• 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!

Photo ID to vote?

Photo ID to vote?

  • Total voters
    92
Blackdog said:
Most states like Indiana offer free photo id's to those who can't afford them. Still no excuse.
Click to expand...

What if you don't have an ID and you're not 'poor enough' to qualify for a free ID?

One should not have to pay to vote in the United States of America.
(not to mention the cost of obtaining a birth certificate, marriage license, passport, divorce record or other documents in order to get the ID)

Voter ID nothing more than a tax to vote (for those that don't have ID), which was rendered unconstitutional by the 24th amendment.


There is no problem to combat here and voter suppression goes much further than voter ID. Some are...

...restrictions on groups and their members doing voter registration drives

...eliminated same-day registration in Maine and Ohio

...rolling back early voting options

...revoking the rights of former felons to regain their right to vote in Florida and Iowa


We should be working to encourage voting. Making it easier. Not erecting unnecessary burdens.
 
Boo Radley said:
True enough, but it might be helpfup to ask why neither will address this?
Click to expand...

I am not certain what needs to be addressed? I thought it was good at the time. It in the long run was not enforced, almost ignored.

I did not agree with the amnesty, but I liked President Reagan, so I lived with it. I mean it had some great potential...

required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status.
made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
granted amnesty to certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.

Seemed like a good compromise to me.

Problems were caused though. Hispanic looking workers were discriminated against, so in the end it did address the real problem of illegal immigration at the correct level, but it also created a more serious problem, discrimination.

People seem to not have any real problem with legal immigration, at least I don't. If you come here legally awesome, welcome to the US and all that. If you come here illegally, you should be jailed and deported, period.

So I am not certain what part you are asking about?
 
BWG said:
What if you don't have an ID and you're not 'poor enough' to qualify for a free ID?
Click to expand...

Then you are a lazy **** that probably does not understand the importance of exorcising your public duty.

BWG said:
One should not have to pay to vote in the United States of America.
(not to mention the cost of obtaining a birth certificate, marriage license, passport, divorce record or other documents in order to get the ID)
Click to expand...

You need ID to get services turned on, rent a car, by cigarettes etc. Having no ID is not an excuse.

BWG said:
Voter ID nothing more than a tax to vote (for those that don't have ID), which was rendered unconstitutional by the 24th amendment.

There is no problem to combat here and voter suppression goes much further than voter ID. Some are...

...restrictions on groups and their members doing voter registration drives

...eliminated same-day registration in Maine and Ohio

...rolling back early voting options

...revoking the rights of former felons to regain their right to vote in Florida and Iowa

We should be working to encourage voting. Making it easier. Not erecting unnecessary burdens.
Click to expand...

And yet the SCOTUS said it is NOT unconstitutional. So I will again say after the mountain of evidence you ignored, I disagree.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It was not a "liberal" who signed amnesty into law in '86.
Click to expand...
Correct. From what I understand the compromise was supposed to come with assimilation which never happened. If I'm not mistaken Reagan considered it one of his biggest regrets.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Correct. From what I understand the compromise was supposed to come with assimilation which never happened. If I'm not mistaken Reagan considered it one of his biggest regrets.
Click to expand...

bigger than that arms sale to Iran incident?
 
Dittohead not! said:
bigger than that arms sale to Iran incident?
Click to expand...
I don't remember hearing he regretted that. He was trying to get some diplomacy started and it was a critical step. I'm not a fan of that action, but also realize sometimes you have to deal with ****heads in life.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't remember hearing he regretted that. He was trying to get some diplomacy started and it was a critical step. I'm not a fan of that action, but also realize sometimes you have to deal with ****heads in life.
Click to expand...

and you deal with it by supporting arms sales to the enemy?

Wow.
 
Blackdog said:
Just wow. At least be honest with yourself.
Click to expand...

You used the word RAMPANT in your own post and then tried to take me to task saying that was not your contention about voter fraud. You are making no sense on this point.

You have a solution in search of a problem. You keep telling us that 86 people were convicted of voter fraud and use the Times article for proof. The article itslef says most of these happened for less than nefarious reasons. It also says that during the same period, over 196 million people voted. That is 86 out of 196,000,000. In statsitics we have a very technical term for this - INSIGNIFICANT AS TO BE ALMOST NONEXISTENT. Or think of it in another way since this is political. On the body politic, those 86 would not even be a tiny pimple on the ass of the body politic. But you are obsessed with it and are dishonestly trying to use this teeny tiny thing to insitutute a not needed system whic could have far reaching effects taking away peoples right to vote.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and you deal with it by supporting arms sales to the enemy?

Wow.
Click to expand...
To be fair they've upped the crazy since those days. Iran was a mere blip back then, same with Korea, China, etc. I'm not excusing anything just laying out the mindset.
 
haymarket said:
You used the word RAMPANT in your own post and then tried to take me to task saying that was not your contention about voter fraud. You are making no sense on this point.

You have a solution in search of a problem. You keep telling us that 86 people were convicted of voter fraud and use the Times article for proof. The article itslef says most of these happened for less than nefarious reasons. It also says that during the same period, over 196 million people voted. That is 86 out of 196,000,000. In statsitics we have a very technical term for this - INSIGNIFICANT AS TO BE ALMOST NONEXISTENT. Or think of it in another way since this is political. On the body politic, those 86 would not even be a tiny pimple on the ass of the body politic. But you are obsessed with it and are dishonestly trying to use this teeny tiny thing to insitutute a not needed system whic could have far reaching effects taking away peoples right to vote.
Click to expand...

More partisan hackery. Yawn.
 
LaMidRighter said:
To be fair they've upped the crazy since those days. Iran was a mere blip back then, same with Korea, China, etc. I'm not excusing anything just laying out the mindset.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the mindset. Still selling arms to the enemy is a big deal.

But, that's really an issue for another thread. We're in danger of derailing this one.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, that was the mindset. Still selling arms to the enemy is a big deal.
Click to expand...
I do agree. The only point I would make is that the good intentions of supporting a South American democracy movement led to the bad result of arming some real jackholes. If anything it's a failing of U.S. foreign policy, something that it seems few modern presidents have been immune to.

But, that's really an issue for another thread. We're in danger of derailing this one.
Click to expand...
Understood. In a way though it does speak to the vote, I do firmly believe that politicians should be accountable, we do that by keeping the vote honest and informed.
 
Blackdog said:
This is exactly what I mean. You are basically lying because I said no such thing you are accusing me of and ignoring the actual subject to basically call names.
Click to expand...


Originally Posted by Blackdog
"It would also keep people who should not be voting from voting.

"Good, maybe it will keep the apathetic morons who have no clue from voting."

No you don't. I have posted plenty of proof as have others of fraud and yet you keep asking.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the 86 in five years across the whole country??? That's what you want to risk disenfranchising 5 million voters for?


PS more evidence you will ignore...

McInerney, 47, is a former state Assembly worker who has been a Democratic committeeman in Troy for years. He was appointed to the clerk’s position by the City Council when Democrats took control of the Troy council in January 2008. Dem official pleads guilty in NY election fraud investigation | RedState
Click to expand...

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the photo ID requirement over even individual voter fraud. Please explain how forging absentee ballots by an official would be prevented by the photo ID law for voters?

So that's all you got, huh?
 
LaMidRighter said:
I do agree. The only point I would make is that the good intentions of supporting a South American democracy movement led to the bad result of arming some real jackholes. If anything it's a failing of U.S. foreign policy, something that it seems few modern presidents have been immune to.

Understood. In a way though it does speak to the vote, I do firmly believe that politicians should be accountable, we do that by keeping the vote honest and informed.
Click to expand...

On that point, we agree, which is why I voted yes on the issue of photo ID. We really don't know how much voter fraud there is, but even if the answer is not much, why put up with any if it can be helped by anything so simple as showing a picture ID?

Even if elections are squeaky clean now, which is doubtful, requiring picture ID would at least make it less credible to point to election results we don't like and shout, "fraud!"
 
Dittohead not! said:
On that point, we agree, which is why I voted yes on the issue of photo ID. We really don't know how much voter fraud there is, but even if the answer is not much, why put up with any if it can be helped by anything so simple as showing a picture ID?

Even if elections are squeaky clean now, which is doubtful, requiring picture ID would at least make it less credible to point to election results we don't like and shout, "fraud!"
Click to expand...

I disagree. Unless costs to acquire the photo IDs is provided by the government, it amounts to a poll tax.
 
Catawba said:
I disagree. Unless costs to acquire the photo IDs is provided by the government, it amounts to a poll tax.
Click to expand...

The supreme court says you are wrong.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. - Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

So much for your unconstitutional poll tax.
 
Catawba said:
Originally Posted by Blackdog
"It would also keep people who should not be voting from voting.
Click to expand...

That was about people who legally can't vote, but you know this. Nice dishonesty and more fallacy.

Catawba said:
"Good, maybe it will keep the apathetic morons who have no clue from voting."
Click to expand...

That was a sarcastic reply, but you knew that as well. Keep up with the fallacy and lies. :2wave:

Catawba said:
Are you talking about the 86 in five years across the whole country??? That's what you want to risk disenfranchising 5 million voters for?
Click to expand...

Covering only 2 federal elections? Yes I am.

Catawba said:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the photo ID requirement over even individual voter fraud. Please explain how forging absentee ballots by an official would be prevented by the photo ID law for voters?
Click to expand...

That was a different response I used as an example of WHO is doing most of the fraud, Democrats. That's what it has to do with it.

Catawba said:
So that's all you got, huh?
Click to expand...

Don't need anything else. The supreme court already won this debate before it even started. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
On that point, we agree, which is why I voted yes on the issue of photo ID. We really don't know how much voter fraud there is, but even if the answer is not much, why put up with any if it can be helped by anything so simple as showing a picture ID?

Even if elections are squeaky clean now, which is doubtful, requiring picture ID would at least make it less credible to point to election results we don't like and shout, "fraud!"
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Catawba said:
I disagree. Unless costs to acquire the photo IDs is provided by the government, it amounts to a poll tax.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course the cost has to be born by the government. Given that most people already have such an ID, the cost should be minimal anyway.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, of course the cost has to be born by the government. Given that most people already have such an ID, the cost should be minimal anyway.
Click to expand...

A study by the experts show there could be as many as 5 million voters that could be disenfranchised by this law, if the burden is not borne by the government.
 
Catawba said:
A study by the experts show there could be as many as 5 million voters that could be disenfranchised by this law, if the burden is not borne by the government.
Click to expand...

Then we need to get 5 million people over to the DMV right away.
 
Jryan said:
Are you going to pay for 5 million people to get their IDs?
Click to expand...

Whoever pays today, for ID's to be created at the DMV, would pay just as they always have. You're question is a non-question...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom