Voter ID terrifies Democrats

[M14 Shooter]

I'll ask again:

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

 

[g5000]

The right to vote should be impeded as little as possible. Any impediment to voting requires unimpeachable evidence that such an impediment is necessary.

A basic, essential, necessary concept attached to the right to vote that you, the potential voter, are who you say you are - the right to vote has no meaning unless this is assured.

Which is why we have a voter registration process.

[As such, even if requiring an ID violated your right to vote (good luck with -that- argument),

That has been proven. Not all registered voters have a DMV-issued ID in SC and TX.

The U.S. Department of Justice will block the voter ID provisions of an election law passed in South Carolina earlier this year because the state’s own statistics demonstrated that the photo identification requirement would have a much greater impact on non-white residents, DOJ said in a letter to the state on Friday.

“Put differently, although non-white voters comprised 30.4% of the state’s registered voters, they constituted 34.2% of registered voters who did not have the requisite DMV-issued identification to vote,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, who heads the Civil Rights Division, wrote in the letter to South Carolina. “Non-white voters were therefore disproportionally represented, to a significant degree, in the group of registered voters who, under the proposed law, would be rendered ineligible to go to the polls and participate in the election.”

Understand? A person is able to register to vote but cannot vote.

That is disenfranchisement. Established.

Now prove that it is necessary to disenfranchise registered voters who have proven their residency and citizenship.

 

[g5000]

I'll ask again:

Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

This is a seriously fallacious argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll ask again:
Do you support the requirement that people show a photo ID to buy a gun?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?

This is a seriously fallacious argument.

Explain, specifically, how.

 

[g5000]

I will demonstrate the logical fallacy of the gun ID argument with an identical logical fallacy.

Do you support the requirement that people have to show ID to buy alcohol?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?


Understand?

If there was an epidemic of underaged people attempting to buy alcohol, that made an ID requirement necessary.

And so those circumstances have absolutely no bearing on the validity of a voter ID requirement. Proof that minors were attempting to buy alcohol is not proof that illegal aliens are trying to vote.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

Can you imagine if the same amount of votes come out for states that have lost residents in the masses since 2008/2010? For example, lets say 500,000 people have moved out of Michigan in the last 4 years, and in the 2012 election, the same amount of votes comes in,,or close. Wouldnt that sound suspicious? same with Ohio and Pennsylvania and Cally. (well never mind cally,,,they dont require Voter ID in blue districts) You have to be concerned over how many fraud votes will be coming from empty homes and apartments.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right to vote should be impeded as little as possible. Any impediment to voting requires unimpeachable evidence that such an impediment is necessary.

A basic, essential, necessary concept attached to the right to vote that you, the potential voter, are who you say you are - the right to vote has no meaning unless this is assured.

Which is why we have a voter registration process.

The voter registration process does not ensure that the person casting the vote in the person that registered to vote. It is essential that the identity of the person who is there to cast the vote is the person he sayd he is; this can only be done with an ID.

That has been proven. Not all registered voters have a DMV-issued ID in SC and TX.

I haven't said anything abourt requiring a DMV ID, and so you examples prove nothing.

If the state cannot ascertain the identity of a person who shows up to vote, then the right to vote is meaningless. Thus, a compelling interest. The ID requirement is the least restrivtie means to do this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I will demonstrate the logical fallacy of the gun ID argument with an identical logical fallacy.
Do you support the requirement that people have to show ID to buy alcohol?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?
Understand?

Nope. Doesn't wash.

Voting and gun ownership are rights; buying alcohol is not.
As such, voting and gun ownership are on the same plane, higher than that for buying alcohol.

If you can require an ID to exercise one right, you can require an ID to exercise them all.

Please do try again.

 

[Conservative]

If the state cannot ascertain the identity of a person who shows up to vote, then the right to vote is meaningless. Thus, a compelling interest. The ID requirement is the least restrivtie means to do this.

Just take them at their word. People never lie.

 

[g5000]

A basic, essential, necessary concept attached to the right to vote that you, the potential voter, are who you say you are - the right to vote has no meaning unless this is assured.

Which is why we have a voter registration process.

The voter registration process does not ensure that the person casting the vote in the person that registered to vote. It is essential that the identity of the person who is there to cast the vote is the person he sayd he is; this can only be done with an ID.

Show that people who are voting are not who they say they are. Otherwise you are just making shit up and voter ID is not necessary.

Is some Mexican showing up at a voting booth claiming to be Biff Vanderbilt in the hopes the real Biff doesn't show up that day to vote, too?

I haven't said anything abourt requiring a DMV ID, and so you examples prove nothing.

I am giving real world examples.

I have proven strict voter ID laws are disenfranchising voters. You have not proven a voter ID requirement which causes actual proven disenfranchisement is even necessary. So 1 in my column, 0 in yours.

 

[g5000]

If the state cannot ascertain the identity of a person who shows up to vote, then the right to vote is meaningless. Thus, a compelling interest. The ID requirement is the least restrivtie means to do this.

Just take them at their word. People never lie.

Prove there are people who are voting who are not the registered voters they claim to be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is why we have a voter registration process.

The voter registration process does not ensure that the person casting the vote in the person that registered to vote. It is essential that the identity of the person who is there to cast the vote is the person he sayd he is; this can only be done with an ID.

Show that people who are voting are not who they say they are.

I dont need to - I only need to make an argument of a compelling state interest, which I have done and which you have not challenged.

As I said - the voter registration process, alone, does not meet this interest as it does not positively link the regustration to the pesron there to cast the ballot; to protect the rights of the voters, the state must ensure that connection thru spome sort of positive identification of the person there to cast the vote.

Not sure why you'd even -try- to disagree - but, please go ahead.

I am giving real world examples.

That do not apply.

Thus, you're back at 0.

 

[Conservative]

If the state cannot ascertain the identity of a person who shows up to vote, then the right to vote is meaningless. Thus, a compelling interest. The ID requirement is the least restrivtie means to do this.

Just take them at their word. People never lie.

Prove there are people who are voting who are not the registered voters they claim to be.

So, theoretically, a woman walks up to vote and says,'Hi, I'm fred Michales, and I'm here to vote'.... no need to ask her for ID, right?

 

[g5000]

So, theoretically, a woman walks up to vote and says,'Hi, I'm fred Michales, and I'm here to vote'.... no need to ask her for ID, right?

That's all the voter ID crowd has. Theoreticals.

I have shown actual voters, real people in the real world, are prevented from voting in real elections at real voting booths, by real, existing voter ID laws.

This DEMANDS someone prove these people's rights should be denied.

 

[g5000]

I will demonstrate the logical fallacy of the gun ID argument with an identical logical fallacy.
Do you support the requirement that people have to show ID to buy alcohol?
If so, how then can you oppose the same requirement in order to vote?
Understand?

Nope. Doesn't wash.

Voting and gun ownership are rights; buying alcohol is not.
As such, voting and gun ownership are on the same plane, higher than that for buying alcohol.

If you can require an ID to exercise one right, you can require an ID to exercise them all.

Please do try again.

I am going to need to see your ID before you can continue to exercise free speech.

Seriously. Your logic is fallacious. Badly so.

 

[g5000]

I will try to use small words so the illogic of the gun argument can be understood:

That which proved the wrong people were buying guns is not evidence the wrong people are voting.

 

[Big Fitz]

no. it's not. it's to ensure that elderly and poor people and young people have a difficult time voting.

because guess who those people vote for in vast numbers....

yah...nothing partisan about it... sure there isn't.

Oh bullshit.

Old people have had decades to get their ID and be responsible. Young people don't vote anyway and those who want to need to pull their heads out of their asses.

These groups have little problem renewing their drivers license, getting SSI benefits or other more difficult to obtain government services. They can fucking show their ID to prove they are who they are and that they voted.

This is as impeding as a bad hair day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, theoretically, a woman walks up to vote and says,'Hi, I'm fred Michales, and I'm here to vote'.... no need to ask her for ID, right?

That's all the voter ID crowd has. Theoreticals.

I have shown actual voters, real people in the real world, are prevented from voting in real elections at real voting booths, by real, existing voter ID laws.

This DEMANDS someone prove these people's rights should be denied.

You proceed from a false premise, that an actual act of fraud ben shown to justify the requirement.

Fact is, there need be only a compelling state interest; the compelling interrst for the ID is the same as the compelling interest for registration - that the person that shows up to vote is the person he says he is (and is in the right place)

Unless you want to argue that there is no compelling state interest for registration, you cannot get past the fact that the same compelling interest exists in regards to an ID.

At that point, the discussion revolves around 'least restrictive means' to achieve that interest; I find it impossible to argue that there is a -less- restrictive means than any of the innumerable forms of photo ID.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Can you imagine if the same amount of votes come out for states that have lost residents in the masses since 2008/2010? For example, lets say 500,000 people have moved out of Michigan in the last 4 years, and in the 2012 election, the same amount of votes comes in,,or close. Wouldnt that sound suspicious? same with Ohio and Pennsylvania and Cally. (well never mind cally,,,they dont require Voter ID in blue districts) You have to be concerned over how many fraud votes will be coming from empty homes and apartments.

Kinda like how Newt and Perry didn't make the ballot in Virginia??

I did the math on that one and figured that only 1 out of 250 republicans was needed to get him on the ballot..

I'm a Paul supporter, however it just seems fishy to me that both Newt and Perry couldn't get 1 out of 250 republicans???

What the hell happened there???

 

[M14 Shooter]

no. it's not. it's to ensure that elderly and poor people and young people have a difficult time voting.

because guess who those people vote for in vast numbers....

yah...nothing partisan about it... sure there isn't.

Ah, my favorite fraud up to her (very old) usual bigoted, partisan tricks.
Glad to see you still get a thrill out of marginalizing yourself.