Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: JonnyB on August 03, 2012, 01:45:43 PM
-
Minnesota will have a public vote on amending the state Constitution to add the requirement for a photo ID when voting. The rhetoric is hot on both sides, of course.
This morning, it - and the marriage amendment - came up in a conversation with a very left-leaning cow-orker. He asked my opinion on the ID amendment, which I support. He, being a hard-core Democrat is dead-set against it. Why? Because, of course, poor people who may not have a driver's license might be caused hardship by having to purchase the state ID. It costs $17.25 every four years; $6 less for those 65+ years of age.
The conversation, as is often the case, went off on several tangents and eventually died out. I looked up the cost after the fact and emailed it to him. I followed up with "If the ID was issued at no cost, would you still be opposed to it?" His answer: "Yes."
I responded that his argument had just collapsed, and that it was never about the poor people at all. He had already left for the weekend, so hasn't yet replied. He'll change the subject or ignore me entirely, though; that's his standard technique when hit in the face by reality.
I also asked if he'd change his mind if I could provide him with ten proven cases of ineligible voters. He wouldn't agree to that. I said I'd change my position if he could show me 10 people who couldn't afford the state ID. His mind is made up - stop trying to confuse him with facts!
If the ID is required to exercise a right, then, in my opinion, the state should provide said ID to anyone requesting it. Driving is considered a priveledge, so charging for the license makes (only minimal) sense. (Minimal in that I already passed the test, proving I was capable of safe operation, when I was 16. Paying to renew the plastic every 4 years is unreasonable. It's purely a tax but they won't admit it.)
jb
-
That argument against ID is the main one used in WI against it. The argument does fall on its face when facts are involved. ;/
WI has been plagued by disgusting shenanigans from the left since we passed voter ID.
To get an ID (state pays for it), you need a birth certificate in my state. The ACLU found one old lady who refused to order a new BC in order to get a state ID to vote and filed a suit. Her/ACLU's claim was that paying $20 for a BC was a 'poll tax' despite the fact that the first BC issued to a person is free. No surprise, entitlements always trump responsibilities to the welfare class.
Lawsuits have been shopped around to leftist Dane County judges. The latest was an injunction against the ID law ruling by a judge who signed a petition to recall Walker- right before our recall election!
In one of our districts bordering Illinois (there have been anecdotal stories of loaded Illionois buses showingup to certain polling sites) , there was rampant voter fraud during this election- there were hundreds of new voters registered but none of them signed the voter rolls book when they voted as required by state law.
Good luck on getting your voter ID law in place, you'll need it.
-
Identification absolutely should be required for voting. Ask if ID should be required to buy a firearm; and that's a guaranteed right as well. It would take a... special... kind of cognitive dissonance to agree with one but not the other.
-
The Left will not be happy until NON-minorities, the allegedly unrightful owners of America (ask Obama), are all summarily disqualified. Now that would be JUST suffrage, you see.
Don't expect rational argument from zealots. Waste of time.
-
Minnesota?
Didn't it require dozens of precincts to turn in vote totals that exceeded the number of votes cast in order to put Al Franken in the Senate?
Move along, nothing to see, no fraud problem here.
-
I'm only scared because the issue could get conflated enough to end us up with a mandatory national voter ID card with biometrics, RFID and whatever else mark of the beast crap you can think up.
Beyond that, I'm sure voter fraud is happening. Plenty of under-reported claims last cycle of voters bussed into places etc. We have valid state IDs, use them. Yes, provide them at no cost if needed to avoid the BS poll tax charge. Funny, pretty sure you need an ID to get food stamps. I know that I had to produce my milittary ID and passport for I-9 to get a job. If you have no other need for an ID, probably not a producing member I'm guessing.
-
I give suffrage one more election. You can't have elections with an electorate that is both stupid and larcenous.
-
Pretty much.
All Leftist resistance to Voter ID it is really just rooted in fears that unless Acorn-like organizations and sympathetic liberal city officials can continue to engage in ballot stuffing, that they'll lose more elections.
And when they make the claim that "Wide scale vote fraud just isn't happening", the "evidence" for this is always the dearth of actual prosecutions for it on the part of large urban area DA's or mid-level DOJ officials below the POTUS appointee level who tend to all lean Left as well.. ;/
The voters the other side in the debate is continually purported to be trying to "suppress" already all has photo ID for welfare benefits, SSI, food stamps, or needs them for rent applications, or at the check cashing store.
The Left has worked hard, ever since the 1950's/60's to set themselves up with institutional advantages in the electoral process. (Vote fraud, Democrat tax-money campaign advantages through .gov union donations... etc.) I can't speak as to the rest of country, but only just now has the Right in WI woken up to this and has started to work to dismantle them.
And frankly, being my un-PC bastard self, I AM willing to admit I'd like to see a little "voter suppression" going on, among those who don't have any "skin in the game". (i.e. Does not hold a mortgage, clear title to their primary residence, or is a net tax consumer rather than contributor...) However, rather than see it be done through any sort of draconian .gov action, it would be the inertia and laziness of these people "suppressing themselves", and getting rid of "motor voter" registrations, same-day poll registrations, and have registrations, once again properly located at City Hall or County Courthouse close, x number of weeks before an election.
-
I give suffrage one more election. You can't have elections with an electorate that is both stupid and larcenous.
Hey, even Iranians and Cubans get to vote.
-
I give suffrage one more election. You can't have elections with an electorate that is both stupid and larcenous.
I don't think you give the kleptocracy enough credit to limp along skimming from the till.
-
The voters the other side in the debate is continually purported to be trying to "suppress" already all has photo ID for welfare benefits, SSI, food stamps, or needs them for rent applications, or at the check cashing store.
The Left has worked hard, ever since the 1950's/60's to set themselves up with institutional advantages in the electoral process. (Vote fraud, Democrat tax-money campaign advantages through .gov union donations... etc.) I can't speak as to the rest of country, but only just now has the Right in WI woken up to this and has started to work to dismantle them.
And frankly, being my un-PC bastard self, I AM willing to admit I'd like to see a little "voter suppression" going on, among those who don't have any "skin in the game". (i.e. Does not hold a mortgage, clear title to their primary residence, or is a net tax consumer rather than contributor...) However, rather than see it be done through any sort of draconian .gov action, it would be the inertia and laziness of these people "suppressing themselves", and getting rid of "motor voter" registrations, same-day poll registrations, and have registrations, once again properly located at City Hall or County Courthouse close, x number of weeks before an election.
I have this crazy idea that the real voter suppression happens when legitimate votes are cancelled out by the illegitimate.
But that's probably racist.
-
From Borepatch's blog:
1. I had to show ID. I approve - if elections are so important that disenfranchising people is a horrible, no good, very bad election policy, then it seems that letting people vote who are not entitled to (i.e. fraud) is by definition disenfranchising people who have a legitimate right to vote. In other words, by its own logic, allowing voter fraud is a horrible, no good, very bad election policy. (http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2012/07/thoughts-on-voting.html)
Back when Voter ID was first being discussed in Wisconsin I thought about it for a little while and came to the same conclusion myself.
-
Who in this modern world does not already have some sort of ID just to exist ???
Barring some mountain man living back in the wilds of Idaho, who is not going to vote anyway ;/
-
Who in this modern world does not already have some sort of ID just to exist ???
This does seem to be a problem.
-
What we need is a national ID that carries RFID verification of your identity, and then to require that in order to exercise any of the rights of an American citizen - sure, it might give a bad government all sorts of unanticipated powers, but if it stops illegals from voting and buying stuff it'll be worth it!
-
Voter ID is just another example of how our education system has failed our youth. Instead of being taught how to reason, they are indoctrinated with leftist ideals at worst or never taught how to reason at best. That is pretty easy to do with children who have never been civilized by a family unit.
Presenting facts should cause reasonable people to at least consider changing their mind about a thing. Rarely do you see this on the left because a good deal of leftists do not believe that "facts" actually exist. Leftist thought revolves around situational ethics where nothing is immutable. My experience has shown me that folks who lean right tend to think things through and make decisions based on facts.
-
What we need is a national ID that carries RFID verification of your identity, and then to require that in order to exercise any of the rights of an American citizen - sure, it might give a bad government all sorts of unanticipated powers, but if it stops illegals from voting and buying stuff it'll be worth it!
Try exercising property rights without some form of ID.
Try getting a job without some form of proper ID.
Try using the most common forms of conveyance (cars and planes) without proper ID.
Try and exercise your legal rights in the court system without having some way of proving you are who you claim you are via proper ID.
Try purchasing a firearm from a dealer without proper ID.
I guess we could argue the merits of needing or requiring ID for all of the above, yet few ever do, esp. on the left. So I can see no reason to exclude the franchise of voting from the protections provided by the verification of you being who you claim to be. Especially in light of the ubiquitous of the requirement for proper ID to navigate through modern society.
-
Is voting a right? It is mentioned in the constitution, but voting is never specifically enumerated as a right.
-
My suspicion is that the right to vote is part and parcel with the DOI and constitutions recognition that it is our natural right to choose who will govern us and how they will govern us as a society.
The constitution of course limiting those who are chose from among us from overstepping the authority temporarily granted them by the people. :rofl: (sometimes I crack myself up).
-
What we need is a national ID that carries RFID verification of your identity, and then to require that in order to exercise any of the rights of an American citizen - sure, it might give a bad government all sorts of unanticipated powers, but if it stops illegals from voting and buying stuff it'll be worth it!
>:D >:D >:D [popcorn] i saw what you did there...... nice
-
deleted double tap
-
Try exercising property rights without some form of ID.
Try getting a job without some form of proper ID.
Try using the most common forms of conveyance (cars and planes) without proper ID.
Try and exercise your legal rights in the court system without having some way of proving you are who you claim you are via proper ID.
Try purchasing a firearm from a dealer without proper ID.
I guess we could argue the merits of needing or requiring ID for all of the above, yet few ever do, esp. on the left. So I can see no reason to exclude the franchise of voting from the protections provided by the verification of you being who you claim to be. Especially in light of the ubiquitous of the requirement for proper ID to navigate through modern society.
except for buying a gun i've done all of the above sans id other than one from a check cashing joint.
-
except for buying a gun i've done all of the above sans id other than one from a check cashing joint.
You have a friend with a private plane ???
And yes you can drive without ID as long as you don't get stopped. Heck, I never carry my DL unless I am going to town, and I drive fire trucks all over the place without my DL with me. :lol:
-
i've flown post 911 without id commercial national to joe foss in south dakota via chicago.
-
I've signed up to be a MN election judge this year; never done it before. I expect in the general election to see bus loads of colorful people from Milwaukee or Chicago showing up to register and vote. I know that's a long drive, but if they hit a dozen or more counties it could be worth it.
In the previously mentioned Senate race, our 'Lustrous Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (a Democrat) kept recounting the vote until he got the results he wanted and then he certified it real quick. Whenever they came up short, someone would find another box of ballots.
Except for adding to the Democrats' majority in the Senate, Franken has actually been better in office -- more worthy of respect anyway -- than the previous Republican *expletive deleted* Norm Coleman.
(we can't say "*expletive deleted*bag" anymore?)
-
i've flown post 911 without id commercial national to joe foss in south dakota via chicago.
In regards to commercial air travel I think it is safe to say your experience is the exception to the rule. Rules and/or policy were most likely violated by someone in the originating airport in your case.
-
i called ahead told em and went though extra screening and apparently they ran me through the system . i expected prints and a strip search got neither.
-
I agree with De Selby and C&SD. Bring on the locusts.
-
I agree with De Selby and C&SD. Bring on the locusts.
oooohhhhhhhhh nnnnnooooooo!!!!!!
-
i called ahead told em and went though extra screening and apparently they ran me through the system . i expected prints and a strip search got neither.
I'm not sure whether to believe you or not, but these days you're not going to get close to the conveyor and porno-scopes without ID. Even the small airports like Billings are starting to get anal.
-
it was much looser at national sioux falls was real uptight. and we flew dec 2001 things were a bit tense. then but i made it
Q. If I lose my ID during travel, what secondary forms of ID will be accepted?
A. Passengers who do not have a valid photo ID, such as State-issued driver’s license, should bring any ID or documents they have available to assist in verification of identity. Passengers need at least two alternate forms of identification, such as a social security card, birth certificate, marriage license, or credit card. The documents must bear the name of the passenger. Also, one of these documents must bear identification information containing one of the following: date of birth, gender, address, or photo. If TSA can confirm the passenger’s identity, they may enter the secured area, but they could be subject to additional screening. For more information, please review the ID Requirements for Airport Checkpoints.
and ironically my leatherman made it to sioux falls in my pocket. i think holding a 2 month old baby provides cover. the metal detectors went off but when she wanded me she assumed it was the harness the kid was sleeping in on my chest. i almost crapped myself when i found the leatherman in minnesota and took off the harness
-
Is voting a right? It is mentioned in the constitution, but voting is never specifically enumerated as a right.
Voting is a civil right. Unlike the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and other human rights (natural rights), the right to vote is not inherent. It is a right that comes from belonging to a nation.
That being the case, requiring ID to vote is certainly more reasonable than requiring ID for gun purchases, etc.
-
Q. If I lose my ID during travel, what secondary forms of ID will be accepted?
A. Passengers who do not have a valid photo ID, such as State-issued driver’s license, should bring any ID or documents they have available to assist in verification of identity. Passengers need at least two alternate forms of identification, such as a social security card, birth certificate, marriage license, or credit card. The documents must bear the name of the passenger. Also, one of these documents must bear identification information containing one of the following: date of birth, gender, address, or photo.
Not likely to have any of those on a trip except for credit cards.
If you lose your wallet then you won't have anything, and by the way - the TSA now demands that you surrender everything but some of your clothes to be run through the conveyor. :mad:
There might be ways around that, but I wouldn't know anything about it :angel:
-
yea they were a lil disorganized in those early days. i was more nervous than a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. that plane had just gone down in new york and the cause was still up in the air. turned out they had whacked the tail earlier and it fell off on take off.bit terrorism was still being bandied about as a cause
-
the mortgage guy was more freaked out about no id than tsa. running my credit didn't help him out
-
10+ years later, TSA is really nasty now :mad:
In 2001, it still wasn't even TSA but just the local airport security.
-
along with some fairly tense national guardsmen
-
Well most of us accept the need for an ID in day to day use. I do not like smart IDs, have one for the gov't tho. I really prefer that people voting for America are actually American.
And... How come a liberal will give every damn thing to someone free using OPM, unless that free thing is an ID so they can go vote for more free stuff? Hmm, maybe some of those free stuff folks couldn't qualify.
-
along with some fairly tense national guardsmen
You would be too if you were standing around with unloaded guns :facepalm:
-
it was much looser at national sioux falls was real uptight. and we flew dec 2001 things were a bit tense. then but i made it
Q. If I lose my ID during travel, what secondary forms of ID will be accepted?
A. Passengers who do not have a valid photo ID, such as State-issued driver’s license, should bring any ID or documents they have available to assist in verification of identity. Passengers need at least two alternate forms of identification, such as a social security card, birth certificate, marriage license, or credit card. The documents must bear the name of the passenger. Also, one of these documents must bear identification information containing one of the following: date of birth, gender, address, or photo. If TSA can confirm the passenger’s identity, they may enter the secured area, but they could be subject to additional screening. For more information, please review the ID Requirements for Airport Checkpoints.
and ironically my leatherman made it to sioux falls in my pocket. i think holding a 2 month old baby provides cover. the metal detectors went off but when she wanded me she assumed it was the harness the kid was sleeping in on my chest. i almost crapped myself when i found the leatherman in minnesota and took off the harness
Dec2001 doesn't count as "I flew without ID and the TSA smiled and waved me through." You even posted that NOW, they require two forms of ID. Generally two forms that are also required to get a state issued ID. So, no you can't fly without ID (unless you have the alternate documents that you would have to provide to get a state ID.) You've proved the opposite of what you stated.
I've signed up to be a MN election judge this year; never done it before.....
(we can't say "*expletive deleted*" anymore?)
1) Good on you for volunteering. Study up on Minnesota election law and if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it sure ain't no chicken. Here in Illinois judges can challenge a person ability to vote, if we have reason to believe that they are not who they say they are. (I like serving in my own neighborhood as I know most of the people.) And I'm not afraid to challenge, if I even get the slightest whiff of Eau de' Fraud.
2) You can say "Expletive Deleted" all you want, but if you use any of George Carlin's 7 words, and a few others, then they will also show up as "expletive deleted".
-
I have this crazy idea that the real voter suppression happens when legitimate votes are cancelled out by the illegitimate.
But that's probably racist.
Bingo.
MY VOTE can be stolen, or canceled out fraudulently. That is something those who argue against Voter ID, either from a leftist or civil libertarian perspective never really seem to come out and address in these debates.
Besides the WI governor, who survived, there were a few State Senate recall elections over all the union buthurtedness this summer, and the one who didn't make it lost by only a few hundred votes. And there were all sorts of irregularities like busted seals on the vote tally bags that were supposed to be overseen by the city clerk among other things.
But no, vote fraud isn't happening.
-
You can say "Expletive Deleted" all you want, but if you use any of George Carlin's 7 words, and a few others, then they will also show up as "*expletive deleted*".
I just wasn't expecting d' bag to be on the dirty word list -- and it fits Norm Coleman so well.
(Wow, the filter even blocks d hyphen bag.)
I wonder if "slime ball" gets thru...
-
I just wasn't expecting d' bag to be on the dirty word list -- and it fits Norm Coleman so well.
(Wow, the filter even blocks d hyphen bag.)
I wonder if "slime ball" gets thru...
I mentioned to someone the other day that, of the two Minnesota Senators, Al Franken seems the most senatorial. How bad is that?
jb
-
Is voting a right? It is mentioned in the constitution, but voting is never specifically enumerated as a right.
either it is, or you don't have to pay taxes.
i don't care for the idea that a fee is involved for someone to vote. of course maybe i should also figure if it is my "right" to bear arms i should have one given to me if i'm too poor to buy it for myself. ;)
-
Is voting a right? It is mentioned in the constitution, but voting is never specifically enumerated as a right.
either it is, or you don't have to pay taxes.
i don't care for the idea that a fee is involved for someone to vote. of course maybe i should also figure if it is my "right" to bear arms i should have one given to me if i'm too poor to buy it for myself
There is no individual right to vote in a presidential election in the U.S. Constitution. A lot of confusion comes because of civil rights laws that were rightfully added to protect the ability of minorities to have equal access to voting.
A state may decide how it wishes to choose a president. It can decide to flip a coin if it chooses (not that that is likely). But, if it decides to hold a popular vote, then it must give equal access to everyone regardless of sex, race, religion and other similar factors.
This was one of the principles that was remarked upon in Bush vs. Gore, 2000.
-
Bingo.
MY VOTE can be stolen, or canceled out fraudulently. That is something those who argue against Voter ID, either from a leftist or civil libertarian perspective never really seem to come out and address in these debates.
Remember how you say "my freedom is worth a few dead kids now and then"?
My freedom is worth a few stolen votes now and then.
-
Remember how you say "my freedom is worth a few dead kids now and then"?
My freedom is worth a few stolen votes now and then.
How bout when those are stealing your freedom along with it?
-
Remember how you say "my freedom is worth a few dead kids now and then"?
My freedom is worth a few stolen votes now and then.
A few stolen votes now and then is what we would have if we required people to show ID. Right now, I think it is a bit more than that at least in some districts. We don't require ID when voters are registered so we should at least require it when voting.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the 3rd party voter registration and such also. I like that everyone can vote, but I don't think we have an obligation to make it easy. The voter needs to want to vote.
-
A few stolen votes now and then is what we would have if we required people to show ID. Right now, I think it is a bit more than that at least in some districts. We don't require ID when voters are registered so we should at least require it when voting.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the 3rd party voter registration and such also. I like that everyone can vote, but I don't think we have an obligation to make it easy. The voter needs to want to vote.
Bingo. If you can't figure out how to register, and go through some minimal effort to register, then you shouldn't be voting.
And what is the purpose of registering, if we don't know who these registered voters are? Why not issue a photo ID as part of registration?
And just FWIW, I voted in a primary this morning. Had to show ID. Missouri, baby! =)
-
here in NY they do not require id, but they have my signature on file (besides, pretty much everyone knows everyone in our town). i don't have a problem with third party registration or giving rides to the voting booths, as long as the person is not influenced to vote other than their conscience.
personnally, i have always wanted an amendment that would require a person to be 100% unbiased in their voting. by that i mean if you get even 1 tax dollar through your paycheck, or some form of kick back, then you aren't allowed to vote. i know this would greatly reduce our voting pool, but it is the only way for it to remain unbiased. i mean how many public servants (teachers, policemen, firemen, etc), or welfare recipients vote for a decrease in taxes when they know their income could be on the line. the only exception i might consider would be a member of the armed forces.
-
i mean how many public servants (teachers, policemen, firemen, etc), or welfare recipients vote for a decrease in taxes when they know their income could be on the line. the only exception i might consider would be a member of the armed forces.
I do.
-
Remember how you say "my freedom is worth a few dead kids now and then"?
My freedom is worth a few stolen votes now and then.
I disagree, taking my vote, or cancelling it out, that's like taking my gun.
Nor am I above some flat-out inconsistency in my Libertarian beliefs to do whatever I can to reduce the electoral chances of the Left. Revolutions are fought with money and guns. No one that I'm aware of has overturned an oppressive government with environmentalism, gay marriage, public-sector unions, and debt.
I am long past tired of fighting with the ends-justify-the-means mentality of the Left.
-
No one that I'm aware of has overturned an oppressive government with...public-sector unions...
Lech Walesa?
-
I do.
one of the few
-
I do.
one of the few
Add another one to the list....besides, lower tax rates often end up bringing in more revenue....less reason to hide assets....
-
I disagree, taking my vote, or cancelling it out, that's like taking my gun.
Nor am I above some flat-out inconsistency in my Libertarian beliefs to do whatever I can to reduce the electoral chances of the Left. Revolutions are fought with money and guns. No one that I'm aware of has overturned an oppressive government with environmentalism, gay marriage, public-sector unions, and debt.
I am long past tired of fighting with the ends-justify-the-means mentality of the Left.
Yeah, imagine of the government decide to stop people from taking your gun by registering it to you and implanting a chip in it, just to be sure that no one else would deprive you of your rights...
Any citizen denied the right to vote because he didn't have a government permit of some sort is just as aggrieved as someone who can't buy a gun without a licence.
-
Point of interest - a photo ID is not a permit.
-
Point of interest - a photo ID is not a permit.
It is when it's a precondition of exercising a right - it's a document hat government grants to you in accordance with its own criteria, and required for you to exercise a "right" or privilege. Calling it something other than a permit doesn't change the function.
-
You have a right to vote, and we have the right to know who the hell you are.
-
You have a right to vote, and we have the right to know who the hell you are.
I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.
-
It is when it's a precondition of exercising a right - it's a document hat government grants to you in accordance with its own criteria, and required for you to exercise a "right" or privilege. Calling it something other than a permit doesn't change the function.
Utterly incorrect. A permit permits one to do something. An identification identifies. Words mean things.
If an ID is a permit, then so is voter registration. Look at a voter registration form for New York (http://vote.nyc.ny.us/register.html) or California (https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/register-to-vote/), which don't require identification at the polls. They still require some form of identification, in order to register. In fact, California's form points out that it's a matter of federal law.
By your faulty reasoning, we will have to scrap registration and just start stuffing the ballot boxes for our side. What do you have against democracy? =|
-
I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.
Easy, if I could magically live in an America that didn't have the Democratic Party, or any equivalent to it under other names, I wouldn't be worried about Voter ID either.
-
You have a right to vote, and we have the right to know who the hell you are.
Yeah, and that reasoning makes so much sense when applied to other rights - you have a right to own a gun, and we have a right to know its secure from people who don't have that right!
Fistful, are you arguing that this isn't functionally a permit, or that permits for the exercise of rights are perfectly ok? Because you don't seem to be disputing that ID laws mean that a government issued, discretionary document is a precondition of exercising the right under those rules.
As far as I'm concerned, ID laws are only acceptable if the government is forced to give you an ID unless it can prove that you're not who you say you are, and if the government cannot withhold it as punishment or security for anything. That would make it less like the permit and instrument of government control that it is.
As it currently stands, refusing to pay tickets, DUIs, and all manner of other offences can be punished by deprivation of an ID.
-
I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.
Maybe it was hard to be a stranger back in those rather sparsely populated days?
-
De Selby wrote: "Yeah, and that reasoning makes so much sense when applied to other rights - you have a right to own a gun, and we have a right to know it's secure from people who don't have that right!"
Voting implies membership in a community of common political interest, hence the establishment of one's credentials as a member of that community is natural.
There is no such analogy with the right to self-defense, specifically RKBA, which has not to do with certifying one's membership in a community but rather protecting one's individual bodily integrity against predations from other individuals and, more generally, an oppressive government.
-
Maybe it was hard to be a stranger back in those rather sparsely populated days?
Especially in Philadelphia, I take it.
-
De Selby, are you in favor of any kind of voter registration?
It is when it's a precondition of exercising a right - it's a document hat government grants to you in accordance with its own criteria, and required for you to exercise a "right" or privilege. Calling it something other than a permit doesn't change the function.
By that standard, we'd need telepathic voting. Being at the polling place is a precondition of voting. Or requesting an absentee form and delivering it to the appropriate party. Filling out the ballot is a precondition of voting. Living in the appropriate district/precinct/country is also a precondition of voting. By your logic, the law is discriminating against all of those people sitting at home and thinking about voting, but not actually doing it.
Fistful, are you arguing that this isn't functionally a permit,
Not arguing. Telling.
or that permits for the exercise of rights are perfectly ok?
As you have now been informed, an ID is not a permit. End of that discussion.
-
Voting implies membership in a community of common political interest, hence the establishment of one's credentials as a member of that community is natural.
There is no such analogy with the right to self-defense, specifically RKBA, which has not to do with certifying one's membership in a community but rather protecting one's individual bodily integrity against predations from other individuals and, more generally, an oppressive government.
Yes, of course. Natural vs. civil rights.
-
Yes, of course. Natural vs. civil rights.
The right to choose one's government is not a natural right?
-
Because you don't seem to be disputing that ID laws mean that a government issued, discretionary document is a precondition of exercising the right under those rules.
As far as I'm concerned, ID laws are only acceptable if the government is forced to give you an ID unless it can prove that you're not who you say you are, and if the government cannot withhold it as punishment or security for anything. That would make it less like the permit and instrument of government control that it is.
As it currently stands, refusing to pay tickets, DUIs, and all manner of other offences can be punished by deprivation of an ID.
OK, fine. I'll untangle this mess.
In the last half of that, you seem to be conflating the issues of suspending or revoking a license or permit to drive, vs. denying the person a means of identification. I've never had my license suspended. I don't know if they actually take away the plastic card, or tag it as suspended in a database. If the latter, is it not still valid as a form of ID? If the former, what's stopping me from just getting a state-issued, non-driver ID?
As far as I'm concerned, ID laws are only acceptable if the government is forced to give you an ID unless it can prove that you're not who you say you are
:facepalm: So I can tell the Dept. of Records that my name is Salvadore Gazmacho (it's not) and I live at (compliant friend's address). And then I can register to vote as someone living at that address (if we even have to register, in your crazy universe). How is that supposed to work?
-
The right to choose one's government is not a natural right?
You can't choose a government if you won't even accept the rules by which the government is chosen.
-
Yeah, see fistful, you're just repeating the mantra without dealing with the point - yes, government does invalidate IDs, take them away, and refuse to grant them for all sorts of reasons - including new that have nothing to do with proving who you are.
The hilarious part about your "telling" post is that the main form of ID at issue is actually explicitly a permit - its a driver's licence, ie, a permit to drive.
-
Yeah, see fistful, you're just repeating the mantra without dealing with the point
You don't have a point. Now keep repeating the mantra clear explanation of the difference between permission and identification until it sinks in. You might learn something.
- yes, government does invalidate IDs, take them away, and refuse to grant them for all sorts of reasons - including new that have nothing to do with proving who you are.
And governments can reject ballots for all sorts of reasons. They can stuff ballot boxes for all sorts of reasons. So you still have no point.
The hilarious part about your "telling" post is that the main form of ID at issue is actually explicitly a permit - its a driver's licence, ie, a permit to drive.
Citation needed. The main form of ID at issue, from what I've seen of this debate in the past few years, are non-driver, state-issued ID cards. I'm truly sorry. I thought you understood that.
-
Voting implies membership in a community of common political interest, hence the establishment of one's credentials as a member of that community is natural.
This is the most insightful part of this thread, and the key to understanding why a voter has to be confirmed as a legitimate voter.
-
I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.
Probably much like we do in small town America. When I go to vote I personally know 3 of the poll workers. Usually end up with "Hi Larry, how's them grand kids doing?" or "How's your garden this year?".
The length of the conversation depends on the length of the line.
Barring that kind of familiarity what possible rational objection can there be to making sure a voter is actually eligable to vote in a given election/precinct?
And yes, Oklahoma requires ID to vote. A voter registration card is sufficient and you get that free when you register.
-
I wonder how the Founders lived their lives without carrying photo ID everywhere they went.
when did photography begin again?
-
Lech Walesa?
Lech Walesa's crime & controversy was to start a non-gov't union.
As it currently stands, refusing to pay tickets, DUIs, and all manner of other offences can be punished by deprivation of an ID.
Perhaps deprivation of a DL< but state ID is can still be obtained.
-
personnally, i have always wanted an amendment that would require a person to be 100% unbiased in their voting. by that i mean if you get even 1 tax dollar through your paycheck, or some form of kick back, then you aren't allowed to vote. i know this would greatly reduce our voting pool, but it is the only way for it to remain unbiased. i mean how many public servants (teachers, policemen, firemen, etc), or welfare recipients vote for a decrease in taxes when they know their income could be on the line. the only exception i might consider would be a member of the armed forces.
The VA sends me $$$ every month for injuries received performing my duty whilst in the US Army that preclude some employment opportunities. I have voted for folks who would end or curtail that.
I have also voted for folks who claimed they would reduce gov't spending in my industry's sector.
But, I do understand your point. I have made the same point, but with the "puts their life at risk for others" exception. IOW, if their gov't job requires a significant risk of death above & beyond your average job, they keep the franchise.
-
De Selby,
I just saw that in another thread, you complained about "the 'all government is evil!' folks." That is the part you are playing in this thread. You won't accept the least bit of oversight over a public vote, but you support a greater level of regulation over the private sector.
That there is backwards.
-
Lech Walesa's crime & controversy was to start a non-gov't union.
But it was a public sector union, in that they worked for state-owned shipyards, yes?
-
Yeah, imagine of the government decide to stop people from taking your gun by registering it to you and implanting a chip in it, just to be sure that no one else would deprive you of your rights...
Yeah, imagine if we had to show photo ID in order to buy a gun :facepalm:
-
The only way to protect the civil right to vote from descending into meaninglessness is for there to be a system in place that insures "one person, one vote".
If there is no system in place then there is no protection of my right.
The Democratic Machine in Chicago and all the other hacks across the country, regardless of political affiliation, will be free to "find" and/or bus in the votes needed to turn elections their way.
-
Voter ID protects a civil rights. Second Amendment protects a natural right.
-
>discretionary document<
And here is what you're twisting. You're presenting your argument as if the only form of ID is a driver's license.
At least in Wisconsin, you pop into the DMV, present whatever the required documentation is, pay your fee, and you're presented with a State ID. The only purpose of that card is to provide identification. It can't be "revoked", "suspended", nor "confiscated" by the authorities, as it is not any form of permit.
Because of that, De Selby, your argument fails
-
In Texas, an ID under age 60 costs $16 and lasts 6 years. Over 60 it's $6 with no expiration. If the ability to exercise franchise isn't worth $2.67 to you annually, and proving your identity ONCE, perhaps you ought not bother about it.
-
In Texas, an ID under age 60 costs $16 and lasts 6 years. Over 60 it's $6 with no expiration. If the ability to exercise franchise isn't worth $2.67 to you annually, and proving your identity ONCE, perhaps you ought not bother about it.
Did not the Texas voter ID law include provisions to provide id to the "under privileged"?
-
Did not the Texas voter ID law include provisions to provide id to the "under privileged"?
Dunno. If so, the only obligation is to stand in line at a DPS office with proof of identity. Where do we set the bar below that? Counting ballots written in mascara on paper towel?
-
Dunno. If so, the only obligation is to stand in line at a DPS office with proof of identity. Where do we set the bar below that? Counting ballots written in mascara on paper towel?
The welfare class is adept at standing in line.
-
The welfare class is adept at standing in line.
Yeah. When it's a gimmie some free *expletive deleted*it line
-
The only way to protect the civil right to vote from descending into meaninglessness is for there to be a system in place that insures "one person, one vote".
If there is no system in place then there is no protection of my right.
The Democratic Machine in Chicago and all the other hacks across the country, regardless of political affiliation, will be free to "find" and/or bus in the votes needed to turn elections their way.
I don't know why you're talking about what they "will" do. Aren't those things they have done?
-
I don't know you're talking about what they "will" do. Aren't those things they have done?
That's what I was thinking ... =|
-
Heard speculation on the radio the other day that the Texas voter ID law may be shot down, even though it's patterned after others that have been upheld.
The reasoning was that some Texas residents might have to drive as much as 100 miles to obtain an ID card.
Texas is a large state, but 100 miles to the nearest DPS office? I seriously doubt it.
-
Heard speculation on the radio the other day that the Texas voter ID law may be shot down, even though it's patterned after others that have been upheld.
The reasoning was that some Texas residents might have to drive as much as 100 miles to obtain an ID card.
Texas is a large state, but 100 miles to the nearest DPS office? I seriously doubt it.
Actually, I believe that one. There is a goodly chunk of Texas closer to Chicago, Illinois than to El Paso, Texas.
Still, that is a bogus reason to strike down a law. Where that fact prevails, EVERYTHING is 100+ miles away.
-
Texarkana -Chicago> ~795 miles
Brownsville-Amarillo>~ 800 miles
Texarkana - El Paso>~ 815 miles
-
Heard speculation on the radio the other day that the Texas voter ID law may be shot down, even though it's patterned after others that have been upheld.
The reasoning was that some Texas residents might have to drive as much as 100 miles to obtain an ID card.
Texas is a large state, but 100 miles to the nearest DPS office? I seriously doubt it.
In the western part of the state, I wouldn't doubt it. But the idiotic thing is that many of those people are probably going long distance to vote.
Of course, in the cities, where all the disenfranchisement supposedly happens anyways, there are DPS offices readily available.
-
In the western part of the state, I wouldn't doubt it. But the idiotic thing is that many of those people are probably going long distance to vote.
Of course, in the cities, where all the disenfranchisement supposedly happens anyways, there are DPS offices readily available.
I drove an extra 40 miles to go to a DPS office in a more rural location when I needed to replace my DL. Why? Because all the ones near me were so mobbed by former residents of Oaxaca, I saved 2 hours by doing so.
-
Hey, talking about ID....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/08/treasury-inspector-general-says-changes-are-needed-to-detect-fraud/
Report finds widespread fraud in taxpayer ID program
A recently released report shows widespread tax fraud in connection with the federal government’s Individual Taxpayer Identification Number program.
The U.S. Treasury inspector general report accuses the IRS of discouraging employees from reviewing applications for the ID numbers, which are generally from non-resident workers.
The inspector general specifically said there were 154 mailing addresses that were used 1,000 or more times on applications, including 15,795 numbers assigned to a Phoenix address.
The report, which evaluated the processing year 2011, also found inadequate controls can result in the numbers being assigned to people who have not proved their identity or foreign status, which can result in fraudulent tax returns.
The inspector general also found 10 individual addresses were used for filing 53,994 tax returns and receiving $86.4 million in fraudulent tax refunds. For example, 23,994 tax refunds totaling $46.3 million were issued to an address in Atlanta; and 2,507 tax refunds totaling $10.4 million were issued to an address in Oxnard, Calif.
In addition, the Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration reports found 10 bank accounts received 23,560 tax refunds totaling more than $16 million -- including: 2,706 tax refunds issued to a single account totaling $7.3 million.
...
Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., told IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman in a letter that IRS employees “are discouraged from flagging potentially fraudulent ITIN applications.”
I recall a thread about fraudulent tax refunds by illegals and some folks declaring it unpossible. Oh, really?
-
Texarkana -Chicago> ~795 miles
Brownsville-Amarillo>~ 800 miles
Texarkana - El Paso>~ 815 miles
The neat thing is that Texarkanans don't need to drive to Chicago or El Paso to get an ID.
http://local.dmv.org/texas/bowie-county/texarkana/dmv-office-locations.php
-
The neat thing is that Texarkanans don't need to drive to Chicago or El Paso to get an ID.
http://local.dmv.org/texas/bowie-county/texarkana/dmv-office-locations.php
I know that, Just illustrating earlier points.
City folk in particular just don't get it when t comes to how far away things can be way out here in fly over country.
I'm actually pretty close to things. The nearest Wal-mart is only a 48 mile round trip.
-
I know that, Just illustrating earlier points.
City folk in particular just don't get it when t comes to how far away things can be way out here in fly over country.
I'm actually pretty close to things. The nearest Wal-mart is only a 48 mile round trip.
I think that's closer than my parents' closest trip to Walmart. (And mine growing up.) Illinois is a big state...
And yet, Texas is several times bigger.
-
I think that's closer than my parents' closest trip to Walmart. (And mine growing up.) Illinois is a big state...
And yet, Texas is several times bigger.
Yeah, but there are a LOT more WalMarts! :laugh:
I agree with comment above. Anyone who has to drive a distance to a DPS office would likely have to drive a ways to vote anyhow. Also, in my rural home town, the county seat has a driver's license office so I bet you could get an ID there also. Most counties aren't quite that big as there are 254 of them in Texas I beleive.
-
The nearest Walmart to us is about 80 miles round trip if you take the dirt and gravel backroads, and 120 miles round trip if you take mostly paved roads. The time is about the same; you can either buy more gas or buy more tires =|
-
I ask this as a genuine question, because I don't know the answer...
Does a person seeking assistance from the County - welfare, food stamps, rent/fuel assistance, etc. - have to show some sort of photo ID? How about at the state level? Federal? (OK, there were three questions.)
If I report for Jury Duty, I have to. To get a (regular) job, I must. To open a bank account or cash a check, I must. Pawn something at a shop? I haven't done so, but I bet the answer is affirmative.
Surely these (soon-to-be) disenfranchised people must do something that requires a photo ID.
There are huge numbers of peeps without a driver license. So? They still need an ID for many, many 'normal' activities.
-
I also have a question. If my license is suspended, is it no longer a valid ID? Or is the plastic card removed from my possession?
-
I also have a question. If my license is suspended, is it no longer a valid ID? Or is the plastic card removed from my possession?
I'm sure this varies from location to location. In my area, police are supposed to take the actual card but (according to my cop buddy, anyway) it rarely actually happens. Most cops let you keep it because it saves people the hassle of having to go get another ID. Again, other areas likely differ.
-
I know in some states they punch a hole in the card to invalidate it as a drivers license, but it's still valid legal identification.
-
When my father turned in his DL when he went blind, the state (of Indiana) gave him a free* ID card. Different color and says "IDENTIFICATION CARD" at the top instead of "Drivers' License", otherwise it's the exact same.
* - ID cards are free in Indiana, you still have to provide proof of who you are and proof of address.
-
There are huge numbers of peeps without a driver license. So? They still need an ID for many, many 'normal' activities.
See? We have lots of work to do already.
-
See? We have lots of work to do already.
Eh? I'm not pickin' up what you're puttin' down.
jb
-
Eh? I'm not pickin' up what you're puttin' down.
jb
I'm guessing there's a "Show me your papers!" thing there.
-
From post 24
(we can't say "*expletive deleted*" anymore?)
Certainly we MAY. We just mayn't specify which expletive was deleted! =D