Left's Hierarchy of 'Rights'

[magick]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, what ID must the poor provide for welfare/entitlement benefits?[/quote]

Isn’t it SS#? I don’t know.

But, afaik, people want some form of photo ID for the voter ID thing. So either passport or driver’s license. Which is problematic for people who never needed a passport in their life and don’t drive.

Edit-
Adding photo ID to SS cards would work. The problem is that they would have to get updated every once in a while… I had the same thing since I came to the U.S. a long fucking time ago and it didn’t get updated until I became a legal citizen.

[magick]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

The lack of evidence is the issue. No one, to my knowledge, has done anything to prove either side’s claims. So everyone’s just pissing in the dark, really.[/quote]

If me and 4 other people go to 5 poles and vote 5 times each, and not any single time do we have to prove who we are, how would anyone ever know?

How can anyone prove fraud when we have no way of measuring?

The last 3 times I’ve gone to vote the old woman or old man has marked off the JOHN DOE that lives two streets over from me because we have the same first name and same letter in last. I’ve had to correct them all three times. [/quote]

Having no idea how the voting verification process actually works, I wouldn’t be able to tell you.

But I wonder how people got wind of a supposed inconsistency during the 2000 Presidential election.

And if this is such a big deal, then why hasn’t anyone made a fuss about it ever since the … 30s was it? I don’t quite remember. But wouldn’t the fact that we don’t have a proper verification method mean that just about EVERY big election in the history of the U.S. is suspect?

[countingbeans]

[quote]magick wrote:
But wouldn’t the fact that we don’t have a proper verification method mean that just about EVERY big election in the history of the U.S. is suspect?
[/quote]

lol, yes.

'Tis kinda my point.

[squating_bear]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

Question: is it true that Democrats oppose this, even during non election down times? This would not surprise me, insofar as they think they will get more votes from fraud than there opposition would[/quote]

Honest question:

Do you see anything in the world with as much money involved as an election in the US that isn’t rife with backroom deals, fraud, and otherwise misappropriation of that money?

How on Earth anyone who can think actually believes there isn’t rampant fraud with every election, given how much people spend to win these government jobs, is beyond me. [/quote]
Hmmm… I don’t know much about the quantities of money involved in US elections, or what type of things might be comparable

I’m not sure if you misread me into thinking this part about ‘actually believing there isn’t rampant fraud with every election’ applies to me.

Then again, that’s driven by reflex. Now that you’ve got me actually thinking about it - I wouldn’t actually say that I believe there is rampant fraud in every election. Every is a big word. But yea, I think you misread me - we’re mostly in agreement I think

[countingbeans]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

I’m not sure if you misread me into thinking this part about ‘actually believing there isn’t rampant fraud with every election’ applies to me.

[/quote]

It is a general statement, not directed at you particularly. Should have been more clear.

My point, which you seem to agree, is that with the amount of money parties spend to win these seats, it is crazy to assume they aren’t bending the rules to get their ROI, which is victory.

[squating_bear]

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Question: is it true that Democrats oppose this, even during non election down times? This would not surprise me, insofar as they think they will get more votes from fraud than there opposition would[/quote]

The argument the Democrats put out is that there are many poor people who don’t have the time/means of getting their hands on a driver’s license/other forms of good I.D.

Thus, voter I.D. laws effectively disenfranchise the poor.

It’s a fair argument. The only problem is that it’s not really supported by any independent studies. No real evidence is given to support the claim besides anecdotal evidence afaik. [/quote]
Is this realistic? If a law is passed a short time in front of an election then I can imagine it is realistic, but given time?

I’m not sure, but I think I had to go the DMV in order to get registered to vote. I can understand the drivers license part since you need to know how to drive in order to get one, but I’m sure the DMV have other forms of ID that could be acceptable.

The claims that the Republicans are using it to attempt to get some Democratic votes off the table may be true too, look at the video Severiano posted. While it’s obviously a cut and so we don’t have context, I do wonder why he would specifically point that out unless they intended to use voter I.D. in some way to help Romney’s political prospects.

I acknowledged that in the part you didn’t quote. I would expect this. Personally, I would go so far as to expect this to be the main driver for it having even become an issue.

Two reasons this might cut out Democrats that I can think of are

1. Cutting out poor people like Democrats said. I think it would have this effect if the law was passed near enough to election time.

2. Cutting out illegals and other non citizens. This does not seem very time dependent

This is why I specifically asked about during down time. Maybe Democrats are more concerned with 2, while they talk about 1. Maybe Republicans are interested in both. This would mean they make it an issue at all times, but ramp up around elections. Which is what Severiano was speaking against, but seemed he was not even considering any significance in the concept of Democrats fighting against it during down times. I tried to bring the [i]exact[/i] other side to what he was saying

[quote]But I think most of them are just being honest about the whole thing.[/quote]Heh, I’m sorry you feel that way

The lack of evidence is the issue. No one, to my knowledge, has done anything to prove either side’s claims. So everyone’s just pissing in the dark, really.

That’s way more believable than the whole honesty thing

[squating_bear]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

I’m not sure if you misread me into thinking this part about ‘actually believing there isn’t rampant fraud with every election’ applies to me.

[/quote]

It is a general statement, not directed at you particularly. Should have been more clear.

My point, which you seem to agree, is that with the amount of money parties spend to win these seats, it is crazy to assume they aren’t bending the rules to get their ROI, which is victory. [/quote]
ya I agree

I would even assume the rules are often broken, not just bent

[magick]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Is this realistic? If a law is passed a short time in front of an election then I can imagine it is realistic, but given time?[/quote]

The Democrats claim that the Republicans do it in an attempt to gain power in the short term and use that power to their advantage in the future.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I’m not sure, but I think I had to go the DMV in order to get registered to vote. I can understand the drivers license part since you need to know how to drive in order to get one, but I’m sure the DMV have other forms of ID that could be acceptable.[/quote]

There are many ways that you can register to vote. Canvassers frequently give you the form during election season, for example.

And the issue is that the Republicans want PHOTO ID. Otherwise people can just give their SS card and it’ll work.

The only photo ID that people generally have is either their drivers license or passport.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I acknowledged that in the part you didn’t quote. I would expect this. Personally, I would go so far as to expect this to be the main driver for it having even become an issue.

Two reasons this might cut out Democrats that I can think of are

1. Cutting out poor people like Democrats said. I think it would have this effect if the law was passed near enough to election time.

2. Cutting out illegals and other non citizens. This does not seem very time dependent

This is why I specifically asked about during down time. Maybe Democrats are more concerned with 2, while they talk about 1. Maybe Republicans are interested in both. This would mean they make it an issue at all times, but ramp up around elections. Which is what Severiano was speaking against, but seemed he was not even considering any significance in the concept of Democrats fighting against it during down times. I tried to bring the [i]exact[/i] other side to what he was saying[/quote]

Democrats are against illegal aliens voting too. The issue is that the Republicans claim there’s a lot of voting fraud and that the aliens are voting, but they provide no proof.

What Countingbeans wrote is probable and quite likely. But unless you have some proof it just remains at probable and quite likely.

Democrats are against the even in the “downtime” because they see it as an assault on the civil rights of the poor. If you see it that way, then there is no “downtime”.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Heh, I’m sorry you feel that way
[/quote]

Why? I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I believe most people aren’t monsters.

[BrianHanson]

Sex Machine,

It is not a ‘human right’ to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. To give ground on gay marriage is to place oneself in a precarious position where one’s own rights - real rights enshrined in the bill of rights - are infringed upon and the judicial branch is elevated to activist status. The end result can only be loss of liberty and the debasement of the civil society.[/quote]

It is as much a human right as it is to marry someone of the same sex. Your argument that “To give ground on same sex marriage is to place oneself…” is very similar to the one used to criminalize interracial marriage, the same one used to justify “separate but equal” drinking fountains/schools/hospitals etc. Your dislike of homosexuality is no different than if you disliked blacks, or Jews, or midgets, the Irish, Catholics etc.

You can look all you want, but you will never find a viable reason for denying same sex marriage, your only rationale is bigotry and some sad ass “slippery slope” argument where if two gay lawyers get married the next step is finger banging your Shih-Tzu and marrying your trash can. It would be simpler if you wrote something like “I hate gays, they make me feel funny inside so I would like them to be treated as second class citizens.” At least that would be honest.

[SexMachine]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

It is as much a human right as it is to marry someone of the same sex. Your argument that “To give ground on same sex marriage is to place oneself…” is very similar to the one used to criminalize interracial marriage, the same one used to justify “separate but equal” drinking fountains/schools/hospitals etc.

[/quote]

How so?

[quote]

Your dislike of homosexuality is no different than if you disliked blacks, or Jews, or midgets, the Irish, Catholics etc. You can look all you want, but you will never find a viable reason for denying same sex marriage, your only rationale is bigotry and some sad ass “slippery slope” argument where if two gay lawyers get married the next step is finger banging your Shih-Tzu and marrying your trash can. It would be simpler if you wrote something like “I hate gays, they make me feel funny inside so I would like them to be treated as second class citizens.” At least that would be honest. [/quote]

I never said any of that. I think you’re projecting.

[MaximusB]

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Question: is it true that Democrats oppose this, even during non election down times? This would not surprise me, insofar as they think they will get more votes from fraud than there opposition would[/quote]

The argument the Democrats put out is that there are many poor people who don’t have the time/means of getting their hands on a driver’s license/other forms of good I.D.

Thus, voter I.D. laws effectively disenfranchise the poor.

It’s a fair argument. The only problem is that it’s not really supported by any independent studies. No real evidence is given to support the claim besides anecdotal evidence afaik.

The claims that the Republicans are using it to attempt to get some Democratic votes off the table may be true too, look at the video Severiano posted. While it’s obviously a cut and so we don’t have context, I do wonder why he would specifically point that out unless they intended to use voter I.D. in some way to help Romney’s political prospects.

But I think most of them are just being honest about the whole thing.

The lack of evidence is the issue. No one, to my knowledge, has done anything to prove either side’s claims. So everyone’s just pissing in the dark, really.[/quote]

Dude, one of our very own state senators was convicted of 8 felony counts of perjury and voter fraud.

Not indicted, CONVICTED.

This happened only because someone started sniffing around, and if you think he is the only one pulling this shit, I have a bridge to sell you.

[MaximusB]

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Is this realistic? If a law is passed a short time in front of an election then I can imagine it is realistic, but given time?[/quote]

The Democrats claim that the Republicans do it in an attempt to gain power in the short term and use that power to their advantage in the future.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I’m not sure, but I think I had to go the DMV in order to get registered to vote. I can understand the drivers license part since you need to know how to drive in order to get one, but I’m sure the DMV have other forms of ID that could be acceptable.[/quote]

There are many ways that you can register to vote. Canvassers frequently give you the form during election season, for example.

And the issue is that the Republicans want PHOTO ID. Otherwise people can just give their SS card and it’ll work.

The only photo ID that people generally have is either their drivers license or passport.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I acknowledged that in the part you didn’t quote. I would expect this. Personally, I would go so far as to expect this to be the main driver for it having even become an issue.

Two reasons this might cut out Democrats that I can think of are

1. Cutting out poor people like Democrats said. I think it would have this effect if the law was passed near enough to election time.

2. Cutting out illegals and other non citizens. This does not seem very time dependent

This is why I specifically asked about during down time. Maybe Democrats are more concerned with 2, while they talk about 1. Maybe Republicans are interested in both. This would mean they make it an issue at all times, but ramp up around elections. Which is what Severiano was speaking against, but seemed he was not even considering any significance in the concept of Democrats fighting against it during down times. I tried to bring the [i]exact[/i] other side to what he was saying[/quote]

Democrats are against illegal aliens voting too. The issue is that the Republicans claim there’s a lot of voting fraud and that the aliens are voting, but they provide no proof.

What Countingbeans wrote is probable and quite likely. But unless you have some proof it just remains at probable and quite likely.

Democrats are against the even in the “downtime” because they see it as an assault on the civil rights of the poor. If you see it that way, then there is no “downtime”.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Heh, I’m sorry you feel that way
[/quote]

Why? I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I believe most people aren’t monsters.
[/quote]

Couple Upset After Receiving Pre-Marked Voter Registration Card from Covered California

“Californian couple concerned after they received an envelope from the state’s Obamacare website pre-marked with an “x” in the box next to Democratic Party.”

Video Couple Upset After Receiving Pre-Marked Voter Registration Card from...

I would be willing to bet that if people really went looking for shit like this, we would find alot more of it.

[magick]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Dude, one of our very own state senators was convicted of 8 felony counts of perjury and voter fraud.

Not indicted, CONVICTED.

This happened only because someone started sniffing around, and if you think he is the only one pulling this shit, I have a bridge to sell you.
[/quote]

Who?

As I wrote, I’m pretty sure voter fraud and such does happen. But until we have some sense of how often they happen, we wouldn’t know.

It just seems implausible to me that we would have rampant fraud and not a single person would talk about them. We have elections occurring fairly often all across the country if you count the state ones as well.

Though, as you stated, it could simply be that they’re under reported…

[magick]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Couple Upset After Receiving Pre-Marked Voter Registration Card from Covered California

“Californian couple concerned after they received an envelope from the state’s Obamacare website pre-marked with an “x” in the box next to Democratic Party.”

Video Couple Upset After Receiving Pre-Marked Voter Registration Card from...

I would be willing to bet that if people really went looking for shit like this, we would find alot more of it. [/quote]

That is disturbing.

Edit-
Though, if I may be incredibly cynical for a moment, whats to stop the couple from marking it in and then reporting it to the news?

[squating_bear]

I thought I had already posted this, but I guess not

[quote]

[quote]magick wrote:
But I think most of them are just being honest about the whole thing.[/quote]Heh, I’m sorry you feel that way

The lack of evidence is the issue. No one, to my knowledge, has done anything to prove either side’s claims. So everyone’s just pissing in the dark, really.

That’s way more believable than the whole honesty thing[/quote]
Is it even possible for ANYONE to be honest about the whole thing if EVERYONE’s just pissing in the dark?

Which is more believable?

I said nothing of monsters. Running tricks to tip the scales in votes is not that scary to me. This doesn’t automatically trigger the emotional parts of me like it probably should. It’s just a cold analysis. There are motives at play for the things being discussed

Giving people the benefit of the doubt. This requires you to make value judgements before you establish your view of other peoples’ view. I think it is inaccurate because your value judgements do not match theirs. From what you have said, it seems to me that you value an accurate counting of all votes of all US citizens (and not non citizens) more so than you value a counting of votes that either includes or excludes certain groups that might skew it in favor of one party over another. Cool.

Is that really the value judgements of all involved within these political parties? It would not seem like it if I am to accept the statements of both SexMachine and Severiano, which I did. But I am starting to think your way of just giving people the benefit of the doubt might be healthier, even if less accurate. On second thought I shouldn’t give the appearance of mocking that

[magick]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Is it even possible for ANYONE to be honest about the whole thing if EVERYONE’s just pissing in the dark?[/quote]

Well, people frequently make conclusions based off insufficient evidence. While their logical train of thought may be faulty (since it is based off insufficient evidence), their heart and thoughts may be in the “right” place.

Or, at least, some Republicans who advocate voter ID and such may honestly believe that they are fighting to reduce corruption.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I said nothing of monsters.[/quote]

I know. I used that as a hyperbole =D

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Giving people the benefit of the doubt. This requires you to make value judgements before you establish your view of other peoples’ view. I think it is inaccurate because your value judgements do not match theirs. From what you have said, it seems to me that you value an accurate counting of all votes of all US citizens (and not non citizens) more so than you value a counting of votes that either includes or excludes certain groups that might skew it in favor of one party over another. Cool.[/quote]

Yup on everything written here.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Is that really the value judgements of all involved within these political parties? It would not seem like it if I am to accept the statements of both SexMachine and Severiano, which I did. But I am starting to think your way of just giving people the benefit of the doubt might be healthier, even if less accurate. On second thought I shouldn’t give the appearance of mocking that[/quote]

I think if you start thinking everyone has an ulterior motive, then you go into a really bad place where nothing good will ever come of it.

So, even if my thought process is simple and probably naive, it makes me feel better and, imo, allows me to attempt to judge things on a more even ground. I have no reason to think Democrats are any better than Republicans, nor do I think Republicans are any worse than Democrats.

It’s about the only way that I can actually attempt to stay a moderate, imo.

[Severiano]

I don’t really think it’s about a matter of evidence. I think I provided plenty… If it were about fraud then Repubs would have also gone after absentee ballots, as there is more documented fraud there than in person voting.

What gets me is everyone on their political sides. For dems, they cover their heads in the sand when it comes to things like NSA, Obama’s various promises about Guantanamo and rights to privacy, things he campaigned on he doesn’t stay honest about.

With Repubs, you guys bury your heads in the sand when it comes to… Voting rights? WTF… You supposed Red Blooded patriots. You have fire and angst for people like Pelosi and the right to bear arms, good 'Merican shit right? This is some real Red China shit with the voter sequestration attempts, and you guys aren’t pulling your 'Mericuh stuff… WTF? I don’t want any of you fuckers claiming to be a proud American if you are okay with this bullshit voter I.D. Gambit. This voter shit is some shit I’d expect to see in a 3rd world country without electricity and a dictator in office. Guess all you repubs dont really have a sack when it comes down to it. Just like Romney’s whole family line, none of which ever served or took part in a war. Bunch of fake shits.

Repubs and Dems are sellouts. To what? To some parties that don’t even represent you?

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t really think it’s about a matter of evidence. I think I provided plenty… If it were about fraud then Repubs would have also gone after absentee ballots, as there is more documented fraud there than in person voting.

What gets me is everyone on their political sides. For dems, they cover their heads in the sand when it comes to things like NSA, Obama’s various promises about Guantanamo and rights to privacy, things he campaigned on he doesn’t stay honest about.

With Repubs, you guys bury your heads in the sand when it comes to… Voting rights? WTF… You supposed Red Blooded patriots. You have fire and angst for people like Pelosi and the right to bear arms, good 'Merican shit right? This is some real Red China shit with the voter sequestration attempts, and you guys aren’t pulling your 'Mericuh stuff… WTF? I don’t want any of you fuckers claiming to be a proud American if you are okay with this bullshit voter I.D. Gambit. This voter shit is some shit I’d expect to see in a 3rd world country without electricity and a dictator in office. Guess all you repubs dont really have a sack when it comes down to it. Just like Romney’s whole family line, none of which ever served or took part in a war. Bunch of fake shits.

Repubs and Dems are sellouts. To what? To some parties that don’t even represent you?

[/quote]

Voter fraud on this scale is something I’d expect to see in a third world country.

'Itâ??s an article of the faith of the Democrats that voter fraud is nothing to worry about because it never happens. Kim Strach, the North Carolina director of elections, has living proof â?? and some dead proof â?? otherwise.

She has identified 35,750 persons who voted in North Carolina sharing a name and birth date with someone who voted in another state in 2012. Another 81 North Carolinians voted after they died. Ghosts have no constitutional rights, not yet, but Barack Obama and the Democrats think rigor mortis need not keep voters from practicing good citizenship.’

Maybe if you put your fingers in your ears and shout ‘nah! nah! nah! nah!,’ you can keep believing the 1 in 15 million bullshit.