If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Old and busted: Texas thinks colored folks shouldn't be able to vote. New hotness: Texas thinks wimmin folks shouldn't be able to vote   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 191
    More: Asinine, Texas, Brennan Center for Justice, amendments, representative democracy, marriage certificate, married name  
•       •       •

6526 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Oct 2013 at 5:59 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-18 06:01:18 PM
At least we can all agree that they shouldn't be driving.
 
2013-10-18 06:03:39 PM
Sigh.
 
2013-10-18 06:04:06 PM
This is new?

Seems pretty old and busted to me.
 
2013-10-18 06:04:39 PM
Suddenly 34 percent of women voters are scrambling for an acceptable ID, while 99 percent of men are home free.

First troll to try to pretend that this move has to do with some legitimate fear of voter fraud rather than being a blatant display of the GOP practicing voter disenfranchisement through the targeting of demographics that they traditionally lose with gets a free internet cockpunch.
 
2013-10-18 06:07:05 PM
How is that female and miniority outreach working out for the GOP?
 
2013-10-18 06:08:38 PM
Why do people want universal suffrage? Don't women suffer enough as it is?
 
2013-10-18 06:10:08 PM
See they didn't really think their cunning plan all the way through here. Speaking as a Texas resident if you guys think that there isn't a not insignificant percentage of dumb white trash slags who do everything their husband tells them to including who to vote for you're mistaken. The reality is the poorest women in this state who I'm guessing comprise the majority of the 1/3 who would not be able to furnish ID are dumb white trash and would have probably voted for the republicans anyway.
 
2013-10-18 06:10:30 PM
B-b-but I was told that the "GOP war on women" was liberal lies.
 
2013-10-18 06:10:44 PM

sdd2000: How is that female and miniority outreach working out for the GOP?


They've decided it's easier to just prevent those who disagree with them from voting.  Apparently that's a lot easier than actually trying to grow as farking human beings and stop being such inveterate quim ferrets.
 
2013-10-18 06:11:17 PM
Republican pieces of sh*t.
 
2013-10-18 06:11:43 PM
Sorry but this is a non story. This is in place to help those women not violate their biblical duties of voting for whom your husband commands. Obviously, those women who have not gotten their IDs in order do not respect their husbands and therefore may be inclined to vote for a candidate for which their husband disproves. This is only trying to help those women and preserve traditional marriage values.
 
2013-10-18 06:12:31 PM

ScaryBottles: See they didn't really think their cunning plan all the way through here. Speaking as a Texas resident if you guys think that there isn't a not insignificant percentage of dumb white trash slags who do everything their husband tells them to including who to vote for you're mistaken. The reality is the poorest women in this state who I'm guessing comprise the majority of the 1/3 who would not be able to furnish ID are dumb white trash and would have probably voted for the republicans anyway.


So? I don't really care who they vote for; the fact that they wouldn't be able to vote if they want to is moronic.
 
2013-10-18 06:12:48 PM
If you vote R on any level you're a farking idiot. 

Or your goals align with theirs, and that's not something you want to be proud of. 

If only our farking MEDIA would report the actual facts.
 
2013-10-18 06:13:07 PM

max_pooper: At least we can all agree that they shouldn't be driving.


Or leave the house without a male relative.


TuteTibiImperes: quim ferrets


Had a GF who had one of those. Man, the smell.
 
2013-10-18 06:13:51 PM
Cheating to win is pretty much the only reason Republicans have any power at all.
 
2013-10-18 06:14:05 PM
But it totally isn't disenfranchisement because I have been assured that Teapublicans would never be involved in disenfranchisement.
 
2013-10-18 06:15:26 PM

ScaryBottles: See they didn't really think their cunning plan all the way through here. Speaking as a Texas resident if you guys think that there isn't a not insignificant percentage of dumb white trash slags who do everything their husband tells them to including who to vote for you're mistaken. The reality is the poorest women in this state who I'm guessing comprise the majority of the 1/3 who would not be able to furnish ID are dumb white trash and would have probably voted for the republicans anyway.


The poor ones don't marry the baby daddy.
 
2013-10-18 06:15:47 PM
Texas women can get pretty uppity


i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-18 06:16:28 PM

sdd2000: How is that female and miniority outreach working out for the GOP?


Exactly. They're probably going to alienate a substantial portion of the population for a generation.
 
2013-10-18 06:16:40 PM
Feh, taking your husband's name is already a misogynistic tradition that exploits and oppresses women.  If you've already engaged in that tradition, you may as well have disenfranchised yourself.

What about the men who take their wife's name, huh? huh?
 
2013-10-18 06:18:00 PM
I'm a fairly conservative Republican.  This, along with the other voter ID/suppression laws, infuriates me.  It's anti-American.  It's immoral!  We're supposed to be the party of American tradition, of Christian morality, and we're forfeiting our soul to gain a few more years of political power.

These laws are so vile that I wouldn't vote for a single Republican in any state that passed them.  If they want to steal a Democrat's vote, they'll lose mine.
 
2013-10-18 06:19:10 PM
The clear argument for this law is that people prove who they are to vote -- that they are citizens, that they live where they say the live and are who they claim to be. The clear argument against this law is that it specifically targets women in a year where a controversial, pro-choice woman is running for the highest office in a state with a conservative, pro-life dominated government. The timing isn't an accident.

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous:
1) This doesn't specifically target women
2) The voter ID fight has been going on for years.  It's not something they cooked up as soon as Wendy Davis announced her candidacy.
 
2013-10-18 06:19:14 PM
Showing an ID to vote is now part of the war on women? You people are really grasping at straws
 
2013-10-18 06:20:48 PM

danwinkler: Showing an ID to vote is now part of the war on women? You people are really grasping at straws


It is the additional requirements that, generally, only (married) women have to deal with.

Sort of how if there was a law that said "Hey! If your great grandfather couldn't vote, you can't either!", doesn't TECHNICALLY target people whose ancestors were property (it doesn't, after all, say "BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T VOOOTEEEEE"), but to claim it's not a law targeting black people would be farking stupid.
 
2013-10-18 06:20:54 PM
Can't we just let Texas secede, then build a wall around it and let all the Religious Right/Teabaggers/Birchers move to their Utopia? Sorry Austin, you're collateral damage.
 
2013-10-18 06:21:08 PM

Serious Black: ScaryBottles: See they didn't really think their cunning plan all the way through here. Speaking as a Texas resident if you guys think that there isn't a not insignificant percentage of dumb white trash slags who do everything their husband tells them to including who to vote for you're mistaken. The reality is the poorest women in this state who I'm guessing comprise the majority of the 1/3 who would not be able to furnish ID are dumb white trash and would have probably voted for the republicans anyway.

So? I don't really care who they vote for; the fact that they wouldn't be able to vote if they want to is moronic.


I agree vote suppression is inexcusable, I'm just illustrating another case of these bozos thinking they are a lot smarter than they are.

mcreadyblue: ScaryBottles: See they didn't really think their cunning plan all the way through here. Speaking as a Texas resident if you guys think that there isn't a not insignificant percentage of dumb white trash slags who do everything their husband tells them to including who to vote for you're mistaken. The reality is the poorest women in this state who I'm guessing comprise the majority of the 1/3 who would not be able to furnish ID are dumb white trash and would have probably voted for the republicans anyway.

The poor ones don't marry the baby daddy.


Of course not but thats not going to stop them from being worthless controlling assholes, or stop these stupid skanks from going right along with it. I really think you and everyone else is giving the majority of women in Texas a lot more credit than they deserve.
 
2013-10-18 06:23:32 PM

Snapper Carr: Texas women can get pretty uppity


[i.imgur.com image 453x413]

[i.imgur.com image 630x354]

[i.imgur.com image 452x500]


Sadly, for every women like these three there are 5 worthless teabaggers groupies.
 
2013-10-18 06:23:54 PM
Shouldn't all the proof be required when you register to vote?

I mean, I understand that all these voting day restrictions are blatant attempts to prevent legitimate voters from voting for Democrats but it's SO TRANSPARENT that you wonder how they get anyone on their side.
 
2013-10-18 06:24:27 PM

Felgraf: danwinkler: Showing an ID to vote is now part of the war on women? You people are really grasping at straws

It is the additional requirements that, generally, only (married) women have to deal with.

Sort of how if there was a law that said "Hey! If your great grandfather couldn't vote, you can't either!", doesn't TECHNICALLY target people whose ancestors were property (it doesn't, after all, say "BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T VOOOTEEEEE"), but to claim it's not a law targeting black people would be farking stupid.


"additional requirements"?  The name on the ID has to match the one you're registered to vote as.  How is that an additional requirement?

Hi, I'm John Smith, and I'd like to vote.  Here's my ID.
Um, this says your name is Bob Stephens.
Yeah, but my name is actually John Smith.
Well, go right ahead sir.
...30 minutes later...
Hi, I'm Ted Dickerson and I'd like to vote.  Here's my ID.
 
2013-10-18 06:24:32 PM

ScaryBottles: Snapper Carr: Texas women can get pretty uppity


[i.imgur.com image 453x413]

[i.imgur.com image 630x354]

[i.imgur.com image 452x500]

Sadly, for every woman like these three there are 5 worthless teabaggers groupies.


Fixed.
 
2013-10-18 06:26:29 PM

Snapper Carr: Texas women can get pretty uppity


[i.imgur.com image 453x413]

[i.imgur.com image 630x354]


img.fark.net

What does Natalie from the Facts of Life have to do with any of this.
 
2013-10-18 06:27:11 PM

Snapper Carr: Texas women can get pretty uppity


[i.imgur.com image 453x413]

[i.imgur.com image 630x354]

[i.imgur.com image 452x500]


I was just thinking the other day about how much fun it would have been if Ann Richards had ever run for president. And I would vote for Wendy Davis in a heartbeat.
 
2013-10-18 06:27:43 PM

serial_crusher: Felgraf: danwinkler: Showing an ID to vote is now part of the war on women? You people are really grasping at straws

It is the additional requirements that, generally, only (married) women have to deal with.

Sort of how if there was a law that said "Hey! If your great grandfather couldn't vote, you can't either!", doesn't TECHNICALLY target people whose ancestors were property (it doesn't, after all, say "BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T VOOOTEEEEE"), but to claim it's not a law targeting black people would be farking stupid.

"additional requirements"?  The name on the ID has to match the one you're registered to vote as.  How is that an additional requirement?

Hi, I'm John Smith, and I'd like to vote.  Here's my ID.
Um, this says your name is Bob Stephens.
Yeah, but my name is actually John Smith.
Well, go right ahead sir.
...30 minutes later...
Hi, I'm Ted Dickerson and I'd like to vote.  Here's my ID.


The requierments in swapping the last name on your ID.

Something that, mainly, would only affect women. And, you know, they've decided to make it rather onerous. Did you actually read the article?
 
2013-10-18 06:27:45 PM
Anybody that owns a home or condo, or rents a location in another state, and is out of state for more than four cumulative weeks per year loses residency.
 
2013-10-18 06:28:02 PM
if a person changes their name they have to update their ID and other documents, correct?
 
2013-10-18 06:28:31 PM
Texas: The Toolbox of the United States.
 
2013-10-18 06:30:05 PM

serial_crusher: The clear argument for this law is that people prove who they are to vote -- that they are citizens, that they live where they say the live and are who they claim to be. The clear argument against this law is that it specifically targets women in a year where a controversial, pro-choice woman is running for the highest office in a state with a conservative, pro-life dominated government. The timing isn't an accident.

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous:
1) This doesn't specifically target women


I pass a law stating that all people with ovaries are automatically felons. Hey, I didn't specifically target women! I specifically targeted people with ovaries.

2) The voter ID fight has been going on for years.  It's not something they cooked up as soon as Wendy Davis announced her candidacy.

This is true. The timing is entirely based on Shelby County v. Holder ruling Section 5 of the VRA unconstitutional.
 
2013-10-18 06:30:18 PM

serial_crusher: Felgraf: danwinkler: Showing an ID to vote is now part of the war on women? You people are really grasping at straws

It is the additional requirements that, generally, only (married) women have to deal with.

Sort of how if there was a law that said "Hey! If your great grandfather couldn't vote, you can't either!", doesn't TECHNICALLY target people whose ancestors were property (it doesn't, after all, say "BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T VOOOTEEEEE"), but to claim it's not a law targeting black people would be farking stupid.

"additional requirements"?  The name on the ID has to match the one you're registered to vote as.  How is that an additional requirement?

Hi, I'm John Smith, and I'd like to vote.  Here's my ID.
Um, this says your name is Bob Stephens.
Yeah, but my name is actually John Smith.
Well, go right ahead sir.
...30 minutes later...
Hi, I'm Ted Dickerson and I'd like to vote.  Here's my ID.


Oh, by the way: I'm pretty sure, when you register to vote, it also has, you know, *YOUR ADDRESS*.

So unless Bob Stephens lives at the same place John Smith does, that's not going to farking work.

So what you're saying is:

Address matches.
First name and middle name matches
Last name is now different due to marriage:
SUCKS TO BE YOU, SCREW EVERYTHING ELSE CHECKING OUT. CLEARLY YOU ARE A DOPPLEGANGER WHO LIVES IN A HOME WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS THE SAME FIRST AND MIDDLE NAME.
 
2013-10-18 06:30:19 PM

serial_crusher: I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous:
1) This doesn't specifically target women
2) The voter ID fight has been going on for years. It's not something they cooked up as soon as Wendy Davis announced her candidacy.


Doesn't target women?

Who changes their legal name in our society?
Half a percent of society change their legal name because they're batshiat crazy and want to be named Emperor Spiderman Gandalf Wolverine Skywalker.
Half a percent of society are men who change their legal name to their wife's when they get married.
47% of women over 15 are married, and most will change their last name to their new husband's.

Tell me how that doesn't target women.
 
2013-10-18 06:33:11 PM
The fairer sex has a habit of changing their name taking on other's names when marrying; some hyphonatin' while others taking on their spouses.  Some choose to keep using their original names all the while retaining the spousal name while others chose to legally revert back to their old family name but retaining their married name on the bills.  Oi, that'll give any records keeper a mind melt.  Let's toss in lesbian marriage so we don't know who's who amongst the female population.  Sounds like a legitimate reason to want an up to date verifiable ID due to the umpteen possibilities a woman may change her name over a lifetime.

Now you gotta get off your asses, verify your current, legal identity, and pay $20 to fix it.  Being the benevolent soul I am- the cost can be written off on your tax return for a full refund.  If you can't afford it, you're probably on record as being broke and the state of Texas can pick up the tab.

Not discriminating as guys tend to be fairly stable when it comes to name changes.
 
2013-10-18 06:34:08 PM
The other funny thing about this is that Texas state law has already required you to notify the DPS and get a new license within 30 days of your name change, since 1995 (521.054.b) .  Any women hypothetically affected by this were already breaking the law.  Admittedly isn't a good excuse to disenfranchise them, but makes them look pretty stupid to start complaining about it now.  It's something they were already legally obligated to do.
 
2013-10-18 06:34:42 PM
The Republicans are really desperate when they have to cheat to win an election in Texas.
 
2013-10-18 06:35:52 PM

TuteTibiImperes: sdd2000: How is that female and miniority outreach working out for the GOP?

They've decided it's easier to just prevent those who disagree with them from voting.  Apparently that's a lot easier than actually trying to grow as farking human beings and stop being such inveterate quim ferrets.


That's totally gonna be the new name for my L7 cover band!
 
2013-10-18 06:35:56 PM

serial_crusher: The other funny thing about this is that Texas state law has already required you to notify the DPS and get a new license within 30 days of your name change, since 1995 (521.054.b) .  Any women hypothetically affected by this were already breaking the law.  Admittedly isn't a good excuse to disenfranchise them, but makes them look pretty stupid to start complaining about it now.  It's something they were already legally obligated to do.


They were/are legal obligated to not vote if they are inelligible, so what is your point?
 
2013-10-18 06:36:12 PM

EwoksSuck: The Republicans are really desperate when they have to cheat to win an election in Texas.


Oh, it's worse than that. In 10 years, thanks to shifting age and racial demographics, Texas will be a predominantly blue state.

What do you think one of the reasons that Republicans are fighting so hard against immigration reform and amnesty is? They will lose several of those previously red states.
 
2013-10-18 06:37:19 PM

DemonEater: serial_crusher: I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous:
1) This doesn't specifically target women
2) The voter ID fight has been going on for years. It's not something they cooked up as soon as Wendy Davis announced her candidacy.

Doesn't target women?

Who changes their legal name in our society?
Half a percent of society change their legal name because they're batshiat crazy and want to be named Emperor Spiderman Gandalf Wolverine Skywalker.
Half a percent of society are men who change their legal name to their wife's when they get married.
47% of women over 15 are married, and most will change their last name to their new husband's.

Tell me how that doesn't target women.


Hey, there's chance it might hamper married gay men too.

See, serial_crusher was right.

What's the prob, libtardos?
 
2013-10-18 06:38:11 PM

Felgraf: Address matches.
First name and middle name matches
Last name is now different due to marriage:
SUCKS TO BE YOU, SCREW EVERYTHING ELSE CHECKING OUT. CLEARLY YOU ARE A DOPPLEGANGER WHO LIVES IN A HOME WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS THE SAME FIRST AND MIDDLE NAME.


You forgot to be offended that the address matching thing "specifically targets" college students.  So really as long as your first and middle name match, you're good to go.
 
2013-10-18 06:38:37 PM

serial_crusher: Feh, taking your husband's name is already a misogynistic tradition that exploits and oppresses women.  If you've already engaged in that tradition, you may as well have disenfranchised yourself.

What about the men who take their wife's name, huh? huh?


We tend to escape Texas.
 
2013-10-18 06:38:48 PM
First line of TFA: It's a trend lately, that if a party is afraid of losing an election, they pass legislation barring key groups in their opponents' base from voting.

If "a party" pulls this sh#t? Are the Democrats doing this, too, and I'm just not seeing it?
 
2013-10-18 06:39:16 PM

serial_crusher: The other funny thing about this is that Texas state law has already required you to notify the DPS and get a new license within 30 days of your name change, since 1995 (521.054.b) . Any women hypothetically affected by this were already breaking the law.


How is a woman who doesn't drive not having a drivers license in her name breaking the law?
 
Displayed 50 of 191 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report