DC Tom Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 The rationale the Democratic party has thrown in opposition is SHAMEFUL. But to your point, insofar voting is free--it costs NO money. If it costs money to get an ID ($30 for my latest renewal), then voting is no longer free. If one was to oppose the measure--which I don't, I've just maintained the rationale for implementing it has been whorishly trumped--opposing the sudden "poll tax" seems to be one of the few, if not the only irrefutable stance. And AS WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED, you sadistic hippophilic necrophile: most voter ID laws being considered provide for a free voter ID, and many provide means to make it easier to acquire it (e.g. providing transportation on request). Just because you just paid $30 for your driver's license does not mean that every voter ID under consideration is a poll tax.
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 And the Democrats' resistance to it is to avoid losing votes. If either party was being honest and not whoring for votes, they'd both say "Y'know...ID should be required, because it really is important that we protect the integrity of the electoral system." But they're not honest, they're whores. So, the GOP is doing exactly what you suggest, but since the Dems are resisting it they are both whores? Big Kitty: how would requiring voter I.D. increase votes for the GOP?
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 So, the GOP is doing exactly what you suggest, but since the Dems are resisting it they are both whores? Because I don't think the GOP is doing that. I think their motivation is to reduce the voter rolls voting Democrat.
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Because I don't think the GOP is doing that. I think their motivation is to reduce the voter rolls voting Democrat. So the GOP's motivation is to reduce the illegal votes and there is something wrong with that? Now, if they are only going after suspect Democrat registered voters that's wrong and a stink should be made of it. Doesn't change the fact that not only should the voter rolls be purged of fraudulant and dead people's registrations but I.D. needs to be shown when voting. I laugh at Big Kitty, who's changed his position more than an acrobatic porn star but still always ends up taking it up the ass.
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 So the GOP's motivation is to reduce the illegal votes and there is something wrong with that? No. But I don't think that's the GOP's motivation. I think their motivation is to remove DEMOCRATIC votes.
The Big Cat Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 So the GOP's motivation is to reduce the illegal votes and there is something wrong with that? Now, if they are only going after suspect Democrat registered voters that's wrong and a stink should be made of it. Doesn't change the fact that not only should the voter rolls be purged of fraudulant and dead people's registrations but I.D. needs to be shown when voting. I laugh at Big Kitty, who's changed his position more than an acrobatic porn star but still always ends up taking it up the ass.
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 No. But I don't think that's the GOP's motivation. I think their motivation is to remove DEMOCRATIC votes. Well, I don't think we can base laws on what you think someone's motivation might be. With that said, the actions under those laws should be color blind.
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Well, I don't think we can base laws on what you think someone's motivation might be. With that said, the actions under those laws should be color blind. I'm not suggesting that. I support voter ID laws, for rational reasons...and I don't trust the GOP to be rational. What part of that don't you understand?
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 I'm not suggesting that. I support voter ID laws, for rational reasons...and I don't trust the GOP to be rational. What part of that don't you understand? I've understood all along that you support voter I.D. laws. I understand that you don't trust the GOP, and I assume the Dems too. That's the conundrum, but isn't that true of any laws then? What's your solution?
Rob's House Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 No. But I don't think that's the GOP's motivation. I think their motivation is to remove DEMOCRATIC votes. As someone who, for fiscal reasons, votes almost exclusively Republican, & never Democrat, I am concerned that the Dems will steal elections through voter fraud. However, having seen that unchecked Republicans begin acting like Democrats, I would never want to insulate Republicans from the ballot. The purpose is to protect us from overreaching government, not overreaching Democrats.
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 I've understood all along that you support voter I.D. laws. I understand that you don't trust the GOP, and I assume the Dems too. That's the conundrum, but isn't that true of any laws then? What's your solution? My solution is that I agree with the laws that make sense to me, and disagree with those that don't. Regardless of the parties' motivations.
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 My solution is that I agree with the laws that make sense to me, and disagree with those that don't. Regardless of the parties' motivations. Fair enough.
Doc Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 If you pay $30 for a driver's license, but use it for other things (like, say, driving, or buying alcohol, or cigarettes, or cashing a check, or the myriad of other things you need to show ID for), you can't reasonably say it's a poll tax.
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 If you pay $30 for a driver's license, but use it for other things (like, say, driving, or buying alcohol, or cigarettes, or cashing a check, or the myriad of other things you need to show ID for), you can't reasonably say it's a poll tax. I disagree, in that I think you can reasonably say it, but can't definitively say it. And if the argument were made in front of a court, I'd wager it'd win. And wager your argument wouldn't fly in court, as your analogy is a false equivalence and the courts have been (rightly) far more concerned with protecting the right to vote rather than the right to buy cigarettes.
Doc Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I disagree, in that I think you can reasonably say it, but can't definitively say it. And if the argument were made in front of a court, I'd wager it'd win. And wager your argument wouldn't fly in court, as your analogy is a false equivalence and the courts have been (rightly) far more concerned with protecting the right to vote rather than the right to buy cigarettes. It has less to do with rights than a strict definition of "poll tax." A poll tax charges solely for the right to vote. A driver's license provides an official document which can be used for much more than just voting. And many activities require a photo ID and it's almost impossible to live ones life without ever presenting one. Furthermore, if this went to court and "disenfranchised" people were brought in to give testimony, I'd ask how in the hell they got into the courthouse/room without a photo ID. Edited July 20, 2012 by Doc
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 I disagree, in that I think you can reasonably say it, but can't definitively say it. And if the argument were made in front of a court, I'd wager it'd win. And wager your argument wouldn't fly in court, as your analogy is a false equivalence and the courts have been (rightly) far more concerned with protecting the right to vote rather than the right to buy cigarettes. So, I guess for his driver's license to not be considered as a poll tax he should just go get a free I.D. card too?
fjl2nd Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 I think the GOP should drop this issue. They will lose on it and only rally the other side to actually come out and use their right to vote.
Rob's House Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 I think the GOP should drop this issue. They will lose on it and only rally the other side to actually come out and use their right to vote. Whenever I hear one side declare what the other side should do to further its political interests I automatically assume the opposite is true.
fjl2nd Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Whenever I hear one side declare what the other side should do to further its political interests I automatically assume the opposite is true. Seems simplistic. So you don't think this won't get voters riled up at all? The Democrats could feed some line about the GOP trying to take away your right to vote.
Recommended Posts