Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
You forgot the word "illegally" before "voting".
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
You should see the MVA in Beltsville Maryland on a Monday AM. I'd like to check the nationalization papers on the people in that line, but in deep blue MD, never going to happen.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
I'm sure you would, herr kommandant.
I'm sure you would, herr kommandant.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Voter ID makes illegal what was previously legal, so in that sense you're technically correct.
What it also does is prevent more citizens from legally voting than it prevents from committing voter fraud. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness.
Voter ID makes illegal what was previously legal, so in that sense you're technically correct.
What it also does is prevent more citizens from legally voting than it prevents from committing voter fraud. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Driver's licenses are given by a system that you say is "a bit lax."
Driver's licenses are the standard form of ID that will be provided at the polls.
So how would a Voter ID law cure that ill? Do you see a problem with your logic in this post?
Driver's licenses are given by a system that you say is "a bit lax."
Driver's licenses are the standard form of ID that will be provided at the polls.
So how would a Voter ID law cure that ill? Do you see a problem with your logic in this post?
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
This is what the creative people in Chicago and other urban areas claim. There is no basis for it in fact. Just conjecture.
This is what the creative people in Chicago and other urban areas claim. There is no basis for it in fact. Just conjecture.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
It's one thing to be called out by the Huff. It's quite another when they're on your side.
It's one thing to be called out by the Huff. It's quite another when they're on your side.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Motor Voter and ID laws can go hand in hand. I don't buy into the argument about licenses being unreliable. Short of a national ID program, that's as good as we're going to get (and no, I don't support drivers licenses for illegal immigrants).
Again, no problems here with ID laws, just enacting them months before an election. Give it one election cycle for implementation.
Motor Voter and ID laws can go hand in hand. I don't buy into the argument about licenses being unreliable. Short of a national ID program, that's as good as we're going to get (and no, I don't support drivers licenses for illegal immigrants).
Again, no problems here with ID laws, just enacting them months before an election. Give it one election cycle for implementation.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
I've heard many people assert this as if it were true yet provide no supporting evidence to support the assertion. Why do you think this is true? People already need picture ID to do just about anything else in life; how many people are there who want to vote yet currently lack the requisite ID? I mean, they do eat, right? and they do live somewhere, no?
You present ID to get the SNAP card or the checking account or the credit card from which you pay for your food....
I've heard many people assert this as if it were true yet provide no supporting evidence to support the assertion. Why do you think this is true? People already need picture ID to do just about anything else in life; how many people are there who want to vote yet currently lack the requisite ID? I mean, they do eat, right? and they do live somewhere, no?
You present ID to get the SNAP card or the checking account or the credit card from which you pay for your food....
You're taking too simple a view of this. While the laws differ, some want a very specific form of ID and ban other kinds. The goal isn't integrity of the voting process. Its to make it so confusing that many voters will stay home. Now that's on them, certainly, but the motivations behind these laws can't be ignored either. There's also been states passing laws that you can't cast a provisional ballot if there's some question about your eligibility.
What I find amusing is how self defeating these efforts are. PA by even the most widely optimistic Romney assumptions is not in play, so a dirt poor state with a litany of problems has spent millions in litigation and mitigation for the stated reason of throwing the state towards Mittens (if the Senate president is to be believed). Hope the taxpayers feel that was worth it. In the meantime the people you tried to screw (minorities and college students) hadn't been too into this upcoming election, at least not up to 2008 levels. Now in response to an attempted boning out of the right they'll be out in force.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Hopefully. If these groups actually do get mad at the attempt at disenfranchisement and come out to the polls, that will deter the GOP from trying this gambit again. But if they don't, the GOP won't stop. Their goal is to depress turnout -- it doesn't matter how they do it.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
You're both making the logical error of presupposing that the sole purpose of voter ID laws is to suppress the (Democratic) vote. Your mistake is in completely ignoring the previous assertion that it's not to suppress turnout, but to make sure legal voters are voting legally. If in fact (as some say) it will prevent more Republicans than Democrats from voting, or that it will in fact boost Democratic turnout as Rover says, or that Pennsylvania was never in play in the first place, it all shows the folly of continuing to scream about disenfranchisement when that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Again, nothing to do with "depressing turnout." That's a big old logical fallacy.
Unless (I guess its quite possible) the Republicans are stupid enough to pass these laws without having the first clue about who it will affect, and how, when it comes into law.
You're both making the logical error of presupposing that the sole purpose of voter ID laws is to suppress the (Democratic) vote. Your mistake is in completely ignoring the previous assertion that it's not to suppress turnout, but to make sure legal voters are voting legally. If in fact (as some say) it will prevent more Republicans than Democrats from voting, or that it will in fact boost Democratic turnout as Rover says, or that Pennsylvania was never in play in the first place, it all shows the folly of continuing to scream about disenfranchisement when that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Again, nothing to do with "depressing turnout." That's a big old logical fallacy.
Unless (I guess its quite possible) the Republicans are stupid enough to pass these laws without having the first clue about who it will affect, and how, when it comes into law.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
I'm not ignoring it, I'm dismissing it as a lie.
I'm sure they had an excuse for poll taxes, too.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm dismissing it as a lie.
I'm sure they had an excuse for poll taxes, too.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Interesting take on Paul Ryan's "legend"
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/paul-ryan-legend-dissipates.html
geezer, call me a skeptic, but IMHO these voter ID laws have little to do with rooting out fraud, which happens much more in absentee balloting anyway. What part of the leader of the PA Senate saying this was going to put his state in Romney's column doesn't speak to their true motivations? Two things stick out. 1) This is being done entirely by GOP legislatures (for laws effective by Nov election) even though they never previously had such concerns, and 2) there's scant evidence of any actual voter fraud.
To your second point, yes this was a foolhardly miscalculation on their part but I'm speculating they were looking at a closer election than they've gotten thus far. Back when these laws were being passed a lot of these places were supposed to be in play and some still are. FLA purging its voting rolls even if the voters are legitimate for example. I also find it telling that the courts keep knocking these efforts back.
Interesting take on Paul Ryan's "legend"
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/paul-ryan-legend-dissipates.html
geezer, call me a skeptic, but IMHO these voter ID laws have little to do with rooting out fraud, which happens much more in absentee balloting anyway. What part of the leader of the PA Senate saying this was going to put his state in Romney's column doesn't speak to their true motivations? Two things stick out. 1) This is being done entirely by GOP legislatures (for laws effective by Nov election) even though they never previously had such concerns, and 2) there's scant evidence of any actual voter fraud.
To your second point, yes this was a foolhardly miscalculation on their part but I'm speculating they were looking at a closer election than they've gotten thus far. Back when these laws were being passed a lot of these places were supposed to be in play and some still are. FLA purging its voting rolls even if the voters are legitimate for example. I also find it telling that the courts keep knocking these efforts back.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Look who's now trying to pull in the libertarians. Too bad for you, we're not as stupid as you think.
Look who's now trying to pull in the libertarians. Too bad for you, we're not as stupid as you think.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
I'm not shocked that Ryan turned out to be just another nothing burger politico, but I am shocked how he just disappeared completely from the campaign. I don't know whether that's Romney trying distance himself from Ryan's stench on Medicare or Ryan trying to save his political career by swimming far enough away from the Titanic not to be taken down with it, but it's weird.
Leno a few days ago: "I saw a guy scraping his Romney bumper sticker off his car -- it was Paul Ryan."
I'm not shocked that Ryan turned out to be just another nothing burger politico, but I am shocked how he just disappeared completely from the campaign. I don't know whether that's Romney trying distance himself from Ryan's stench on Medicare or Ryan trying to save his political career by swimming far enough away from the Titanic not to be taken down with it, but it's weird.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
1. He thinks this will suppress enough legitimate voters who would have voted Democrat to tip the scales (bad), or
2. He thinks there is enough widespread voter fraud on the Democratic side that eliminating the fraud will tip the scales, in which case it would actually be a good thing (unless you're coming down on the side of voter fraud).
BTW, I agree 100% with your overall position - establish voter ID laws, but don't do it in a disingenuous, last-minute fashion. That approach practically writes its own objections.
You're begging the question. His saying that means either:
1. He thinks this will suppress enough legitimate voters who would have voted Democrat to tip the scales (bad), or
2. He thinks there is enough widespread voter fraud on the Democratic side that eliminating the fraud will tip the scales, in which case it would actually be a good thing (unless you're coming down on the side of voter fraud).
BTW, I agree 100% with your overall position - establish voter ID laws, but don't do it in a disingenuous, last-minute fashion. That approach practically writes its own objections.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Then you're basically saying it's never going to happen. If they try to put it through Congress in, say, 4 months, the public will say, "Who cares?!" and the Congress will say it isn't a pressing issue. If you pass it now and have it take effect in 2014, I expect it will be repealed in a year. After all, look at the repeal Obamacare measures (albeit not yet successful, but it could be soon).
Then you're basically saying it's never going to happen. If they try to put it through Congress in, say, 4 months, the public will say, "Who cares?!" and the Congress will say it isn't a pressing issue. If you pass it now and have it take effect in 2014, I expect it will be repealed in a year. After all, look at the repeal Obamacare measures (albeit not yet successful, but it could be soon).
- Status