(01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
(01-26-2017 12:02 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
What if a UT student ID wasn't a valid ID for getting a passport, but a concealed carry permit was?
A UT student with a gun. NObody wants that.
Seriously, whatever ID s sufficient t prove identity. I presume there must be some proof of identity to get the permit, and probably the student Id! In which case either would do the job
Without going into detail, I am currently at a location involved in activity that requires ID to be shown. I have seen DLs and passports resented. I have no idea if the other things would be accepted, because so far, everybody has one or the other. But if ID is required, does that mean people of color or minimal means are excluded. Sure seems te a lot of,both here.
Other than voting, what are some of the legal activities for which NO ID is required? Hunting? fishing? Driving a vehicle?
The arguments that ID for voting is restrictive but ID for everything else is not seems odd.
(01-26-2017 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I would change this to "it should be denied to as few citizens as possible", and that "you need to be able to show such citizenship in incontrovertible manner".
The crux of the problem is the control method vs keeping the spigots wide open in an unmanaged fashion.
I have no problem with showing an ID to exercise a (implicit) fundamental right to vote, much as I have no problem to show ID to exercise another (explicit though) fundamental right to own and bear arms.
I understand that. So long as we can then make it as easy a second possible to accomplish that, then I have no problem. The issue is that is not what is happening. In fact, as someone else mentioned, a state (I forget which one) closer DMVs after they made it necessary for people to show IDs when they vote.
(01-26-2017 12:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:02 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
What if a UT student ID wasn't a valid ID for getting a passport, but a concealed carry permit was?
A UT student with a gun. NObody wants that.
Seriously, whatever ID s sufficient t prove identity. I presume there must be some proof of identity to get the permit, and probably the student Id! In which case either would do the job
Without going into detail, I am currently at a location involved in activity that requires ID to be shown. I have seen DLs and passports resented. I have no idea if the other things would be accepted, because so far, everybody has one or the other. But if ID is required, does that mean people of color or minimal means are excluded. Sure seems te a lot of,both here.
Other than voting, what are some of the legal activities for which NO ID is required? Hunting? fishing? Driving a vehicle?
The arguments that ID for voting is restrictive but ID for everything else is not seems odd.
Is anyone arguing that requiring an ID for other activities isn't restrictive?
The difference is driving a car isn't, as someone else put it, an implicit right. We have public transportation or private cars as alternatives. There are plenty of elderly living in poverty that are affected by these laws, as they don't need IDs for day to day activities, don't have a checking account, and primarily use public transportation.
(01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
Entire State Department senior management team resigns:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...gns-report
Other reports suggest they were fired.
“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry, told The Post.
(01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
Not having a passport doesn't necessarily stop you from leaving the US it stops you from entering another country or from entering the US. I don't look at entering the US as much of a right as voting within the US is.
And I have no idea who would have won without ignorant votes since plenty of uninformed and ignorant voters voted for Trump, so maybe he wouldn't have? But I have to imagine plenty voted for Hillary too, so maybe he would have won by a larger margin? What's the point you're trying to make with that question?
And I guess executive orders are back to being Super Awesome! like they were in the George W Bush days?
And Trump's staff using a private server is OK, as is his use of an unsecured Android phone?
(01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
I think we're conflating two issues.
Presenting adequate ID to vote or secure state assistance is valid, I think.
Selective enforcement of requirements is not.
As for other requirements, an educated electorate would be nice, but:
"The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the
official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar,
he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application.
And if he manages to fill out an application he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether
he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex
provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write.
For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin."
(01-26-2017 03:38 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
I think we're conflating two issues.
Presenting adequate ID to vote or secure state assistance is valid, I think.
Selective enforcement of requirements is not.
As for other requirements, an educated electorate would be nice, but:
"The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the
official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar,
he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application.
And if he manages to fill out an application he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether
he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex
provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write.
For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin."
That is the exact reason why I equated it to a poll tax.
(01-19-2017 07:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2017 06:50 PM)JOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So speaking of waiting to see what someone would do, I remember OO's slamming of Obama for the Geithner and Daschle nominations -- proof of the horrors of a lack of "executive experience".
Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet and he's already got Mulvaney and his failure to pay nanny taxes, plus Mnuchin and his misrepresentation of his assets in Senate finance committee disclosures.
So what's the issue now, OO? Is it that Trump has _too much_ "executive experience"? Or maybe his experience doesn't qualify somehow?
(And this is all not to mention Trump nominating as head of the DOE a guy who had previously promised to eliminate the DOE if given the chance, only to walk that back over the last few days "after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy".)
Are you sure? I thought Geithner was one of the four I thought might be good. maybe it was Holder. anyway, there were four I thought might be good, and only Gates did not disappoint.
In any case, i was initially (right after the election) very critical of Obama, and everything he did, and then some of the Obamaphiles (maybe you?) said "give him a chance - he hasn't even been sworn in yet", so I took a step back and tried to be objective. I thought that was good advice then, and think so now.
As i said, I had hopes that Obama would move to the middle, as so many do after Election Day, and of course all you can do there is wait and see.
sorry if this spoils your Gotcha moment, but that's the way I remember it.
Speaking of not paying taxes, didn't Geithner have that issue too?
I prefer hiring executives with executive experience. Just seems logical. But it is not a hard and fast rule. sometimes the one with experience don't have good experience.
I know we don't agree on this, but I think Obama shows the problems with hiring somebody with no executive experience and expecting them to learn on the job.
So it seems you don't remember. Yes, I'm speaking specifically to Geithner not paying his taxes, and the shitstorm that resulted. In 2009, within a couple weeks of inauguration, you were happily calling out Obama for getting on-the-job training once these nominee issues came to light. Your point then being that it proved you right on your executive experience concern.
http://csnbbs.com/thread-345026.html
Here Trump nominates tax avoiding Mulvaney and misrepresenting Mnuchin and ... silence.
(01-26-2017 03:38 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
I think we're conflating two issues.
Presenting adequate ID to vote or secure state assistance is valid, I think.
Selective enforcement of requirements is not.
As for other requirements, an educated electorate would be nice, but:
"The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the
official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar,
he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application.
And if he manages to fill out an application he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether
he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex
provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write.
For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin."
While the above text is poignant, and serves as a serious reminder of past injustice, it is over 50 years old. I refuse to accept that the situations cited in the quote are occurring in Texas today, and I don't see that a photo voter ID card is in any way analogous to those situations.
Most here are historically 'literate' on the denial of civil rights that led to the Voting Rights Act.
No one here would advocate a return to that.
Introducing these 'examples', or referring to poll taxes, seems to me disingenuous and seems an attempt to distract from, or shut down, discussion.
No one is arguing that only 'certain types' of citizens be required to present a photo ID to vote.
Were Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps during WW2 allowed to vote? Requiring a Japanese-American citizen to get a photo ID to vote must therefore be racist as well.
(01-26-2017 04:13 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 03:38 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
I think we're conflating two issues.
Presenting adequate ID to vote or secure state assistance is valid, I think.
Selective enforcement of requirements is not.
As for other requirements, an educated electorate would be nice, but:
"The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the
official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar,
he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application.
And if he manages to fill out an application he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether
he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex
provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write.
For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin."
While the above text is poignant, and serves as a serious reminder of past injustice, it is over 50 years old. I refuse to accept that the situations cited in the quote are occurring in Texas today, and I don't see that a photo voter ID card is in any way analogous to those situations.
Most here are historically 'literate' on the denial of civil rights that led to the Voting Rights Act.
No one here would advocate a return to that.
Introducing these 'examples', or referring to poll taxes, seems to me disingenuous and seems an attempt to distract from, or shut down, discussion.
No one is arguing that only 'certain types' of citizens be required to present a photo ID to vote.
Were Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps during WW2 allowed to vote? Requiring a Japanese-American citizen to get a photo ID to vote must therefore be racist as well.
I'm not saying a voter ID was analogous. In fact, that was my point. I'm fine with a standard ID with provisions to help those in
need secure one. But unless things have been revised, as many have asked, why is a concealed gun permit adequate ID,
but a state university student ID is not.
And I agree, things have improved dramatically since 1965. Maybe not to the same degree as before, but subjective standards will
always be open to abuse.
To give a personal example, when my driver's license was set to expire a few years ago, I received notification that I would have to
bring a copy of my birth certificate. I wound up having to drive from Meyerland to the UPS center in Stafford to pick it up.
Went I went to renew, no one ever asked for it. However, there was a group of young adults who appeared to be in some
kind of involved discussion with an employee. To be fair, I don't know what it was about, but they seemed frustrated, and
the employee seemed firm (but polite). I'm white, they weren't.
(01-26-2017 04:13 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 03:38 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
I think we're conflating two issues.
Presenting adequate ID to vote or secure state assistance is valid, I think.
Selective enforcement of requirements is not.
As for other requirements, an educated electorate would be nice, but:
"The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the
official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar,
he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application.
And if he manages to fill out an application he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether
he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex
provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write.
For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin."
While the above text is poignant, and serves as a serious reminder of past injustice, it is over 50 years old. I refuse to accept that the situations cited in the quote are occurring in Texas today, and I don't see that a photo voter ID card is in any way analogous to those situations.
Most here are historically 'literate' on the denial of civil rights that led to the Voting Rights Act.
No one here would advocate a return to that.
Introducing these 'examples', or referring to poll taxes, seems to me disingenuous and seems an attempt to distract from, or shut down, discussion.
No one is arguing that only 'certain types' of citizens be required to present a photo ID to vote.
Were Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps during WW2 allowed to vote? Requiring a Japanese-American citizen to get a photo ID to vote must therefore be racist as well.
Is what's going on today as bad as Jim Crow? Obviously not. But the intentions are so transparent. NC lawmakers collected data on which voting methods black voters used most often and then restricted *specifically* those methods. That's why the court overturned it.
This is another good article - the R's did things like look into what percentage of African-Americans have student IDs before deciding what forms of ID would now be acceptable.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html
(01-26-2017 04:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 04:13 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 03:38 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
I think we're conflating two issues.
Presenting adequate ID to vote or secure state assistance is valid, I think.
Selective enforcement of requirements is not.
As for other requirements, an educated electorate would be nice, but:
"The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the
official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar,
he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application.
And if he manages to fill out an application he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether
he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex
provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write.
For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin."
While the above text is poignant, and serves as a serious reminder of past injustice, it is over 50 years old. I refuse to accept that the situations cited in the quote are occurring in Texas today, and I don't see that a photo voter ID card is in any way analogous to those situations.
Most here are historically 'literate' on the denial of civil rights that led to the Voting Rights Act.
No one here would advocate a return to that.
Introducing these 'examples', or referring to poll taxes, seems to me disingenuous and seems an attempt to distract from, or shut down, discussion.
No one is arguing that only 'certain types' of citizens be required to present a photo ID to vote.
Were Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps during WW2 allowed to vote? Requiring a Japanese-American citizen to get a photo ID to vote must therefore be racist as well.
Is what's going on today as bad as Jim Crow? Obviously not. But the intentions are so transparent. NC lawmakers collected data on which voting methods black voters used most often and then restricted *specifically* those methods. That's why the court overturned it.
This is another good article - the R's did things like look into what percentage of African-Americans have student IDs before deciding what forms of ID would now be acceptable.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html
Exactly.
In no situation that I am aware of did a legislature simultaneously require an ID to vote AND make it easier to obtain an ID. Instead, many did the opposite and made it harder to get an ID by doing things like closing DMVs.
I've said, I'm fine with the idea of requiring an ID to vote if we make it such that it is incredibly easy for anyone to get an ID - easier than even it being a pain.
(01-26-2017 03:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And Trump's staff using a private server is OK, as is his use of an unsecured Android phone?
Not at all. Rhetorical question there?
Quote:And I guess executive orders are back to being Super Awesome! like they were in the George W Bush days?
This is just about the only reason I have some gladness in a Trump win. At this point the press will actually give a sh-t about the massive expansion of executive power again.
Btw, the Barry Administration did an awesome job in raising the level of executive branch power, up to and including weaponizing the taxman..... and opened up a great new chapter in Federal Court standing issues in his grab of power....
Has to really suck to spend 8 years under Bush expanding executive power under a very critical eye, spending another 8 years again expanding executive power (without much press criticism this time), then watching Trump inherit that massive power accretion.
I am glad to see progressives back on board about complaining about executive wing power after their 8 year silence on the issue.
(01-26-2017 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 04:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is what's going on today as bad as Jim Crow? Obviously not. But the intentions are so transparent. NC lawmakers collected data on which voting methods black voters used most often and then restricted *specifically* those methods. That's why the court overturned it.
This is another good article - the R's did things like look into what percentage of African-Americans have student IDs before deciding what forms of ID would now be acceptable.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html
Exactly.
In no situation that I am aware of did a legislature simultaneously require an ID to vote AND make it easier to obtain an ID. Instead, many did the opposite and made it harder to get an ID by doing things like closing DMVs.
I've said, I'm fine with the idea of requiring an ID to vote if we make it such that it is incredibly easy for anyone to get an ID - easier than even it being a pain.
Perhaps you don't seem to understand that in the case of school IDs, there is far less control over a school issued ID as to both proving identity and citizenship that exist with IDs such as driver's licenses.
That is the main reason school IDs are rejected by the states that reject them for voter ID. But why bother with background like that when you can do that fun knee-jerk "racism" implication that is so prevalent, especially with the bolded sentence.
You *do* understand that the fundamental point of ID laws in general is that you prove up a) who you are; and b) that you are eligible to vote when you do vote. There are people who genuinely believe that this is not such a bad thing to do (like most of the friggin Western world.....).
So I guess in your world you would say, lets accept documentation that may be non-reliable to prove up both your identity *and/or* your eligibility.... otay..... (shrug).
But its easy to do when all your side ever does it beat the drum of racism, either explicitly or implicitly.
(01-26-2017 06:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 04:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is what's going on today as bad as Jim Crow? Obviously not. But the intentions are so transparent. NC lawmakers collected data on which voting methods black voters used most often and then restricted *specifically* those methods. That's why the court overturned it.
This is another good article - the R's did things like look into what percentage of African-Americans have student IDs before deciding what forms of ID would now be acceptable.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html
Exactly.
In no situation that I am aware of did a legislature simultaneously require an ID to vote AND make it easier to obtain an ID. Instead, many did the opposite and made it harder to get an ID by doing things like closing DMVs.
I've said, I'm fine with the idea of requiring an ID to vote if we make it such that it is incredibly easy for anyone to get an ID - easier than even it being a pain.
Perhaps you don't seem to understand that in the case of school IDs, there is far less control over a school issued ID as to both proving identity and citizenship that exist with IDs such as driver's licenses.
That is the main reason school IDs are rejected by the states that reject them for voter ID. But why bother with background like that when you can do that fun knee-jerk "racism" implication that is so prevalent, especially with the bolded sentence.
You *do* understand that the fundamental point of ID laws in general is that you prove up a) who you are; and b) that you are eligible to vote when you do vote. There are people who genuinely believe that this is not such a bad thing to do (like most of the friggin Western world.....).
So I guess in your world you would say, lets accept documentation that may be non-reliable to prove up both your identity *and/or* your eligibility.... otay..... (shrug).
But its easy to do when all your side ever does it beat the drum of racism, either explicitly or implicitly.
Huh? When did I mention school IDs? Heck, when in that reply did I mention racism? Or when did I mention it wasn't good to prove who you are?
My whole issue has been with the burden that the ID requirement adds, not the point of the ID requirement. I mean, I definitely understand why some want an ID requirement, I just disagree with the process unless there are significant changes made to how one gets an ID.
(01-26-2017 06:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 06:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 04:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is what's going on today as bad as Jim Crow? Obviously not. But the intentions are so transparent. NC lawmakers collected data on which voting methods black voters used most often and then restricted *specifically* those methods. That's why the court overturned it.
This is another good article - the R's did things like look into what percentage of African-Americans have student IDs before deciding what forms of ID would now be acceptable.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html
Exactly.
In no situation that I am aware of did a legislature simultaneously require an ID to vote AND make it easier to obtain an ID. Instead, many did the opposite and made it harder to get an ID by doing things like closing DMVs.
I've said, I'm fine with the idea of requiring an ID to vote if we make it such that it is incredibly easy for anyone to get an ID - easier than even it being a pain.
Perhaps you don't seem to understand that in the case of school IDs, there is far less control over a school issued ID as to both proving identity and citizenship that exist with IDs such as driver's licenses.
That is the main reason school IDs are rejected by the states that reject them for voter ID. But why bother with background like that when you can do that fun knee-jerk "racism" implication that is so prevalent, especially with the bolded sentence.
You *do* understand that the fundamental point of ID laws in general is that you prove up a) who you are; and b) that you are eligible to vote when you do vote. There are people who genuinely believe that this is not such a bad thing to do (like most of the friggin Western world.....).
So I guess in your world you would say, lets accept documentation that may be non-reliable to prove up both your identity *and/or* your eligibility.... otay..... (shrug).
But its easy to do when all your side ever does it beat the drum of racism, either explicitly or implicitly.
Huh? When did I mention school IDs? Heck, when in that reply did I mention racism? Or when did I mention it wasn't good to prove who you are?
My whole issue has been with the burden that the ID requirement adds, not the point of the ID requirement. I mean, I definitely understand why some want an ID requirement, I just disagree with the process unless there are significant changes made to how one gets an ID.
My bad should have been more explicit. I was referring to the portion of the conversation that I bolded to highlight the "implied 'Rs are racist comment'" which was not authored by you.
(01-26-2017 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.
I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.
I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.
Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?
You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.
Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.
And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).
And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.
Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.
To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?
We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.
But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.
Not having a passport doesn't necessarily stop you from leaving the US it stops you from entering another country or from entering the US. I don't look at entering the US as much of a right as voting within the US is.
And I have no idea who would have won without ignorant votes since plenty of uninformed and ignorant voters voted for Trump, so maybe he wouldn't have? But I have to imagine plenty voted for Hillary too, so maybe he would have won by a larger margin? What's the point you're trying to make with that question?
Yo keep long for a point to argue with, when all I did was ask a question, aquestion to which I don'tt know the answer, but which is open to speculatin of all sorts. Stop trying to discern an intent, and just consider the question.
It seems we have this pair of lists.
List a. Things requiring and ID which are racist.
1. Voting
List B - things requiring an ID which are NOT racist.
1. Everything but voting.
So these lists make sense to you?
I had to,show my ID today. So did some black people. . Was that racist? Without it, none of us would have been allowed in.
It's a simple question. If requiring ID for voting is racis, why isn't alll instances of requiring ID racist? Am you saying it is easier for poor people to get ID f the,purpose is anything but voting?