Jim Crow 2.0???

[akirby]

I see that reading comprehension is still a problem for you. I never said that it was proof that voter id laws did not suppress voting.

 

What I actually said was

 

In Georgia, one of the first states to require voter id, minority voting actually went UP significantly, not down.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that requiring voter id represses voting. THAT is a red herring.

 

Fact - minority voting went UP after the law was enacted. I did not attribute the cause for that, I merely stated a fact.

 

Since the minority numbers went up, it is impossible to say with any certainty that the new voter id law kept minorities from voting which is what you say it's designed to do.

 

So let's put the question another way - what impediment currently exists that would prevent a registered voter from obtaining a voter id in GA given that the voter ID cards are free to those who don't already have a picture id? If they choose not to put forth the effort to go get one then that doesn't count.

[RangerM]

 

I was speaking in generalizations. Call me racist for it if you want. You know exactly what I meant.

Enlighten me.

 

I know people accuse Republicans of keeping minorities down. But those are people who are either dem or dim.

[NickF1011]

Enlighten me.

 

I know people accuse Republicans of keeping minorities down. But those are people who are either dem or dim.

 

The "minorities" in the context of voter ID laws suppressing their vote and those "minorities" who largely support democratic candidates. Try not to look for something sinister where it doesn't exist.

 

Perhaps I should have just said "the poor" instead.

Edited January 15, 2014 by NickF1011

[Langston Hughes]

I see that reading comprehension is still a problem for you. I never said that it was proof that voter id laws did not suppress voting.

 

What I actually said was

 

 

Fact - minority voting went UP after the law was enacted. I did not attribute the cause for that, I merely stated a fact.

 

Since the minority numbers went up, it is impossible to say with any certainty that the new voter id law kept minorities from voting which is what you say it's designed to do.

 

So let's put the question another way - what impediment currently exists that would prevent a registered voter from obtaining a voter id in GA given that the voter ID cards are free to those who don't already have a picture id? If they choose not to put forth the effort to go get one then that doesn't count.

 

I have answered that question numerous times with the studies I've linked to concerning a bevy of points about obstacles. We can look at the quick ones, I remember of the top of my head.

 

In Texas, over half of it's counties do not have a DMV or as we call it Sect. of State here. The hours are restricted and numerous people living in outlying counties without access to busing are relegated to relying on relatives or friends to travel during working hours.

 

Missing or not readily available documentation to show citizenship for elderly, especially among minorities.

 

College students who under law are allowed to vote, but their out of state id and college ID are not sufficient under voter ID laws. IE. UT's id wasn't sufficient as is under the Texas law. (that might have changed since I last read it)

 

 

Look i'm not against a fair election but understand that while YOU believe in voter ID, the republican party isn't passing it based on fair elections. It's solely as a means to effect the vote. Too many RNC types have admitted it for there to be much doubt. And democrats oppose it because they would then have to use state level resources to offset those laws and help those overcome whatever difficulties. It's a win win for Republicans as it effects the dems strategy and resources while allowing voters likely to fall through the cracks to be disenfranchised.

 

It's pretty sick that they would intentionally attempt to disenfranchise voters just to win elections and even worse yet, play on your feelings of wanting a fair election. You should feel some level of disgust towards conservatives who would attempt to use your electoral integrity as means to a rotten end. Unless your okay with using these things solely for winning elections.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[Langston Hughes]

Since the minority numbers went up, it is impossible to say with any certainty that the new voter id law kept minorities from voting which is what you say it's designed to do.

 

 

Oh and it's not impossible. I'm surprised that you would say that as I'm sure that through controlled statistical analysis that their may well be some method of determining what effect it did have, if it did.

[RangerM]

 

The "minorities" in the context of voter ID laws suppressing their vote and those "minorities" who largely support democratic candidates. Try not to look for something sinister where it doesn't exist.

 

Perhaps I should have just said "the poor" instead.

I suppose I'm confused as to exactly how requiring an ID to establish ones eligibility to vote is equivalent to oppressing the poor.

 

How about requiring people who vote to dip their finger into indelible ink so they can't vote more than once, is that too intrusive?

[Langston Hughes]

I suppose I'm confused as to exactly how requiring an ID to establish ones eligibility to vote is equivalent to oppressing the poor.

 

How about requiring people who vote to dip their finger into indelible ink so they can't vote more than once, is that too intrusive?

 

No it would not be. It would show you who the assholes who bitched about the government and didn't vote were. That would be nice to know.

[BlackHorse]

 

If it wasn't for the minorities being down, Democrats wouldn't have a voter base. It would seem based on that premise, Republicans would want to do absolutely everything possible to lift up minorities, not keep them down so they keep voting for their opponents.

 

Asking voters to present a photo ID when they vote is not keeping anyone "down". It is not voter suppression. It is not directed at minorities. It is not any of the bullshit that Langston or you claim that it is. It is just common sense. The only reason to oppose it is so that voter fraud can continue to take place.

[TomServo92]

There are lots of people in those outlying counties who have a driver's license. I just can't imagine how they did that since it's so impossible (according to your narrative). When I turned 16, I had go to the next county to get my license. I don't recall it being that much of a problem. Sorry, LH but this a bullshit argument.

 

As for the student IDs, they don't go through the same processes as government issued ID's to prevent forgery.

 

 

Blah blah blah....wasted bandwidth and incessant stupidity

[TomServo92]

One more thing: During the first election in which the law was in force, Texas voter turnout was DOUBLE what it was during the previous election in the cycle. Hidalgo County, which is 90% Hispanic, saw a 400% increase in voter turnout. Sorry, LH you are full of SHIT.

[phil1336]

What makes minorities "down"?

 

I can name several minorities who aren't just NOT down, but are above average (in wealth, education, etc).

Really, Wow! About in the same proportion as Minorities that are incarcerated in Pay For Profit, Privately Run Prisons for non-violent crimes such as possession of small amount of Drugs? We are not talking about Columbian Drug Cartels but some user selling a gram or two of some shit so he can stay high himself. What profits our Military Industrial Complex are losing are being complimented with the (new) Model for making huge profits. Privately run Prisons and Jails. Our (new) Hospitality industry?

[RangerM]

Really, Wow! About in the same proportion as Minorities that are incarcerated in Pay For Profit, Privately Run Prisons for non-violent crimes such as possession of small amount of Drugs? We are not talking about Columbian Drug Cartels but some user selling a gram or two of some shit so he can stay high himself. What profits our Military Industrial Complex are losing are being complimented with the (new) Model for making huge profits. Privately run Prisons and Jails. Our (new) Hospitality industry?

Sorry, but that train of thought left me at the station.

[Langston Hughes]

Whatever the Daily caller article said, along with personal attack.

 

Your going to quote the Daily Caller stuff right?

 

What am i saying? You not only believe the talking points but you plagiarize them too.

[Langston Hughes]

 

I'm about as white power as Kanye West is. You on the other hand have espoused your hatred for white people numerous times on this forum so don't try to act like you haven't now.

 

You could be as white as me, that is if your Hispanic like you say you are.

 

From the Hidalgo County, Texas census page

(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.

 

Remember that Hispanic is considered a ethnic minority not a racial one in many instances.

[Langston Hughes]

One more thing: During the first election in which the law was in force, Texas voter turnout was DOUBLE what it was during the previous election in the cycle. Hidalgo County, which is 90% Hispanic, saw a 400% increase in voter turnout. Sorry, LH you are full of SHIT.

 

Did you read the quotes I had in an earlier post? Like this one?

 

Any good student of Statistics 101 will tell you that correlation does not imply causation. Apparently, many voter ID supporters never got the memo.

 

 

Once again, these proponents have mistaken simple correlation for causation. You don't need to be a statistician to know that without controlling for other factors that might influence turnout, the assertion that Georgia's voter ID requirement didn't depress turnout is meaningless -- at best unscientific, at worst just plain wrong. [brennan Center For Justice, 7/6/11]

 

 

The 2011 Texas Constitutional election had an low voter turnout, even lower than the pretty standard 8% of registered voters in 2 of the preceding and the one following.

 

Don't look behind that curtain people. We wouldn't want you to see the smoke and mirrors that TomServo, the great and powerful is using to cast his illusion.

 

Really brother? It's one thing to be intellectually dishonest, but it's another to try to pass this bullshit of as anything other than bullshit. 5.37% of all registered voters partook in the 2011 voting cycle. You can't prove shit with that except that you fuckers in Texas don't get out and vote.

 

And if your going to suggest that voter turnout was higher, you would also have to account for voter registration increases and population changes. I'm disappointed that you tried to swing that one by me.

 

You don't need to be a statistician to know that without controlling for other factors that might influence turnout, the assertion that Texas's voter ID requirement didn't depress turnout is meaningless -- at best unscientific, at worst just plain wrong.

 

[TomServo92]

Did you read the quotes I had in an earlier post? Like this one?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2011 Texas Constitutional election had an low voter turnout, even lower than the pretty standard 8% of registered voters in 2 of the preceding and the one following.

 

Don't look behind that curtain people. We wouldn't want you to see the smoke and mirrors that TomServo, the great and powerful is using to cast his illusion.

 

Really brother? It's one thing to be intellectually dishonest, but it's another to try to pass this bullshit of as anything other than bullshit. 5.37% of all registered voters partook in the 2011 voting cycle. You can't prove shit with that except that you fuckers in Texas don't get out and vote. [/size]

 

And if your going to suggest that voter turnout was higher, you would also have to account for voter registration increases and population changes. I'm disappointed that you tried to swing that one by me.

 

You say that voter ID suppresses voting but it didn't. I'm NOT surprised you ignore that.

[TomServo92]

Your going to quote the Daily Caller stuff right?

 

What am i saying? You not only believe the talking points but you plagiarize them too.

 

I have no clue what you're trying to say here. It's just more of your senseless blathering to me.

[akirby]

I don't know why I even bothered to reply. You can't debate with idiots.

[FiredMotorCompany]

I don't know why I even bothered to reply. You can't debate with idiots.

Sometimes I play with them like a cat with a ball of yarn, just for fun.

Edited January 16, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[xr7g428]

So a library book deserves greater protection than the vote...

[TomServo92]

I don't know why I even bothered to reply. You can't debate with idiots.

That's why, for the most part, I've stopped participating in these threads. But occasionally I jump in.

[NickF1011]

 

Asking voters to present a photo ID when they vote is not keeping anyone "down". It is not voter suppression. It is not directed at minorities. It is not any of the bullshit that Langston or you claim that it is. It is just common sense. The only reason to oppose it is so that voter fraud can continue to take place.

 

I think you and RangerM missed the point I was making. I don't think it's suppression in any sense. What I was saying was quite the opposite. Republicans should want to include everyone in the process. They should want the poor to succeed. They should want all of these things the Democrats claim they have the monopoly on, for it weakens the arguments Democrats try to make about Republicans being the party of the well-to-do. What Republicans have is a dreadful image problem.

[akirby]

What Republicans have is a dreadful image problem.

 

Yes and they nobody but themselves to blame. They need to stop focusing on gay marriage and abortion and focus on the economy, jobs creation (and not just the trickle down theory because right or wrong it gives the perception to voters that all Republicans are trying to do is protect the already rich and impersonal corporations) and reduced spending. They've alienated a significant portion of voters who are not die-hard liberals but who don't agree with their stance on these issues. Most of those issues have no place in politics anyway and they're just pushing moderate and independents over to the Democrats as the lesser of two evils.

[NickF1011]

 

Yes and they nobody but themselves to blame. They need to stop focusing on gay marriage and abortion and focus on the economy, jobs creation (and not just the trickle down theory because right or wrong it gives the perception to voters that all Republicans are trying to do is protect the already rich and impersonal corporations) and reduced spending. They've alienated a significant portion of voters who are not die-hard liberals but who don't agree with their stance on these issues. Most of those issues have no place in politics anyway and they're just pushing moderate and independents over to the Democrats as the lesser of two evils.

 

Agree with that 100%.

[Langston Hughes]

You say that voter ID suppresses voting but it didn't. I'm NOT surprised you ignore that.

 

I didn't ignore that. I showed that your supposed truth was in fact not proven to be a truth.

 

Not surprised that you ignored the part about what you were doing not only being unscientific but wrong.

 

 

What you have is the increased voting over a particularly down year, without accounting for any of the variables. Now if you had gone back and gotten the number of voters across the last 4 elections and there was a huge upswing without any other possibility, such as increased voter age population or registrations then you might be able to say with some level of certainty that it did not have an effect. Besides when 8% (versus 5% in 2011) of all REGISTERED voters actually go to the polls it's hard to tell what effect the law had. You can't even account for the potential for a hot button issue to have driven that increase.

 

Perhaps, your not aware of how statistical studies work and i'm being to harsh on you, but I thought you were one of the brighter ones here. You are aware of how they work aren't you?