The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

I think it was Ohio that also made it illegal for poll workers to tell people they were in the wrong precinct or to tell them where the correct precinct was located.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Voter ID often pairs with other laws limiting voter access.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

IL isn't exactly the poster child for efficient government services.

I agree, but I've had some surprising experiences, as well.

For instance, the year after we moved to Maine I needed to get a bunch of documents from the sale of our house in Illinois for our taxes, not all of which I got paper copies of, for some reasons.

Anyway, they all turned out to be easy to a) find and b) download digital copies of from the Secretary of State's office. I was impressed.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Seriously, how hard is it for all those old people to get some form of current ID? They clearly already have SOME form of proof they are who they say they are (expired license, SS card, bank statements, checks, utility bills, the list goes on). You're not getting a bank account without some form of photo ID. You've got an SS# if you're collecting social security. If you're here legally, you almost certainly have stuff issued by the government that can prove you are so and so.

Now, if you want to argue our beloved DMV's and the like have way too much red tape, and makes this task more of a pain than it should be, I agree. However, is getting a valid ID some insurmountable task that no one except whites under the age of 60 can accomplish? No.

Considering the documentation required, it's not that easy. Now compound that with a populace that physically has trouble getting around with a lack of public transportation and, well...you tell me. And we haven't even gotten to students, who can vote in either their home state or their school state - tell me what picture ID they have that's acceptable since school IDs AREN'T ACCEPTABLE. Are these things "insurmountable"? No. But is the barrier to voting now acceptable at not being "insurmountable" and merely "costly and fucking inconvenient" to literally millions of people across the country? Is that acceptable?

Mind you, the FL GOP Chairman said (and I quote), "The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates. We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us." He later said in a deposition that “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting." Nah, nothing racist to see here folks!

But the racism is really a red herring here. It shows how depraved these proponents are, but we're really talking about a maximum fraud percentage of 0.000263157% (5/1,900,000) in SC or something like .0004% in Ohio on a different study. These aren't convictions, these are possible instances of fraud. Now justify possibly disenfranchising tens or hundreds of thousands of people in order to combat that maximum fraud rate. That's the challenge for any proponent. Justify it.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Voter ID often pairs with other laws limiting voter access.

if voter ID is such a great way to prevent fraud you'd think it would be accompanied by ways to make it easier to vote rather than the elimination of early voting, restrictions on absentee ballots and calls to end same day registration that usually go along with it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by miked

The fact that people on this board, who seem reasonably intelligent, keep arguing fraud is beyond me.

It's nothing more than either (a) an indication of their ignorance and or illiteracy, or (b) a cloak for their bigotry.

[Buccaneer]

I can't remember the last time having to go to a polling place, let alone show an id. It's all been ballots by mail including 2012.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Considering the documentation required, it's not that easy. Now compound that with a populace that physically has trouble getting around with a lack of public transportation and, well...you tell me. And we haven't even gotten to students, who can vote in either their home state or their school state - tell me what picture ID they have that's acceptable since school IDs AREN'T ACCEPTABLE. Are these things "insurmountable"? No. But is the barrier to voting now acceptable at not being "insurmountable" and merely "costly and fucking inconvenient" to literally millions of people across the country? Is that acceptable?

Which is why I would pair this with making it less restrictive and less expensive (preferably free) to acquire some form of photo ID.

If the inconvenience is paired down to "oh shit, I gotta spend 30-60 minutes at the DMV or whatever to get some form of photo ID", then I consider that a reasonable requirement for validating eligible voters.

If you can't be bothered to spend a few minutes getting a zero cost ID with a minimum of hassle, then you've got not business voting in the first place.

(Yes, I do realize trying to remove red tape and bullshit fees from any gov't entity is a pipe dream at best. But this is all theoretical in the first place.)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Which is why I would pair this with making it less restrictive and less expensive (preferably free) to acquire some form of photo ID.

If the inconvenience is paired down to "oh shit, I gotta spend 30-60 minutes at the DMV or whatever to get some form of photo ID", then I consider that a reasonable requirement for validating eligible voters.

If you can't be bothered to spend a few minutes getting a zero cost ID with a minimum of hassle, then you've got not business voting in the first place.

(Yes, I do realize trying to remove red tape and bullshit fees from any gov't entity is a pipe dream at best. But this is all theoretical in the first place.)

And that's fine - I'm actually okay with that. But the thing is I'm only okay with that if we make it less restrictive and free (it has to be free) to acquire the form of photo ID valid for voting AT LEAST 12 months in advance of the election - preferably more, or with some sort of phased-in transition so that you give people who have issues (missing documents, health issues, whatever) a legitimate opportunity to acquire the ID.

Otherwise that's just a gussied-up way of trying to make yourself feel better about disenfranchising people.

[Solecismic]

I think the fraud issue is important.

United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Republicans are very sensitive to this issue. A few hundred votes sometimes makes the difference. Just because they're unpopular Republicans doesn't make their concerns illegitimate.

The long lines and difficult-to-obtain ID issues are also important. Both sides need to see the problems here.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think the fraud issue is important.

United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the end, 6 people were charged.

Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the end, 5 people voted illegally, of which 4 voted for the Republican and 1 for the Independent (and none for the Democrat, who won the vote).

So Republicans are very sensitive to this issue. A few hundred votes sometimes makes the difference. Just because they're unpopular Republicans doesn't make their concerns illegitimate.

No, it's the facts that make their concerns illegitimate.


Edit: it should be noted that in both cases the accusations of voter fraud started with the GOP claiming thousands of fraudulent votes in elections decided by hundreds of votes. Editorially, neither situation strikes me as an attempt to combat voter fraud, both situations strike me as an attempt to win an election in the courts as opposed to the ballot box.

[gstelmack]

You're talking people charged, yet we've already had the example of 800 dead voters voting in one election. One person can be responsible for large numbers of fraudulent votes.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You're talking people charged, yet we've already had the example of 800 dead voters voting in one election. One person can be responsible for large numbers of fraudulent votes.

Where is the example of that? If it was the South Carolina one brought up earlier, that was debunked.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

Where is the example of that? If it was the South Carolina one brought up earlier, that was debunked.

If they keep repeating the same bullshit lies over and over they figure we'll get tired of refuting them and it'll stand as truth to people who don't follow the whole conversation.

Common RWNJ technique.

To be fair it's probably a common debating technique as a whole, but I don't see any others utilizing it so frequently.

[molson]

Maybe we should do more to help poor people get IDs because they're important in many aspects of life beyond just voting, and to not just care about this every election season as a tool to gain political power and to label political opponents as racist. (as fun and as effective as that strategy can be).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by mckerney

if voter ID is such a great way to prevent fraud you'd think it would be accompanied by ways to make it easier to vote rather than the elimination of early voting, restrictions on absentee ballots and calls to end same day registration that usually go along with it.

That's just it. There are, in theory, ways that I could be supportive of voter ID, but the way it's executed in conjunction with limiting voting hours and putting restrictions on registration show the real intent of most of these laws.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I didn't choose anything. The fucking thing was lost in the move. So piss off.

You chose to not mke sure you kept up with it. Again personal responsibility will go a long way in this conversation.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And as for your last statement? It's only a fair point of contention if you want to go back to the good ole' days, where women, minorities and poor people don't get a say so in their own government. In short, thinking that's a "fair point of contention" makes you an absolute flaming bigot since you and everyone else knows that groups that have been historically oppressed own property at much lower rates than the historically privileged white male. There's no two ways around that. Luckily for the rest of us, this issue was already decided on February 3, 1870 when the 15th Amendment was ratified.

Please man. Your act is tired.
I did not say people who dont own property should not vote. I never mentioned women or minorities, or economic levels. So at least you switched from Red Herrings to Strawmen.


And there it is. When all else fails in an argument Blackadar breaks out his favorite word, Bigot.

Here are some stats for you.
A quick search for the word bigot revelas that 16 of the last 50 uses here on FOC were by Blackadar. A further search reveals 23 of the remaining 34 were in a direct response to an accusation of bigot FROM blackadar. Congrats you own the Bigot title. I wont even bother with a response as it just makes it perfectly clear you dont know me or my family .

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I can't remember the last time having to go to a polling place, let alone show an id. It's all been ballots by mail including 2012.

That's cause CO tried to make voting easier. Kudos to CO!!!

[CU Tiger]

And while we are on the subject.
I am a registered Democrat.
I am pro choice.
I am pro gay marriage.
I am anti gun restricting laws.
I am however a fiscal conservative.
I am anti the entire current administration.

Call me what you will.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I did not say people who dont own property should not vote. I never mentioned women or minorities, or economic levels.

Oh really??

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

And I am not even going down the path of do we want non property owning, non income earning people selecting the leadership of the masses though I think that is a fair point of contention.

So that's not what you're arguing here on the last page, at 11:22 today?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh really??




So that's not what you're arguing here on the last page, at 11:22 today?

Reading comprehension much?
I said if you didnt own property OR you didnt have an income. There was A CONVERSATION to be had.

Never mentioned a minority, never mentioned a gender... welfare programs do count as earned income. My point was, and admitedly I could have fleshed it out better, if you have nowhere to live, own NOTHING and have no money coming in in any form it is a reasonabe possibility that your views are not indiative of society as a whole.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Reading comprehension much?
I said if you didnt own property OR you didnt have an income. There was A CONVERSATION to be had.

Never mentioned a minority, never mentioned a gender... welfare programs do count as earned income. My point was, and admitedly I could have fleshed it out better, if you have nowhere to live, own NOTHING and have no money coming in in any form it is a reasonabe possibility that your views are not indiative of society as a whole.

So 50%? Got it.

Your views are still indicative of society as a whole because you're a member of that society. Your PRIORITIES are quite likely different, but your views still matter.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So 50%? Got it.

Your views are still indicative of society as a whole because you're a member of that society. Your PRIORITIES are quite likely different, but your views still matter.

50%?

What?

How hard is this to understand I said I think there is a conversation to be had that if you cant check at least one of a few boxes you...ahhh forget it carry on without me.

I dont need to prove my opinion to anyone here nor do I care to and frankly the likely hood of me ever encountering the vast majority of you in my life is slim to none so I really am wasting my time having a debate with you on this. Especially when we insist on disingenuous tacticts.

[Solecismic]

What constitutes a poll tax? Obviously, charging anything to enter the polling place is a poll tax. Would a fee for an ID qualify? What about gas costs or bus fare to reach the polling place? I just filled out my absentee ballot, and it requires 70 cents in postage (a bargain over driving - my polling place is 25 minutes from home). Is that a poll tax?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe we should do more to help poor people get IDs because they're important in many aspects of life beyond just voting, and to not just care about this every election season as a tool to gain political power and to label political opponents as racist. (as fun and as effective as that strategy can be).

Yes, it would be great if there was an organization that did just that.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What constitutes a poll tax? Obviously, charging anything to enter the polling place is a poll tax. Would a fee for an ID qualify? What about gas costs or bus fare to reach the polling place? I just filled out my absentee ballot, and it requires 70 cents in postage (a bargain over driving - my polling place is 25 minutes from home). Is that a poll tax?

I WILL HAVE THE STRAWMEN! ALL THE STRAWMEN!!!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What constitutes a poll tax? Obviously, charging anything to enter the polling place is a poll tax. Would a fee for an ID qualify? What about gas costs or bus fare to reach the polling place? I just filled out my absentee ballot, and it requires 70 cents in postage (a bargain over driving - my polling place is 25 minutes from home). Is that a poll tax?

Yep, the Supreme Court ruled in Harman v. Forssenius that "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed." In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board they let the Photo ID requirement stand because one would be provided for no fee or the person would sign a statement saying they were unable to get a Photo ID. The other things you mention aren't imposed by a governmental agency, so they wouldn't be considered poll taxes or equivalent.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes, it would be great if there was an organization that did just that.

That link is about driving voter registration, and the criminal acts that accompanied that.

But ya, I know there's many out there who actually care about and help poor people. (and smaller groups and individuals who help people get IDs for purposes beyond just helping the Democratic party). I just wish that was more of a focus of the parties.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Please man. Your act is tired.
I did not say people who dont own property should not vote. I never mentioned women or minorities, or economic levels. So at least you switched from Red Herrings to Strawmen.

No, you just said it was a "fair point of contention". Pretty much the same fucking thing. And as for "people who pay taxes", the same thing occurs - disproportionate disenfranchising of minorities, poor, elderly and students. Do you actually think before you type?

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

And there it is. When all else fails in an argument Blackadar breaks out his favorite word, Bigot.

Here are some stats for you.
A quick search for the word bigot revelas that 16 of the last 50 uses here on FOC were by Blackadar. A further search reveals 23 of the remaining 34 were in a direct response to an accusation of bigot FROM blackadar. Congrats you own the Bigot title. I wont even bother with a response as it just makes it perfectly clear you dont know me or my family .

And there's the strawman argument. You couldn't even deal with the substance of your own statement. I almost forgot why I have you on ignore. Thanks for reminding me.

[CU Tiger]

Again you are either incapable of reading or intentionally trying to bait me just like the last time you sent me a PM begging me to "confront you on the board" and probably put me on ignore at that time when I didnt fall into your game.

I said if you dont own property OR have an income.

You dont have to own property,in my statement. If you dont own property and have an income (even if it is a government subsidy) THEN you qualify to vote in my statement. But single out and misquote it to support your argument.
By the way since it seems lost on several I never said real estate I said property. A car, a TV, and fucking piece of silverware. I will go ahead and say it if you have zero worldly possessions, and no income in this country then you have proven yourself incapable of having the mental fortitude to direct the future of the country.

BTW I'll ignore the mental midget comment. Really dont value your opinion on my mental competence...I am comfotable enough in my own skin in what I have proven in my life on that front regardless of virtual validation from anonymous internet personas.

[NobodyHere]

To be fair, most people interpret "having an income" and "owning property" differently than you do.

[JPhillips]

Louie Gohmert has some wisdom:

As far as I know, I’m okay. But do any of us really know for sure?

For the record, I'm perfectly okay if he's the next ebola victim.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, you just said it was a "fair point of contention". Pretty much the same fucking thing. And as for "people who pay taxes", the same thing occurs - disproportionate disenfranchising of minorities, poor, elderly and students. Do you actually think before you type?

That doesn't make it racist. It means they want to win an election and their strategy is to make it more difficult for people who side with their opponent to vote. It's unethical but I don't think it's because they're racist. If blacks voted 95% Republican, they wouldn't be doing this.

It's the same reason Illinois conveniently mailed out ballots to overseas military late so they couldn't get it back in time.

[RainMaker]

Also when you call everyone who disagrees with you a racist the word loses it's meaning.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's the same reason Illinois conveniently mailed out ballots to overseas military late so they couldn't get it back in time.

Nah.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You're talking people charged, yet we've already had the example of 800 dead voters voting in one election. One person can be responsible for large numbers of fraudulent votes.

Every time we hear about something about hundreds and hundreds of cases of voter fraud it always turns out to be almost entirely clerical errors or mistaken identities. In the South Carolina case it was originally a claim of 900 in a single election, which actually turned out to be 900 in 74 elections.

Ultimately they found evidence that one dead person did vote, by submitting an absentee ballot and then dying before election day, and 5 cases that were unresolved that could possibly have been a dead person voting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...98b4_blog.html

The report confirms what the State Election Commission had found after preliminarily examining some of the allegations: The so-called votes by dead people were the result of clerical errors or mistaken identities.
For instance, sometimes a son had the same name as a deceased father, and poll workers mixed up a dead father with a living son. (This happened 92 times in the initial probe, and then further investigation found seven more examples.)
In 56 cases, there was “bad data matching,” in which the DMV records had the Social Security of a dead person associated with a living voter. The living voter — with a different name and birth date — properly cast a ballot. Thirty-two votes attributed to dead people were simply the result of too-sensitive scanners.

[Ben E Lou]

I think Blackadar and CUTiger both need a couple of weeks to reconsider how they interact in this thread, and everyone else, consider yourselves warned. The personal attacks need to stop.

[JPhillips]

Cliven Bundy wants to talk about race:

[JPhillips]

Yep, if you're not a defense contractor you're a sucker.

Capping an investigation that began almost two years ago, separate trials are scheduled this month in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., for a civilian Navy intelligence official and a hot-rod auto mechanic from California who prosecutors allege conspired to manufacture an untraceable batch of automatic-rifle silencers.

The exact purpose of the silencers remains hazy, but court filings and pretrial testimony suggest they were part of a top-secret operation that would help arm guerrillas or commandos overseas.

The silencers — 349 of them — were ordered by a little-known Navy intelligence office at the Pentagon known as the Directorate for Plans, Policy, Oversight and Integration, according to charging documents. The directorate is composed of fewer than 10 civilian employees, most of them retired military personnel.

Court records filed by prosecutors allege that the Navy paid the auto mechanic — the brother of the directorate’s boss — $1.6 million for the silencers, even though they cost only $10,000 in parts and labor to manufacture.

[gstelmack]

I would expand that to "if you don't know someone in government, you're a sucker". There is plenty of corruption outside defense contracts.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yep, if you're not a defense contractor you're a sucker.

That's nothing, NFL fans paid for a Jamarcus Russell and it cost them $40 million.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I would expand that to "if you don't know someone in government, you're a sucker". There is plenty of corruption outside defense contracts.

But there are plenty of people out to cut spending everywhere else. If you're a defense contractor you can steal all your wheelbarrow can hold and rest assured that Congress will not only vote for more money to steal, but also give you a new gold plated wheelbarrow in gratitude for your service to the nation.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But there are plenty of people out to cut spending everywhere else. If you're a defense contractor you can steal all your wheelbarrow can hold and rest assured that Congress will not only vote for more money to steal, but also give you a new gold plated wheelbarrow in gratitude for your service to the nation.

Look, we can pull example after example of corruption across the spectrum, it's not a defense department specialty. The two big cases I remember around here was in the Wake County schools transportation department, where key officials were pocketing money, plus you had the whole Speaker of the House getting legislation passed to get every kid entering kindergarten an eye exam, ignoring that most already got them, and at that age they tend to be handled by the pediatrician - the entire bill was a payback to his optometrist buddies.

That's top of my head, do I need to start the internet searches? Should I ignore Chicago, Detroit, and Massachusetts to keep it fair?

Plus, when politicians cut spending, they love to go after the basics so people whine and complain and give them their money back. This goes back a ways, but I will never forget the City of Tampa asking for a tax increase to pay for fire and police budgets at the same time they decided to build a new convention center.

Why else would people pour billions into these elections if they weren't expecting to get their money back? That's the whole point, isn't it? Don't even try to pretend this a Defense Department special, this is rampant.

[JPhillips]

It's just that defense contracting is the safest route to riches. With "emergency" war spending there's almost a trillion dollars a year and both parties only want to increase the amount. You can steal from the government lots of places, but none are as lucrative or safe as defense/homeland security.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's just that defense contracting is the safest route to riches. With "emergency" war spending there's almost a trillion dollars a year and both parties only want to increase the amount. You can steal from the government lots of places, but none are as lucrative or safe as defense/homeland security.

I will point out that this particular case was someone scratching the back of a relative, which happens THROUGHOUT government, at all levels. Sometimes they get caught, most of the time it's business as usual. I disagree that it's "the safest", these guys got caught, just like sometimes you get caught at other levels.

[flere-imsaho]

Greg, you're totally missing the order of magnitude issue here.

[molson]

Medicaid fraud is very easy too, with damage in the billions.

Medicare And Medicaid Fraud Is Costing Taxpayers Billions - Forbes

But I'm just happy to see people from any party upset about any government waste and fraud. Even if people only want to pick the areas of government they don't like anyway to be upset about.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Greg, you're totally missing the order of magnitude issue here.

I seriously doubt it - you guys are overlooking the local / state levels in addition to the Federal Government.

Would be interesting to compare Medicare fraud/corruption to Defense fraud/corruption...

[gstelmack]

Woops, missed Molson's post.

[molson]

Attacking the fraud and waste and corruption in any area of government is just as good as cutting budgets, except without the downside of reduced services or reduced government employment. (It costs some money to attack the fraud and waste and corruption of course, but it would be a net financial gain anywhere in the federal government. And it would help employment numbers too).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I will point out that this particular case was someone scratching the back of a relative, which happens THROUGHOUT government, at all levels. Sometimes they get caught, most of the time it's business as usual. I disagree that it's "the safest", these guys got caught, just like sometimes you get caught at other levels.

This is one in a series. There's billions in cash that turned up missing in Iraq. Billions in contracts in Iraq that the GAO can't trace. The 500 million in Italian aircraft that we scrapped for 32k. And on and on and on. Because nobody in Congress is interested in cutting defense, it's open season.

What other area of the government has literally no one looking to oversee expenditures. Even Rand Paul isn't interested in cutting the defense budget.

btw- I'm fine with looking into Medicare/Medicaid fraud. I'm a big supporter of both programs, but where there's fraud I'm all for putting people in jail.

[Edward64]

Interesting strategy ... I wonder if the GOP will embrace or disavow Coulter and her message.

Ann Coulter To GOP: Stop 'Sucking Up' To Hispanics

Republicans didn't fare well in a recent Fox News poll and Ann Coulter says it's immigrants' fault.

In an appearance on the "The O'Reilly Factor" Friday, Coulter said Democrats have used immigrants to boost their performance in elections and that Republicans should stop "sucking up" to Hispanics because they will never vote conservative anyway.

Coulter's comments came in reaction to a Fox News poll that found only 36 percent of registered voters had a favorable view of the Republican Party, while 54 percent viewed the party unfavorably. The figures for Democrats were slightly higher, at 43 percent favorable and 50 percent unfavorable.

"We keep thinking this is the same country that it used to be," Coulter said. "Democrats have been bringing in ringers since the 1965 immigration act. You think it's the same people voting -- it isn't. The Democrats get basically every immigrant group to bloc-vote for the Democrats."
:
:
"If the Republican Party is going to win, they're going to have to be the populist party and bring up issues like immigration, which they won't touch," Coulter said.

"Instead of constantly sucking up to a group of people who will never vote for you," Coulter continued, presumably referring to Hispanics, "how about appealing to the other voters who are just going to stay home and say 'screw you.'"