The News Thread

[arg]

yes, voter id to combat illegal votes. and if a side effect of voter id is less ultra-poor votes, that's a good thing (you cant really ban it unfortunately).

the working poor should be able to vote though. many of them are republican.

 

[The Ozzman]

Voter ID makes sense. I don't see how it's racist.

 

[rms]

The argument from the left is that voter ID is such a minute issue and only being pushed by Republicans. So the left sees this as a tactic to limit the amount of democratic voters, and those are poor people living in cities. These people are disproportionately 'people of color,' which makes a sensationalist topic because 'omg racism' Then the argument steers that paying for ID hurts poor people who are disproportionately non-whites--so thus racism

 

[arg]

A common sense law is not racist just because a large number of a certain race cannot comply with it.

Is immigration law racist? Or does it simply mean don't fucking illegally immigrate?

Is anti-terrorism law racist? Or does it simply mean don't be a fucking terrorist?

Is criminal law racist? Or does it simply mean don't be a fucking criminal?

Is the law to have a driver's license to drive racist? You might be a perfect driver. But you have to fucking have one! Can't afford one, can't drive!

Is the law to have an id to vote racist? You might very well be an American citizen. But you (should) have to fucking have one! Can't afford one, shouldn't be able to vote! Could be an illegal, someone using his dead granddad's name, could be voting multiple times. Doesn't matter how often or not it happens. Of course the left will falsify the data.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/report-illegals-told-vote-democrats-face-deportation/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431676/obama-administration-enabling-noncitizen-voting
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ensure-illegals-can-vote-in-november-election
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...illegals-voting-reveals-political-motivation/

 

[Einherjar86]

Is criminal law racist? Or does it simply mean don't be a fucking criminal?

You say that like it's easy. Do you know that there are some states that still consider anal sex illegal? That would make you a "fucking criminal" in some states.

Criminality varies depending on whom is being targeted. And in that respect, yes - laws can definitely be biased.

 

[EchoForever]

You say that like it's easy.

no its pretty fucking easy lol

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh. Well now I'm convinced.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Do black people sodomise each other more often than white people?

Not really making a point here, just curious.

 

[EchoForever]

what the fuck

 

[CiG]

It's not hard to not be a criminal. Even with stupid sodomy laws, when was the last time that law was even used anyway?

Anyway the whole reason people are calling for voter I.D. is because illegal immigration is out of hand over there. At least, from all the circles I mingle in, that's the idea I get.

Not to mention the democratic party seems to have no problem fucking with votes.

 

[EchoForever]

honestly bullshit aside if you think that voter id is "racist" then you only give a shit about feeling morally superior to everyone else with your whiny social justice

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not hard to not be a criminal. Even with stupid sodomy laws, when was the last time that law was even used anyway?

The point is that it's illegal in some states. It doesn't matter whether it was used or not. Aug's a criminal in those states, long story short. Maybe we should reconsider letting him vote - that fucking deviant.

 

[CiG]

The point is that it's illegal in some states. It doesn't matter whether it was used or not. Aug's a criminal in those states, long story short. Maybe we should reconsider letting him vote - that fucking deviant.

Reasonable line of enquiry whether he's banged butts or not.

 

[Dak]

In other words you believe in systematic racism and don't value the 14th Amendment. I'd have more respect for you at least owned up to what you are because your positions clearly support targetting people based on their race.

It's a due benefit, aka a right, per the US Consitution.

My point from the beginning has been that there is systematic racism and eliminationism occuring against minorities in this country. I have backed it up with a healthy variety sources. You've countered with unsubstantiated armchair poly sci.

I believe that when a law is justified it should be enforced. When a particular group of people is more prone to breaking said law, it would require the sort of selfrighteous bullshit you have sucked down to not take advantage of such information in enforcement.

About 15% of the US population live in poverty, so 15% is a good estimate. $24K is the poverty line for a family of four. If you're supporting a family of 4 on $2K a month, once you subtract rent, food, utilities, etc. yes, $20 can be a burden.

And as far as how are such requirements racist, that was already made clear. Since the law disproportionately impacts minorities and said impact was beknownst to the authors of the law, the law is racist.

Since that has clearly been demonstrated, let's flip the script. Why do we need Voter ID laws when the number of proven voter fraud cases is statistically insignificant?

How many of those 15% don't have a state ID? $15 dollars for something you need to conduct basically any sort of business anyway - private or public - and spread out somewhere over a two year span, would not be a "burden". You're being ridiculous.

The nature of voter fraud without IDs is that it is hard to prove. That's the problem that an ID attempts to address. That's, you know, one of the reasons IDs are required for damn near anything.

You are really demonstrating a poor understanding of the legal foundations of this country. Voting is right, not a priviledge. That is made clear in multiple amendments. One cannot be "too poor to vote".

Yeah, the founding fathers were all big proponents of universal suffrage. Not only white land owners. Not at all.

LMAO. Now you're really reaching for straws. You're also showing that your intellectual integrity is as low as your moral character. I never claimed that Trump supporters shouldn't be allowed to vote and you know it. Trying to accuse me of falling into a contradiction for something that other people said is lazy and desperate.

Says the guy who can't say two words without inserting muh racism.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Voter ID makes sense. I don't see how it's racist.

Because you've put no time into researching it.

I believe that when a law is justified it should be enforced. When a particular group of people is more prone to breaking said law, it would require the sort of selfrighteous bullshit you have sucked down to not take advantage of such information in enforcement.

Amazing. In three sentences you manage to contradict yourself and revert to more empty shit slinging (self-righteous bullshit? LOL) to avoid developing an actual counterargument and also managed to contradict yourself. On one hand you say that the laws shall be enforced, but yet you yourself say that you don't value the supreme law of our land, namely the Constitution.

I don't "value" the Consitution per se. It's supposed to be the rules governing government but it's mostly a fiction to make us all feel good about one thing or another.

It seems like you're cool with not enforcing the Constitution, i.e. violating the 14th and 15th amendments. Maybe you don't think people deserve equal protection? But yet, I'm somehow unjustified in calling you racist? You're literally trying to justify laws that target people based on race even when that clearly contradicts our most fundamental legal doctrine.

So don't even try and take refuge in the sanctity of law at this point, as you burned that bridge several days ago.

How many of those 15% don't have a state ID? $15 dollars for something you need to conduct basically any sort of business anyway - private or public - and spread out somewhere over a two year span, would not be a "burden". You're being ridiculous.

Who are you to say what is and is not a burden for someone else whose life you do not understand? And again, voting is a right, not a privilege. Laws that impede that right without justification

The nature of voter fraud without IDs is that it is hard to prove. That's the problem that an ID attempts to address. That's, you know, one of the reasons IDs are required for damn near anything.

So on one hand, voter fraud may be a problem, but we have no proof. On the other hand, voter ID laws have been proven to disproportionately impact minorities and the poor. Therefore, based on a lack of evidence, we should disenfranchise voters from a basic constitutionally protected right?

Yeah, the founding fathers were all big proponents of universal suffrage. Not only white land owners. Not at all.

There is what the text says and then there is what the people who wrote the text did. Those are two different things. What the text says is what ultimately matters for us today. Of course it is important to acknowledge and understand the context of the document's origin, but as a living document (hence amendments) it is not beholden to that original realization.

Says the guy who can't say two words without inserting muh racism.

Again, diversion. Just acknowledge the absolute lack of intellectual integrity that was involved in that move.

 

[arg]

Voter id law says "prove you're an American citizen and that you'll only vote once" NOT "X race can't vote" therefore it's not racist and not in violation of the constitution. End of.

 

[Dak]

Amazing. In three sentences you manage to contradict yourself and revert to more empty shit slinging (self-righteous bullshit? LOL) to avoid developing an actual counterargument and also managed to contradict yourself. On one hand you say that the laws shall be enforced, but yet you yourself say that you don't value the supreme law of our land, namely the Constitution.

It seems like you're cool with not enforcing the Constitution, i.e. violating the 14th and 15th amendments. Maybe you don't think people deserve equal protection? But yet, I'm somehow unjustified in calling you racist? You're literally trying to justify laws that target people based on race even when that clearly contradicts our most fundamental legal doctrine.

So don't even try and take refuge in the sanctity of law at this point, as you burned that bridge several days ago.

So if I can't talk about any laws because I don't hold the Constitution in some sort of infallible, religious-like esteem, what are we even talking about? You're pro-gun control, guess you don't hold the Constitution in high regard either.

Who are you to say what is and is not a burden for someone else whose life you do not understand? And again, voting is a right, not a privilege. Laws that impede that right without justification

The emboldened statement either suggests you believe yourself to have better knowledge of the poor than I, or that no one has any right to speak on what is and is not a burden for someone else. If it's the former, that's pretty funny. If it's that latter, you lose your whole angle about the "burden of getting an ID" because you cannot determine that something is a burden.

We are talking about justifications, and whether or not voter IDs are an impedance to anything other than the thing which is not a right ie voter fraud. The ID works to insure that A. You are the person exercising your right and B. Your right isn't being negated by those engaging in fraud.

So on one hand, voter fraud may be a problem, but we have no proof. On the other hand, voter ID laws have been proven to disproportionately impact minorities and the poor. Therefore, based on a lack of evidence, we should disenfranchise voters from a basic constitutionally protected right?

Now you're back onto "voter ID laws". Stay on topic.

There is what the text says and then there is what the people who wrote the text did. Those are two different things. What the text says is what ultimately matters for us today. Of course it is important to acknowledge and understand the context of the document's origin, but as a living document (hence amendments) it is not beholden to that original realization.

I don't consider an amended text 200+ years removed from its original instantiation in anyway "foundational". But whatever, that's another topic entirely and beside the point here. No one is arguing that voting isn't a right here. Voter IDs specifically ensure and enhance the right to vote.

Again, diversion. Just acknowledge the absolute lack of intellectual integrity that was involved in that move.

Because screaming racism/inequality/disparate impact/et al about basically anything you don't like of a socioeconomic/political/legal nature isn't a diversion?

 

[EchoForever]

Voter id law says "prove you're an American citizen and that you'll only vote once" NOT "X race can't vote" therefore it's not racist and not in violation of the constitution. End of.

this
i cant believe people honestly believe that something so simple as a voter id is racist

youre fucking retarded if you believe that

 

[rms]

pssst Dak 14/15th ammendments only ~100 yrs old

 

[Dak]

pssst Dak 14/15th ammendments only ~100 yrs old

Sure. I mean, cf could assert that the foundation of the country is really 1865. There's an interesting, if not compelling argument for that.