Well, isn't this to receive a monetary or some other in kind benefit?

-spence

So . . . ? Anyway, in order to vote, isn't it required that you have to register and ID is necessary for registration?

Poor excuse for using the handicap for an example....I'm handicapped and walk into the police station to get my high capacity pistol permit....walk into post office... city hall...takes some time but I get there and I walk in to vote...ETC:

So please Spence ...do not use the handicap

These so called people U talking about have no problem getting ID for free handouts

Watch out...Al sharpton may be spying on UUUU.....LOL....:)

I'm not *using* the handicapped, I simply cited an example I knew was true.

It also illustrates that some without government ID may not necessarily be a minority or poor. How much of a hardship the requirement would place on the individual would be case by case, but should the Federal Government be making them do it if there's no real evidence the integrity of the process is at risk?

-spence

"That would assume the situation was ripe for fraud. The evidence doesn't appear to prove that's the case. "

We have all seen sporadic cases of voter fraud, small scale stuff. Since you are the one who is saying that probate and voter fraud are sufficiently difefrent that one should require proof of id and one should not, where is your proof that there is large-scale indntity theft when it comes to claiming inheritances?

"you want legislation that would expand the regulatory power of government in a manner not congruent with the Costitution."

Requiring an id is unconstitutional? Please explain that?

I think you've answered your own question.

I haven't found it and I've read through several times, perhaps it's next to that Obamacare prescription drug ID mandate :jump1:

-spence

If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.

Jim, I don't have a problem with photo Ids and have said so in the past. However, everyone knows it is to limit minority voting. I have a problem with the limiting of voting hours. It clearly is intended to limit minority voting. The reason the polls in BPort were allowed to stay open late is bc they ran out of ballots. I believe that the law (atleast in CT) allows people to vote if they were in line when the booths close.

There is no harm in extending the # of days people can vote.

"However, everyone knows it is to limit minority voting."

But why? Why is it harder, or more burdensome, for minorities to get a photo id? Is there a faster, "whites only" line at the Dept Of Motor Vehicles that nobody told me about?

"The reason the polls in BPort were allowed to stay open late is bc they ran out of ballots"

Ah. If the polls ran out of ballots, let's say, and 50 people were in line, and they got 50 more ballots for those people, I would have no issue with that. That's not what happened. What happened was, while they were waiting for more ballots, the political operatives in Bridgeport sounded the alarm that the race was going to be close, and they rounded up more voters to go get in line to vote late. Lots of people were able to vote who were not in line when the polls closed. A topic for another day, however...

What is the harm in extending the voting hours?

All the more reason to put pictures on EBT cards , unless you want to believe that will hurt the poor too.
I can't imagine any sane person arguing against this .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, lots of seniors don't drive, lots of people in big cities don't drive. In these cases, in every state, non-drivers can get a photo id from the government, something which is not a drivers license. These id's are available to people of all colors. So again, why is this more burdensome for non-whites?

Aren't polls open from 6 AM until 8 PM? Again, how does that make it harder for minorities to vote?

I have no issue with extending hours, but it should be limited to one day.

You big city boys have no problem extending voting hours. In a small town like mine where mostly volunteers work at the polling place, they are pretty tired at the end of the day. Then we count the votes by hand, and we don't have problems with chads. After you count votes you'll think twice about writing your buddy or enemy in for some position.��

I asked you to "name one" and you named your mother and then later admitted that she does, in fact, have an ID...how does that make me wrong?...I'd say you were lying about your mother or at least using her in yet another of your distortions...doesn't seem very "manly"...she should spank you :uhuh:

none of this supports your contention that there are those out there for whom providing an ID when voting would somehow be a burden or a "hardship" ..she has an ID, however recent or not and has always voted according to you, she would not be affected by a requirement to present an ID in order to vote, ....bad example...try again

you would ignore a pretty lengthy list of documented voter fraud incidents and examples and argue something that does not exist, this mythical hardship that is supposedly caused when an adult is asked to provide a form of ID...sweet Jesus:)

Jeff obviously has practiced this argument many times with himself. He and Hillary have more in common than meets the eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Couldn't agree more...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo. The reason for ID is to prove you are a US citizen who are the only people who can legally vote. In addition there are more modes of transportation in the city than in the suburbs to get an ID.
If a person really wants to vote, they can call either of the two parties and they
will be more than happy to get them to a place for ID.
If you are a civic minded citizen, you'll find a way to get voter ID yourself.
If you are not truly tuned into the issues and base your vote on an intelligent choice, the country is better off without your vote.

I said there are people who don't have ID, that she got one for other reasons just recently is irrelevant, that she didn't for quite some time is certainly evidence that some don't.

Having to obtain ID if you don't have one would be a burden for anyone, if it would qualify as a "hardship" would be relative. In the RI example you cited above the State tried to make it easy...but what about states that don't want to make it easy? If a Federal ID law is passed should they also require that states try and make it easy as well? Isn't this more Liberal legislation?

Post it then, I hope there's some significant items in there.

-spence

Come on Spence , the government isn't in the business of making anything easy . It's a burden to try to do anything . Your dear leader has made it his mission to make life difficult for Americans. Every department is flush with regulation and bureaucratic nonsense .
Probably the most important thing an American has to do is vote . Having to overcome the burden of acquiring an ID seems kind of insignificant in the scope of things.
You're just sounding silly now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A burden for anyone? Really? It's that much of a burden for anyone?

Come on......cut it out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on, spence. No one likes having to go get an I'd. But even if I agree with your notion that getting an I'd is a burden, you still won't tell us why it's more of a burden for minorities than it is for whites. Because if getting an I'd is an equal burden regardless of color, then requiring am I'd to vote cannot be an effective way of reducing the minority vote. Try making that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This covers the subject well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...he_polls_.html

-spence

Slate? Ha ha ha, one of the most liberal magazines/websites going.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But there are already safeguards against abuse and by most if not all measures they appear to be working quite well.

Murder, unfortunately happens all too frequently.

Hence a registration process so that people can't vote twice. It may not be perfect but it also may not need to be perfect. It's a minimalistic solution with primarily localized oversight and effective results...a delightfully conservative approach.

But if being poor did present an additional burden (it does) and whites were proportionally less poor (they are) than there would certainly be a greater burden to the minorities.

The Salon article I posted for Jim does a nice job of laying out the reasons why. Which comes back to my original comment...if there's not a problem, why burden ANYONE with a solution?

Yes but he does lay out an over-simplified test for what "Conservative" or "Liberal" legislation is.

-spence

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Laws and regulations are not passed only to prevent which is "ripe" to occur. They are also passed to prevent something that "might" occur, especially if they are in regard to an important and fundamental process or right. And when abuse or trespass has occurred, it does not require that the abuse or trespass become "ripe" before prevention against it is justified. Just because murder may not be a frequent occurrence in a given community doesn't obviate the need to pass laws against it. The fundamental right to vote is too important not to have safeguards against its abuse.

Quote Spence:
But there are already safeguards against abuse and by most if not all measures they appear to be working quite well.

There's that "appear" qualification again. It "appears," however, that many don't believe they are working well enough. And those articles which point out the "relatively" few numbers of voter fraud convictions, leave out the more numerous numbers involved in voter fraud which were documented but ignored (therefor not prosecuted) for various (usually political) reasons and which did have effects or possible effects on the outcome. There is growing suspicion and mistrust of government, much of which is not unfounded, and if the majority of people approve of a safeguard against possible corruption, why do you protest so much against it?

Quote Spence:
Murder, unfortunately happens all too frequently.

It does not occur frequently in all communities. It does, however, "appear" to occur "all too frequently" in some communities which, all too often, "appear" to be poor or minority. Should we burden those communities where murder rarely occurs with laws against it? Or is the possibility of such a crime against a most fundamental right to life enough to create laws to discourage and punish it?

Quote detbuch:
Obviously, there must be some proof of validity required to vote. I don't know which proof is the least inconvenient for poor or minority voters, nor how it is less so in any other area of their lives.

Quote Spence:
Hence a registration process so that people can't vote twice. It may not be perfect but it also may not need to be perfect. It's a minimalistic solution with primarily localized oversight and effective results...a delightfully conservative approach.

There is, unfortunately, the very real possibility, especially in "get out the vote" drives in which numbers of folks who normally wouldn't bother to vote are taken to registration sites to register (with who knows what real or manufactured ID) and whose registered name can be used at election by others to vote. Hence, having a valid photo ID at election time would verify that they are the one who is registered. And if the ID was required to register, why would it be an extra burden to show it when voting?

Quote detbuch:
The misfortune, at least that portion which is due to fate, of being poor results in more difficulty in all aspects of life. There is no realistic answer on how to change that. Stretching government power to resolve it by fiat creates burdens on those that must pay for it, and the inequities which government claims not to abide. I am not exactly poor, certainly not wealthy, but have to provide ID for so many things, and have to go through irritating and inconvenient processes to re-establish ID when I lose a card, whether it be a driver's license, a social security card, a bank card, an insurance card, or any other card of which seem to spread in quantity like weeds as life becomes more bureaucratic and "advanced." Why it is so much more burdensome for the poor or minorities to suffer the same inconveniences, I don't know. It is by the vary nature of being poor that everything becomes more burdensome. But the more important something is to the life of the poor, the more, I would think, they would be willing to overcome the inconveniences posed by their poverty. And if a minority is not poor, having ID should be no more of an impediment than it is for the majority.

Quote Spence:
But if being poor did present an additional burden (it does) and whites were proportionally less poor (they are) than there would certainly be a greater burden to the minorities.

Yes, being poor makes most of life a greater burden. That greater burden is the motivating factor which drives the poor to escape poverty. If the burden is artificially removed by government, the motivation to not be poor is lessened, and for many, removed. The constant policy of the progressive state to remove burdens creates a populace which becomes satisfied with its station thus mostly stays in place, and the more natural and evolutionary process of struggling to improve dissipates. The result is most propitious for authoritarian regimes, as the people are mollified and made malleable to whatever dictates the government imposes.

This lack of confidence in people's natural ability to seek and gain improvement in a free society is a hallmark of socialism. It leads to an over-coddling of the poor, which in turn destroys the major motivation for them to improve and creates a reverse motivation in many to not seek improvement, which in turn creates greater numbers of "the poor." Which all, of course, creates a greater need for government coddling. Poverty becomes the economic standard for fiscal policy. A maintenance above some defined quantity of wealth must be provided for all, so must be equitably distributed from those with more to those with less.

And it is assumed, therefor, that it is more difficult for the poor to vote and to present competent ID. That it may be more difficult poses no legal requirement to make it easier, especially if that would lower the barriers to abuse. It also overlooks that it would be easier for many poor to vote than it is for many who are busy improving their life or maintaining a higher economic status. It simply, and erroneously, assumes that it is more difficult for the poor and poverty becomes, once again, the standard for regulation.

Is making things easier for the poor compassionate governance? In some cases it might be so. But when that becomes a standard, a constant factor in policy, is it compassion for the poor, or are the poor a tool to be used for societal transformation? And is poverty so strictly apportioned among minorities that they automatically are assumed to be victims of poverty and in the need for voting assistance? I think it would be more accurate to identify a subset of people, regardless of race, who have some specific handicap that makes it not "difficult" but overburdensome to acquire ID and make it possible for them to get photo Id, not just for voting, but for all the other things necessary in our increasingly complex society.

Quote Spence:
The Salon article I posted for Jim does a nice job of laying out the reasons why. Which comes back to my original comment...if there's not a problem, why burden ANYONE with a solution?

Government, especially overarching, socialistic government, yearly pumps out tens of thousands of pages of new regulations where there are no "problems" except for ones it newly defines, or ones that "appear" to be a problem--and mostly problems which it has created with previous laws and regulations. And it is constantly burdening We The People with solutions that make daily life and business more difficult. Anything We The People can do to make the governmental process less corruptible and more difficult for it to abuse us should be welcomed. You "appear" to have little or nothing to say about massive government intrusion in our lives, yet your all up in a twit about voter ID.

Quote detbuch:
If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.

Quote Spence:
Yes but he does lay out an over-simplified test for what "Conservative" or "Liberal" legislation is.

-spence

It is not "over" simplified. Did you want him to write a book? You can certainly tell us how it is "over" simplified. If you have time.

No, it does not cover it well, because it only discusses drivers licenses. As we all know (and if you didn't know before, now you do), in recognition of the fact that people who don't drive still need a photo id for a myriad of purposes, every state allows you to get a photo id that is not a drivers license. You need this to buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, cash a check, pick up a prescription, get a library card, etc...

So Spence, tell me in your own words please, why are minorities less likely to get this id? Why is it harder for blacks who don't drive to get this id, than it is for whites who don't drive?

There is no possible answer to this question, unless you feel blacks are much more disenfranchised from society than whites, and if that's the case, they probably won't vote anyway.

Go ahead. Tell me why blacks are less likely to get this id.

No, more centrist but covering a range of topics beyond politics. They offer positions all over the map…

Try reading it once, some interesting articles at times.

-spence

If you don't need a drivers license what's the motivation to get another ID? If you're poor you probably don't need one. Operate on cash, don't frequent liquor stores that check.

Doesn't mean you still don't vote.

A lot of minorities some do feel very disenfranchised…some don't.

Still, why do we need more legislation to fix a problem there's not evidence is significant? You still haven't addressed that.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;1039511

Still, why do we need more legislation to fix a problem there's not evidence is significant? You still haven't addressed that.

-spence[/QUOTE]

I don't understand you Spence. You've never heard of Acorn, you never heard of the goings-on up in New Hampshire, the bussing in of people to vote .
You saying it never happened over and over again doesn't mean sh$t.
I could google hundreds of instances of voter fraud . On both sides . It happens .
You haven't provided any evidence that the poor would be "disenfranchised " by this. Just that your mom once didn't have an ID

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe there is a need for this and I believe there is a reason people are against this . Spence has already come out and said lies are fine if it's for his idea of the better good . Useless laws that don't fix anything , gun control comes to mind , are ok to liberals . They thrive on feel good legislation . All it takes is one occurrence and it becomes a crisis, and a law is legislated .
Spence ,your hypocrisy has no match buddy .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you don't need a drivers license what's the motivation to get another ID?"

We have covered this, and you know that. There are lots of needs for a photo id besides driving. For God's sake, you yourself said that even though your mom didn't drive, eventually she needed a photo id. And what did she do? She went and got one. No big deal, right?

You refuse to answer my question. Why does the requirement of a photo id suppress more black votes than white votes? Because that is necessarily what liberals believe here, right?

There are only 2 possible answers. Either (1) the government makes it easier for whites to get the ids than it is for blacks (and no one is saying that), or (2) you think blacks are more likely to be too lazy to get the id, than whites. That is necessarily the foundation of the liberal notion that conservatives are trying to suppress minority votes here, and that's racist.

"A lot of minorities some do feel very disenfranchised" If that's true, and I concede it is, then it stands to reason that those disenfranchised citizens, who can't be bothered to get an id, will not likely vote either way. So there's no suppression.

Here's another thing. Many states have recently passed the voter id requirements. If the requirement is a blatant attempt to suppress the minority vote, then there must be ample data in those states to support that. Where is the data to show that after those states started requiring ids, that minority voting decreased by a larger amount than white voting?

I have never, not once, seen someone opposed to the id requirement, provide such data. I presume that no such data exists. Therefore, the liberal notion that conservatives are out to bring back Jim Crow laws, is BS designed to demonize the political opposition. Why? Because those Dems in the know, realize that they are in serious trouble in 2014. They are truly desperate. So instead of trying to honestly explain to us why their ideas are actually better, they play the race card. One day, that may blow up in their faces.

You, specifically, are utterly embarrassing yourself on this thread. You claim your Mom got an id for her own needs, and then you ask why anyone who doesn't drive would ever need an id? Anything, ANYTHING (even contradicting what you said earlier) to avoid having to admit that I'm right, and that your side is engaging in the ugliest kind of political smear tactics.

Bill Clinton is in favor of photo ids to vote. You're telling me that he wants to suppress the minority vote?

Because he can't. Because the ONLY way to support the notion that blacks would be less likely to get ids than whites, is to believe that blacks are lazier and less willing to obey the rules, than whites. This must be true if liberals are correct that requiring id's would effect blacks more than it effects whites. But they won't say it out loud. because it's racist. This is the common liberal "soft bigotry of lower expectations" of those who aren't as white as you are.

You're comparing apples and oranges, quite simply there is indeed a serious firearm violence problem in the USA when compared to other industrialized nations.

-spence

You should read what Clinton really said rather than what someone wants you to think he said.

-spence

From the Washington Times...

Clinton said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent 'a way forward that eliminates error,' without having to 'paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.'”

Now, since you keep refusing to answer my question, I'll make it a nice fill-in-the-blank.

"Conservatives want to require a photo id to vote. This would apply equally to all, regardless of color. Those who don't drive can get another government-issued id. Blacks and whites will have equal access to these id's. Yet, I, Spence, claim this will disproportionately effect blacks because __________________"

Stop saying that it's a racist plot just because Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz say so. Tell me in your own words, please, where the racism comes into play.

You really, really backed yourself into a corner here.

True.

It's also true that the problem isn't even the least bit mitigated in places that have enacted tough gun laws. Chicago and DC have some of the toughest gun laws.

I'm not a huge fan of guns in the hands of large numbers of citizens. But the empirical evidence could not be more clear.

It's also worth noting that some of those countries, like Canada, have high rates of gun ownership, yet little gun crime. That suggests that the root problem isn't the presence of guns, but a cultural lack of empathy on our part. Your side is the side peddling the bile that if human like is inconvenient, it can be snuffed out. Your side is the side that says "if it feels good do it", and your side are the ones who resort to feral anarchy when they don't get exactly what they want.

Actually no, you validated my assumption that you're opinion is based off of what someone else wants you to believe. Let's go to the tape...

Jim, Clinton was speaking out against voter ID laws, but suggested that a photographic SS card could be a way to ease potential voter suppression caused by state laws.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you.

-spence

Clear as mud.

Perhaps that's more indicative of the overwhelming gun culture in the US. We have by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and I believe the highest murder rate of any industrialized nation.

If anything your empirical observations in Chicago and DC may just demonstrate the need for tougher long-term federal laws.

Canada's gun ownership is pretty average compared to similar countries, it's definitely not "high." Perhaps they're rates of gun crime have more to do with more restrictive ownership laws.

That suggests that the root problem isn't a cultural lack of empathy on our part, but simply way too many firearms.

Wait, I though more guns was the solution?

-spence

You clearly have never applied for fire arm permit Spence .
Until you do ,you don't have a right calling anything anybody would have to do to get an ID ,a burden.
And I'll argue that the ID will prevent voter fraud whereas the gun permits have never been proved to slow gun violence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're not "breaking" anything to me. You are confirming what I said - that Clinton supports the notion of requiring a photo id (SS card) to vote. Why is getting a SS card with photo less likely to result in voter suppression, then a state id?

Finally Spence, you are repeatedly and cowardly dodging the only question that matters. Why does the requirement suppress more black votes than white votes.

I presume that you refuse to answer, because despite all your searching on The Huffington Post and The Daily Worker, you can't find anything that any of your fellow World Traveler posted that is on point. So you claim it's a racist policy, but you will offer absolutely zero evidence to support that. That's one hell of a solid position you have, when you have to duck a question as simple as "why do you think that"? Clearly you have given this a lot of thought, and considered both sides of the issue...