Bernie Sanders leading...
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
And of course, Hillary got most of the delegates. What I find remarkable is that liberals will argue all day long that requiring a photo ID is a massive threat to democracy and disenfranchises huge numbers of people, but they have no problem with superdelegates blatantly rigging their nomination process.
Well Mr D Dems/liberals only pretend they think requiring a photo ID is a massive threat when they can use it against conservatives. A photo ID is required to get into places where BO Hillary and other Dems will appear, also at the Dem convention and at some of the Dem caucuses going on now.
Not sure if Bernie requires photo id at his events.
Not sure if Bernie requires photo id at his events.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
The conflation of event security with voting rights is absurd, IMHO.
PhotoID requirements for voting are without a doubt a voter suppression mechanism for a non-existent (or rare occurrence) problem: voter fraud.
There is no voter fraud? Without a doubt? Please enlighten us how you know this.
On another note, I wonder how many current Bernie supporters, especially the youth, will stay home in October in retaliation for their perception that the primary election was stolen from their guy. Dem turnout is already seriously down from the last 2 POTUS election cycles.
SH,
I get your point. It only takes one dangerous person getting into an event to assassinate someone. However, there's also a legitimate interest in preserving the security of the voting booth. There isn't as much at stake, but we're talking about a difference in degrees.
Nevertheless (and I don't direct this to you since you're an independent), before complaining about what most people see as a common sense initiative that disenfranchises virtually nobody (and doesn't have to disenfranchise anybody), remove the plank from your own eye. Dramatically more Democratic voters are disenfranchised by the superdelegates than will ever be disenfranchised by a voter ID requirement.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Show me a recent study that demonstrates widescale voter fraud exists and I'll show you 5 that show it doesn't. In fact, most studies have demonstrated that claims of fraud turned out to be baseless at worst and accidental at best (i.e. absentee ballot submitted before voter passes away). What's laughable is that any attempt to "stuff the ballot box" through fictitious voters would literally be the most inefficient way to impact an election.
Now, consider how the photoID could potentially disenfranchise the voter. In this case, the cure (photoID) is egregiously worse than the disease (voter fraud).
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I think the superdelegate fiasco of the Democratic party is crazy and absolutely agree that Dem's should be up in arms. Based on my Facebook feed, the Sanders supporters are pretty upset. Of course, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz has been in the bag for HRC since the beginning. I don't know what Sander's chances are of forcing a contested convention but though he's not my candidate I hope he does so if only to put a spotlight on that Superdelegate process that essentially gave HRC a head start for the Dem nomination.
I've long thought the voter ID movement was a voter suppression effort no different than the district gerrymandering. It disenfranchises rural, elder and youth voters. I don't care whether you are R or D. The problem we have in this country is NOT that voter participation is too high. We need greater participation not put artificial barriers in place.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
There is no "right" to be part of the Democratic party or vote in their nomination process. The party nomination process ONLY impacts the members of that party. Let them run it how they want to. On the outside I may say "you're crazy" (like the Dem Super Delegate process) but since I don't belong to that party I don't have a voice.
Now, infringe on my right, my son's (soon to be 18 with no driver's license) right or my grandmother who resides in a rest home's right to vote and I'll piss all over the right's claim that the constitution should be exalted. Again, it's 100% disenfranchisement.
With all due respect, it's not that simple. The idea that a political party is a private entity that can run itself and choose its menbers has been rejected by the courts. As you're probably aware, serveral state Democratic parties used to have white primaries, and when challenged, they made the same argument, which the Supreme Court shot down.
We probably disagree here, but I think it's more complicated than that. I don't think voter participation is too high, but I think voter education is too low. Or to put it another way, I think uninformed voter participation is too high. At the national level, I'm not sure that it makes a big difference, but at the local and judicial levels, it certainly does. You should see what happens in judicial races because of people voting based on what they think of someone's name. It's a disgrace.
Last edited:
Husker
So your son has no photo ID that would allow him to vote? Amazing. I guess he does not have any banking medical travel not to mention voting(to mention a few activities that require photo ID)plans?
And just because your grandmother is in a senior residence does not preclude her from voting. Who is stopping her from voting?
So your son has no photo ID that would allow him to vote? Amazing. I guess he does not have any banking medical travel not to mention voting(to mention a few activities that require photo ID)plans?
And just because your grandmother is in a senior residence does not preclude her from voting. Who is stopping her from voting?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Any parent can setup a bank account for their child with little more than a social security card. Medical? His picture isn't on his insurance card. Travel? Sure if he travels internationally but under 18 no photo ID is required. Sure, eventually he will absolutely need some form of a photo ID but you're idea forces him to do it when NONE of those other entities that you pointed out requires it. We are fortunate too. Living in the suburbs of Seattle we have many governmental options to get a photo ID. Aren't the Feds suing some State over the voter ID laws showing that for rural locations it could be 100+ mile drive to the nearest government office that is only open on limited days of the month for limited hours?
Let's say my grandmother can't locate her ID? It's hard enough to get to a voting booth (fortunately she has shuttle service) but how does she get to an office to get another ID? Y'all act like it's so easy to get a government issued ID. I'm not sure what your DMV is like but 6 months ago I sat in a 3hr waiting line to renew my license in person. Each of these would be impediments to voting that you feel are acceptable to avoid a handful of documented voter fraud cases. Again, this cure is worse than the disease. It's a blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters despite the whines to contrary.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Keep in mind, the original no evidence premise by Horn6721 was that the Dems require photo ID to vote in the nomination process and see HRC. The latter could clearly be a security step as there are crazies that could want to assassinate a POTUS candidate. Assuming Horn6721 is correct that the Dems require Photo ID to vote in some primaries, I'll defer to the legal experts here on the legality of said requirement.
I agree that voter education also is needed. The problem is, who will be doing the educating? Clearly some consume partisan pabulum and demonstrate no reasoning skills when voting. And those are some of the "informed" voters. Many of Trump supporters would fall in this camp. Still, I'm torn on this but I don't think ignorance should disqualify someone from being able to vote. The right to vote for our representatives should be held more sacred than nearly any other right in the constitution.
Now, I do believe you should have to have license to have children.
Husker
I did NOT say Dems required photo for Primaries.Read what I wrote
Man you go to a lot of trouble to not have a photo ID for your soon to be 18 yo.
So You can set up a bank account for him. How does he withdraw money without a photo ID? His insurance card may not have a photo but he will have to show photo id to get medical attention.
If he travels on commercial carriers he will have to show a photo ID when he is 18.
Will he want to vote? is some form of photo ID needed in your state to register to vote?
Your grandmother? IF she lost her ID surely you would help her get new proper ID. If not I am betting the people at the facility can
Your son will surely get a photo ID when he is 18 so his example really isn't relevant. I think you would agree that a YUGE majority of people do have photo ID, even the minorities that Dems like to whine are disenfranchised by requiring a photo ID. How many have not cashed a check or do not get gov't services of some sort? or have not seen dr?
When the bill was working its' way through here in Texas people concocted all sorts of scenarios to prove it was onerous for millions of people to get a photo ID. IIRC there was always a way. The state created policies that covered all contingencies including your Grandmother losing hers and no relative would or could help.
Reasoning skills to vote? How many voted for BO simply because he was black? How many say they will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman?
I did NOT say Dems required photo for Primaries.Read what I wrote
Man you go to a lot of trouble to not have a photo ID for your soon to be 18 yo.
So You can set up a bank account for him. How does he withdraw money without a photo ID? His insurance card may not have a photo but he will have to show photo id to get medical attention.
If he travels on commercial carriers he will have to show a photo ID when he is 18.
Will he want to vote? is some form of photo ID needed in your state to register to vote?
Your grandmother? IF she lost her ID surely you would help her get new proper ID. If not I am betting the people at the facility can
Your son will surely get a photo ID when he is 18 so his example really isn't relevant. I think you would agree that a YUGE majority of people do have photo ID, even the minorities that Dems like to whine are disenfranchised by requiring a photo ID. How many have not cashed a check or do not get gov't services of some sort? or have not seen dr?
When the bill was working its' way through here in Texas people concocted all sorts of scenarios to prove it was onerous for millions of people to get a photo ID. IIRC there was always a way. The state created policies that covered all contingencies including your Grandmother losing hers and no relative would or could help.
Reasoning skills to vote? How many voted for BO simply because he was black? How many say they will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman?
Like I said, I recognize the imminent security angle that distinguishes the situations. As for primary voters, the parties don't make those decisions. The state legislatures do. If you live in a voter-ID state and want to vote in a Democratic primary, you'll have to show a photo ID.
Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the individual voter to be informed. Who does the actual educating? That's done through the collective marketplace of ideas. The media, educators, parents, authors, etc.
I'm going to sound terrible, because this goes against all the slogans out there about voting, but no, it's not that sacred. If you read how the Constitution addresses voting rights, it's very narrow and limited, and I'm not talking about the white, male, property owner prerequisites that existed. That's a separate matter altogether regarding ways that states discriminated against certain voters. I'm talking about the offices that ANY group of voters had a right to vote for.
Originally, the voters only had the right to vote for the US House of Representatives, and of course in 1913, we added (foolishly in my opinion) US Senators. Furthermore, the states got to decide who got to elect those people. That doesn't sound like the founders viewed voting rights (for anybody) to be very sacred. You have the right to vote for Presidential and Vice Presidential slates of electors, but that's entirely a creature of state law. They actually have that right, not you and me, and yes, they can take it away.
What has changed? Not much. Like I mentioned, we've added Senators. People like to say that we've given voting rights to blacks, women, and people over 18, but read those amendments. That's not technically true. What we've done is prohibited states from denying people the right to vote on the basis of race, sex, and age (if they're over 18). If the state wanted to deny everybody the right to vote for offices other than US House and US Senate, they still could.
The bottom line is that if the inherent right to vote was so sacred (on a level with freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, right to a trial by jury, etc.), then it would be broader and wouldn't be subject to the whims of state legislators. It has become sacred to the public, but officially, it's not - certainly not on a level with rights expressly included in the Constitution.
I also want to come back to your comment about ignorance disqualifying someone from voting. I assume you're ok with voting rights being limited to adults over 18, but what's the rationale for doing that? Isn't it because we presume a child to be too ignorant and too immature to cast a ballot intelligently? And bear in mind, that's entirely a matter of prejudice and arbitrary discrimination. I'm sure your children are a hell of a lot more informed and wise than your average Trump supporter, but there's still nothing they can do to rebut the presumption that they're too ignorant and too immature to be trusted with a ballot. And because of that, we deny them the vote, so aren't we OK with ignorance being a reason to deny the vote to someone?
Well, if we did that, then we wouldn't have the problem of uninformed voters.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Miami this am
LMAO. I think that could be a Trump or Bernie bumper sticker.
Husker here is a classic example of the problem with assuming
from you," Assuming Horn6721 is correct that the Dems require Photo ID to vote in some primaries".
I did NOT post that. You understand a caucus is run by the party, the primary is run by the state. 2 different methods and rules. In the over 30 states that require ID you need that ID to vote a Dem PRIMARY
So my question to Dems who insist requiring photo ID to vote disenfranchises minorities why would Dems want to suppress minorities for their vote in a caucus or ESPECIALLY at the Dem convention?
Shouldn't minorities have a say in selecting a candidate for whom to vote in the national election?
BTW Husker EVEN in Wash you need a valid Washington state photo ID to register to vote online OR you can go to designated offices with acceptable documents OR you can register by mail BUT you must have copies of acceptable documents. With anyway you choose you must have gone to the effort of having acceptable docs. What if you do not have any of those docs? Doesn't that seem disenfranchising to you? Now you can register by mail using forms of ID that are also accepted in most of the other states which are COPIES of various docs. Don't you think asking someone to provide COPIES is onerous? Where are these put upon people supposed to get copies made?
from you," Assuming Horn6721 is correct that the Dems require Photo ID to vote in some primaries".
I did NOT post that. You understand a caucus is run by the party, the primary is run by the state. 2 different methods and rules. In the over 30 states that require ID you need that ID to vote a Dem PRIMARY
So my question to Dems who insist requiring photo ID to vote disenfranchises minorities why would Dems want to suppress minorities for their vote in a caucus or ESPECIALLY at the Dem convention?
Shouldn't minorities have a say in selecting a candidate for whom to vote in the national election?
BTW Husker EVEN in Wash you need a valid Washington state photo ID to register to vote online OR you can go to designated offices with acceptable documents OR you can register by mail BUT you must have copies of acceptable documents. With anyway you choose you must have gone to the effort of having acceptable docs. What if you do not have any of those docs? Doesn't that seem disenfranchising to you? Now you can register by mail using forms of ID that are also accepted in most of the other states which are COPIES of various docs. Don't you think asking someone to provide COPIES is onerous? Where are these put upon people supposed to get copies made?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Let's return to your original quote:
You INFERRED they should have the same rules. You clearly tried to claim a hypocrisy that the Dem party required ID's for other activities, including primaries, yet fought it for the national election. My assumption wasn't a stretch at all.
Then you come full circle on your own argument. So, my initial quote wasn't exact but it was spot on summation of your argument. I've pointed out other possible reasons for requiring a photo ID, security being foremost.
Now you're mixing your arguments. The voter ID laws in question have not been the registration of voting but rather the requiring of the ID at the voting booth. It's the latter point that is the voter suppression tactic.
Husker Husker Husker
Stop digging. One more time- I did NOT mention primaries. Why do you keep pretending I did? Do you understand the difference between a primary and a caucus?
I did mention 2 different places where Dems require photo ID to vote; at some caucuses and at the national Dem convention. For people who do not have that ID that takes away their ability to vote. If you and other Dems think requiring a photo ID to vote suppresses votes one would think the Dems would not require photo IDs to vote in their venues.
Your second argument made me laugh. " The voter ID laws in question have not been the registration of voting but rather the requiring of the ID at the voting booth. It's the latter point that is the voter suppression tactic."
So you are ok with requiring the same documents to register people to vote as required to get a photo ID but you think asking people to bring that ID they would get showing the same docs as registering to vote; asking people to bring that photo ID is disenfranchising people?
Stop digging. One more time- I did NOT mention primaries. Why do you keep pretending I did? Do you understand the difference between a primary and a caucus?
I did mention 2 different places where Dems require photo ID to vote; at some caucuses and at the national Dem convention. For people who do not have that ID that takes away their ability to vote. If you and other Dems think requiring a photo ID to vote suppresses votes one would think the Dems would not require photo IDs to vote in their venues.
Your second argument made me laugh. " The voter ID laws in question have not been the registration of voting but rather the requiring of the ID at the voting booth. It's the latter point that is the voter suppression tactic."
So you are ok with requiring the same documents to register people to vote as required to get a photo ID but you think asking people to bring that ID they would get showing the same docs as registering to vote; asking people to bring that photo ID is disenfranchising people?
chango
2,500+ Posts
You have to admit, your unique spacing style and distaste for punctuation makes it easier said than done.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Husker Husker Husker
Stop digging. One more time- I did NOT mention primaries. Why do you keep pretending I did? Do you understand the difference between a primary and a caucus?
I did mention 2 different places where Dems require photo ID to vote; at some caucuses and at the national Dem convention. For people who do not have that ID that takes away their ability to vote. If you and other Dems think requiring a photo ID to vote suppresses votes one would think the Dems would not require photo IDs to vote in their venues.
Your second argument made me laugh. " The voter ID laws in question have not been the registration of voting but rather the requiring of the ID at the voting booth. It's the latter point that is the voter suppression tactic."
So you are ok with requiring the same documents to register people to vote as required to get a photo ID but you think asking people to bring that ID they would get showing the same docs as registering to vote; asking people to bring that photo ID is disenfranchising people?
My last post on this subject. You've taken an apple (caucus and campaign events) and an orange (general election) and tried to tell me they look the same, taste the same and should be consumed the same. Well done! It was my mistake to think you'd be comparing apples.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Logic comprehension is clearly not your strength. When everyone has a right to attend a party convention, party caucus, campaign event like a general election then you have an apple to apple comparison. Until then, please take a big bite out of that unpeeled orange and enjoy!
I'll tell you what, show up at the Democratic National Convention and tell me if it's the same experience as your trip to the local voting booth in November. Then you can tell me how the orange tastes.
Last edited:
There are many ways democrats take advantage of their base, but few are dumber than the disenfranchising voters argument. And Husker gives an excellent post to demonstrate. Your 18 year old son cannot get a legal ID card? If he expects to function in the world, he will need an ID even if he cannot or chooses not to drive. Healthcare, cashing checks, getting into movies, getting a fishing license, and going to school all require identification.
And for dear old grandmother, either you could figure a way to get her ID as well or the brilliant democrats could put a law on the books to provide an alternative way to get an ID. Of course they will not, because it will remove one of the race baiting tactics.
And for dear old grandmother, either you could figure a way to get her ID as well or the brilliant democrats could put a law on the books to provide an alternative way to get an ID. Of course they will not, because it will remove one of the race baiting tactics.
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
