• 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

Cute...But I am sure you've seen it...You know the one I have been posting since WS showing demo's attacking the Fannie regulator, while the repubs warned of impending down fall....So I won't post it again...But I think we both know who was pushing this crap, and who wasn't.


j-mac

Oh, that one. Does that mean you think that, if the Democrats were against it, and the Republicans for it, it must have been a bad idea?

I didn't say anything about parties, you see, just that the lack of regulation of the mortgage industry wasn't such a good idea.
 
Oh, that one. Does that mean you think that, if the Democrats were against it, and the Republicans for it, it must have been a bad idea?

I didn't say anything about parties, you see, just that the lack of regulation of the mortgage industry wasn't such a good idea.

There doesn't appear to have been be any lack of government regulations in the mortgage industry. Quite the opposite.
 
There doesn't appear to have been be any lack of government regulations in the mortgage industry. Quite the opposite.

That statement is based on... what again? Wasn't it the sale of creative (subprime) mortgages that punched a hole in the housing bubble to start with?

Wasn't government regulation needed to stop the practice of bundling subprime mortgages and selling them as viable assets?
 
Why is it that 15 million wouldn't be able to prove they are citizens?
It would have been simpler to just say "No".
 
Oh, that one. Does that mean you think that, if the Democrats were against it, and the Republicans for it, it must have been a bad idea?

I didn't say anything about parties, you see, just that the lack of regulation of the mortgage industry wasn't such a good idea.


No, I actually agree with you. But we had a regulator shouting what would happen, and repubs trying like hell to address this very point, now after the fact all we hear from libs is how the repubs were in bed with the big nasty mean ol' bankers to ruin this country for greed, when in reality it was a vote buying scheme by libs, and progressives all along.


j-mac
 
No, I actually agree with you. But we had a regulator shouting what would happen, and repubs trying like hell to address this very point, now after the fact all we hear from libs is how the repubs were in bed with the big nasty mean ol' bankers to ruin this country for greed, when in reality it was a vote buying scheme by libs, and progressives all along.


j-mac

I think we're in agreement mostly.

And I didn't say anything about Republicans in bed with anyone. If you want to blame the mess on Democrats, be my guest. I'm sure that someone else will find something to blame on Republicans, and then the two parties will be even.
 
Of course there are some people that do not have access to birth certificates, etc., but I'm having a hard time believing 15 million that cannot get an ID. That seems high.
 
Last edited:
Of course there are some people that do not have access to birth certificates, etc., but I'm having a hard time believing 15 million that cannot get an ID. That seems high.
I'm not sure where that number came from either. It may include people who would have to pay to get a copy of their birth certificate or some other documentation to get the ID.
 
I did not notice my typo, but my intent was this: Voter fraud is not something that is common in the United States, note the absense of the second not.
I will not argue who / what the intent is. GOP argues for less regulation and they push for this? Dems argue the intent is to disenfranshise people who typically vote for them, I don't know. What is wrong with the homor system? Everyone seem to think someone is "out to get them". Are there that many dishonest people, or is there just something other than fluoride in the water?
Any dishonest people in an election compromise the integrity of the election, regardless of the number. If we can't trust the integrity of our own voting system, what the hell can we trust?
 
Any dishonest people in an election compromise the integrity of the election, regardless of the number. If we can't trust the integrity of our own voting system, what the hell can we trust?

So because of potential untrustworthy people we deny others their vote? Is that like having a criminal justice system in which it is OK to convict innocent people in order to get the bad guys too? I am not saying everyone is honest, but voter fraud is very rare. Registration fraud which has been mostly committed by organizations, not individuals is more common, and because we know that the system seems to have worked out some kinks to identify registration fraud.

Voting fraud is different. If you are going to take someone else's vote as your own you have to make some effort and be convinced that others will be doing the same or voting enough for your candidate as well. If you are dishonest and want to become a criminal then shame on you. it is human nature that these things will happen. If someone want to commit voter fraud they will do it with voter ID laws as well.

We need to work on trusting the people who count the votes and the people we are voting for.
 
I'm not sure where that number came from either. It may include people who would have to pay to get a copy of their birth certificate or some other documentation to get the ID.

:poke
Some things I found...

Citizens Without Proof

Statement for Congressional Forum: “Excluded from Democracy”

According to these reports it does include those numbers.

This is not aimed at you Mo...

We have to remember that there are a lot of people without transportation, money, housing etc... I certainly know that there are lot of people out there with less than me and I need to juggle things around to make it work. Some people in this thread have spoken as if there is not a lot of poverty or that people who are impoverished don't deserve a vote because they can't figure out how to get ID etc...

There are people in this country that have homes without running water, what does that say? Yeah, yeah, yeah call me a bleeding heart or whatever you want. All that matters is that it is true and they are just as much a citizen as any of you who want to deny them a vote. :(
 
So because of potential untrustworthy people we deny others their vote? Is that like having a criminal justice system in which it is OK to convict innocent people in order to get the bad guys too? I am not saying everyone is honest, but voter fraud is very rare. Registration fraud which has been mostly committed by organizations, not individuals is more common, and because we know that the system seems to have worked out some kinks to identify registration fraud.

Voting fraud is different. If you are going to take someone else's vote as your own you have to make some effort and be convinced that others will be doing the same or voting enough for your candidate as well. If you are dishonest and want to become a criminal then shame on you. it is human nature that these things will happen. If someone want to commit voter fraud they will do it with voter ID laws as well.

We need to work on trusting the people who count the votes and the people we are voting for.
o_O I like how you simultaneously ignore what I previously wrote, and take the debate to an extreme. If you had read, I said I am not terribly against the idea that the poor on a voluntary basis could come and be issued a photo ID. It'd probably even be convenient to have the DMV set up a booth near major election centers for those who can't afford an ID.
 
o_O I like how you simultaneously ignore what I previously wrote, and take the debate to an extreme. If you had read, I said I am not terribly against the idea that the poor on a voluntary basis could come and be issued a photo ID. It'd probably even be convenient to have the DMV set up a booth near major election centers for those who can't afford an ID.

How do I know you're not an untrustworthy voter? No, sorry, that is ridiculous. :wink2:

That is a good idea to have the DMV set up a booth at polling centers, but how would we pay for it? and a potential problem is that a lot of folks who are impoverished live in smaller rural areas where it would not be feasible to put a DMV satellite office.

Now here's a kicker, I'm not saying there are millions, but what about those who already do not trust the government etc... and don't want ID because it probably has a tracking chip in it that also records their fingerprints and sends them to the FBI?

Just some 3:30am humor.
:aliens1: Time to go watch some XFiles.
 
That statement is based on... what again? Wasn't it the sale of creative (subprime) mortgages that punched a hole in the housing bubble to start with?

Wasn't government regulation needed to stop the practice of bundling subprime mortgages and selling them as viable assets?
There were plenty of regulations but perhaps they were the wrong regulations. When the government became involved in deciding who should get mortgages, despite their economic status, perhaps that was a regulation too far.
 
There were plenty of regulations but perhaps they were the wrong regulations. When the government became involved in deciding who should get mortgages, despite their economic status, perhaps that was a regulation too far.
And we'll just ignore that the program had been around for decades without ever causing even a slight recession - let alone an economic meltdown. :roll:

Com'on, you and I both know the banks saw a chance to makes the big $$$ and jumped all over it. I refinanced my home in 2003 because the rates had come down so far I just couldn't pass them up. I didn't go to a regular bank, I went to a reseller who made the loans and sold them almost before the ink was dry. They did a quick credit check, looked up the county's assessment for the house on the Internet, and drew up the papers. (Sure wasn't that simple 4 years earlier when I refinanced.) All that reseller wanted was their $1000+ origination fee and get us in and out as fast as possible. That's not banking, that's McD's for Wall St. - except the burgers were all fat and no meat.
 
Last edited:
Understood - thanks for providing the info! :)

I guess I really am sexist to some extent, the maiden/married name thing never crossed my mind :3oops: though I now remember my daughter complaining about changing all her stuff over when she got married.

Unfortunately, that's just a paperwork issue and if anyone really cared about it, they could easily get it done. That's what I have a problem with, every one of these people who have no "access to documents" could have them in their hands if they wanted them. They just don't think it matters. Whose fault is that? The link provided said "could you provide this information tomorrow?" Well the election isn't tomorrow. It's not like anyone hides it, they know how much time they have to get their ducks in a row before November. If they choose not to, whose fault is that?
 
Unfortunately, that's just a paperwork issue and if anyone really cared about it, they could easily get it done. That's what I have a problem with, every one of these people who have no "access to documents" could have them in their hands if they wanted them. They just don't think it matters. Whose fault is that? The link provided said "could you provide this information tomorrow?" Well the election isn't tomorrow. It's not like anyone hides it, they know how much time they have to get their ducks in a row before November. If they choose not to, whose fault is that?
It's easy for you and me to say things like that but it's not "just paperwork" if you don't have the money for it or transportation to get it done. My biggest gripe is for older people. We talk about cutting back more on SS benefits then we say, "Ah $15 and a couple of cab rides, what's that?" Well, that's a couple of week's worth of groceries to a retired person, that's what it is.

But, hey, the SC review of the Indiana case said those people are basically hosed, that they will have to decide whether they want to eat normally for two weeks or vote. OK, if that's what the Law-of-the-Land is then that's they way it is. I hope some charities will step up and help out those old people so they can keep doing what they've been doing for the past 50 years.
 
It's easy for you and me to say things like that but it's not "just paperwork" if you don't have the money for it or transportation to get it done. My biggest gripe is for older people. We talk about cutting back more on SS benefits then we say, "Ah $15 and a couple of cab rides, what's that?" Well, that's a couple of week's worth of groceries to a retired person, that's what it is.

But, hey, the SC review of the Indiana case said those people are basically hosed, that they will have to decide whether they want to eat normally for two weeks or vote. OK, if that's what the Law-of-the-Land is then that's they way it is. I hope some charities will step up and help out those old people so they can keep doing what they've been doing for the past 50 years.

If those old people don't have ID, how did they get their SS and Medicare? You don't get SS without proof of age.
 
If those old people don't have ID, how did they get their SS and Medicare? You don't get SS without proof of age.

I've had the same SS card since I was at least in elemenatry school. I literally can't remember when or how I got it.
 
I've had the same SS card since I was at least in elemenatry school. I literally can't remember when or how I got it.

The SS card has become a Big Brother ID number at this point, and so is issued at birth so that BB can keep track of you from that point. I got mine back in '57 or '58, when I got my first job.

When you reach the age of 65, or whatever it will have to be raised to in order to keep SS solvent without actually paying back the money that has been borrowed from it, they you will have to show that you're old enough to start getting checks.

So, keep a copy of that BC.

Moreover, you may be elected president, and have to show you weren't born in Kenya.
 
The SS card has become a Big Brother ID number at this point, and so is issued at birth so that BB can keep track of you from that point. I got mine back in '57 or '58, when I got my first job.

When you reach the age of 65, or whatever it will have to be raised to in order to keep SS solvent without actually paying back the money that has been borrowed from it, they you will have to show that you're old enough to start getting checks.

So, keep a copy of that BC.

Moreover, you may be elected president, and have to show you weren't born in Kenya.

Isn't it kind of ironic -- and doesn't it make this whole thing rather absurd -- that you can get a photo ID without having a photo ID?
 
Isn't it kind of ironic -- and doesn't it make this whole thing rather absurd -- that you can get a photo ID without having a photo ID?

True enough. In fact, you can get several photo IDs, all with different names.

Still, that would be a lot of trouble and expense to go to just to be able to vote more than once.
 
If those old people don't have ID, how did they get their SS and Medicare? You don't get SS without proof of age.
I assume their SS cards are/were sufficient but I can't say that as fact, I haven't gotten there, yet. ;) I do know a friend that worked for SSA for decades, I'll write her an e-mail and ask. It may take a couple of days for a response, or it could be this afternoon - depends on what she's got going on.

I did find this, though: Apply Online for Retirement Benefits: Boldly Go Online to Retire - It's So Easy
 
Back
Top Bottom