, that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.
Actually you are both wrong and right at the same time. There are republicans and democrats, as well as conservatives and liberals on both sides of the issue! Of course to argue there is no voter fraud issue is fallacious and besides the point. But sure, let us pretend there is no voter fraud. As stated earlier, must be time to trot out the voter fraud prosecution rates and start the organ grinding.............
 
I'm sorry -- did you have a pertinent question?

If not, why should I be expected to address any other?

Now I do have a pertinent question, which I have yet to see answered: Given that all these new and proposed gov't photo ID voter laws are claimed to be in response to voting fraud, where is the evidence of this voting fraud?

I said that I didn't know that there was a problem. See how easy it is to answer a question? It's not hard. Want to give it one more go?

Why wouldn't 15 million people not be able to prove they were citizens?

Come on, give it a try.
 
Well, it is the first thing that a police officer asks for when you are being detained for ANY reason....If you don't have one, then it could be a long night in most large cities.


Maybe it does, but that doesn't mean that carrying ID at all times is required by law. If you think it should be...well, maybe I don't feel that I need the government telling me what to do. That would be an interesting turn about if you're in favor of government intrusion and I am not.

I guess I just can't figure this out. The economy is still in bad shape, and instead of taking measures to improve that, Republicans are focused on this and on who pays for contraceptives. WTF?
 
Maybe it does, but that doesn't mean that carrying ID at all times is required by law. If you think it should be...well, maybe I don't feel that I need the government telling me what to do. That would be an interesting turn about if you're in favor of government intrusion and I am not. [...]
Indeed. The right clearly thinks everyone should be required to carry a government issued identity document at all times. Now, this is the same right that resents a) an intrusive government, and b) a large government and champions c) individual liberty.

Next, the right thinks that you should be able to prove that you are a citizen. My question is, what happens if you cannot? Or will not? Based upon right wing positions in the recorded past, if you are not a citizen (or cannot prove you are a citizen) then you don't have any rights. As we've seen in Gitmo (and elsewhere), the right wing position is that if you don't have any rights, then you can be imprisoned and tortured (or at least, aggressively interrogated) indefinitely.

At this point, let's all remind ourselves that the right calls themselves patriots. While they are torturing -- sometimes to death -- citizens that refuse to produce a government issued identity document. Granny came to vote, and Paul Ryan shoves her off a cliff . . . .

Shocking :shock:
 
Last edited:
Indeed. The right clearly thinks everyone should be required to carry a government issued identity document at all times. Now, this is the same right that resents a) an intrusive government, and b) a large government and champions c) individual liberty.

Next, the right thinks that you should be able to prove that you are a citizen. My question is, what happens if you cannot? Or will not? Based upon right wing positions in the recorded past, if you are not a citizen (or cannot prove you are a citizen) then you don't have any rights. As we've seen in Gitmo (and elsewhere), the right wing position is that if you don't have any rights, then you can be imprisoned and tortured (or at least, aggressively interrogated) indefinitely.

At this point, let's all remind ourselves that the right calls themselves patriots. While they are torturing -- sometimes to death -- citizens that refuse to produce a government issued identity document. Granny came to vote, and Paul Ryan shoves her off a cliff . . . .

Shocking :shock:
If you're referring to the patriot act, the NDAA, or the many other bill of rights violating acts, then you can point your finger at both the democrats and the republicans, so stop labeling these as right wing policies.

Besides, Libertarians in general are very opposed to all such legislation.

@everyone
I think everyone is making this more complicated than it needs be. We can argue all day about whether an ID is needed to prove your identity to prevent fraud, but regardless of what you believe on the subject, I wish we could all just get together and acknowledge that it's ridiculous to liken this to Jim Crow laws or state sponsored racism.

If you see an ID requirement as "blacks can't vote", then maybe you should check out your own prejudices or do something yourself to help break down the racial barriers.
 
Back
Top Bottom