7 of 17
7
New voter ID laws politically motivated?
Posted: 30 August 2012 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3346
Joined  2011-11-04
harry canyon - 30 August 2012 11:35 AM

Bit of an update about such a law in Texas…

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/08/30/us/politics/ap-us-texas-voter-id-.html?_r=1&hp;

Take care,

Derek

Thanks, Derek.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 15 August 2012 04:50 PM

In re: to it being a “conspiracy”, it is not something that you will read about in the National Enquirer, next to the headlines “Bat Boy Attacks Bigfoot” but certainly persons, predominantly Republicans, are conspiring to get this law in effect, and persons, predominantly Democrats are conspiring to prevent it.  So are these types of laws politically motivated?  Of course they are.

Voter ID laws are popular with voters.  How much does one need to conspire in order to put into effect a proposed law that is popular with voters?

Okay, now let’s flip that around.  How much does one need to conspire in order to thwart a law that is popular with voters?

And there’s the partisan motivation.  Thwarting laws with strong bipartisan support among the people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Bryan - 01 September 2012 07:55 PM

Voter ID laws are popular with voters.  How much does one need to conspire in order to put into effect a proposed law that is popular with voters?

Okay, now let’s flip that around.  How much does one need to conspire in order to thwart a law that is popular with voters?

And there’s the partisan motivation.  Thwarting laws with strong bipartisan support among the people.

Laws preventing blacks from voting were popular with the voters. Slavery was popular with the Southern voters. The laws should be about doing what is right, and not necessarily what is popular at the time.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 09:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
asanta - 01 September 2012 09:24 PM
Bryan - 01 September 2012 07:55 PM

Voter ID laws are popular with voters.  How much does one need to conspire in order to put into effect a proposed law that is popular with voters?

Okay, now let’s flip that around.  How much does one need to conspire in order to thwart a law that is popular with voters?

And there’s the partisan motivation.  Thwarting laws with strong bipartisan support among the people.

Laws preventing blacks from voting were popular with the voters. Slavery was popular with the Southern voters. The laws should be about doing what is right, and not necessarily what is popular at the time.

So you’re a moral realist?  Legislating morality?  How do you know what is right?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 10:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Of course she is a moral realist, Bryan. Just like you are. The difference between you and Asanta, though, is that she is a moral realist because she is a nice person and you are a moral realist because you are a theist, which, in the 21st century, translates to being mentally ill. Your BS (though not your fault, probably) doesn’t impress anybody here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 11:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26

It occurred to me that “voter fraud” in Presidential elections is a Federal offence. By default, if the Feds have insufficient or compelling evidence to follow voter fraud enforcement, no State can prohibit or restrict the free exercise of a “Constitutionally granted Right” which is also protected by Federal law.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/ballotfraud_102710

[ Edited: 01 September 2012 11:43 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 11:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3346
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 01 September 2012 07:55 PM
TimB - 15 August 2012 04:50 PM

In re: to it being a “conspiracy”, it is not something that you will read about in the National Enquirer, next to the headlines “Bat Boy Attacks Bigfoot” but certainly persons, predominantly Republicans, are conspiring to get this law in effect, and persons, predominantly Democrats are conspiring to prevent it.  So are these types of laws politically motivated?  Of course they are.

Voter ID laws are popular with voters.  How much does one need to conspire in order to put into effect a proposed law that is popular with voters?...

.

A lot, if that law is aimed at disenfranchising a segment of the population of other voters.

Are you being purposefully ignorant?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 11:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
George - 01 September 2012 10:35 PM

Of course she is a moral realist, Bryan. Just like you are. The difference between you and Asanta, though, is that she is a moral realist because she is a nice person and you are a moral realist because you are a theist, which, in the 21st century, translates to being mentally ill. Your BS (though not your fault, probably) doesn’t impress anybody here.

The key question is how Asanta knows what’s right.  That’s a good question regardless of any mental illness you suppose on my part.  So let her answer it without any more B.S. on your part.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 11:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 01 September 2012 11:26 PM
Bryan - 01 September 2012 07:55 PM
TimB - 15 August 2012 04:50 PM

In re: to it being a “conspiracy”, it is not something that you will read about in the National Enquirer, next to the headlines “Bat Boy Attacks Bigfoot” but certainly persons, predominantly Republicans, are conspiring to get this law in effect, and persons, predominantly Democrats are conspiring to prevent it.  So are these types of laws politically motivated?  Of course they are.

Voter ID laws are popular with voters.  How much does one need to conspire in order to put into effect a proposed law that is popular with voters?...

.

A lot, if that law is aimed at disenfranchising a segment of the population of other voters.

Are you being purposefully ignorant?

I’m not.  Maybe you are.  Let’s suppose that a proposed law disenfranchises 20 percent of voters yet the other 80 percent favor the law.  Why is any conspiracy at all required?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2012 11:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 01 September 2012 07:55 PM
TimB - 15 August 2012 04:50 PM

In re: to it being a “conspiracy”, it is not something that you will read about in the National Enquirer, next to the headlines “Bat Boy Attacks Bigfoot” but certainly persons, predominantly Republicans, are conspiring to get this law in effect, and persons, predominantly Democrats are conspiring to prevent it.  So are these types of laws politically motivated?  Of course they are.

Voter ID laws are popular with voters.  How much does one need to conspire in order to put into effect a proposed law that is popular with voters?

Perhaps a better question is how much conspiracy it takes to create a popular viewpoint?  “1984”?

Okay, now let’s flip that around.  How much does one need to conspire in order to thwart a law that is popular with voters?

Very little indeed and each time a little more of our rights are restricted and taxed, contrary to the popular belief of gaining freedom and economic relief.

And there’s the partisan motivation.  Thwarting laws with strong bipartisan support among the people.

Yes, but founded on an illusion created by the “interested parties”. Motive?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 12:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3346
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 01 September 2012 11:40 PM
TimB - 01 September 2012 11:26 PM
Bryan - 01 September 2012 07:55 PM
TimB - 15 August 2012 04:50 PM

In re: to it being a “conspiracy”, it is not something that you will read about in the National Enquirer, next to the headlines “Bat Boy Attacks Bigfoot” but certainly persons, predominantly Republicans, are conspiring to get this law in effect, and persons, predominantly Democrats are conspiring to prevent it.  So are these types of laws politically motivated?  Of course they are.

Voter ID laws are popular with voters.  How much does one need to conspire in order to put into effect a proposed law that is popular with voters?...

.

A lot, if that law is aimed at disenfranchising a segment of the population of other voters.

Are you being purposefully ignorant?

I’m not.  Maybe you are.  Let’s suppose that a proposed law disenfranchises 20 percent of voters yet the other 80 percent favor the law.  Why is any conspiracy at all required?

Duh Because a democratic system becomes meaningless, if the majority can take away the vote from the minority.

In your example, the majority of the 80% of voters who are left, could then get rid of another segment of voters.  The majority of voters could continue to pass laws disenfranchising whoever was left in the minority each time, until, ultimately there would only be 2 uber rich Repugs left who could vote.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 02 September 2012 12:05 AM
Bryan - 01 September 2012 11:40 PM

I’m not.  Maybe you are.  Let’s suppose that a proposed law disenfranchises 20 percent of voters yet the other 80 percent favor the law.  Why is any conspiracy at all required?

Duh Because a democratic system becomes meaningless, if the majority can take away the vote from the minority.

By the same token, a Democratic system is meaningless if a majority can’t take away the vote from the minority.  Democracy by definition recognizes some type of primacy for majority rule.  So address the question:  Given a majority favors a law in a democracy, why is a conspiracy needed in order to effect the law?

In your example, the majority of the 80% of voters who are left, could then get rid of another segment of voters.  The majority of voters could continue to pass laws disenfranchising whoever was left in the minority each time, until, ultimately there would only be 2 uber rich Repugs left who could vote.

That’s not much of a conspiracy, though it’s certainly a drawback of pure democracy.  Still, if you’ve got a constitutional republic there’s usually a way to amend a constitution.  Probably 80 percent could do that, right?  No conspiracy needed.  Just a vote.  So address the issue, please.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 01:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 01 September 2012 11:42 PM
Bryan - 01 September 2012 07:55 PM
TimB - 15 August 2012 04:50 PM

In re: to it being a “conspiracy”, it is not something that you will read about in the National Enquirer, next to the headlines “Bat Boy Attacks Bigfoot” but certainly persons, predominantly Republicans, are conspiring to get this law in effect, and persons, predominantly Democrats are conspiring to prevent it.  So are these types of laws politically motivated?  Of course they are.

Voter ID laws are popular with voters.  How much does one need to conspire in order to put into effect a proposed law that is popular with voters?

Perhaps a better question is how much conspiracy it takes to create a popular viewpoint?  “1984”?

Is it required or simply possible to create a majority viewpoint via a conspiracy?  Your question is better if voter ID laws aren’t constitutional and reasonable.  The courts say they are, generally speaking.  So are we supposed to just assume that they aren’t reasonable after all so that we can get to your potentially better question?

Okay, now let’s flip that around.  How much does one need to conspire in order to thwart a law that is popular with voters?

Very little indeed and each time a little more of our rights are restricted and taxed, contrary to the popular belief of gaining freedom and economic relief.

Hmmm.  I’m not sure you answered the question you thought you were answering.  The affirmative of the sort you gave should make you sympathetic to my side of things.  Is that what you intended?

And there’s the partisan motivation.  Thwarting laws with strong bipartisan support among the people.

Yes, but founded on an illusion created by the “interested parties”. Motive?

Not sure what you’re saying.  Do we need to eliminate interested parties in order to protect democracy?  Can we accomplish that while remaining disinterested?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 03:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26

By restricting, not the power of the vote (the voters), but the power of money (unlimited anonymous amounts) in the political process.

[ Edited: 02 September 2012 03:27 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 05:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3262
Joined  2011-08-15

Here we go again with the Republicans Feigning indignation over the voter fraud issue by contending that they represent a majority of voters in this issue. Same old mantra. Every time a rep. Politician opens his mouth, out comes “but the American people are behind me on this (fill in blank) issue”. Despite the fact that they had to hunt far and wide to find the few cases used to display this rampant epidemic of illegal voting, now even the courts are weighing in to put a stop to it. Partisan? Yes. How many Dem. politicians are heading this witch hunt? This is a rep. Circus in the center ring and yet another trick to steal votes from the hated socialist dems. Thank Wotan that Citizens United can’t buy off the Supreme Courts, yet.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160318424/texas-voter-id-law-sets-strict-burdens-court-says

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 17
7