- Thread starter
- #161
You must have take the short bus to school or you're just not paying attention. I said you regressives call voter ID voter suppression, get it. So you might want to explain the difference to them.
Aww,stop squirming…you got caught red handed trying to distort and change the narrative.
RDEAN SAID: ↑
Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.
Then you tried to make it solely about voter ID:
OKTEXAS SAID: ↑
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.
Again, stop squirming and accept the cloak of defeat that I have placed around your shoulders. It fits you so well.
So this isn't you claiming voter ID is voter suppression? You don't seem to be drawing any distinctions. Typical regressive, tries to play semantics game and loses. GOOD JOB REGRESSIVE!!!!!!!
There is an agenda here and at least one prominent republican has stated so. That agenda is to keep those Obama supporters who are most likely to have difficulty obtaining an ID in time for the election from voting.
Aw cut out the BS, we all know what the GOP is doing with their voter ID antics. The North Carolina Court decision has exposed that strategy already. But if that isn't proof enough of the GOP national agenda to suppress voting rights, here is more:
Oh, that is me, alright. I am pointing out that the CONS are using voter ID as one of many weapons in their goal of selective voter suppression. Voter ID has always been part of the system validated by signature comparisons and more recently by photo ID. So Voter ID isn't suppression in and of itself. But when voter ID is used in the manner explained in the court decision ( the one I linked to earlier) it becomes one of many cogs in the wheels of voter suppression.
So my original statement that you regressives see voter ID as voter suppression was correct, as demonstrated by your own statements, even though the supreme court says otherwise. Now if you want to expand on the subject, start your own thread.
I don't see myself as a regressive first of all. I see YOU as one. That is what you neoConservatives want…to turn back the hands of time to some perceived golden age. CHANGE is your Kryptonite.
Progress means change geared to more diversity and inclusiveness for all Americans in all aspects of American life. While I do seek change in ways that will benefit me and mine, I don't see myself as a progressive either. I am conservative in most of my views but progressive in civil issues. In other words, I cannot be easily pigeonholed; and there are millions like me.
Now that I have defined myself, whether you agree with it or not, I'll address your 2nd illusion. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You seem to have a mental block that keeps your confusion centered on voter ID as an adjunct to your illusion that democrats or liberals equate it to voter suppression. Some left wingers may think like that but the American CIVIL RGHTS UNION, a decidedly liberal front, clearly disagrees.
ACRU said:If voter ID laws are part of a sinister conspiracy to deny blacks the right to vote, why do a majority of African Americans support them? In an April 2012 FOX News poll, 70% of all Americans favored requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity prior to voting. This included 58% of non-whites, as well as 52% of both liberals and Democrats.44
In another FOX poll released in March 2014, 70 percent overall approved of voter ID laws, including majorities of all age groups and by race, sex and party affiliation.45
In a national poll46 by Rasmussen Reports released in August 2014, 74% overall approved of voter-ID laws, including 64 percent of blacks, 56 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents.47
So, the federal appeals court in NC didn't object to the prerequisite of having to present a voter ID to vote. The objection focused on the selective means of carrying out the law in a manner that clearly showed discrimination in practice. For instance:
The Washington Post said:In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
-------- SNIP-----
Legislators quickly eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The appeals court’s ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by African American voters.
—————SNIP————————
The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”
The panel found the law was passed with racially discriminatory intent, violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It said that “intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose.”
Hopefully now you can see that voter ID and voter suppression are two different things but voter ID laws can be used to foster voter suppression if used selectively. Agreed?
Ok, lets look at those points. My first question is do the Public Assistance IDs require proof of citizenship to get them? If not, they shouldn't be allowed for voter ID. I've already addressed this but I'll do it again. Early voting, the court said blacks tended to use the first 7 days of early voting more than others. They rolled them back to 10 days form 17 days. So why can't blacks continue to use the first 7 days of early voting? There may not have been enough activity to justify a full 17 days. Did the appeals court bother to check total utilization? Next, same day registration, who the hell came up with that stupid idea to begin with? Every state I've lived in you have to register a minimum of 30 days prior to the election, otherwise they have no way to verify the information before a vote is cast. The district court looked into all these and upheld the law, I think the appeals court got it wrong. You can disagree, and we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.