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.

(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
    More: Obvious, UN observers, corruption, third world  
•       •       •

4503 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2014 at 10:38 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-04-12 08:50:04 AM  
So... the objection is to the use of the word "nation" instead of "state"?
 
2014-04-12 10:06:46 AM  
Too bad that our treaties and laws executed to carry out treaty obligations supersede state law.
 
2014-04-12 10:42:51 AM  
Wait, did we say "third-world nation"? Sorry, we meant Tennessee... but i repeat myself.
 
2014-04-12 10:43:34 AM  
Hey, I needed an activity.  I'll just pull up a chair, prep some popcorn...ok folks, go.  Make me proud.  Give it your best shots!
 
2014-04-12 10:43:50 AM  
Yes, because we really want anti-democratic "observers" from the UN learning rough-and-trouble democratic politics from the good ole boys in Tennessee.

Remember when PGP was technically considered munitions and was illegal to provide to anyone not a US citizen? Or the way we embargo certain weapons technologies and only sell the old stuff to those damn foreigners?

Same principle - we don't want these jokers learning our advanced 1st world techniques of manipulating elections.

Study it out. Dig deeper.
 
2014-04-12 10:44:16 AM  
We don't need the corrupt UN observing our elections

Who's idea was this anyways?
 
2014-04-12 10:45:31 AM  
Sorry, we meant Tennessee

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-12 10:46:25 AM  
"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
 
2014-04-12 10:46:41 AM  
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.
 
2014-04-12 10:47:13 AM  
Stay derpy, Nashville.
 
2014-04-12 10:47:42 AM  
If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.
 
2014-04-12 10:48:52 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 10:48:58 AM  
Seriously?

America, are things really this weird? Is life really like Justified crossed with deranged Afghani drug running tribes in some regions?
 
2014-04-12 10:49:53 AM  
Except it's the OSCE, not the UN, monitoring elections in TN.  Same story, we signed the damn treaties.
 
2014-04-12 10:49:56 AM  
This is why the UN has no credibility. The crimean vote morally equivalent to tennessee.
 
2014-04-12 10:50:01 AM  
What business does the UN have involving itself in a state election?
 
2014-04-12 10:50:58 AM  

FunkOut: Seriously?

America, are things really this weird? Is life really like Justified crossed with deranged Afghani drug running tribes in some regions?


Some drug manufactures have something called an 'interest' in the outcomes of certian elections.
 
2014-04-12 10:51:24 AM  
We decided a few years ago that it's too expensive to create a paper trail for voters. What's the point? Everyone votes Republican.
 
2014-04-12 10:51:36 AM  
Certain.
 
2014-04-12 10:53:48 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 10:55:15 AM  

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.


In MN you can vote with a utility bill addressed to you at an address within the district.
 
2014-04-12 10:57:15 AM  
People make things too complicated. The simple answer is throw the letter away, and if they send another one, forward it to Best Korea.

If the Tennessee legislature really wants to act, then they should just approve a single bill that says nothing but  UN-EABOD-FOAD-DIAF.
 
2014-04-12 10:57:30 AM  

SlothB77: This is why the UN has no credibility. The crimean vote morally equivalent to tennessee.


Except it was the OSCE monitoring elections in Tennessee.  And the UN General Assembly declared the referendum in Crimea invalid.  And the UN Security Council would have declared it invalid if not for Russia's veto.  And no one at the UN has made any claim about moral equivalency.  Nor did the UN send in observers to Crimea.  But yeah other than that you're right.
 
2014-04-12 10:59:46 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 11:01:10 AM  
Does the UN know how big of a joke everyone thinks they are?
 
2014-04-12 11:01:16 AM  

SlothB77: This is why the UN has no credibility. The crimean vote morally equivalent to tennessee.


wat
 
2014-04-12 11:01:25 AM  

AliceBToklasLives: And the UN Security Council would have declared it invalid if not for Russia's veto.


oh wait, did you just present the best reason to throw the letter away? the first rule of debate is "don't fark up and make your opponent's point for him"


slowly now, the un is a farking joke
 
2014-04-12 11:01:50 AM  

MNguy: If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.


Nobody really cares.    But forces who are anti-voter ID are kind of like PETA.   They do dumb things just to attract attention.

And Like PETA sometimes you just need to ban them from showing up.
 
2014-04-12 11:04:47 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 11:05:40 AM  
They should just use purple dye to identify people who have already voted.
 
2014-04-12 11:06:21 AM  

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.


(Citation please)
 
2014-04-12 11:07:07 AM  
Or stickers, red ones, that say something similar to 'I voted" semi-permanently attached to one's forehead.
 
2014-04-12 11:07:48 AM  

toadist: MNguy: If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.

Nobody really cares.    But forces who are anti-voter ID are kind of like PETA.   They do dumb things just to attract attention.

And Like PETA sometimes you just need to ban them from showing up.


And that, folks, is what far-right Republicans call "democracy!"

Let's all give him a big hand, shall we? No? Just one finger then. OK.
 
2014-04-12 11:09:00 AM  

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?
 
2014-04-12 11:13:36 AM  

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.


You are trading a few false positives for a few hundred false negatives.

Republican officials have made the intent perfectly clear.

These measures are linked to curtailing access to polls in other ways (restrictions on registration, reduces hours, etc).
 
2014-04-12 11:13:43 AM  

MNguy: They should just use purple dye to identify people who have already voted.


that would only work the first year
 
2014-04-12 11:14:31 AM  

letrole: AliceBToklasLives: And the UN Security Council would have declared it invalid if not for Russia's veto.

oh wait, did you just present the best reason to throw the letter away? the first rule of debate is "don't fark up and make your opponent's point for him"


slowly now, the un is a farking joke


Yes, the Security Council veto a good reason to consider the UN a joke.  Totally agree.  I wonder what country has, over the last 40 years, used their veto power the most?

/if the UN is a joke, it is because its member countries are a joke.  The US does not get magically excluded.  Nor does this joke magically become no longer the highest law of the land.  Unless they want to pull out of the treaty (which can be done at any time).  Or if they want to violate the Constitution, which seems to be the prefered method.
//but, getting back to the point, it was the OSCE not the UN monitoring elections in Tennessee, so why are we (including TN) even talking about the UN?
///No I won't fark up my debating points by failing to realize slashies come in threes
 
2014-04-12 11:17:16 AM  
the state is basically teabaglandia at this point anyways, if you're a democrat in TN you're pretty hopeless
 
2014-04-12 11:17:30 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 11:18:21 AM  
Because if nothing is a violation of sovereignty, demonstration of clean elections is it
 
2014-04-12 11:21:58 AM  

RexTalionis: Too bad that our treaties and laws executed to carry out treaty obligations supersede state law.


But... but... but... Freedumb! State's Rights! The South Will Rise Again!
 
2014-04-12 11:24:05 AM  

AliceBToklasLives: Yes, the Security Council veto a good reason to consider the UN a joke.  Totally agree.  I wonder what country has, over the last 40 years, used their veto power the most?



Which proves what, exactly? That the actions of the UN are subject to political maneuvering apart from adherence to some sort of spurious international law? That even in your reply, you chose to allude to the fact that, somebody, wonder who that could be, has used the veto...


STOP MAKING MY POINTS FOR ME.


DEBATE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.
 
2014-04-12 11:25:13 AM  

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?


But they don't. That costs money, that costs labor to staff the DMV/whatever to issue it, and w/ the extra security measures added after 9/11, it costs more money than before. And if Republicans have proven anything, it's that they love spending tax money on programs to help poor minorities vote more often.
 
2014-04-12 11:25:38 AM  

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


You do realize that the treaty has terms and conditions and doesnt simply giving the U.N. carte blanche to do what it wants, right?
 
2014-04-12 11:25:48 AM  

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?


That's a pretty big "so long as."

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/page?id=0046

Your right to vote should not be dependent on transportation, the requirement for which one could argue makes anything "not free," the ability of the government to disseminate information or, worse, the prejudices of pollworkers.
 
2014-04-12 11:27:01 AM  

MNguy: If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.


Hey. Thats the Sam excuse used by the NSA and other law enforcement. Good job!
 
2014-04-12 11:30:49 AM  

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!"
 
2014-04-12 11:34:16 AM  

letrole: AliceBToklasLives: Yes, the Security Council veto a good reason to consider the UN a joke.  Totally agree.  I wonder what country has, over the last 40 years, used their veto power the most?


Which proves what, exactly? That the actions of the UN are subject to political maneuvering apart from adherence to some sort of spurious international law? That even in your reply, you chose to allude to the fact that, somebody, wonder who that could be, has used the veto...


STOP MAKING MY POINTS FOR ME.


DEBATE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.


So where exactly do we disagree?  Or maybe I should say WHERE EXACTLY DO WE DISAGREE?

MyRandomName:  You do realize that the treaty has terms and conditions and doesnt simply giving the U.N. carte blanche to do what it wants, right?

Who is making such a claim?  How about the UN has the right to insist that either the US fulfill its treaty obligations or withdraw from the treaty?

/once again, the UN has not been monitoring elections in TN, so this discussion is entirely academic
 
2014-04-12 11:35:08 AM  

MyRandomName: MNguy: If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.

Hey. Thats the Sam excuse used by the NSA and other law enforcement. Good job!


The government shouldn't have the same (or more) rights than individuals to privacy, or any right to privacy, for that matter, and, unlike the cases you love to cite with the NSA, the UN had probable cause to investigate here.

Also: Citation on your 35K claim please.
 
2014-04-12 11:38:10 AM  

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.


Honestly, you sound more like you're asking for a political sparring partner, and I'm not interested. On the off chance you do have an open mind and want to know more, I'll answer. I'm more of an independent vote-for-the-person guy, but:

Not everybody in America lives in a city, has more than two cents of disposable income, or needs to drive. These folks don't have easy access to ID-providing facilities, money to buy IDs, or a need for an ID for any other purpose.

There are actually a lot of these folks and in a Venn diagram they tend to heavily overlap two groups: the poor, and minorities. These groups historically tend to vote Democrat.

Republicans have a long history of trying to disenfranchise these groups. Sometimes they've done it by beating people. Sometimes, by placing polling stations in places the poor and minorities find hard to reach. And frequently, by legislating various and unconstitutional or doubtfully constitutional impediments to voting.

These latter include property-ownership requirements, "literacy tests," and various state-ID requirements. Independent observers for decades have remarked on how, in practice, these tests and requirements are only required of non-white voters.

Meanwhile, repeated studies conducted by politically-politically neutral groups across various states have established that the actual incidents of voter fraud preventable by ID are low to none. And by "low," I mean a study involving millions of votes in Chicago found two instances. Two.

The push for ID voting under the guise of preventing fraud is a cynical smokescreen. It's about robbing the political opposition of votes by disenfranchising select groups of American citizens who are unlikely to vote for the party demanding ID requirements. Plain AND simple.

But yell a thing loudly and often enough, and there's a percentage of people you can fool all the time. Really, though, there are few Republican voters who don't understand what this is truly about. And it's disgusting that any American of any political stripe would go along with it, since it is the most undemocratic, un-American of political ploys. It's the kind of bullshiat-- peerage, rule of the landed gentry sort of crap-- this country was founded in opposition to.

As usual, the party waving the biggest American flag they can find is the one trying to hide the most un-American actions beneath it.
 
2014-04-12 11:40:26 AM  

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?


Answered below in response to another of your posts ITT. Pretty sure you're not really interested, though; just trolling for an argument.

I've said my piece for those who will listen. You'll have to look elsewhere for your fight.
 
2014-04-12 11:41:48 AM  

letrole: slowly now, the un is a farking joke


Election monitoring is a learned behaviour.
 
2014-04-12 11:41:57 AM  
It's the kind of bullshiat-- peerage, rule of the landed gentry sort of crap-- this country was founded in opposition to.

Except you couldn't vote in most places w/o owning land until Andrew Jackson.
 
2014-04-12 11:46:21 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 11:46:39 AM  

Trocadero: 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?

But they don't. That costs money, that costs labor to staff the DMV/whatever to issue it, and w/ the extra security measures added after 9/11, it costs more money than before. And if Republicans have proven anything, it's that they love spending tax money on programs to help poor minorities vote more often.


While I can't speak for every state, here in Texas it is 100% free to people who need one. Link
 
2014-04-12 11:48:16 AM  
I thought republicans would be against state issued identity required for transactions, since revelations says that's the mark of the beast and such as.
 
2014-04-12 11:49:22 AM  

letrole: AliceBToklasLives: Yes, the Security Council veto a good reason to consider the UN a joke.  Totally agree.  I wonder what country has, over the last 40 years, used their veto power the most?


Which proves what, exactly? That the actions of the UN are subject to political maneuvering apart from adherence to some sort of spurious international law? That even in your reply, you chose to allude to the fact that, somebody, wonder who that could be, has used the veto...


STOP MAKING MY POINTS FOR ME.


DEBATE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.


ABTL, look at his Fark handle and let this argument go. I have yet to see a serious discussion from letrole in any Fark thread. He just enjoys farking with people.
 
2014-04-12 11:49:55 AM  

MNguy: If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.


If everything is above board, it shouldn't be a problem to have identification to vote. It sounds like democrats have something to hide.
 
2014-04-12 11:51:43 AM  

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.


Many people railing about illegal aliens frequently do so because they're seeing people of color. So they want to "protect"the voting process by preventing these people from voting, and I'm being generous towards them by phrasing their motivations that way.

Having lived in large cities, I've not experienced much overt racism, but a couple of times, I've been yelled at to go back to where I came from in the place I came from.
 
2014-04-12 11:53:33 AM  

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!"


Citation? And FoxNoise does not count. Find me a recognized, independent, non-partisan study and we'll talk.

Until then, go back to watching Bill O'Wrongly and Nancy Graceless.
 
2014-04-12 11:58:34 AM  

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.


Because, based on the rarity of the crime and the KNOWN impact on minority voter turnout, it's closet Jim Crow and anyone with a shred of honesty knows it.

If there was a shred of evidence that double-voting or non-citizen or felon voting was actually something other than vanishingly rare, I would be on your side.  But these voter ID laws are far more caustic to democracy than they are helpful to it.  If the cure is worse than the disease, you have prescribed the wrong cure.

Go ahead, look into voter fraud.  Lots of people have, especially people who wanted to find it to justify these laws.  Know what they have found?  It certainly happens.... but not by the hundreds or even dozens, we're talking single digits per 600,000 person district per cycle.  But that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.
 
2014-04-12 11:58:59 AM  
Where the hell were these guy's during the Florida mess?
 
2014-04-12 12:00:19 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 12:01:29 PM  
Felons can get elected to congress, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to vote
 
2014-04-12 12:03:22 PM  

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


[ citation needed ]

And from a verifiable source, not a random blog or WND/Breitbart/InfoWars.
 
2014-04-12 12:04:16 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Trocadero: 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?

But they don't. That costs money, that costs labor to staff the DMV/whatever to issue it, and w/ the extra security measures added after 9/11, it costs more money than before. And if Republicans have proven anything, it's that they love spending tax money on programs to help poor minorities vote more often.

While I can't speak for every state, here in Texas it is 100% free to people who need one. Link


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.
 
2014-04-12 12:05:21 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: 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, ...


And here's the relevant SCOTUS case:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_v._Hylton
 
2014-04-12 12:05:50 PM  

Thelyphthoric: I thought republicans would be against state issued identity required for transactions, since revelations says that's the mark of the beast and such as.


They're more than willing to deal with the devil when it leads to them being in charge and rich. Shows they're the Elect, you know.
 
2014-04-12 12:07:05 PM  

jaybeezey: MNguy: If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.

If everything is above board, it shouldn't be a problem to have identification to vote. It sounds like democrats have something to hide.


Communist.
 
2014-04-12 12:07:32 PM  
The U.N. isn't there to prevent election fraud, they want to accumulate data as to how requiring IDs discriminates against certain classes of voters.

So a.) this is nothing like monitoring elections where ballot box tampering, election fraud, and corruption are suspected and b.) it's virtually guaranteed that th U.N. team has already decided that they know what the problem is, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll generate a report designed to support the conclusion they've already reached about voter I.D. laws. No objective scrutiny whatsoever.
 
2014-04-12 12:08:12 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.


That assumes that people who vote Republican are inherently responsible citizens.
 
2014-04-12 12:10:21 PM  

Animatronik: The U.N. isn't there to prevent election fraud, they want to accumulate data as to how requiring IDs discriminates against certain classes of voters.

So a.) this is nothing like monitoring elections where ballot box tampering, election fraud, and corruption are suspected and b.) it's virtually guaranteed that th U.N. team has already decided that they know what the problem is, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll generate a report designed to support the conclusion they've already reached about voter I.D. laws. No objective scrutiny whatsoever.


Um.... passing laws to make it harder for certain classes of people or residents of certain locations to vote is a form of fraud.  You don't have to directly stuff the ballot boxes if you just control who shows up to vote.
 
2014-04-12 12:11:35 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: So where exactly do we disagree?  Or maybe I should say WHERE EXACTLY DO WE DISAGREE?


I think the disagreement comes from you seeming to consider the OSCE to be acting as an independent entity. It's operating under the umbrella of the UN. It does this as a matter of course. There is is full tactical cooperation between the UN and OSCE. I'm not sure why you're making this distinction here. There will be UN representatives working with OSCE representatives.


Tennessee is right to maintain sovereignty, and by excluding the UN specifically, it excludes all the fellow travelers that operate as agents of the UN, and that includes OSCE. It seems that OSCE was fine to present itself as an organ of the UN elsewhere, as well as in Tennessee, until it became inconvenient in this instance to share billing. However, the OSCE has no chance of monitoring election in Tennessee without the backing of the UN, so that tack has failed.


Now, we can go round and round and round with semantics and org charts, or we can use a bit of common sense. Stop the UN, and you stop OSCE. Again, the simplest thing is to throw the letter away.
 
2014-04-12 12:12:08 PM  

TomD9938: XveryYpettyZ: that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.

That assumes that people who vote Republican are inherently responsible citizens.


I love a conceited twat who thinks of himself that way.

These voter ID laws are a product of, by and for the Republican party to keep "darkies" and poor people from voting.
 
2014-04-12 12:15:41 PM  

letrole: AliceBToklasLives: And the UN Security Council would have declared it invalid if not for Russia's veto.

oh wait, did you just present the best reason to throw the letter away? the first rule of debate is "don't fark up and make your opponent's point for him"


slowly now, the un is a farking joke


Trolling is a Learned Behavior. The instinct for tolling involves posting and copypasting and threadshiatting and so forth. If you get trolly at the sight of an Obama thread, or if you get trolly at the sight of an gunfap thread, it is only because you have been taught to make that association.
 
2014-04-12 12:16:58 PM  

Man On A Mission: MyRandomName: re you aware of the 35k votes found voting in two different states, illegally?

[ citation needed ]

And from a verifiable source, not a random blog or WND/Breitbart/InfoWars.


Still waiting for a response from  MyRandomName.

But I'm not holding my breath.
 
2014-04-12 12:22:00 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?

As a Leftie, I'll answer:  no.
The fact is, voter identification laws operate, in practice, to suppress minority (read: Democrat) votes.  Therefore, Republicans favor them and Dems do not.  It doesn't really have anything to do with principles; those arguments are a masquerade.
 
2014-04-12 12:22:43 PM  

jso2897: Trolling is a Learned Behavior


Well dear, you have a very odd definition of trolling, but you seem to have belligerent stalking down to an art.
 
2014-04-12 12:24:26 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: TomD9938: XveryYpettyZ: that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.

That assumes that people who vote Republican are inherently responsible citizens.


I love a conceited twat who thinks of himself that way.


So, Republicans always have proper I.D.?


These voter ID laws are a product of, by and for the Republican party to keep "darkies" and poor people from voting.


You have a markedly low opinion of minorities and the poor.
 
2014-04-12 12:25:51 PM  
letrole: AliceBToklasLives: So where exactly do we disagree?  Or maybe I should say WHERE EXACTLY DO WE DISAGREE?

I think the disagreement comes from you seeming to consider the OSCE to be acting as an independent entity. It's operating under the umbrella of the UN. It does this as a matter of course. There is is full tactical cooperation between the UN and OSCE. I'm not sure why you're making this distinction here. There will be UN representatives working with OSCE representatives.


Sure international organizations work together all the time.  That doesn't make them identical.

Tennessee is right to maintain sovereignty, and by excluding the UN specifically, it excludes all the fellow travelers that operate as agents of the UN, and that includes OSCE. It seems that OSCE was fine to present itself as an organ of the UN elsewhere, as well as in Tennessee, until it became inconvenient in this instance to share billing. However, the OSCE has no chance of monitoring election in Tennessee without the backing of the UN, so that tack has failed.

See my SCOTUS citation above regarding this claim.  The US Senate has the authority to pull of out treaties.  The Tennessee legislature does not.

Now, we can go round and round and round with semantics and org charts, or we can use a bit of common sense. Stop the UN, and you stop OSCE. Again, the simplest thing is to throw the letter away.

Probably true, since I doubt the Senate will actually defend the treaty.  There's the law and there's "common sense"; they need not meet.
 
2014-04-12 12:34:03 PM  
The real question is ... do these voter suppression laws actually work? That was the purpose of the observers, right?
 
2014-04-12 12:34:12 PM  

Animatronik: The U.N. isn't there to prevent election fraud, they want to accumulate data as to how requiring IDs discriminates against certain classes of voters.

So a.) this is nothing like monitoring elections where ballot box tampering, election fraud, and corruption are suspected and b.) it's virtually guaranteed that th U.N. team has already decided that they know what the problem is, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll generate a report designed to support the conclusion they've already reached about voter I.D. laws. No objective scrutiny whatsoever.


Dumbest. Argument. ITT.

That's like saying a liquor store installs cameras because they expect to find theft so of course they're going to record evidence of theft.

There are claims of election fraud on one side, claims of disenfranchisement on the other. Both sides claim proof. The UN has a natural role examining elections.

Basically you and Tennessee are embarrassed and butt-hurt at being looked at by an agency we usually more associate with really backwards nation-states.

Tough titties.
 
2014-04-12 12:35:54 PM  
As a resident of TN i am deeply concerned about the UN sending a peacekeeping force to terk my jerbs
 
2014-04-12 12:36:03 PM  
I'm sure Tenn won't try anything shady. Just like they stayed out of the union election at the VW plant.
 
2014-04-12 12:40:37 PM  

Farking Canuck: The real question is ... do these voter suppression laws actually work?



The GOP sure thinks they do. They've spent a lot of money and effort to enact and litigate them.
and by "work" I mean "work in the GOP's favor"
 
2014-04-12 12:40:49 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: The US Senate has the authority to pull of out treaties.  The Tennessee legislature does not.



AliceBToklasLives: Probably true, since I doubt the Senate will actually defend the treaty.



The real effect will probably be the UN / OSCE backing down from the request just to keep the issue from escalating. Tennessee won't actually win, in that the UN will still have the power to conduct monitoring under the treaty. Breaking treaties is a big deal, because it makes future treaties harder to reach.
 
2014-04-12 12:44:21 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 12:44:45 PM  

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


If this is true then how come the Federal government has never honored a single treaty signed with Indian tribes?
Based on that past precedent the Feds or the states can choose to ignore any treaty they feel like.
 
2014-04-12 12:48:58 PM  

Trocadero: 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?

But they don't. That costs money, that costs labor to staff the DMV/whatever to issue it, and w/ the extra security measures added after 9/11, it costs more money than before. And if Republicans have proven anything, it's that they love spending tax money on programs to help poor minorities vote more often.


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.
 
2014-04-12 12:51:24 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 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.
 
2014-04-12 12:51:29 PM  
MyRandomName - 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.

And it still shocks me that conservatives want to have a hissy fit about 0.01% of the population engaging in voter fraud. But hey, if it gives you something other than starvation, inequity, and a total lack of hope for 35% of the population to be outraged about, then go right ahead. I am sure those other little pesky problems will fix themselves.

/I bet you are concerned with the 0.03% of welfare fraud as a massive drain on rich peo.... I mean the government as well. Gods forbid five people actually cheat the government in any given locale while corporations that made billions last year get tax dollar subsidies. Hell, some of them didn't even pay taxes last year. How can you complain about welfare when you do not fund it?
 
2014-04-12 12:52:57 PM  

Trocadero: It's the kind of bullshiat-- peerage, rule of the landed gentry sort of crap-- this country was founded in opposition to.

Except you couldn't vote in most places w/o owning land until Andrew Jackson.


I see. Something like seven paragraphs of explanation about Civil Rights and voter ID requirements, and this is your response.

You're right. I made a factual error. Feel better? That allow you to go on ignoring the systemic violation of constitutional rights and American democracy?

Good boy, the GOP will send you your membership card and doggy biscuit in the mail. Just don't try to get into the country club with it you dirty plebe.
 
2014-04-12 12:58:22 PM  

letrole: jso2897: Trolling is a Learned Behavior

Well dear, you have a very odd definition of trolling, but you seem to have belligerent stalking down to an art.


Actually that was more of Erudite Dismissal.

But we all feel for you and your butt-hurt.
 
2014-04-12 01:01:17 PM  
Concerning the voter ID thingy, asking for an ID for the right to vote is like a cop asking for ID before you have any right to remain silent.
 
2014-04-12 01:09:00 PM  
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"
 
2014-04-12 01:12:20 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-12 01:14:06 PM  
The only input the UN wants from America is $$$. When they stop electing aboriginal nig-nogs as Grand Poobah and trying to convert the US to a 2nd world nation then they will earn the right to give input on how we run our country. Otherwise they can go back to eating bushmeat and performing female circumcision.
 
2014-04-12 01:18:01 PM  

letrole: AliceBToklasLives: The US Senate has the authority to pull of out treaties.  The Tennessee legislature does not.


AliceBToklasLives: Probably true, since I doubt the Senate will actually defend the treaty.


The real effect will probably be the UN / OSCE backing down from the request just to keep the issue from escalating. Tennessee won't actually win, in that the UN will still have the power to conduct monitoring under the treaty. Breaking treaties is a big deal, because it makes future treaties harder to reach.


As I just learned and posted, "treaties" can only be made between nations, not with an organization. So there is no UN treaty requirement about election monitoring.

Whether there's a multi-national treaty, brokered under UN auspices or otherwise, to which the US is a party regarding election monitoring I have no idea. But there's no such animal as breaking UN treaties.
 
2014-04-12 01:18:06 PM  
Nobody cares about voters per se. Nobody, and that includes everybody, gives a rat's arse about somebody not being able to participate fully in the democratic process by going to the polls and...

that shiat makes me want retch, what bollocks, every poster here is a farking liar if they say otherwise, it's all about your candidate winning

The issue is about getting the right votes and winning and power. The best way to stack the odds in your favour is to make certain people more likely to vote, and other people less likely to vote. Pragmatism works.

Now, if you must look deeper at the motivations of politicians and parties, at least look at who they see as friend and foe at the polls. Just guess how each demographic below would vote:

Felons, property owners, illegal aliens, gun owners, welfare recipients, elderly, manual labourers, teenagers, those with no fixed abode, blacks, military, drug addicts, professionals, mothers, etc etc

Some of those are bad, some good, some neither. Do you really want to elect those who would court the bad ones and make it easier for them to vote? Again, get all that mushy-minded civics lesson boolshiat out of the way.

No campaign poster ever read "Voe for Joe. His party supports voting rights for felons, because they tend to vote for guys like Joe"

This is also why progressive types seem to miss-out on retirement homes when they get the civic urge to register as many voters as possible, even though the elderly in full-time care have much lower voting registration compared to the same age voters still living in their own homes.
 
2014-04-12 01:19:52 PM  

TomD9938: XveryYpettyZ: TomD9938: XveryYpettyZ: that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.

That assumes that people who vote Republican are inherently responsible citizens.

I love a conceited twat who thinks of himself that way.


So, Republicans always have proper I.D.?


These voter ID laws are a product of, by and for the Republican party to keep "darkies" and poor people from voting.


You have a markedly low opinion of minorities and the poor.


Am I misreading this or are y'all? I think you two are on the same side in this argument. Go back and read the original posts. I know I've made that mistake before.
 
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.
 
2014-04-13 01:35:22 AM  

OhioUGrad: 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


What you and your ilk seem to forget is that you have to register to vote in the first place. This whole voter ID requirement only kicks in when you show up at the polls to actually cast a vote.

To register to vote you have to show that you're a US citizen or legal alien living within that state. That requires a valid form of ID and proof of residency. This is nothing new, these laws have been on the books for for decades.

All these voter ID laws are saying is, if you're currently registered to vote (which you had to show legal proof to do so) that you have to show an ID to cast your vote on election day. Nothing more. Why the fark are you people so afraid of that?

Using your college example, let me dumb this down for you. If you're from NY and you go to California to go to college, you have no right to vote in CA unless you registered to vote there, which requires showing legal residency status. However you would be allowed to cast an absentee ballot in NY, assuming you registered to vote in that state. So explain to me how these poor college students are being disenfranchised? Better yet, show me some examples of some who have been, that would be amusing.
 
2014-04-13 01:35:23 AM  

zepher: So when you post from obviously biased sites it's OK but not when someone else does it?
Got it?


Really? Snopes.com is a "biased" site, but "Republican National Lawyers Association" isn't?

LOL.

And it's pretty telling you're resorting to personal insults when called out over your dishonestly, shill.
 
2014-04-13 01:36:18 AM  

ReapTheChaos: 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.


So you don't register to vote Texas?
 
2014-04-13 01:38:27 AM  

hardinparamedic: ReapTheChaos: 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.

So you don't register to vote Texas?


Yes. we do. Your point?
 
2014-04-13 01:45:02 AM  

ReapTheChaos: 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.


You know what else do not prove your eligibility to vote? Drivers license, passport, Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security issued photo ID, US Military Photo ID, or a Tennessee hand gun permit with your photo.

In other words: Every farking piece of ID accepted in Tennessee.
 
2014-04-13 01:52:14 AM  

ReapTheChaos: Yes. we do. Your point?


The point is your argument serves no purpose to prevent voter fraud or to determine voter eligibility at the poles. All it is is a pointless law which shows low information voters that the Republicans are standing up for "True 'Murkians", and serves to disenfranchise and intimidate minority voters.

Ever voted in Tennessee? I have. Funny enough, I wasn't carded when I went to vote. All I did was show my voter registration.

Of course, I'm white, so YMMV on that.
 
2014-04-13 02:08:22 AM  

dywed88: ReapTheChaos: 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.

You know what else do not prove your eligibility to vote? Drivers license, passport, Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security issued photo ID, US Military Photo ID, or a Tennessee hand gun permit with your photo.

In other words: Every farking piece of ID accepted in Tennessee.


Have you been drinking? This is Fark, of course you have.

Let me spell it out. In order to vote you first have to register to vote. Now those requirements may vary from state to state, but if you haven't registered to vote, you can show up with every piece of ID  known to man and you still wont be able to.  Those IDs you listed are what is required when you show up at the polls to vote, this is to prove you are who you say you are. Do you not understand that?
 
2014-04-13 02:17:26 AM  

ReapTheChaos: dywed88: ReapTheChaos: 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.

You know what else do not prove your eligibility to vote? Drivers license, passport, Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security issued photo ID, US Military Photo ID, or a Tennessee hand gun permit with your photo.

In other words: Every farking piece of ID accepted in Tennessee.

Have you been drinking? This is Fark, of course you have.

Let me spell it out. In order to vote you first have to register to vote. Now those requirements may vary from state to state, but if you haven't registered to vote, you can show up with every piece of ID  known to man and you still wont be able to.  Those IDs you listed are what is required when you show up at the polls to vote, this is to prove you are who you say you are. Do you not understand that?


Except your objection to the use of student cards and library cards as voter ID was "It doesn't prove you have the right to vote. "
 
2014-04-13 02:31:29 AM  

hardinparamedic: ReapTheChaos: Yes. we do. Your point?

The point is your argument serves no purpose to prevent voter fraud or to determine voter eligibility at the poles. All it is is a pointless law which shows low information voters that the Republicans are standing up for "True 'Murkians", and serves to disenfranchise and intimidate minority voters.

Ever voted in Tennessee? I have. Funny enough, I wasn't carded when I went to vote. All I did was show my voter registration.

Of course, I'm white, so YMMV on that.


The funny thing is, your ilk keeps saying that voter fraud doesn't exist, yet you're all so afraid of laws which require people to do something as commonplace as show a valid ID. Its honestly makes no sense.

If a law was passed to prevent someone from applying for credit without showing a valid form of ID, you would have no problem, identity theft would be a thing of the past, yet ask someone to show ID to cast a vote and suddenly the world comes to an end?  You people never cease to amuse me.
 
2014-04-13 02:39:33 AM  

ReapTheChaos: your ilk keeps saying that voter fraud doesn't exist,


Please quote where I, or anyone has said that in this thread.

Go ahead. I'll wait and hang out with the strawman you built.

What has been pointed out to you is that many clams of "voter fraud" in recent history have been outright fraudulent, misconstrued, or even the work of the party who claimed voter fraud in the first place. How many "overzealous staffers" were charged with voter intimidation and fraud after the 2012 election, again?

ReapTheChaos: yet you're all so afraid of laws which require people to do something as commonplace as show a valid ID


Not really. I'd support it if A) All of the IDs were free of charge, and B) the IDs were easy to obtain, including free public transportation to a local DMV for those who do not have the ability to drive.

As A and B are not going to happen anytime soon, yes, I oppose the laws. Because the laws, as written, are applied with an obvious racial bias, and are used to intimidate voters rather than to ensure voting honesty.

ReapTheChaos: If a law was passed to prevent someone from applying for credit without showing a valid form of ID, you would have no problem, identity theft would be a thing of the past,


That is the funniest thing I have ever read on the internet in a long time.
 
2014-04-13 02:49:35 AM  

dywed88: ReapTheChaos: dywed88: ReapTheChaos: 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.

You know what else do not prove your eligibility to vote? Drivers license, passport, Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security issued photo ID, US Military Photo ID, or a Tennessee hand gun permit with your photo.

In other words: Every farking piece of ID accepted in Tennessee.

Have you been drinking? This is Fark, of course you have.

Let me spell it out. In order to vote you first have to register to vote. Now those requirements may vary from state to state, but if you haven't registered to vote, you can show up with every piece of ID  known to man and you still wont be able to.  Those IDs you listed are what is required when you show up at the polls to vote, this is to prove you are who you say you are. Do you not understand that?

Except your objection to the use of student cards and library cards as voter ID was "It doesn't prove you have the right to vote. "


Perfect example of a completely pointless statement.

Let me spell it out for you. I can move into a house in your city, call the electric company for service and say my name is "dywed88" Now I have an electric bill with that name at my address and I can go get a library card in that name.  Done. Easy as pie. (That is, after all, all most libraries require is a utility bill as proof of name and address.)

So you're saying it's perfectly OK for me to show up at the polls and vote using that name?

If banks accepted that kind of frivolous documentation you would be screaming about identity theft and demanding the government do something about it.
 
2014-04-13 02:51:10 AM  

ReapTheChaos: If banks accepted that kind of frivolous documentation you would be screaming about identity theft and demanding the government do something about it.


It's a good thing that there's no such thing as opening an account under false pretenses and easily forged drivers licenses that are commonly used to launder money related to drugs and organized crime.

Otherwise, we might have several pointless state laws in Tennessee, you know - where I live and you don't - in addition to a few redundant federal laws that we might need to discuss.
 
2014-04-13 03:01:50 AM  

hardinparamedic: I'd support it if A) All of the IDs were free of charge, and B) the IDs were easy to obtain, including free public transportation to a local DMV for those who do not have the ability to drive.


A) They are free, at least here in Texas.

B) If they don't have the ability to drive to the DMV, how the fark do they get to the polls to vote? If they have a ride to the polls, can't that person give them a ride to the DMV?

Your arguments are all so irrelevant it's preposterous.

Have a great night though, I'm off to bed.
 
2014-04-13 03:06:58 AM  

hardinparamedic: ReapTheChaos: If banks accepted that kind of frivolous documentation you would be screaming about identity theft and demanding the government do something about it.

It's a good thing that there's no such thing as opening an account under false pretenses and easily forged drivers licenses that are commonly used to launder money related to drugs and organized crime.

Otherwise, we might have several pointless state laws in Tennessee, you know - where I live and you don't - in addition to a few redundant federal laws that we might need to discuss.


So now your average dirt poor disenfranchised voter who can't manage a ride to the DMV is equivalent to a money launderer. Wow. Just wow.

Again, have a good night.
 
2014-04-13 03:07:07 AM  

ReapTheChaos: A) They are free, at least here in Texas.


They're not in Tennessee unless you're older than 65 or disabled or a  medal of honor winner.

ReapTheChaos: B) If they don't have the ability to drive to the DMV, how the fark do they get to the polls to vote? If they have a ride to the polls, can't that person give them a ride to the DMV?


Irrelevant and out of touch. Most voting in Tennessee is done in the neighborhood level, quite literally a walk from your house to the polling location. Most counties, if they even have one, have only one DMV and then the person must also go to the county seat and register to vote at the courthouse.

ReapTheChaos: Your arguments are all so irrelevant it's preposterous.

Have a great night though, I'm off to bed.


Better snuff out that projector, otherwise it'll be bright in your room.
 
2014-04-13 03:08:46 AM  

ReapTheChaos: So now your average dirt poor disenfranchised voter who can't manage a ride to the DMV is equivalent to a money launderer. Wow. Just wow.


Never. Ever. EVER. Lecture anyone else on their presumptive intelligence or logic again on FARK. There's no other possible way for that to be taken.

That comment was so astoundingly stupid that it beats out creationists.

And yes. It was mocking your argument that a photo ID somehow will eliminate voter fraud.
 
2014-04-13 03:45:21 AM  

hardinparamedic: ReapTheChaos: So now your average dirt poor disenfranchised voter who can't manage a ride to the DMV is equivalent to a money launderer. Wow. Just wow.

Never. Ever. EVER. Lecture anyone else on their presumptive intelligence or logic again on FARK. There's no other possible way for that to be taken.

That comment was so astoundingly stupid that it beats out creationists.

And yes. It was mocking your argument that a photo ID somehow will eliminate voter fraud.


When you boil it all down all you really have going for you is finely tuned talking points and well rehearsed buzzwords. You may mistake that for thinking you have won every debate you've entered into but you would be wrong in that thought.

Have fun with that knowledge. I'm done with this nonsense. Life is to short to let myself get drawn into a battle of the wits with someone who is so obviously ill equipped . I've got better things to do.
 
2014-04-13 03:49:02 AM  

ReapTheChaos: hardinparamedic: ReapTheChaos: So now your average dirt poor disenfranchised voter who can't manage a ride to the DMV is equivalent to a money launderer. Wow. Just wow.

Never. Ever. EVER. Lecture anyone else on their presumptive intelligence or logic again on FARK. There's no other possible way for that to be taken.

That comment was so astoundingly stupid that it beats out creationists.

And yes. It was mocking your argument that a photo ID somehow will eliminate voter fraud.

When you boil it all down all you really have going for you is finely tuned talking points and well rehearsed buzzwords. You may mistake that for thinking you have won every debate you've entered into but you would be wrong in that thought.

Have fun with that knowledge. I'm done with this nonsense. Life is to short to let myself get drawn into a battle of the wits with someone who is so obviously ill equipped . I've got better things to do.


And here I thought you were going to bed. I guess you have insomnia, then?

I'm here all night, sweetheart. I've actually responded to your statements - not with "finely tuned talking points and buzzwords (LOL. Just outright call me a shill, okay?)" - but with the actual issues we in Tennessee are having to deal with through a voter ID law that is not open and easily accessible to a substantial number of the population in Mississippi, Tennessee, or Alabama.

Again. Other than regurgitating tripe that conservative PACs and "think tanks" have promoted, you have absolutely no idea of what's going on up here in Tennessee or the Mississippi delta area. You continually demonstrate that.

And stop talking like a bond villain. You're not near as clever or as smart as one.
 
2014-04-13 11:17:53 AM  

hardinparamedic: zepher: So when you post from obviously biased sites it's OK but not when someone else does it?
Got it?

Really? Snopes.com is a "biased" site, but "Republican National Lawyers Association" isn't?

LOL.

And it's pretty telling you're resorting to personal insults when called out over your dishonestly, shill.


As I mentioned, if you use biased sources don't claim that another source is biased and not worthy of being cited.
And yes, Snopes has been proven to be biased.
 
2014-04-13 12:42:31 PM  

ReapTheChaos: dywed88: ReapTheChaos: dywed88: ReapTheChaos: 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.

You know what else do not prove your eligibility to vote? Drivers license, passport, Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security issued photo ID, US Military Photo ID, or a Tennessee hand gun permit with your photo.

In other words: Every farking piece of ID accepted in Tennessee.

Have you been drinking? This is Fark, of course you have.

Let me spell it out. In order to vote you first have to register to vote. Now those requirements may vary from state to state, but if you haven't registered to vote, you can show up with every piece of ID  known to man and you still wont be able to.  Those IDs you listed are what is required when you show up at the polls to vote, this is to prove you are who you say you are. Do you not understand that?

Except your objection to the use of student cards and library cards as voter ID was "It doesn't prove you have the right to vote. "

Perfect example of a completely pointless statement.

Let me spell it out for you. I can move into a house in your city, call the electric company for service and say my name is "dywed88" Now I have an electric bill with that name at my address and I can go get a library card in that name.  Done. Easy as pie. (That is, after all, all most libraries require is a utility bill as proof of name and address.)

So you're saying it's perfectly OK for me to show up at the polls and vote using that name?

If banks accepted that kind of frivolous documentation you would be screaming about identity theft and demanding the government do something about it.


Except to change your address on a drivers license requires nothing more than a statement that that is your address. And to apply for a Tennessee I can just provide the same documents as to apply for a library card.
 
2014-04-13 11:13:50 PM  

brimed03: Great point, I hadn't thought of that.

/another grunt from the lowbrow brigade


Perhaps if you weren't acting as if information which is taught in tenth grade social studies and readily available on the internet doesn't exist I'd treat you as something other than a blithering idiot. :)
 
2014-04-13 11:19:35 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.


Despite your rather daunting ignorance of the UN and the UN Charter in specific, you are 100 percent correct here, I wanted to say.
 
Displayed 172 of 172 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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