Voter ID's Revisited!!

Well David, I did read it in context. As a matter of fact I quoted the whole post in context before I stated I was taking some points out of context. You should try this some time.
As far as I know I never stated ANYTHING about minorities NOT being able to get IDs. Yes, I DID mention instances where the poor might not be afforded the opportunity to obtain an ID due to circumstances and actually rlm had a good response to that. That being their ability to make it to vote. Point taken but it doesn't show me those folks were too stupid to make some type of effort to obtain an ID or to cast a vote.
The poor and stupid correlation jumped out at me. What else can I say.

Also. Why do folks seem to associate poverty with minorities here? Are there not any poor white folks (assuming they are NOT the minority).
You seem to have jumped on the minority wagon here.
Who else on this forum has mentioned minorities in this case? Was it me? Don't think so.
It's just an easy talking point. Nothing more.

So this in mind here's rlm's post in it's entirety.

Pretty easy read actually. Let's just look at the first paragraph this time shall we?

You know this how rlm? David do you know? Are you guys privy to inside information that most aren't? Do you need an ID to get into this exclusive club?

Or is it just mindless conjecture?

I'm thinking the latter.

 

Well, perhaps, because the liberal narrative claims that those who are impacted by ID requirements are the poor & minorities? How could you have missed that?
Ipso facto, libs themselves...based on their own arguments...believe that for some reason the poor & minorities are unable to secure ID for themselves. Why is that?
ID's are necessary for everyday activities such as doctor visits, banking, selling coins at you shop & listening to Eric Holder make a speech? Are doctors trying to disenfranchise the poor? Is Holder trying to disenfranchise minorities when he requires proper ID from those wishing to see him in person?
How about this, why doesn't the DNC (since it's their constituents who they claim are effected) pay for ID's? it can only help their cause, right? Or are they afraid it will cut into their vote totals?

 

Why do these dumbass Right-wingers always assume that everyone in this country has exactly the same access, the same resources, the same opportunities to everything in society that they have? Elderly are a prime example of people that have lost various amounts of mobility, income, family support, and countless other resources the average person takes for granted. I can hop down to the local DMV and pretty much transact any kind of business I choose but that certainly isn't the case for huge numbers of elderly, poor, and disabled people. For instance, go to the South side of Chicago and try to get a cab. It isn't possible in that area. Try going grocery shopping in the same area. You have leave and find those types of businesses elsewhere. Try finding a rural DMV sometime. Good luck!

This is yet another case of the Republican idiocy that dominates their thinking or lack thereof. They just have no ability to empathize with anyone that may have a different living situation than themselves. Unreal, jut unreal.

 

Well, certainly everyone has a different living situation than every other person on earth.

Legally voting is one of our rights as US citizens. Bearing firearms is one of our rights too. But if I want to legally carry a weapon I must also carry ID. Is there much difference? Can you honestly say that you would disenfranchise the elderly, poor and disabled by forcing them to go through the process of obtaining ID in order to legally bear firearms?

 

As you know I live in Florida
Voter poll that I answered the home phone to sometime two weeks ago I think.

Question: Who do you think you are most likely to vote for Obama or Romney.
I answered Romney.
Question: What would your reason most likelly be to vote for Obama
A. Obama will protect the middle class and make sure the rich pay thier share of the taxes.
B. Obama will etc.

I did not answer and had to wait sometime with different pro obama questions before they came to Why I would vote for Romney. Wonder how many Romney people just hung up that were called around the state. It was clearly not created to be a data collecting poll.

 

You right.
1. Why is it that illegals have free access to medical care of which I would have to pay for.
2. Why is it that illegals have free access to a public education that I pay for with my property taxes.
3. Why is it that illegals have free access to colleges whereas I have to save and invest inorder to hope to have the resources to provide that opportunity to my kids.
4. Why is it that illegals can have a wife on welfare, family on food stamps, kids eat breakfast, lunch for free in school as well as go to free afterschool programs while they work off the books whereas I have to pay for four kids to eat in school, pay for the same afterschool programs, and get taxed on every dollar I earn, taxed on everydollar that I invested that made a profit and then be asked to sponser kids for sports when I see their illegal parents on welfare, driving cars and owning houses.
Fact: There are a ton of illegals who are not migrant workers or people who mow lawns. Some work off the books by providing phoney SS numbers or are just not listed as employees be it construction crews, truck drivers, etc.

 

If you equate voting with carrying a deadly weapon, you are right. I don't but if that is the connection you want to make, fine. An elderly person will also have difficulty getting an ID to obtain and carry a firearm. So, if it is difficult for an elderly person to get the proper ID to carry a firearm and to vote, there is NO difference, both are impediments to doing both things. So you have inadvertently agreed with the fact that needing an ID to vote is an impediment to people like the elderly. Thanks.

 

OMG? With that kind of logic, you could justify anything. But then that is what you do all of the time.

BTW, since this mainly has to do with voting for Obama or Romney, voting for President is NOT a right guaranteed in the constitution. Look it up if you do not believe me.

 

Are you actually advocating that there should be no right to vote if one party decides to make it difficult for certain groups of people to vote? Of course you are.

Try reading the voting rights act of 1965 and tell me there is not a guarantee of the right to vote in this country.

 

I am not advocating anything. What I posted is a fact, not an opinion. Not only that, but you apparently purposely misread what I wrote. Yes, all citizens (with a few exceptions) have the right to vote. But there is no right to vote for President.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2688078

 

How does requiring one to establish their identity prior to casting a vote impede anyone's ability to vote?
The process of securing an ID is cheap (ususally free!) & easy and is probably a necessity these days. One would think, if the privilege of voting is important to a person, putting forth the effort to follow the law should be but a minor inconvenience. I've seen the "victims" change in this thread from the poor to minorities to the elderly to rural folks but I give those folks enough credit to know that they can get an ID in an afternoon if they want to.

 

Huh? How are you separating the right to vote from the right to vote in a presidential election? What the hell are trying to argue here?

 

OK, One more try. None of the following are my words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2688078

 

I didn't equate the two. The thing they have in common, however, is that both are rights guaranteed by the Constitution. You've failed to make the argument, however, that one right outweighs the other when it comes to having to provide ID.

So, using the arguments you've previously expressed on this forum concerning Voter ID regulations, would I be correct in assuming that you would be against any impediment that an elderly person might encounter while trying to obtain an ID to bear firearms?

Unfortunately, in the real world, impediments exist. As a society, we should do more to ensure that we eliminate as many impediments as possible for those needing to obtain ID. However, the fact remains that citizens will still need to obtain ID (regardless of the impediments) in order to exercise their Constitutional right to legally bear firearms. Do you think the same criteria should be placed on citizens who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to vote?

 

Well, how about this?

How much should it cost to vote? If I'm not mistaken IDs are NOT free everwhere. So if you have to have and ID to vote and have to PAY for said ID then you have to pay to vote. One might also have to pay for the documents to get the ID. Follow me so far?
So now you're free vote just cost you some bucks. Kind of like a poll tax.

Now if the DNC picked up the tab for those IDs it could (and should) be looked at as buying votes.

Maybe the GOP should pick up the tab instead. Seems they've been better at buying votes through the years.

Or maybe they'd be afraid it would cut into their vote totals.

 

I am afraid you are mistaking. Every place I have heard of requiring voter ID offers free ID's either to those needy enough or to everyone.

 

Good point

 

As David said. "Good point". Of course I would expect that so I did the teeniest bit of digging.

Indiana actually. Where David and I both live unless he's moved.

Check this out.

http://www.dmv.org/in-indiana/id-cards.php


"If you don't have a driver's license, it is a good idea to have some other sort of photo identification, such as a state identification card. There are just too many occasions in daily life that you are required to provide photographic proof of your identity.
Not the least of these is when you vote. Indiana now requires all voters (with a few exceptions) to provide an acceptable form of photo identification at the polling place before being able to cast your ballot.
The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented"

Then there is this.

http://www.in.gov/bmv/2766.htm

" SecureID Documents
When you apply for a new driver’s license, permit, or identification card, you must present original versions or certified copies of the following documents:

• One document proving your identity; and
• One document proving your Social Security number; and
• One document proving your lawful status in the United States; and
• Two documents proving your Indiana residency"

I dunno but it seems to me like this "free" thing would burn up a lot of time, gas, favors and at some point a bit of cash to even be able to assemble this stuff.
Also remember this is for the people they would deem qualified to recieve an ID for "free".

Sure doesn't sound free to me. Even if you got all the time, gas and favors back you'd most likely end up paying for something. AND that's for the folks they would deem as "exempt from payment".

 

Many people fought for our right to vote. Perhaps it's the least we can do for them to get an ID while we're going about our daily lives dining out, washing the car, shopping at the mall, going to a movie, etc. Even if they don't get all their money back they spent in gas, time, etc. they will still have the knowledge that they were able to vote in a free election in a country which still honors freedom. If they don't appreciate that, perhaps they shouldn't be voting in the first place.

 

Great speech OKC.

Did you consider for a second that some of those people might be U.S. Veterans?

I did.