• 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!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

NIMBY said:
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 .
Click to expand...


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

Its your parties History, so you need to own it.
 
Jack Hays said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Jack Hays said:
Both parties have gerrymandered, and there's no downside or upside for anyone in an honest vote. There is only the right side.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
The key is winning.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

I'm missing the point. The racist party votes for policies that help blacks? That makes a lot of sense...... :shock::roll::lamo
 
Fenton said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't care much about gun rights either. You'll have to find another line of attack.
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Funny thing is...the liberals absolutely loved
gerrymandering during the time it benefited them for nearly five decades.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Then you agree it's okay today--along with voter suppression to keep the minority in power.
Very little Present Moment Awareness here .
 
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 .
Fenton said:
A Democrat by any other name ( Dixiecrat ) is STILL a Democrat.

Its your parties History, so you need to own it.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
Personally I don't care much about gun rights either. You'll have to find another line of attack.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NIMBY said:
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.

wrong again--it started after the 1990 midterms--are you forgetting the embarrassment of Texas arresting their Dem politicians?

Then you agree it's okay today--along with voter suppression to keep the minority in power.
Very little Present Moment Awareness here .
Click to expand...

Hmmm. TR's POTUS term ended in 1909, and the 17th Amendment:

. . . . was passed by the Congress and, on May 13, 1912, was submitted to the states for ratification. By April 8, 1913, three-fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, making it the Seventeenth Amendment. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan formally declared the amendment's adoption on May 31, 1913.

Someone hasn't been studying his history.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because I think the integrity of the vote is worth that sacrifice.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because I think the integrity of the vote is worth that sacrifice.
Click to expand...

And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"

I think the integrity of the vote is also important, and therefore oppose rules changes that have no discernible effect on nearly non-existent 'voter fraud' at the polls, but do make properly registered citizens jump through pointless and costly hoops to exercise their RIGHT to vote.

"I don't want anyone to die of preventable air pollution, so I support EPA regs that cost business $billions, millions of hours in time, to MAYBE prevent 4 deaths!" Yeah, makes no sense....
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"

I think the integrity of the vote is also important, and therefore oppose rules changes that have no discernible effect on nearly non-existent 'voter fraud' at the polls, but do make properly registered citizens jump through pointless and costly hoops to exercise their RIGHT to vote.
Click to expand...

Then we disagree. I see no harm and much good from verifying voter identity and I don't believe the burden is unreasonable.
 
JasperL said:
And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"

I think the integrity of the vote is also important, and therefore oppose rules changes that have no discernible effect on nearly non-existent 'voter fraud' at the polls, but do make properly registered citizens jump through pointless and costly hoops to exercise their RIGHT to vote.
Click to expand...

I think there should be a campaign where voters are videotaped jumping through an actual hoop upon obtaining the necessary documents.

The whole thing is asinine when it is clear in many cases that somebody simply looked at voting behaviors of the opposition and devised laws to hamper them.

Too many dems voting early? Eliminate or curtail early voting.

Dems in church groups voting too much on Sunday? Eliminate Sunday voting.

Of course my all time favorite, have the same initials as a felon. No vote for you. (They actually did something like this in Florida. They set a target number of felons to scrub from the roles. When they couldn't find enough they expanded the criteria to same first and last name. Then same last name and first initial when that didn't work.

Iirc there were something like 17,000 eligible voters scrubbed from the roles in Florida prior to that bush/gore election. Who only found out when they showed up to vote.
 
JasperL said:
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?
Click to expand...

There is nothing difficult about providing valid photo ID to vote. The intellectual dishonesty by the left on the subject of Voter ID laws is repugnant.


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.
Click to expand...

According to a Gallup poll in 2011, 47% of all US households own a gun. Are you going to suggest that they are all rednecks? The 2nd amendment stuff is about protecting a right guatanteed to Americans in the US Constitution. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"
Click to expand...

If they are eligible voters it's unlikely that they do not have valid photo ID. No legal voter is disenfranchised by Voter ID laws.
 
JasperL said:
And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"

I think the integrity of the vote is also important, and therefore oppose rules changes that have no discernible effect on nearly non-existent 'voter fraud' at the polls, but do make properly registered citizens jump through pointless and costly hoops to exercise their RIGHT to vote.
Click to expand...

OK lets simply allow presenting those voter registration cards to FFL dealers and save millions by doing away with NICS checks and CCW permits. Why mess around with costly hoops for the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. ;)
 
JasperL said:
Sure, why not. The downside is it won't be hard to track you down since the money is going to YOU, and so it will be quite easy to convict you of a felony. Good plan! Give it a go and see how it works out for you!!
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet the risk will be small.

But, I'm not going to actually try it and find out for sure.
 
JasperL said:
Well, yeah, that's pretty much the key for any party, any politician. What's the point?



I'm missing the point. The racist party votes for policies that help blacks? That makes a lot of sense...... :shock::roll::lamo
Click to expand...


How does policies that lead to Inner cities ghettos, generational dependence, crime and poverty help ANYONE ??
 
JasperL said:
From wikipedia: Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

What I see are Democrats, something you want to ignore, now they are Southern and Northern Democrats as if Southern and Northern mean a thing. What is it about party loyalty that creates people like you? Looks to me like it as the Republicans that got the Civil Rights Bill passed and it looks like to me you are out of touch with reality.
 
Conservative said:
What I see are Democrats, something you want to ignore, now they are Southern and Northern Democrats as if Southern and Northern mean a thing. What is it about party loyalty that creates people like you? Looks to me like it as the Republicans that got the Civil Rights Bill passed and it looks like to me you are out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...
Not all Democrats are the same.

Southern Democrats:

As the politics of the land continued to evolve in the middle to late 1800s, some Southern Democrats became more liberal and embraced more middle-of-the-road political views. A significant number of other Southern Democrats, however, were bound together more closely by opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. These people formed ultra-conservative factions such as the Dixiecrats and right-wing vigilante groups such as the White League and the Ku Klux Klan.
Click to expand...

Not the same as today's Democrats.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not all Democrats are the same.Southern Democrats:Not the same as today's Democrats.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't trust too much in anything "the wise geek" has to say. They may try to change the name from Democrat to "right wing" or "ultra conservative", but Democrats they were and their racist history, which continues today, tells it all.
 
JasperL said:
That's not actually an estimate of the number of Texas registered voters without a Photo ID, and apparently refers to a different trial. It's a cherry picked bunch of out of context quotes and testimony.

In the district court, recently decided, the state didn't even pretend to do an estimate of the number. Several experts did, however, and the best the state could do was lob weak objections to some small parts of the very large and comprehensive efforts. Bottom line is several people went through thorough efforts to determine the number, and the result was somewhere around 600k without ID, and about 500k that didn't qualify for a disability exception. Some of them were elderly and could vote by absentee, which is more likely to generate fraudulent votes than voting in person.

But NO ONE testified in court, or presented any estimate in court, that there aren't hundreds of thousands of Texans, registered to vote, who will need to get new IDs. Partisan hacks can make any claim they want when it's not under oath and falsehoods and misleading half truths can't be challenged and have consequences. Get back to me with court testimony in any state backs up the view that few don't have the required ID. I won't be holding my breath, you can't produce such testimony.
Click to expand...
People can make any claim they want, but not in court, if they do that it is perjury.
When the people who have been making these claims in public were sworn in, their story changed.
Now that there is a place to get a free voter ID in every county, I wonder how many will actually be requested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom