Page 21 of 58 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 573

Thread: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

  1. #201
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,211

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    You contionue to ignore that it was the Southern Conservatives and Indiana who did this.
    They are now GOPs and have made the switch since the 1920s, 1960s and now--and you know it .

    A Democrat by any other name ( Dixiecrat ) is STILL a Democrat.

    Its your parties History, so you need to own it.

  2. #202
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Yes, but the 2nd Amendment is much more prescriptively specific than are references to the right to vote. Regardless, the state ID laws that cause you such pain seem to have passed the test.
    I think we're going off point. They're both rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    I've read enough of the gun threads on here to know that the conservatives do not accept regulations imposed on gun rights without protest, which you did with voting rules. The implication was when the legislature passes new restrictions on voting rights, the public just needs to accept, move on, and deal with it. But with gun regulations, 2A folks point out that registration and gun bans don't work, and are a burden on our rights to own a firearm, oppose closing the gun show loophole and registration of firearms, etc. And a lot of that opposition is simply based on the notion that such rules do not have any effect on gun deaths and crime, and so burdens on the right to own a firearm don't pass common sense or Constitutional tests.

    But these same people expect everyone to accept restrictions on the right to vote with no questions asked, no evidence such restrictions are necessary or will do anything to reduce "voter" fraud. Most important, you were completely indifferent to rules that prevented 4 cases of fraud, but that disenfranchised 4,000 eligible, registered voters from casting a vote. Well, what is the purpose of voting rules? Is it 1) to only count the votes of people that jump through arbitrary hoops passed by any legislature, or 2) to restrict votes to eligible citizens of the U.S.? If it's the latter, which is the only reasonable goal of voting rules, and rules changes do nothing to prevent fraud, but cause 4,000 citizens to lose their ability to vote, how can you support that result?

    It's not a defensible position for someone who doesn't reflexively accept government edicts without a second thought, and I know there is no other instance that I've seen that indicates you or other conservatives take that position as the default.

    And whether the Texas rules pass Constitutional muster hasn't been decided. It's sort of a mixed bag out there as far as the courts go in other states.
    Last edited by JasperL; 10-20-14 at 09:04 PM.

  3. #203
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,950

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Both parties have gerrymandered, and there's no downside or upside for anyone in an honest vote. There is only the right side.
    Funny thing is...the liberals absolutely loved gerrymandering during the time it benefited them for nearly five decades. It did not become a republican advantage until the 2010 midterms when the GOP won somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 state legislative seats. Now they are crying about it.

  4. #204
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The key is winning.
    Well, yeah, that's pretty much the key for any party, any politician. What's the point?

    Harry Reid's "encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination". - See more at: Reid Once Called Obama Light-skinned With 'No Negro Dialect', Media Mostly Mum

    Joe Biden - "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    Welfare dependency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I'm missing the point. The racist party votes for policies that help blacks? That makes a lot of sense......

  5. #205
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    It has to do with CONTROL, one way or the other. Slavery is little different from total Government dependence and institutionalized poverty. Places like Cabrini Green, Robert Taylor Homes and Magnolia Place in New Orleans weren't born out of Conservative principles.
    When leftists talk about the poor voting what they really mean are those who are dependent on government handouts to continue the social programs on which they've become dependent. Millions of more food stamps recipients since Obama came into office means millions more votes for the Democrats, and it's no secret that this is their intention.

    "Rights" play no role in any of this. It's about bringing in the vote for those dependent on government handouts, and their friends.

  6. #206
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,725
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I think we're going off point. They're both rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    I've read enough of the gun threads on here to know that the conservatives do not accept regulations imposed on gun rights without protest, which you did with voting rules. The implication was when the legislature passes new restrictions on voting rights, the public just needs to accept, move on, and deal with it. But with gun regulations, 2A folks point out that registration and gun bans don't work, and are a burden on our rights to own a firearm, oppose closing the gun show loophole and registration of firearms, etc. And a lot of that opposition is simply based on the notion that such rules do not have any effect on gun deaths and crime, and so burdens on the right to own a firearm don't pass common sense or Constitutional tests.

    But these same people expect everyone to accept restrictions on the right to vote with no questions asked, no evidence such restrictions are necessary or will do anything to reduce "voter" fraud. Most important, you were completely indifferent to rules that prevented 4 cases of fraud, but that disenfranchised 4,000 eligible, registered voters from casting a vote. Well, what is the purpose of voting rules? Is it 1) to only count the votes of people that jump through arbitrary hoops passed by any legislature, or 2) to restrict votes to eligible citizens of the U.S.? If it's the latter, which is the only reasonable goal of voting rules, and rules changes do nothing to prevent fraud, but cause 4,000 citizens to lose their ability to vote, how can you support that result?

    It's not a defensible position for someone who doesn't reflexively accept government edicts without a second thought, and I know there is no other instance that I've seen that indicates you or other conservatives take that position as the default.

    And whether the Texas rules pass Constitutional muster hasn't been decided. It's sort of a mixed bag out there as far as the courts go in other states.
    Personally I don't care much about gun rights either. You'll have to find another line of attack.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #207
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    When leftists talk about the poor voting what they really mean are those who are dependent on government handouts to continue the social programs on which they've become dependent. Millions of more food stamps recipients since Obama came into office means millions more votes for the Democrats, and it's no secret that this is their intention.
    And when right wingers talk about 'voter fraud' they're talking about those dependent on government handouts and do not want them to vote, and so have implemented rules to make it more difficult for them TO vote, to drive down their voting population. We all know this is true, so why deny it?

    "Rights" play no role in any of this. It's about bringing in the vote for those dependent on government handouts, and their friends.
    I can just as easily claim that gun "rights" have nothing to do with the NRA, etc. The 2A stuff is all about getting the votes of a bunch of redneck gun owners. Pick any issue and the same claims can be made - abortion, religion, contraception, etc.

  8. #208
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamacareFail View Post
    Funny thing is...the liberals absolutely loved
    gerrymandering during the time it benefited them for nearly five decades.
    Linkless as usual--yet those Dems are now GOPs in the House.
    Good thing TR got rid of the gerrymandered Senate with the 17th amendment.
    It did not become a republican advantage until the 2010 midterms
    wrong again--it started after the 1990 midterms--are you forgetting the embarrassment of Texas arresting their Dem politicians?
    when the GOP won somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 state legislative seats. Now they are crying about it.
    Then you agree it's okay today--along with voter suppression to keep the minority in power.
    Very little Present Moment Awareness here .
    Physics is Phun

  9. #209
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Dixiecrats ran as a third party in the 1948 Presidential.
    Then turned into GOPs in 1952--glad I could help with yer lack of history knowledge again .
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    A Democrat by any other name ( Dixiecrat ) is STILL a Democrat.

    Its your parties History, so you need to own it.
    Physics is Phun

  10. #210
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Personally I don't care much about gun rights either. You'll have to find another line of attack.
    There is a parade of conservatives that do care about gun rights and support the new voting rules, so I'm talking to them, too.

    And you're intentionally missing the point. Do you normally accept government regulations without regard to the downside of them? Not unless you're stupid, and I don't believe you are. So why would you accept any policy from government that had a 1/1,000 ratio of benefit/harm ratio, that cost citizens and government millions of dollars, millions of hours in time?

    If I said some EPA rule MIGHT save 4 lives, do you think ANY measure to save those lives is worth the cost? $100 million in direct costs, plus the regulatory burden? $1 billion? $10 Billion? Etc. Of course not, and you know it.

Page 21 of 58 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •