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.

(UPI)   Third-world nation with thriving drug manufacturing trade and long history of political corruption strongly objects to presence of UN observers during elections. Wait, did we say "third-world nation"? Sorry, we meant Tennessee   (upi.com) divider line 172
    More: Obvious, UN observers, corruption, third world  
•       •       •

4435 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2014 at 10:38 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-12 01:22:46 PM  

zepher: Yet you're no doubt OK with requiring a license fee, a background check fee, and other fees for people to exercise their second amendment rights.


I'd love to see someone answer that question without talking out both sides of their mouth.

Honestly I have no problem with background checks and gun permits, I don't think every swinging dick out there needs to be walking around with a gun in their pocket. Just like I don't think anyone should be able to just show up and vote no questions asked either.
 
2014-04-12 01:30:01 PM  

Leishu: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: "Any representative of the United Nations appearing without a treaty ratified by the United States Senate stating that the United Nations can monitor elections in this state, shall not monitor elections in this state."

They do realize that the United Nations is itself the result of a treaty ratified by the United States Senate, right?  According to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land, making the UN Charter the highest law of the land.

/that said, of the US Senate has failed to ratify many basic international treaties

-5/10.

That's not your trolling score; that's your intelligent joke score.

I'm dumb so explain it to be like I'm a five-year-old.  What's the joke?  That the UN is a result of a treaty?  That the Constitution considers treaties to be the highest law of the land?  That the US Senate has not ratified many treaties that are almost universally ratified (often putting us in company with places like Somalia and Best Korea)?

Seriously, I don't get the joke.

The US has treaties with Russia. By your logic, that makes Russian law the highest law in the American land.

/nowhere in the Charter or treaty did the US cede sovereignty to the UN. In fact, one of the main reasons Congress agreed to ratify the treaty is that this was explicitly spelled out.
//Go ahead. Find me the clause or statute that makes US law subordinate to UN decisions.

Here's what I'm referring to:  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

It doesn't mean Russian law is supreme over US law.  It means that our treaty agreements (when duly ratified by the Senate) with Russia ta ...

You are being intentionally obtuse or you and your "friend" are woefully ignorant. Seriously, it's a wonder you don't go through a keyboard a day from sheer drool output.


Great point, I hadn't thought of that.

/another grunt from the lowbrow brigade
 
2014-04-12 01:31:14 PM  

brimed03: Actually that was more of Erudite Dismissal.


You might draw that conclusion, but not really. He leaps up unbidden several times per week. It was around a year ago he was caught out in a discussion -- where it was in black and white that he was a moron, and I was not quite the graceful victor.


His grudge is tiresome, but I can't unring that punked-out biatch bell.
 
2014-04-12 01:35:35 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply don't get the whole "OMGZ!  Requiring an ID to vote is VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!  It's EEEEEVIL!!!"  Here where I live in Canada, the libbiest lib country that ever libbed, apparently, there is no such thing as voter registration.  You show your ID.  That's it.  (That's Alberta.  I have no idea what other provinces do.)  Even when I lived in the US, I didn't understand why requiring a state-issued ID to vote was a bad thing, or any different from requiring people to register.  All the arguments were pretty dumb, IMHO, and were basically, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!  THE EEEVIL GUMMMINT IS REFUSING TO ISSUE ID!!!  WHARRRGARBLE!!11eleven"


It's because you have little or no history of disenfranchising significant segments if the population in order to skew voting results in favor of white people.

Instead of screaming uniformed opinions in country-specific threads, why not go read a little on the history of Jim Crow and voting abuses brought to light under the Civil Rights era.
 
2014-04-12 01:35:57 PM  

Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.


Ford Motor Company has determined that there is a flaw in two of its cars' steering column that could kill its occupants.  Granted, they've sold five million of those cars and that flaw has only been known to appear in two cars and only those two cars.

To fix the problem, it will change a couple of components in all five million vehicles that will prevent that failure.  However, those components will disable the airbag and seatbelts for about 20% of all the vehicles, particularly those owned by the poor and minorities.

Can anybody tell me why it's a bad thing for ford to change the steering column in all those vehicles so that those two poeple don't die?  I'm having a hard time understanding libtards on this issue.
 
2014-04-12 01:37:29 PM  

MyRandomName: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Are you aware of the 35k votes found voting in two different states, illegally?

Still shocks me how liberals claim there is no voter fraud when they take away every tool to detect voter fraud.

A shows up and votes as B
B shows up, cant vote, A is long gone and no way to identify them
No conviction based on no arrest.
Liberals "see no conviction, ergo no voter fraud!"


I'm actually in favor of requiring an ID, but I'm not aware of 35K votes being cast by the same people in different states.  I know they found some people whose first and last names and dates of birth registered in more than one state, but I'm guessing most of those people moved.  I might be registered in more than one state.  I've moved and never bothered to "unregister" in my old state.  I don't think I broke any laws.  I haven't tried to vote more than once in any given election.

I'm willing to accept that an ID should be freely provided by the state so there are no complaints about it being a poll tax of sorts, but to some people, that's not good enough because getting an ID even if it's free is "hard" according to them.

Life is hard and if you can't be bothered to get a free ID, then maybe you shouldn't vote.  Of course I have some more radical ideas than that.  I propose we throw out any ballot that votes a straight party ticket too.  They've obviously not actually researched the candidates.
 
2014-04-12 01:49:19 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply don't get the whole "OMGZ!  Requiring an ID to vote is VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!  It's EEEEEVIL!!!"  Here where I live in Canada, the libbiest lib country that ever libbed, apparently, there is no such thing as voter registration.  You show your ID.  That's it.  (That's Alberta.  I have no idea what other provinces do.)  Even when I lived in the US, I didn't understand why requiring a state-issued ID to vote was a bad thing, or any different from requiring people to register.  All the arguments were pretty dumb, IMHO, and were basically, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!  THE EEEVIL GUMMMINT IS REFUSING TO ISSUE ID!!!  WHARRRGARBLE!!11eleven"


Bullshiat in every way.

1) There is voter registration in Canada (though it may not go by that name). Most people do it by ticking a box on their tax return. Some file a form for it. Some register at the polls (which the various Republican governments are also striving to restrict).

2) You do not need ID to vote. I have even voted without I'd. Someone else signed a piece of paper saying I was eligible to vote there. Done.
Now, even if you don't know a single person able to go to the polls with you and vouch for you, look at the list of ID acceptable to vote in Canada and look at the list of acceptable ID in North Carolina. One is a hell of a lot more extensive than the other. One includes utility bills, library cards, and any government correspondence. The other includes a few specific photo IDs.

3) Look at the other actions that the Republican governments are pulling at the same time as instituting voter ID laws. These make the intent pretty clear.
 
2014-04-12 01:55:15 PM  

Carousel Beast: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Again, why is that wrong? So long as the State is providing free, validated identification, why do you object to ensuring the identity of the people forming the government?


And therein lies the problem... FREE identification. You have to pay to get your ID, and in many rural areas, the place to go and get an ID is prohibitively far away. If you're poor and don't have a car, it becomes a huge burden to get one. Combine this with the incredibly low incidence of voter fraud in the U.S., and you will find that a lot of this is a veiled attempt to disenfranchise the poor. I'm fine with laws designed to prevent voter fraud, provided that they are written such that they also don't make it difficult for eligible people to vote, as well.
 
2014-04-12 01:58:43 PM  
Here in Iowa, our (Republican) government just spent two full years and a about $200k dollars to find ten whole cases of voter fraud in the last 8 years. And only five were deemed worthy of censure by the courts.

One was a mother casting a absentee ballot for her daughter due to the confusing nature of college attende voting rights. (She self reported)
One was a guy trying to steal the identity of his brother who died in infancy, I assume to commit crimes, and registered to vote *accidentially* while doing so.
Three were felons who thought their right to vote had been restored (there was a window where is was automatic for non-violent felonies). One of them registered to vote accidentally while trying to get a drivers license.
Three were Canadians citizens staying in the state who thought that they could only not vote in presidential elections.
And one was a rather confused elderly Hispanic lady who double voted.

That's roughly $20,000 per instance to detect only five actionable instances of voter fraud. $40,000 per actionable offense. $200,000 if you only catch the one with arguably malicious intent (even though it was accidental and stemmed more from incompetence)

Over and again, there was not been found to be any systemic voter fraud by misrepresentation or proxy.

Thus, any attempt to limit voting by requiring IDs to fix a non-existent problem is either a waste of resources and/or a politically motivated attempt to disenfranchise people. This is the problem I have with it.

/  But hey, if the supreme court keeps at striking down election and campaign finance laws we'll be back to 1880's elections, so it won't really matter.
// At least I'll get beer and food at the polls then as each side tries to openly buy my vote.
 
2014-04-12 02:00:17 PM  

ReapTheChaos: brimed03: By mail? Or do they need to show up somewhere? Will the state send someone to help the illiterate or those needing translations? Will the state furnish transportation to those in rural areas to the regional ID facilities? Does the state advertise any of this information in places where you'd the poor and minorities who are most likely to not know about such information?

It's all well and good to put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. Republicans should be able to appreciate that metaphor.

Good grief, you want them to come by and suck your cock while they're at it?

If they're so destitute they can't get transportation for a one time event, how did they ever register to vote in the first place? Better yet, how do they get to the polls on election day? If you're going to say that various organizations can come pick them up and drive them to the polls, then those same organizations can take them to get their voter ID. It's not rocket science. If this is the best argument you have then you're running on empty.


When people respond to rational debate with curses and empty dismissals, it's pretty clear who's running on empty.

Government has no business creating unnecessary impediments to the constitutional exercise of voting rights. That's the most far-right philosophical statement I've ever written and yet far-righties like you fight it tooth and nail.

Why? Because it's about protecting your rigged voting schemes as long as possible.

Or to put it on your level: f*ck off ashhole.
 
2014-04-12 02:04:38 PM  

brimed03: It's because you have little or no history of disenfranchising significant segments if the population in order to skew voting results in favor of white people.


This is not how it works. The aim is not to prevent black people per se from voting. The aim is to elect a certain candidate, and significant segments of the population may prevent that from happening.

Please, this is not semantics. Nobody, especially in 2014, is such a hateful racist that they wish to deny black people the joy of fully participating in democracy by voting. If blacks voted en-bloc for republicans, then it would be the GOP that conducted all the voter registration drives in the projects. It is not about race.

The aim of the democrats is to increase democrat votes by appealing to everyone who will vote democrat. The problem for the democrats is that they have little room for improvement with mainstream voters. Half and Half, Neck and Neck for most elections, changes up and down all the time. It's the fringe where they can get the most bang for the buck.

Do democrats really have a heartfelt urge to see felons able to vote? NO NO NO. If felons voted mostly republican, then it would be democrats who thought a felony should prevent you from voting. Same for illegal aliens and every other 'disenfranchised' group such as the homeless.

And that's where the republicans have the upper-hand, since they can neutralise a lot of the new base the democrats are courting merely by requiring legal and valid and 100% accurate documentation and verification. The idea that you can corrupt a process by introducing genuine accountability is so WTF that I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics the democrats use to say that out loud.
 
2014-04-12 02:16:41 PM  

brimed03: ReapTheChaos: brimed03: By mail? Or do they need to show up somewhere? Will the state send someone to help the illiterate or those needing translations? Will the state furnish transportation to those in rural areas to the regional ID facilities? Does the state advertise any of this information in places where you'd the poor and minorities who are most likely to not know about such information?

It's all well and good to put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. Republicans should be able to appreciate that metaphor.

Good grief, you want them to come by and suck your cock while they're at it?

If they're so destitute they can't get transportation for a one time event, how did they ever register to vote in the first place? Better yet, how do they get to the polls on election day? If you're going to say that various organizations can come pick them up and drive them to the polls, then those same organizations can take them to get their voter ID. It's not rocket science. If this is the best argument you have then you're running on empty.

When people respond to rational debate with curses and empty dismissals, it's pretty clear who's running on empty.

Government has no business creating unnecessary impediments to the constitutional exercise of voting rights. That's the most far-right philosophical statement I've ever written and yet far-righties like you fight it tooth and nail.

Why? Because it's about protecting your rigged voting schemes as long as possible.

Or to put it on your level: f*ck off ashhole.


I gave a perfectly logical argument, you're the one who completely dismissed it.
 
2014-04-12 02:30:48 PM  
Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply don't get the whole "OMGZ!  Requiring an ID to vote is VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!  It's EEEEEVIL!!!"  Here where I live in Canada, the libbiest lib country that ever libbed, apparently, there is no such thing as voter registration.  You show your ID.  That's it.  (That's Alberta.  I have no idea what other provinces do.)  Even when I lived in the US, I didn't understand why requiring a state-issued ID to vote was a bad thing, or any different from requiring people to register.  All the arguments were pretty dumb, IMHO, and were basically, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!  THE EEEVIL GUMMMINT IS REFUSING TO ISSUE ID!!!  WHARRRGARBLE!!11eleven"

Actually, according to Elections Alberta's website, you can vote without ID if you are on the list of electors. Are you talking about municipal or provincial elections or did I misread something?

The problem with requiring a state issue-id is that they cost money and take serious effort to obtain. ID's are not free, and not everyone has them in poorer communities. For some of the most marginalized people, that's money that's they don't have. If they live in a rural community, getting to the local government office can be an absolute pain. Also, if they have had their ID stolen, it can be exceptionally difficult to obtain that first piece of ID.  If they are disabled, its another pain in the ass as well.

The net effect of all of this is reduced voted turnout among the poor and marginalized. The functional effect is that it represents a very minor barrier to voting for the middle class, but a significant one to the poorest and most marginalized in the society.

If this was done to prevent rampant voter fraud, that might be understandable.  However, studies from elections offices, most government offices and independent organizations show that this type of casual voter fraud is exceedingly rare.

These laws are always seems to be made/proposed by the party that traditionally doesn't get the votes of the very poor (minorities, students, the disabled).  Since voting fraud isn't a thing, the only real motive  isdisenfranchisement of the poor, which is kind of a big deal.
 
2014-04-12 02:43:26 PM  

Fugitive Unknown: The net effect of all of this is reduced voted turnout among the poor and marginalized. The functional effect is that it represents a very minor barrier to voting for the middle class, but a significant one to the poorest and most marginalized in the society.


This is what like to call a natural filter. You're not requiring a certain level of knowledgeably about issues or candidates, but you still eliminate the dregs who couldn't cast an informed vote even if you paid them with a free ride to the polls and a complimentary fried chicken dinner.
 
2014-04-12 02:57:05 PM  
Just once I wish there would be a story out of Tennessee that didn't make me want to stare at my shoes and apologize to everyone about my state.
 
2014-04-12 03:01:36 PM  

Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.


Funny how it's only "lefties" who want no restrictions on voting. About the only possible justification for ID-required I can think of is to keep the non-citizens out of the polls.

As far as I know, ID is verified when you register or re-register. You don't need ID to vote, because that's what the registry is for.

Anyway, until you agree on a national ID card requirement, that is free to everyone, payed for by taxes, then you have no business insisting that voting requires an ID. Unless of course you are a republican trying to game elections. Then you'll push hard for it in every swing jurisdiction you can. And you'll get all your partisan right-wing constituents to agree with you.
 
2014-04-12 03:01:57 PM  

brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: "Any representative of the United Nations appearing without a treaty ratified by the United States Senate stating that the United Nations can monitor elections in this state, shall not monitor elections in this state."

They do realize that the United Nations is itself the result of a treaty ratified by the United States Senate, right?  According to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land, making the UN Charter the highest law of the land.

/that said, of the US Senate has failed to ratify many basic international treaties

-5/10.

That's not your trolling score; that's your intelligent joke score.

I'm dumb so explain it to be like I'm a five-year-old.  What's the joke?  That the UN is a result of a treaty?  That the Constitution considers treaties to be the highest law of the land?  That the US Senate has not ratified many treaties that are almost universally ratified (often putting us in company with places like Somalia and Best Korea)?

Seriously, I don't get the joke.

The US has treaties with Russia. By your logic, that makes Russian law the highest law in the American land.

/nowhere in the Charter or treaty did the US cede sovereignty to the UN. In fact, one of the main reasons Congress agreed to ratify the treaty is that this was explicitly spelled out.
//Go ahead. Find me the clause or statute that makes US law subordinate to UN decisions.

Here's what I'm referring to:  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

It doesn't mean Russian law is supreme over US law.  It means that our treaty agreements (when duly ratified by the Senate) with Russia take precedence over, say, North Dakota law.  Same story with our signing of the UN Charter.  It's not a ceding of sovereignty - we can pull out of the UN whenever we feel like it.

So I talked to a friend who worked for the UN and understands the basics of international law. It turns out that, essentially, we're both wrong lol. And both right in a way.

You're right that, constitutionally, international treaties we've signed trump state law. That is, the terms of that specific treaty and the agreements therein cannot be contravene by states.

BUT. Treaties can only be made between nation-states, not between the US and an organization. The US does not have a *treaty* with the UN. It is a member of the UN. Thus, your argument, based as it is on the constitutional "treaty" clause, collapses.

If we are a part of a treaty made *through* the UN then you can reintroduce the treaty argument, but the UN merely played a facilitator role; the treaty is still between nations. Frankly, I'm not aware of any treaty requiring that the US permit election observers, and neither is my friend.


No fair citing someone who knows what he's talking anout:(

I was assuming the UN Charter was a treaty between all the member nations. And i don't think said Charter says anything about election monitors. So it looks like TN is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. And I'm just wrong (but still the best kind of wrong),
 
2014-04-12 03:13:35 PM  

Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?


It's a bad thing because it costs money. A perfect world in which every single person in the country was not only physically capable of voting, but was also able to do it quickly and conveniently with the minimum amount of fuss, would cost a shiat ton of dollars. It would need voting stations within walking distance of everyone with enough polls in each to prevent long lines from forming, and a way to vote for people who can't get to the polls, and a way to register voters that both ensured against fraud and didn't discriminate against a single person, and well trained people to oversee everything. It all costs money, and all that money comes directly from the state. The federal government doesn't help. So corners are cut. Not everyone can just walk over to a polling booth, vote, and leave in a half hour. Some people have to walk a bit farther, some people have to wait a bit longer. And some people have too get some kind of state ID before they can vote. And the UN frowns upon all of those things.
 
2014-04-12 03:40:27 PM  

nytmare: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Funny how it's only "lefties" who want no restrictions on voting. About the only possible justification for ID-required I can think of is to keep the non-citizens out of the polls.

As far as I know, ID is verified when you register or re-register. You don't need ID to vote, because that's what the registry is for.

Anyway, until you agree on a national ID card requirement, that is free to everyone, payed for by taxes, then you have no business insisting that voting requires an ID. Unless of course you are a republican trying to game elections. Then you'll push hard for it in every swing jurisdiction you can. And you'll get all your partisan right-wing constituents to agree with you.


ID cannot keep non-citizens from votingas vild ID does not indicate citizenship. The only thing it would stop is people from impersonating others at the polls. Which has been demonstrated to not occur. All the other inelligible votes (non-citizens, felons, voting in multiple locations, etc) are red herrings.
 
2014-04-12 03:56:14 PM  

Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.


First, because in person voting fraud wherein someone pretends to be multiple other people to cast multiple votes doesn't exist, as studies have repeatedly shown(though oddly enough, there are a dozen or so high profile cases of Elected Republicans voting outside of their appropriate districts and states; no idea why they'd want to do that but whatever). The situations you mention aren't examples of in-person voting fraud, but rather of ballot-box stuffing and other forms of election rigging practiced by authorities already in power either after the fact, or in the case of Diebold, as the votes are cast through programming designed to distort the election. Measures taken to fight in-person fraud, like requiring a specific picture ID, do absolutely nothing to prevent this.

Second, because the methods Republican state leges have suggested for "fighting" this non-existent problem are, oddly enough, quite similar to the steps taken during Jim Crow to suppress the votes of non-Whites. More oddly enough, they're also similar to the steps these states have repeatedly tried to take since Jim Crow was declared unconstitutional to re-instate the suppression of non-white voting, only to be repeatedly called out and slapped down for it by the Justice Department until this year, when Roberts helpfully stepped in and declared in deliberate ignorance of the evidence that such attempts at structural discrimination are no longer made.

Third, because the methods suggested aren't applied equally. White folks are not considered "suspect" so they don't get challenged over their ID(I have personally never been asked to show any ID other than my voter registration card, and even that only rarely), the burden of getting an ID is higher for non-whites since in Southern states government services are concentrated in white-majority neighborhoods, and the burden of implementation of this sort of "vigilance" also falls on non-white communities. For example, in my state of Texas, Republican-controlled election commissions have drastically cut polling locations state-wide and, oddly enough, the polling places cut all seem to be ones serving non-white communities. This means fewer polling places for non-whites and that, combined with staff trained to make non-white voters prove they are who they are, means longer average voting times in those communities, which in itself discourages voting(you may remember the long lines of citizens waiting to cast their votes in 2012? That was intentional, and the states that created those situations have been working to make them even worse next time around). The point of all these changes, taken together with the ID requirement, is to structurally suppress non-white voting, and as I said in #2, all of this is straight out of the Jim Crow play-book.

Fourth, the laws in question are all being pursued by Republican legislatures, in Southern states that have either seen recent upset victories by the Democrats at the national level, or are facing the demographic inevitability of Democratic-ascendancy due to population shifts, and the campaign to write and pass them is obviously being directed nation-wide.

tl;dr: These laws are a farce, the states that want to institute these laws on the whole have histories of disrespecting the voting rights of certain classes of their citizens, and they are clearly pursuing these laws for the odious partisan purpose of using them as an excuse to discriminate against Democratic voters, and the only reason its being allowed to continue is because the conservative Cons on the SC care more for improving the prospects of their political party than defending the Constitution.
 
2014-04-12 04:00:39 PM  
I don't know why Tennessee is concerned.  The UN is about as effective as a newborn baby armed with spit-up
 
2014-04-12 04:12:42 PM  
So when a foreign entity wants to ensure legitimate voting practices in America, that's perfectly fine with our precious statist Farkers. But when it's an American entity wanting to ensure legitimate voting practices in their own country? Well that's just racist.

You people get dumber every day.
 
2014-04-12 04:17:47 PM  

letrole: brimed03: It's because you have little or no history of disenfranchising significant segments if the population in order to skew voting results in favor of white people.

This is not how it works. The aim is not to prevent black people per se from voting. The aim is to elect a certain candidate, and significant segments of the population may prevent that from happening.

Please, this is not semantics. Nobody, especially in 2014, is such a hateful racist that they wish to deny black people the joy of fully participating in democracy by voting. If blacks voted en-bloc for republicans, then it would be the GOP that conducted all the voter registration drives in the projects. It is not about race.

The aim of the democrats is to increase democrat votes by appealing to everyone who will vote democrat. The problem for the democrats is that they have little room for improvement with mainstream voters. Half and Half, Neck and Neck for most elections, changes up and down all the time. It's the fringe where they can get the most bang for the buck.

Do democrats really have a heartfelt urge to see felons able to vote? NO NO NO. If felons voted mostly republican, then it would be democrats who thought a felony should prevent you from voting. Same for illegal aliens and every other 'disenfranchised' group such as the homeless.

And that's where the republicans have the upper-hand, since they can neutralise a lot of the new base the democrats are courting merely by requiring legal and valid and 100% accurate documentation and verification. The idea that you can corrupt a process by introducing genuine accountability is so WTF that I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics the democrats use to say that out loud.


The truly pathetic thing is that you're not even a *good* troll.
 
2014-04-12 04:18:04 PM  

TerminalEchoes: So when a foreign entity wants to ensure legitimate voting practices in America, that's perfectly fine with our precious statist Farkers. But when it's an American entity wanting to ensure legitimate voting practices in their own country? Well that's just racist.

You people get dumber every day.


They were interested in studying how effective the new GOP voter suppression laws were.

Personally, I would be interested to see the results. Does all this effort by the GOP gain them half a percent or 5 percent?
 
2014-04-12 04:18:58 PM  

ReapTheChaos: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: brimed03: By mail? Or do they need to show up somewhere? Will the state send someone to help the illiterate or those needing translations? Will the state furnish transportation to those in rural areas to the regional ID facilities? Does the state advertise any of this information in places where you'd the poor and minorities who are most likely to not know about such information?

It's all well and good to put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. Republicans should be able to appreciate that metaphor.

Good grief, you want them to come by and suck your cock while they're at it?

If they're so destitute they can't get transportation for a one time event, how did they ever register to vote in the first place? Better yet, how do they get to the polls on election day? If you're going to say that various organizations can come pick them up and drive them to the polls, then those same organizations can take them to get their voter ID. It's not rocket science. If this is the best argument you have then you're running on empty.

When people respond to rational debate with curses and empty dismissals, it's pretty clear who's running on empty.

Government has no business creating unnecessary impediments to the constitutional exercise of voting rights. That's the most far-right philosophical statement I've ever written and yet far-righties like you fight it tooth and nail.

Why? Because it's about protecting your rigged voting schemes as long as possible.

Or to put it on your level: f*ck off ashhole.

I gave a perfectly logical argument, you're the one who completely dismissed it.


Keep telling yourself that.
 
2014-04-12 04:25:56 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: "Any representative of the United Nations appearing without a treaty ratified by the United States Senate stating that the United Nations can monitor elections in this state, shall not monitor elections in this state."

They do realize that the United Nations is itself the result of a treaty ratified by the United States Senate, right?  According to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land, making the UN Charter the highest law of the land.

/that said, of the US Senate has failed to ratify many basic international treaties

-5/10.

That's not your trolling score; that's your intelligent joke score.

I'm dumb so explain it to be like I'm a five-year-old.  What's the joke?  That the UN is a result of a treaty?  That the Constitution considers treaties to be the highest law of the land?  That the US Senate has not ratified many treaties that are almost universally ratified (often putting us in company with places like Somalia and Best Korea)?

Seriously, I don't get the joke.

The US has treaties with Russia. By your logic, that makes Russian law the highest law in the American land.

/nowhere in the Charter or treaty did the US cede sovereignty to the UN. In fact, one of the main reasons Congress agreed to ratify the treaty is that this was explicitly spelled out.
//Go ahead. Find me the clause or statute that makes US law subordinate to UN decisions.

Here's what I'm referring to:  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

It doesn't mean Russian law is supreme over US law.  It means that our treaty agreements (when duly ratified by the Senate) with Russia take precedence over, say, North Dakota law.  Same story with our signing of the UN Charter.  It's not a ceding of sovereignty - we can pull out of the UN whenever we feel like it.

So I talked to a friend who worked for the UN and understands the basics of international law. It turns out that, essentially, we're both wrong lol. And both right in a way.

You're right that, constitutionally, international treaties we've signed trump state law. That is, the terms of that specific treaty and the agreements therein cannot be contravene by states.

BUT. Treaties can only be made between nation-states, not between the US and an organization. The US does not have a *treaty* with the UN. It is a member of the UN. Thus, your argument, based as it is on the constitutional "treaty" clause, collapses.

If we are a part of a treaty made *through* the UN then you can reintroduce the treaty argument, but the UN merely played a facilitator role; the treaty is still between nations. Frankly, I'm not aware of any treaty requiring that the US permit election observers, and neither is my friend.

No fair citing someone who knows what he's talking anout:(

I was assuming the UN Charter was a treaty between all the member nations. And i don't think said Charter says anything about election monitors. So it looks like TN is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. And I'm just wrong (but still the best kind of wrong),


It's true, bringing in knowledgeable people is UnFarklike behavior and grounds for a penalty call. Good news, Drew can punish me by taking away my free TotalFark. Oh wait....

/my friend is a she. I'd call you a sexist pig but it's understandable that one Farker would assume another Farker doesn't know any women
 
2014-04-12 04:31:11 PM  

ignacio: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

It's a bad thing because it costs money. A perfect world in which every single person in the country was not only physically capable of voting, but was also able to do it quickly and conveniently with the minimum amount of fuss, would cost a shiat ton of dollars. It would need voting stations within walking distance of everyone with enough polls in each to prevent long lines from forming, and a way to vote for people who can't get to the polls, and a way to register voters that both ensured against fraud and didn't discriminate against a single person, and well trained people to oversee everything. It all costs money, and all that money comes directly from the state. The federal government doesn't help. So corners are cut. Not everyone can just walk over to a polling booth, vote, and leave in a half hour. Some people have to walk a bit farther, some people have to wait a bit longer. And some people have too get some kind of state ID before they can vote. And the UN frowns upon all of those things.


The UN frowns when it's a specific "some people" who have to walk father, as when polling stations are all set up in predominately white neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that are then patrolled by police who pull over, harass, intimidate, and arrest non-whites for entering that neighborhood.

F*ck this is tiring. Does the far right walk around with its eyes shut, or are you really all just that self-centered that you think your own experience is everyone's experience? I genuinely want to know. How are y'all not aware of this shiat?
 
2014-04-12 04:52:03 PM  

Carousel Beast: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Again, why is that wrong? So long as the State is providing free, validated identification, why do you object to ensuring the identity of the people forming the government?


It's not "free" when you have to obtain a certified copy of your birth certificate (mine was $35) and in most cases a SS card, not to mention a lot of the elderly do not have the ability to just drive around town whenever they want to obtain everything (my grandma when she was alive and living at home had a way to the store once a week). So, is the state going to pay the $35 for a birth certificate (for the people who were born in hospitals), the price for a new SS card, and give people without a drivers license a way around town to obtain all of those and then a ride to the BMV to get the "free" ID?

Didn't think so.
 
2014-04-12 05:07:50 PM  

brimed03: Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply don't get the whole "OMGZ!  Requiring an ID to vote is VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!  It's EEEEEVIL!!!"  Here where I live in Canada, the libbiest lib country that ever libbed, apparently, there is no such thing as voter registration.  You show your ID.  That's it.  (That's Alberta.  I have no idea what other provinces do.)  Even when I lived in the US, I didn't understand why requiring a state-issued ID to vote was a bad thing, or any different from requiring people to register.  All the arguments were pretty dumb, IMHO, and were basically, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!  THE EEEVIL GUMMMINT IS REFUSING TO ISSUE ID!!!  WHARRRGARBLE!!11eleven"

It's because you have little or no history of disenfranchising significant segments if the population in order to skew voting results in favor of white people.

Instead of screaming uniformed opinions in country-specific threads, why not go read a little on the history of Jim Crow and voting abuses brought to light under the Civil Rights era.


And if you bothered to do so you would find that it was Democrats that were mostly opposed to any civil rights measures.
The Civil Rights law was passed because of Republicans, despite the objections of the Democrats.
I know liberals love to rewrite history but you're dead wrong if you're implying that Republicans were opposed to voting rights.

Also, guess which other country requires a voter ID card?
Mexico. If a country as backwards and corrupt as Mexico can require every last person to have a voter ID card then why can't we require it in the US?
And using past voting abuses perpetrated by mainly Democrats is all the more reason Democrats should STFU about any particular party suppressing someone's right to vote.
 
2014-04-12 05:09:41 PM  
Watch out, Kentucky! You've got some competition down there at the bottom of the barrel.
 
2014-04-12 05:13:35 PM  

brimed03: ReapTheChaos: brimed03: By mail? Or do they need to show up somewhere? Will the state send someone to help the illiterate or those needing translations? Will the state furnish transportation to those in rural areas to the regional ID facilities? Does the state advertise any of this information in places where you'd the poor and minorities who are most likely to not know about such information?

It's all well and good to put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. Republicans should be able to appreciate that metaphor.

Good grief, you want them to come by and suck your cock while they're at it?

If they're so destitute they can't get transportation for a one time event, how did they ever register to vote in the first place? Better yet, how do they get to the polls on election day? If you're going to say that various organizations can come pick them up and drive them to the polls, then those same organizations can take them to get their voter ID. It's not rocket science. If this is the best argument you have then you're running on empty.

When people respond to rational debate with curses and empty dismissals, it's pretty clear who's running on empty.

Government has no business creating unnecessary impediments to the constitutional exercise of voting rights. That's the most far-right philosophical statement I've ever written and yet far-righties like you fight it tooth and nail.

Why? Because it's about protecting your rigged voting schemes as long as possible.

Or to put it on your level: f*ck off ashhole.


Yet you're OK with government making it ever more difficult and costly to exercise their second amendment right.
Why? Because prohibiting someone form owning an object that you're afraid of is more important than the Constitution.

Or to put it at your level, f*ck off, asshole.
 
2014-04-12 05:19:34 PM  

OhioUGrad: Carousel Beast: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Again, why is that wrong? So long as the State is providing free, validated identification, why do you object to ensuring the identity of the people forming the government?

It's not "free" when you have to obtain a certified copy of your birth certificate (mine was $35) and in most cases a SS card, not to mention a lot of the elderly do not have the ability to just drive around town whenever they want to obtain everything (my grandma when she was alive and living at home had a way to the store once a week). So, is the state going to pay the $35 for a birth certificate (for the people who were born in hospitals), the price for a new SS card, and give people without a drivers license a way around town to obtain all of those and then a ride to the BMV to get the "free" ID?

Didn't think so.


Who doesn't have a copy of their birth certificate or SS card? How did they ever register to vote without them in the first place?

So lets run this down, how many people, who are already legally registered to vote, don't already have a valid picture ID? Of those, how many don't have the proof of citizenship (like a birth certificate)? Of those how many don't have the financial means to obtain a birth certificate? Of those, how many don't have any form of transportation at their disposal as well?

Answer me this, if these people are so destitute that they can't get a ride to the DMV, how the hell do they get to the polls to vote?

And BTW, you can get a birth certificate through the mail, you don't need to drive there and a SS card costs nothing to get replaced, it's 100% free. Also, if someone is legitimately so dirt poor that they can't afford a copy of their birth cert. there is probably a dozen different charities they could go to for help with that, and if they're truly that dirt poor they probably already know how to contact those places.

...And you knuckleheads say people are making a big deal over non existent voter fraud!
 
2014-04-12 05:20:56 PM  

brimed03: The truly pathetic thing is that you're not even a *good* troll.



Translation: The casual reader of the thread is amused at your lack of an adequate response to an established principle of political strategy. Better shout troll-troll or else you'll be completely unable to reply.
 
2014-04-12 05:23:56 PM  
Obligatory free national ID at the age of 18. Problem solved. Accidentally, the problem with identity theft also solved.

I know, I know, ebil guberment would demand my papers which means we turn to Nazi germany. But a man can dream that Americans will come to their senses... :)
 
2014-04-12 05:42:32 PM  

brimed03: The UN frowns when it's a specific "some people" who have to walk father, as when polling stations are all set up in predominately white neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that are then patrolled by police who pull over, harass, intimidate, and arrest non-whites for entering that neighborhood.F*ck this is tiring. Does the far right walk around with its eyes shut, or are you really all just that self-centered that you think your own experience is everyone's experience? I genuinely want to know. How are y'all not aware of this shiat?


I'm not sure about all this. Have you got anything to base your argument on other than something you saw in a made-for-tv movie about nelson mandela? Is this really going to happen if citizens have to prove identity? As for "far right", isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? Histrionic, even? C'mon, does Tennessee have brownshirts enforcing polling-place etiquette?


Again, you probably believe your own boolshiat, a True Believer, but really dude, democrats are looking at a serious decrease in votes if measures are put in place to ensure eligibility to vote. Any argument otherwise looks as bad on the front page of the paper as it does here in this thread.

As an aside, what are the documentation requirements for getting welfare? I would assume you can't just show up and get a cheque without some sort of verification.
 
2014-04-12 05:43:43 PM  

zepher: brimed03: Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply don't get the whole "OMGZ!  Requiring an ID to vote is VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!  It's EEEEEVIL!!!"  Here where I live in Canada, the libbiest lib country that ever libbed, apparently, there is no such thing as voter registration.  You show your ID.  That's it.  (That's Alberta.  I have no idea what other provinces do.)  Even when I lived in the US, I didn't understand why requiring a state-issued ID to vote was a bad thing, or any different from requiring people to register.  All the arguments were pretty dumb, IMHO, and were basically, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!  THE EEEVIL GUMMMINT IS REFUSING TO ISSUE ID!!!  WHARRRGARBLE!!11eleven"

It's because you have little or no history of disenfranchising significant segments if the population in order to skew voting results in favor of white people.

Instead of screaming uniformed opinions in country-specific threads, why not go read a little on the history of Jim Crow and voting abuses brought to light under the Civil Rights era.

And if you bothered to do so you would find that it was Democrats that were mostly opposed to any civil rights measures.
The Civil Rights law was passed because of Republicans, despite the objections of the Democrats.
I know liberals love to rewrite history but you're dead wrong if you're implying that Republicans were opposed to voting rights.

Also, guess which other country requires a voter ID card?
Mexico. If a country as backwards and corrupt as Mexico can require every last person to have a voter ID card then why can't we require it in the US?
And using past voting abuses perpetrated by mainly Democrats is all the more reason Democrats should STFU about any particular party suppressing someone's right to vote.


Sure, if your talking prior to the great party realignment under President LBJ. You know, the one where the Democrats turned all civil rights and in the process watched most if not all of their Southern members walk to the Republican party so they could carry on their racist ways?

In any case, I can't really be pissed about that as I didn't exist. I do exist now, and can be pissed about what Republicans are doing.

/ I'd be just as pissed if the Demo's were doing it.
// Yes Democracy is terrible at times, but its the best we got. Win fair and square or say I told you so later. Don't cheat.
 
2014-04-12 06:35:00 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Who doesn't have a copy of their birth certificate or SS card? How did they ever register to vote without them in the first place?

So lets run this down, how many people, who are already legally registered to vote, don't already have a valid picture ID? Of those, how many don't have the proof of citizenship (like a birth certificate)? Of those how many don't have the financial means to obtain a birth certificate? Of those, how many don't have any form of transportation at their disposal as well?

Answer me this, if these people are so destitute that they can't get a ride to the DMV, how the hell do they get to the polls to vote?

And BTW, you can get a birth certificate through the mail, you don't need to drive there and a SS card costs nothing to get replaced, it's 100% free. Also, if someone is legitimately so dirt poor that they can't afford a copy of their birth cert. there is probably a dozen different charities they could go to for help with that, and if they're truly that dirt poor they probably already know how to contact those places.

...And you knuckleheads say people are making a big deal over non existent voter fraud!


Well I can start by saying you're over simplifying things in a huge way. You realize not all people vote in all elections, maybe someone didn't care until now to vote, not everyone starts voting when they are 18 or votes in every election and believe it or not people do move and get married.  It's not about being dirt poor and not being able to afford a birth certificate, but making someone pay for one to get a voter ID is a POLL TAX. You've never heard of churches or other groups that take groups by bus to vote? I'm guessing you have zero experience working with the elderly or the poor, or hell nowadays even college aged students, because if you did, you'd know the answer to the first part of your series of questions is "a significant number".

I'm not 100% against some form of Voter ID, I am against idiots who try to push it through months before an election. If someone wants to mobilize on it...start now, and make a serious concerted effort right after the 2014 elections to give people two years to get a Voter ID. If you spring it up a few months before the elections, sorry that's an obvious attempt at restricting voting. I also have yet to see any verifiable credible proof that all the fuss and cost is worth it.
 
2014-04-12 06:42:26 PM  
Amazing how voter fraud doesn't exist when this site lists 35 fraud events just related to ACORN.
But I'm sure they were all isolated incidents.

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html

And one Florida county getting a 141% voter turnout is nothing to be concerned about, right?

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2012/11/10/update-massive-voter-frau d- in-st-lucie-county-florida-called-into-question-141-turnout/
 
2014-04-12 06:56:09 PM  

zepher: Amazing how voter fraud doesn't exist when this site lists 35 fraud events just related to ACORN.
But I'm sure they were all isolated incidents.

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html

And one Florida county getting a 141% voter turnout is nothing to be concerned about, right?

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2012/11/10/update-massive-voter-frau d- in-st-lucie-county-florida-called-into-question-141-turnout/


Haha. Loook at you. Look at your lies.

Also, the St. Lucie "Voter Fraud" was an outright lie, as well.
 
2014-04-12 07:34:30 PM  

OhioUGrad: ReapTheChaos: Who doesn't have a copy of their birth certificate or SS card? How did they ever register to vote without them in the first place?

So lets run this down, how many people, who are already legally registered to vote, don't already have a valid picture ID? Of those, how many don't have the proof of citizenship (like a birth certificate)? Of those how many don't have the financial means to obtain a birth certificate? Of those, how many don't have any form of transportation at their disposal as well?

Answer me this, if these people are so destitute that they can't get a ride to the DMV, how the hell do they get to the polls to vote?

And BTW, you can get a birth certificate through the mail, you don't need to drive there and a SS card costs nothing to get replaced, it's 100% free. Also, if someone is legitimately so dirt poor that they can't afford a copy of their birth cert. there is probably a dozen different charities they could go to for help with that, and if they're truly that dirt poor they probably already know how to contact those places.

...And you knuckleheads say people are making a big deal over non existent voter fraud!

Well I can start by saying you're over simplifying things in a huge way. You realize not all people vote in all elections, maybe someone didn't care until now to vote, not everyone starts voting when they are 18 or votes in every election and believe it or not people do move and get married.  It's not about being dirt poor and not being able to afford a birth certificate, but making someone pay for one to get a voter ID is a POLL TAX. You've never heard of churches or other groups that take groups by bus to vote? I'm guessing you have zero experience working with the elderly or the poor, or hell nowadays even college aged students, because if you did, you'd know the answer to the first part of your series of questions is "a significant number".

I'm not 100% against some form of Voter ID, I am against idiots who try to push ...


It's not about being dirt poor and not being able to afford a birth certificate, but making someone pay for one to get a voter ID is a POLL TAX .. No, it's not. You're grasping at straws and you know it.

or hell nowadays even college aged students,... Bullshiat, how did they register for college without an ID/birth cert? Hell, how do they go out drinking without one? I'll guarantee every college student has an ID or the required documentation to get one.
 
2014-04-12 07:44:57 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Bullshiat, how did they register for college without an ID/birth cert? Hell, how do they go out drinking without one? I'll guarantee every college student has an ID or the required documentation to get one.


Jesus Christ. How detached are you from reality. Many of the people targeted by these laws are in the "dirt poor" socioeconomic level.

Tennessee Voter Photo ID requirements.

They even fought a state supreme court case to keep things like Photo Library Cards, which require vetting of address by the City, and valid State/Community college IDs from being acceptable forms of identification.
 
2014-04-12 08:19:15 PM  

ReapTheChaos: It's not about being dirt poor and not being able to afford a birth certificate, but making someone pay for one to get a voter ID is a POLL TAX .. No, it's not. You're grasping at straws and you know it.


If that's what you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.

or hell nowadays even college aged students,... Bullshiat, how did they register for college without an ID/birth cert? Hell, how do they go out drinking without one? I'll guarantee every college student has an ID or the required documentation to get one.

Aww it's precious that you think all college students drink, or are 21, or go to school in their home state/city/live at home and that parents don't register people under 18 of enrollment or that they don't use school ID (from HS as their photo ID)

I can see why other people have ignored you
 
2014-04-12 08:27:20 PM  

Carousel Beast: Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.


If only the highlighted were actually true.  In presidential elections we turn out barely over 50% of eligible voters.  In local elections it's much lower.
 
2014-04-12 08:57:32 PM  
 
2014-04-12 09:01:25 PM  

hardinparamedic: zepher: Amazing how voter fraud doesn't exist when this site lists 35 fraud events just related to ACORN.
But I'm sure they were all isolated incidents.

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html

And one Florida county getting a 141% voter turnout is nothing to be concerned about, right?

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2012/11/10/update-massive-voter-frau d- in-st-lucie-county-florida-called-into-question-141-turnout/

Haha. Loook at you. Look at your lies.

Also, the St. Lucie "Voter Fraud" was an outright lie, as well.


I'm sure all of these are outright lies as well, right?

http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp
 
2014-04-12 09:15:04 PM  

hardinparamedic: zepher: Amazing how voter fraud doesn't exist when this site lists 35 fraud events just related to ACORN.
But I'm sure they were all isolated incidents.

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html

And one Florida county getting a 141% voter turnout is nothing to be concerned about, right?

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2012/11/10/update-massive-voter-frau d- in-st-lucie-county-florida-called-into-question-141-turnout/

Haha. Loook at you. Look at your lies.

Also, the St. Lucie "Voter Fraud" was an outright lie, as well.


It is good to see that voter fraud reportingfraud is still alive and well at least.
 
2014-04-12 10:57:49 PM  
If they have nothing to hide then....
//not the logic behind Tennessee law enforcement
 
2014-04-12 11:08:11 PM  

zepher: I'm sure all of these are outright lies as well, right?

http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp


Oh, nice. I love the Gish Gambit.

Please present your select case of voter fraud you'd like to claim proves it's rampant, and I'll be happy to look at your evidence and do my own research. As it stands now, posting an obviously biased site, and then claiming things that were shown to be  outright lies (and lead to the exposure of  republican voter fraud in the 2012 election year) tends to support the idea that you're about as truthful as the guy who said he killed Jon Benet.
 
2014-04-13 01:04:03 AM  

hardinparamedic: ReapTheChaos: Bullshiat, how did they register for college without an ID/birth cert? Hell, how do they go out drinking without one? I'll guarantee every college student has an ID or the required documentation to get one.

Jesus Christ. How detached are you from reality. Many of the people targeted by these laws are in the "dirt poor" socioeconomic level.

Tennessee Voter Photo ID requirements.

They even fought a state supreme court case to keep things like Photo Library Cards, which require vetting of address by the City, and valid State/Community college IDs from being acceptable forms of identification.


I'm the one detached from reality? really? Did you even think your argument through?

We have the same thing here in Texas, you have to show proof of address to get a library card. What the fark does that prove? It proves you live here, nothing else. It doesn't prove you have the right to vote. Same with a college ID, the US has countless foreign students studying at our schools and universities, having an ID from one doesn't mean you have the right to vote in our elections.

Are you really this obtuse?
 
2014-04-13 01:28:07 AM  

hardinparamedic: zepher: I'm sure all of these are outright lies as well, right?

http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp

Oh, nice. I love the Gish Gambit.

Please present your select case of voter fraud you'd like to claim proves it's rampant, and I'll be happy to look at your evidence and do my own research. As it stands now, posting an obviously biased site, and then claiming things that were shown to be  outright lies (and lead to the exposure of  republican voter fraud in the 2012 election year) tends to support the idea that you're about as truthful as the guy who said he killed Jon Benet.


So when you post from obviously biased sites it's OK but not when someone else does it?
Got it?
Liberals have standards, hell they have so many standards they have double standards.
 
Displayed 50 of 172 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 »
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