Voter ID laws: Everyone has an ID, right? Nope

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this statement is false. Felons cannot vote. in 12 states, even felons who have completed their sentence and their probation and are "free" men.. they cannot vote.

note my post above, it's not just felons.

i don't think a civics test should be administered.
i do think registrations need work, and that a photo id should be required. else how do you know that freddy isn't going to vote a second time as uncle frank, cause he knows uncle frank can't be bothered?
what about if you moved? or changed licenses? as i said above, there have been people who moved, and they vote twice. it's not fiction, it happens!

i know that many have said, ad nauseum, that there is no fraud (which is untrue) or very little. even very little fraud should be unacceptable. it's one of our most basic rights as citizens-but no one should be allowed to vote fraudulently.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

showing an ID is NOT discrimination, unless you just like to play the race card.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

showing an ID is NOT discrimination, unless you just like to play the race card.

What in the world is "playing the race card" when making more restrictive voter ID laws disenfranches 18% of all 18-24 year-olds of all races, and 18% of all seniors of all races?

How is that disenfranchisement "playing the race card"? That's absurd.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

What in the world is "playing the race card" when making more restrictive voter ID laws disenfranches 18% of all 18-24 year-olds of all races, and 18% of all seniors of all races?

How is that disenfranchisement "playing the race card"? That's absurd.

15% unemployment in that group (documented unemployment) those folks have some form of ID.

80.4% of 18 year olds have a DL
87.3% of 19
91.8% of 20-24

88% of 18-24 year-old Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map in 2006 according a National Geographic survey.
33% couldn't find Louisiana on a map of the US.

Maybe it is OK if they are "disenfranchised".

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

I think part of the issue is the active participation. The individual didn't get ID for his or herself.

Would it be discrimination of a person of any racial background does not pack his or her parachute correctly, or does not put a parachute on at all, and then jumps out of a plane?

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

The courts have said that the requirement for the photo ID in the first place, is indeed discriminatory. That's why these laws are being throw out and overturned. Sorry: judicial system says you are wrong.

BTW, Joey, what do you think about this statement? "It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get health insurance for himself then experiences the consequences of that decision".

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The courts have said that the requirement for the photo ID in the first place, is indeed discriminatory. That's why these laws are being throw out and overturned. Sorry: judicial system says you are wrong.

BTW, Joey, what do you think about this statement? "It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get health insurance for himself then experiences the consequences of that decision".

Fortunately I can think for myself.

Should ALL ID requirements be thrown out then? No identification to drive, fly in a plane, get a credit card, should we get rid of passports? The thing about judicial findings is that they set precedent, so we'll see where this goes. It is unlikely, that over the long term, that the polling place will be the only place where ID is not required.

What does it matter what I think? You'll cite a judicial finding when it goes your way, or try to hang me with my own opinion - whatever suits your goal, just like the liberals and Democrats in power, and the press. Just like when gay marriage is banned after a referendum, the court throws out the law. But when that vote goes in the direction the liberals like, "Hey, the people have spoken! Hooray for democracy!" Their playbook is so obvious that it is laughable.