Voter ID requirement may affect black voter turnout, Dems Fear

[The Big Cat]

It seems likely that it will among octogenarians or older who were delivered by illiterate midwives in rural areas, some of the time. What am I supposed to take away from that?

 

It seems more likely that the majority of the 750,000 affected Americans do not fit into the category described above and that for much of them photo ID will come down to a matter of choice and priorities.

 

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

[Jauronimo]

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

When the article qualifies the segment of our population most susceptible to photo ID requirements to a level which means absolutely nothing then yes or no does not suffice. In order to fully support your premise of GOP racism and treachery I'm going to need you to breakdown just how many octogenarians or older who were delivered by illiterate midwives in rural areas are also minorities or registered Democrats.

[IDBillzFan]

No response to the NPR report? Shocking.

Your constant need to be recognized by anonymous posters on a football board is kind of creepy, but that said, but let's play the Big Cat game.

 

As far as anyone can tell (and it's really taking a leap here) you see no need for voter ID laws because you believe there is no REAL signs of voter fraud. You might even go so far as to suggest that, yes, okay, there are a few samples of voter fraud, but nothing that strict voter ID laws will fix. Let's hope we can at least agree on that because your own personal attempts at communicating are right up there with an unscripted Obama, and that's being kind.

 

Now, because you believe that we're trying to create laws based on something YOU believe is happening at a very, very minimal rate, you bring a story that explains the following:

 

By all estimates, those least likely to have a government-issued photo ID fall into one of four categories: the elderly, minorities, the poor and young adults aged 18 to 24. The Brennan Center estimates that 18 percent of all seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have picture IDs.

 

There are two problems with this, but typically unseen by the lazy-minded like yourself. First, the number of people who don't have picture IDs is irrelevant because the idea is to GET people a photo ID specific for voting; your name, photo, address, signature, etc., AND they will take you to get it done AND they won't charge you. So to use that as a fact just shows the laziness of both the writer and the person who posts it to support their case.

 

Next, the article explains, and qualifies with "by all estimates," (I'm sorry...by all of WHOSE estimates...too lazy to explain, I guess) those least likely to have a government issued photo ID are either old, minorities, poor and young adults. Again, this is irrevalent because they CAN get an ID by states pushing the law. But that laziness aside, to support their story about old, minorities, poor and young adults, the author cites three case studies that only include three women, one of them a 93-year-old black woman born in Alabama in 1918. The other two women are 96 and 83 years old. One of them FOUND their birth certificates, but has to pay $200 to have it fixed because her parents names are misspelled. A stupid problem, undoubtedly put in place by a government in dire need of cash, but one worth eliminating in the grand scheme of things.

 

In the end, though, the reason you and your article hold no water...and we'll say this ONE MORE TIME in hopes it sinks in for you...is you can not possibly argue that a few random, isolated case of voter fraud (a person voting 10 times or a person showing up in Eric Holder's district and voting AS Eric Holder) are NO reason to improve voter ID requirements, and make your argument by bringing up a few random, isolated cases of excessively old people, unless you ridiculously and lazily believe that the majority of voters affected by the law are 93-year-old black women born in a state that didn't issue birth certificates to black people.

 

Don't be lazy. Think for yourself. At least try.

[The Big Cat]

When the article qualifies the segment of our population most susceptible to photo ID requirements to a level which means absolutely nothing then yes or no does not suffice. In order to fully support your premise of GOP racism and treachery I'm going to need you to breakdown just how many octogenarians or older who were delivered by illiterate midwives in rural areas are also minorities or registered Democrats.

 

 

Your constant need to be recognized by anonymous posters on a football board is kind of creepy, but that said, but let's play the Big Cat game.

 

As far as anyone can tell (and it's really taking a leap here) you see no need for voter ID laws because you believe there is no REAL signs of voter fraud. You might even go so far as to suggest that, yes, okay, there are a few samples of voter fraud, but nothing that strict voter ID laws will fix. Let's hope we can at least agree on that because your own personal attempts at communicating are right up there with an unscripted Obama, and that's being kind.

 

Now, because you believe that we're trying to create laws based on something YOU believe is happening at a very, very minimal rate, you bring a story that explains the following:

 

 

 

There are two problems with this, but typically unseen by the lazy-minded like yourself. First, the number of people who don't have picture IDs is irrelevant because the idea is to GET people a photo ID specific for voting; your name, photo, address, signature, etc., AND they will take you to get it done AND they won't charge you. So to use that as a fact just shows the laziness of both the writer and the person who posts it to support their case.

 

Next, the article explains, and qualifies with "by all estimates," (I'm sorry...by all of WHOSE estimates...too lazy to explain, I guess) those least likely to have a government issued photo ID are either old, minorities, poor and young adults. Again, this is irrevalent because they CAN get an ID by states pushing the law. But that laziness aside, to support their story about old, minorities, poor and young adults, the author cites three case studies that only include three women, one of them a 93-year-old black woman born in Alabama in 1918. The other two women are 96 and 83 years old. One of them FOUND their birth certificates, but has to pay $200 to have it fixed because her parents names are misspelled. A stupid problem, undoubtedly put in place by a government in dire need of cash, but one worth eliminating in the grand scheme of things.

 

In the end, though, the reason you and your article hold no water...and we'll say this ONE MORE TIME in hopes it sinks in for you...is you can not possibly argue that a few random, isolated case of voter fraud (a person voting 10 times or a person showing up in Eric Holder's district and voting AS Eric Holder) are NO reason to improve voter ID requirements, and make your argument by bringing up a few random, isolated cases of excessively old people, unless you ridiculously and lazily believe that the majority of voters affected by the law are 93-year-old black women born in a state that didn't issue birth certificates to black people.

 

Don't be lazy. Think for yourself. At least try.

 

 

This is great. I wish it wasn't so easy to call these shots from a mile away, but keep requalifying what birth certificates data/facts you deem valid.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

 

I DON'T LIKE THAT EVIDENCE!

 

YOU'RE STUPID!

 

Round and round we go.

 

Also, Dick Jauronimo, I never said this anything to do with race, but don't let that stop you from making yourself feel clever by arguing with points that nobody made.

 

In fact it is as simple as yes or no. Will these new laws prevent people from voting? The answer: yes. I've provided the information you asked for, but I'm sure the next steps will be for me to go out and gather the data myself, because nobody can be trusted.

 

But, for further reading: knock yourselves out.

[3rdnlng]

 

This is great. I wish it wasn't so easy to call these shots from a mile away, but keep requalifying what birth certificates data/facts you deem valid.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

 

I DON'T LIKE THAT EVIDENCE!

 

YOU'RE STUPID!

 

Round and round we go.

 

Also, Dick Jauronimo, I never said this anything to do with race, but don't let that stop you from making yourself feel clever by arguing with points that nobody made.

 

In fact it is as simple as yes or no. Will these new laws prevent people from voting? The answer: yes. I've provided the information you asked for, but I'm sure the next steps will be for me to go out and gather the data myself, because nobody can be trusted.

 

But, for further reading: knock yourselves out.

 

 

I hope so. In fact, I expect it to keep non citizens and felons and other illegal voters from casting a vote.

[IDBillzFan]

 

This is great. I wish it wasn't so easy to call these shots from a mile away, but keep requalifying what birth certificates data/facts you deem valid.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

 

I DON'T LIKE THAT EVIDENCE!

 

YOU'RE STUPID!

 

Round and round we go.

 

Also, Dick Jauronimo, I never said this anything to do with race, but don't let that stop you from making yourself feel clever by arguing with points that nobody made.

 

In fact it is as simple as yes or no. Will these new laws prevent people from voting? The answer: yes. I've provided the information you asked for, but I'm sure the next steps will be for me to go out and gather the data myself, because nobody can be trusted.

 

But, for further reading: knock yourselves out.

Which is why you had to beg us to respond. Because deep down we knew...absolutely knew...that this is the only kind of dialogue you are capable of having. You post something, people easily blow it out of the water, and you say "that's not what I meant" and post something else.

 

But you got us to respond, so I guess that probably makes you feel special for the day.

[Jauronimo]

 

This is great. I wish it wasn't so easy to call these shots from a mile away, but keep requalifying what birth certificates data/facts you deem valid.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

 

I DON'T LIKE THAT EVIDENCE!

 

YOU'RE STUPID!

 

Round and round we go.

 

Also, Dick Jauronimo, I never said this anything to do with race, but don't let that stop you from making yourself feel clever by arguing with points that nobody made.

 

In fact it is as simple as yes or no. Will these new laws prevent people from voting? The answer: yes. I've provided the information you asked for, but I'm sure the next steps will be for me to go out and gather the data myself, because nobody can be trusted.

 

But, for further reading: knock yourselves out.

Keep accepting all anecdotal evidence at face value without the slightest bit of scrutiny. And don't forget to take breaks to pat yourself on the back.

[The Big Cat]

I hope so. In fact, I expect it to keep non citizens and felons and other illegal voters from casting a vote.

 

We've had safeguards against those for years.

 

Which is why you had to beg us to respond. Because deep down we knew...absolutely knew...that this is the only kind of dialogue you are capable of having. You post something, people easily blow it out of the water, and you say "that's not what I meant" and post something else.

 

But you got us to respond, so I guess that probably makes you feel special for the day.

 

It's all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

Keep accepting all anecdotal evidence at face value without the slightest bit of scrutiny. And don't forget to take breaks to pat yourself on the back.

 

Right, so the information you asked for demanded and have now been given (as of the last link) over 33 million times is not good enough by some nonexistent, nebulous standard that you've had to twist your way into justifying.

 

What stake do you have in this game, anyways?

[Rob's House]

So you fully acknowledge then that some people will be unable to obtain ID's.

Dude, we get it. You have for whatever reason decided that the accuracy & legitimacy of elections is secondary to making sure anyone & everyone gets to punch their card. Problem for you is that most don't agree & you're fighting an uphill battle. I find it funny that we're all in agreement that the don't have an ID crowd will lean heavily Democrat.

[The Big Cat]

Dude, we get it. You have for whatever reason decided that the accuracy & legitimacy of elections is secondary to making sure anyone & everyone gets to punch their card. Problem for you is that most don't agree & you're fighting an uphill battle. I find it funny that we're all in agreement that the don't have an ID crowd will lean heavily Democrat.

 

Not the case. I don't think this method is the best way to ensure accuracy because it's a.) not foolproof and b.) will prevent people from voting.

 

Saving votes by killing them is NOT the best course of action, and you know it.

Edited August 1, 2012 by The Big Cat

[IDBillzFan]

Dude, we get it. You have for whatever reason decided that the accuracy & legitimacy of elections is secondary to making sure anyone & everyone gets to punch their card. Problem for you is that most don't agree & you're fighting an uphill battle. I find it funny that we're all in agreement that the don't have an ID crowd will lean heavily Democrat.

Oddly enough, WSJ reports today that one of those "disenfranchised" groups affected by voter ID laws -- young adults 18-24 -- right now face an unemployment rate of 15%.

 

Another group of disenfranchised - African American -- is almost 16%.

 

Obama has done absolutely nothing to help these people, and yet you still have dumbasses trying to convince you that the GOP doesn't want these people to vote.

Edited August 1, 2012 by LABillzFan

[The Big Cat]

Oddly enough, WSJ reports today that one of those "disenfranchised" groups affected by voter ID laws -- young adults 18-24 -- right now face an unemployment rate of 15%.

 

Another group of disenfranchised - African American -- is almost 16%.

 

Obama has done absolutely nothing to help these people, and yet you still have dumbasses trying to convince you that the GOP doesn't want these people to vote.

 

Dumbasses like the GOP themselves, right?

 

[Rob's House]

Oddly enough, WSJ reports today that one of those "disenfranchised" groups affected by voter ID laws -- young adults 18-24 -- right now face an unemployment rate of 15%.

 

Another group of disenfranchised - African American -- is almost 16%.

 

Obama has done absolutely nothing to help these people, and yet you still have dumbasses trying to convince you that the GOP doesn't want these people to vote.

Sadly, I think the real dumbasses are the people in those groups that still want to vote for Obama. I see them like Detroit fans clamoring for four more years of Matt Millen.

[IDBillzFan]

Dumbasses like the GOP themselves, right?

Hey, look who missed the point.

 

Again.

[The Big Cat]

Hey, look who missed the point.

 

Again.

 

I see.

People who support the new restrictions: dumbasses.

People who oppose the new restrictions: also dumbasses.

 

Which one were you again?

[IDBillzFan]

I see.

People who support the new restrictions: dumbasses.

People who oppose the new restrictions: also dumbasses.

 

Which one were you again?

I am the biggest of dumbasses for letting myself think you were capable of both a normal dialogue and independent thought.

 

But hey...you keep fighting the fight. Maybe another dumbass will come along and think you're worth the effort.

[Jauronimo]

I am the biggest of dumbasses for letting myself think you were capable of both a normal dialogue and independent thought.

 

But hey...you keep fighting the fight. Maybe another dumbass will come along and think you're worth the effort.

What did I ever do to you, LA? I have feelings too. Awful, hateful feelings, apparently, but feelings nonetheless.

[The Big Cat]

I am the biggest of dumbasses for letting myself think you were capable of both a normal dialogue and independent thought.

 

But hey...you keep fighting the fight. Maybe another dumbass will come along and think you're worth the effort.

 

When you've got no sensible leg to stand on, resort to personal attacks. Classic LABILLZ. CLASSIC!

[WorldTraveller]

When you've got no sensible leg to stand on, resort to personal attacks. Classic LABILLZ. CLASSIC!

Oh the irony....

[Doc]

I think we all acknowledge that some people will not be able to vote because of the law. What we're saying is "we don't care" as long as people aren't allowed to vote fraudulently. The integrity of the process is more important than a few people who will be inconvenienced by it.