Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(CNN)   "If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov"   (cnn.com) divider line 117
    More: Interesting, Texas, id laws, editor-at-large, Hidalgo County, PJ Media, Texas Department of Public Safety, voter ID, University of Texas  
•       •       •

1935 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2013 at 6:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-13 12:41:35 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Mentat: The ID laws are just a vector to pull in the other suppression techniques.  The North Carolina law is a prime example.  So many facets of that law have nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with throwing roadblocks in front of Democratic voters.

Usually they have a nice (for Republicans) side effect of keeping college students from voting at their college location, by requiring an address match. (Even though the address you give DMV isn't any more secure or verified than the address you give when registering).

NC tried, at first, to just directly ban college students from voting at college, but that got shot down IIRC.


Well, not ban, but remove parents' tuition deduction from their taxes if they did.  Republicans literally tried to create a poll tax specifically for college students.   Anti-democracy cowards.
 
2013-11-13 12:44:29 PM  

whistleridge: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

In other news, both sides are full of shiat. The ID laws aren't about voter suppression, and they aren't about fraud. They're just a stone to push back and forth and fight over, in lieu of actual governance.


Actually, they are about suppression. Just ask that guy from Pennsylvania. It's just that this is causing the same sort of reaction that the boycott of Chik-fil-A. It's pissed people off so much that even people who wouldn't normally vote are doing their damnedest to vote.
 
2013-11-13 12:48:03 PM  
It's important to note that provisional ballots cast are counted toward the actual "number of people who turned out to vote" but aren't, you know, counted as votes in many cases.

Once we see a demographic study of the voter turnout as well as a look at the content of uncounted provisional ballots... well, then we'll have some actual data. As of now, we know two things: jack and shiat.
 
2013-11-13 01:17:03 PM  

pdee: Kibbler:

Gun ownership is a right (and a duty), health care is a privilege

Buying a gun with your own money is a right.  Making other people pay for your health care is a privilege.

Apple=/=Orange.

When the NRA demands the the government buy guns for people who cant afford them you can play again.


Actually I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet.
 
2013-11-13 01:49:01 PM  
clowncar on fire: [S]houldn't we be working on making sure that all of our citizenry have at least one form of identification if the need arises?

Make it free and easy to obtain, and all of these problems go away.
 
2013-11-13 01:55:37 PM  

austerity101: Make it free and easy to obtain, and all of these problems go away.


And yet still completely unnecessary.
 
2013-11-13 03:15:54 PM  

AeAe: whistleridge: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

In other news, both sides are full of shiat. The ID laws aren't about voter suppression, and they aren't about fraud. They're just a stone to push back and forth and fight over, in lieu of actual governance.

You're one of those 'both sides are bad' assholes, huh?  Good to know.


Both sides ARE bad. You're using the fallacy fallacy, and you're STILL doing it wrong. 

Just because I don't think these laws are primarily about voter suppression doesn't mean that it's not an element. It is. 

These fights are about white people continuing to have a stranglehold on national politics versus this country changing to become a true pluralistic multi-ethnic melting pot of the sort that it has always pretended to be, but never actually been. If the right can maintain that, they will, with or without voter suppression.

If the left can break the stranglehold on power that the right has had since the late 70s, they will. With or without voter suppression. 

Don't kid yourself: the left doesn't care about fringe poor people voting any more than the right does. Nor does history indicate that the people who will be suppressed by these sorts of laws vote in the numbers or with enough regularity to really make a difference. This is just a point to fight over. It has very little to do with the actual issues at hand.

/ however, if forced between the shiathead who favors getting to power through rich men and the asshole who favors getting to power through me, I'll side with the asshole every time
 
2013-11-13 03:43:34 PM  

ambercat: Turnout being up doesn't mean these IDs weren't intended to suppress the vote, it just means that if they were intended to, they aren't working as they were meant to. It could be that these laws have made people so mad that folks who had otherwise given up on voting are now making it out to the polls even though voting is now even more difficult for them.


The reason that voter turn out was up in Texas this year is because there were things on the ballot people wanted their voices to be heard on.  A number of municipalities had ballot initiatives on allowing alcohol sales, in addition to state constitutional amendments dealing with water projects and veteran's benefits.

In a few counties, if your ID name didn't match your voter registration, the election board allowed you to vote under your name on file and had you fill out a change of voter registration card.  The one thing I forgot to change my name on after my recent marriage was my voter registration.  It probably didn't hurt that I showed up at the polls with my certified copy of my marriage license in hand and the receipt for the name change filed with the Secretary of State's office.
 
2013-11-13 04:41:29 PM  

LoneWolf343: People are more likely to vote against you if you systematically piss them off.


Also more likely to vote for you if you keep giving them free stuff.
 
2013-11-13 04:45:10 PM  
Not impressed with his reasoning. The kinds of people who vote in a constitutional amendment election in an off year are already going to be extremely politically aware and active. We won't really know the impact of these laws until next year or maybe even 2016. I'm generally suspicious of these laws and I do believe that party leadership intended this to suppress votes, but it's still to early to say that I'm right or wrong about the impact.
 
2013-11-13 04:56:57 PM  
Not impressed with his reasoning. The kinds of people who vote in a constitutional amendment election in an off year are already going to be extremely politically aware and active. We won't really know the impact of these laws until next year or maybe even 2016. I'm generally suspicious of these laws and I do believe that party leadership intended this to suppress votes, but it's still too early to say that I'm right or wrong about the impact.
 
2013-11-13 05:13:07 PM  
Not impressed with his reasoning. The kinds of people who vote in a constitutional amendment election in an off year are already going to be extremely politically aware and active. We won't really know the impact of these laws until next year or maybe even 2016. I'm generally suspicious of these laws and I do believe that party leadership intended this to suppress votes, but it's still too early to say that I'm right or wrong about the impact.
 
2013-11-13 06:25:13 PM  

pdee: Kibbler:

Gun ownership is a right (and a duty), health care is a privilege

Buying a gun with your own money is a right.  Making other people pay for your health care is a privilege.

Apple=/=Orange.

When the NRA demands the the government buy guns for people who cant afford them you can play again.


Here's a little quiz for you, since you seem to be in the "Every Day Is Opposite Day" camp I'm referring to.

1. Currently we have millions of people without health insurance, who can't afford to go to a doctor, so they wait until they have a medical emergency, then go to the ER, can't pay for the bill, so it is put on the public tab, also known as "making other people pay for your health care."

TRUE   FALSE

(Alternative Real Murcan answer: LET THE SCUM SCREAM AND DIE IN THE HOSPITAL PARKING LOT.)

2. ACA requires everyone either to buy health insurance, or to pay a penalty, so that in fact it is the opposite of "making other people pay for your health care", or at least a big step in that direction.

TRUE   FALSE

(Alternative Real Murcan answer:  WEBSITE DISASTER DEATH SPIRAL LIES POTATO BENGHAZI.)

3. If more people were insured, and therefore could afford to get regular, preventive medical care, they would be healthier, and therefore their medical costs would be lower, not higher.

TRUE   FALSE

(Can't think of an alternative Real Murcan answer for that one.)
 
2013-11-13 10:39:30 PM  

clkeagle: FTFA: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

Specifically, women and minority votes (especially elderly in those categories). Nobody said that the local Tea Parties wouldn't get all their constituents out to vote... and the increase in voter turnout is about the same as national average.

And as helpful proof that their voter ID laws didn't suppress any votes, the blog included a helpful pic of what this year's Texas voting demographic looked like.



Yep, my fears about alienating women and minority voters are certainly alleviated.


HOW DARE 4 white people vote at the same place at the same time. I mean what is this, a klan rally?
 
2013-11-13 10:46:40 PM  

Bloody William: Dusk-You-n-Me: There is some amount of voter impersonation fraud

Which is a statement that carries exactly as much weight as "there is some amount of fatal lightning strikes." It happens, but not to the extent that anyone should wear lightning rods and grounding wires all the time.


That would probably increase lightening deaths by a significant portion.  It would cause a huge spike in lightning strikes immediately next to a person.  Lightning hitting the ground nearby or striking a nearby tree, lightpost, whatever is very dangerous.  It causes a huge change in potential in the ground at impact, and as the charge dissipates to the surrounding area it causes a huge surge of current through the ground which goes out in all directions, which creates potential differences in the ground.  If one leg is at a point with a large potential difference from the other, there is enough voltage across the feet to cause current to flow up one leg, through the torso, and down the other.

It's called step potential.

Scary video of step potential in action (possibly NSFW or sensitive people)

Nobody got struck, but you can see how various people near a ground strike had very different reactions based on how close they were, whether they had two feet on the ground, how their feet were oriented, and how far apart their feet were.

Don't know why if felt the need to share that, but there ya go.
 
2013-11-13 10:53:04 PM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: LoneWolf343: People are more likely to vote against you if you systematically piss them off.

Also more likely to vote for you if you keep giving them free stuff.


I know I've been voting for free stuff.

Methane-free water, E. coli-free meat, creationism-free education, bankruptcy-free health care, and itchy-trigger-finger-free foreign policy.
 
2013-11-14 12:48:24 PM  

Kibbler: pdee: Kibbler:

Gun ownership is a right (and a duty), health care is a privilege

Buying a gun with your own money is a right.  Making other people pay for your health care is a privilege.

Apple=/=Orange.

When the NRA demands the the government buy guns for people who cant afford them you can play again.

Here's a little quiz for you, since you seem to be in the "Every Day Is Opposite Day" camp I'm referring to.

1. Currently we have millions of people without health insurance, who can't afford to go to a doctor, so they wait until they have a medical emergency, then go to the ER, can't pay for the bill, so it is put on the public tab, also known as "making other people pay for your health care."

TRUE and FALSE

People without insurance receive incomplete care.  The real expensive treatments like cancer and AIDS are not treated so costs are lower than they would be if treated completely.


(Alternative Real Murcan answer: LET THE SCUM SCREAM AND DIE IN THE HOSPITAL PARKING LOT.)

2. ACA requires everyone either to buy health insurance, or to pay a penalty, so that in fact it is the opposite of "making other people pay for your health care", or at least a big step in that direction.

TRUE   FALSE

As has been pointed out here repeatedly those who lack insurance for financial reasons and many of those who are loosing their healthcare and are being forced to purchase more expensive healthcare plans that meet the new regulations will receive government subsidies.  Government money is not free.  It is the definition of someone else paying for it.

(Alternative Real Murcan answer:  WEBSITE DISASTER DEATH SPIRAL LIES POTATO BENGHAZI.)

3. If more people were insured, and therefore could afford to get regular, preventive medical care, they would be healthier, and therefore their medical costs would be lower, not higher.

TRUE   FALSE

Healthcare costs too much.  This is the source of the problem.  Obamacare does nothing to address this.  If anything it will make it much worse.  If many more people receive more health care costs will go up. See the law of supply and demand.  The biggest health problems in the US are related to lifestyle choices.  Drinking, smoking, drugs and over eating.  People who engage in these behaviors already know that smoking causes cancer, drinking to excess is unhealthy, drugs are bad um'kay and they are fat.  Going to the doctor will not change their behavior.

(Can't think of an alternative Real Murcan answer for that one.)
 
Displayed 17 of 117 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report