2012 President?

[calvino]

Surplus - I wonder what would have happen if a "lock box" was instituted.

[bleedorange]

I think Mitt Romney is like JFK and Abraham Lincoln all rolled up into one. I am proud to support him!

 

In fact, I just got a letter from him today, personally signed and asking for money. He's such a swell guy!

[KevinG]

The Bush tax cuts were maybe secondarily meant to stimulate the economy, but the primary purpose was to give the citizens some of that short lived surplus back.

 

Yeah I forgot about that. Remember when we also got a surplus check for like $200? I bought a used snow blower and called it Bushie.

 

In the alternative timeline I wonder what would have happened if we did not get that money. Oh well.

[ih8music]

In fact, I just got a letter from him today, personally signed and asking for money. He's such a swell guy!

 

Oh yeah? Well Barack and I are br0s... at least that's what his daily (and sometimes hourly) emails want me to think.

[KevinG]

Anyone else really bothered by the amount of Voter ID bills going through Republican controlled states? It seems that the GOP controlled states want to win this election for Mitt Romney either by hook or by crook.

 

Was wondering what the prevailing thoughts on this were from the likes you all.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Anyone else really bothered by the amount of Voter ID bills going through Republican controlled states? It seems that the GOP controlled states want to win this election for Mitt Romney either by hook or by crook.

 

Was wondering what the prevailing thoughts on this were from the likes you all.

 

It takes an ID to cash a check. You have to have an ID to check a book out of a library. But not to cast a ballot?

Believe it or not, EVERYTHING is not a conspiracy to disenfranchise minority voters.

[ih8music]

I would like to see some actual stats, because showing an ID when I go vote doesn't seem like a horrible inconvenience.

[KevinG]

It takes an ID to cash a check. You have to have an ID to check a book out of a library. But not to cast a ballot?

Believe it or not, EVERYTHING is not a conspiracy to disenfranchise minority voters.

 

Cashing a check, checking a book out of the library, casting a ballot. Only one of these things is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

In this case it is a conspiracy, voter fraud is a myth. Voter ID laws affect Minorities, youth (age 18-24), seniors, and the poor. Which are groups more likely to vote democratic.

 

In fact Turzai a GOP legislator from PA said

.

 

Also out of the some 650 million votes cast in the past 10 years, a total of 13 credible case of voter fraud were found, or 0.00000002%.

 

Democracy only works when people vote, why are we spending so much time on making sure people don't?

[bleedorange]

I would like to see some actual stats, because showing an ID when I go vote doesn't seem like a horrible inconvenience.

 

I can see both sides of the argument. But at the end of the day, it is not that difficult to get a photo ID. It can be an inconvenience like it was when I got my license or when I have to get it renewed, etc. But it's not prohibitive.

 

For example, there was an article in the Austin American Statesman describing an 18-year-old witness's testimony about how difficult it was for her to obtain an ID to vote (the courts are dealing with a suit involving Texas's voter ID law). I wonder what would have happened if in the time it took her to travel to the courthouse and testify, she instead went to the nearby DPS office and stood in line for an ID, which would be free under the law.

[KevinG]

I would like to see some actual stats, because showing an ID when I go vote doesn't seem like a horrible inconvenience.

 

ih8music, I don't know anything about you, but if you are the average wilco fan you are probably white, male, aged 24-40, live in a middle sized city (possibly the suburbs), have a job, and drive a car. For you showing an ID is not an inconvenience. For most Americans it is not an inconvenience.

 

But imagine this if you live in the inner city, have no need to drive a car and take public transportation, or are disabled, or if you have a job where you would have take off work to go to the DMV to get an ID (and lose wages because of that). How many DMV offices are in the inner cities? How many of these are open convenient hours? Also who wants to pay $35 for an ID to vote (can you say poll tax)?

 

Voting needs to be the easiest thing for a citizen to do. 65% voter turnout (which is high) is an embarrassment.

 

 

Also I will leave with this quote from Paul Weyrich cofounder of ALEC.

 

http://youtu.be/fR4wxlCGIu0

[bleedorange]

Cashing a check, checking a book out of the library, casting a ballot. Only one of these things is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

Members of the media are often forced to show multiple forms of identification to cover events.

[KevinG]

Members of the media are often forced to show multiple forms of identification to cover events.

 

So? If you are saying that is a first amendment thing, your augment is baseless. Yes they have to show ID to cover events (to get into places, etc.), but they do not have to show ID to print or say what they want. They do not need an ID to perform right of free expression under the constitution.

 

But then again and I want to get to my larger point. Voter fraud is a myth 13 credible cases in the last 10 years. What is the purpose of now implementing these voter ID laws (especially in the GOP controlled swing states) other then to disenfranchise democratic voters?

 

The GOP say it is all about jobs and the economy, so why spend the time and resources on a problem that just isn't there.

[The High Heat]

Campaign ads on tv is one thing, but having them at the beginning of YouTube videos is more than I can stand!

[uncool2pillow]

I accept that there's not much documented voter fraud. I accept that getting a photo ID may be an inconvenience for some. But election authenticity should be absolutely, positively above reproach. While I say this, I realize that quite a few people who share this opinion do so because they want to disenfranchise their political opponents.

[ih8music]

But imagine this if you live in the inner city, have no need to drive a car and take public transportation, or are disabled, or if you have a job where you would have take off work to go to the DMV to get an ID (and lose wages because of that). How many DMV offices are in the inner cities? How many of these are open convenient hours? Also who wants to pay $35 for an ID to vote (can you say poll tax)?

 

This is what I was getting at. Are we talking a few thousand people or a few million people?

 

You need an ID to cash a check, drive a car, pick up a fucking will-call ticket. I suspect the vast, VAST majority of people in the US have some form of valid ID -- and for those who don't, making it a free (or very cheap) & simple process shouldn't be impossible.

 

I realize that some folks who are pushing these laws are doing it for political purposes, but this is a case where I don't see it as a drastic infringement of our constitutional rights to have to show an ID. In fact, I've always thought it was a little creepy that I just had to walk up and state my name in order to vote. I'd welcome having to prove I am who I claim to be.

[JUDE]

I have no problem with having to provide an ID to vote.

 

I had to provide two forms of ID when I filled out my I-9 and I was able to make that happen without two much difficulty.

[Tweedling]

 

 

This is what I was getting at. Are we talking a few thousand people or a few million people?

 

You need an ID to cash a check, drive a car, pick up a fucking will-call ticket. I suspect the vast, VAST majority of people in the US have some form of valid ID -- and for those who don't, making it a free (or very cheap) & simple process shouldn't be impossible.

 

I realize that some folks who are pushing these laws are doing it for political purposes, but this is a case where I don't see it as a drastic infringement of our constitutional rights to have to show an ID. In fact, I've always thought it was a little creepy that I just had to walk up and state my name in order to vote. I'd welcome having to prove I am who I claim to be.

This

Thank you

[gogo]

This is what I was getting at. Are we talking a few thousand people or a few million people?

Yeah, for most people, it's probably not a problem getting an ID, and showing it when they go to vote. But it we are talking about a few thousand people, versus a tiny number of actual cases of voter fraud, I'd rather err on the side of letting those few thousand people vote without ID.

 

There are a lot of people who don't cash checks regularly, or in the same way most of us would (the number of shady check-cashing places near my office is an indicator of that), don't drive, and certainly don't ever see the need to pick up will-call tickets. Those people do exist, and if it's a hassle for them to get an ID that they only need to use for voting, they just won't vote. So either make the system for getting IDs a whole lot simpler, or scrap the laws.

[KevinG]

This is what I was getting at. Are we talking a few thousand people or a few million people?

 

So if it is a small number that is ok, but a large number then it is not ok. If one person is disenfranchised from their right and duty as an American Citizen then it is one too many.

 

I agree with GoGo as well

Those people do exist, and if it's a hassle for them to get an ID that they only need to use for voting, they just won't vote. So either make the system for getting IDs a whole lot simpler, or scrap the laws.

 

And it is a political ploy to get people not to vote, but it seems that many of you are ok with that, because you have an ID and it is not a hassle, for you. Too bad we don't think about others.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

The problem with voter disenfranchisement is not that people have to "show ID." It's that new laws have been implemented requiring voters to show a form of ID that they have never been required to show in the past.

 

For example: say a 92-year-old woman in one of the offending states has never had a photo ID because she has always been poor, does not know how to drive a car, and always got a ride from her late husband until he died last year. Under the old system, she only had to present her birth certificate or Social Security card to vote; under the new law, she has to get someone to take her to the appropriate government office to obtain a photo ID, even though she has voted in every election since FDR or whoever.

 

In fact, students who go to school out of state are now being required to get a state ID for their residency in order to vote. I know I didn't need a New York state ID to vote in New York state when I was a university student there. My Connecticut license and student ID were enough to show residency. This is definitely a political ploy to discourage people from voting, particularly the poor, the elderly, students, and so on, and it is truly heinous.

[gogo]

This should be an interesting show.

 

http://www.chicagotr...,0,698053.story

 

I spend most of my time in the 2012 Election/2012 Baseball threads. Might as well just merge them, right?

[uncool2pillow]

 

So if it is a small number that is ok, but a large number then it is not ok. If one person is disenfranchised from their right and duty as an American Citizen then it is one too many.

 

And it is a political ploy to get people not to vote, but it seems that many of you are ok with that, because you have an ID and it is not a hassle, for you. Too bad we don't think about others.

Yes we're all so selfish and you're so altruistic. Why can't we all be as caring as you?? If one stance is meant to help Republicans, isn't the other meant to help Democrats?

 

You value access to polls more than some of us value honest elections. It's a tough call for me and I'm not all that worked up about it, but I am a bit worked up about your holier than thou stance.

[KevinG]

Yes we're all so selfish and you're so altruistic. Why can't we all be as caring as you?? If one stance is meant to help Republicans, isn't the other meant to help Democrats?

 

You value access to polls more than some of us value honest elections. It's a tough call for me and I'm not all that worked up about it, but I am a bit worked up about your holier than thou stance.

 

I value honest elections, but there is no voter fraud, why fight an something that isn't there? Where is the need for laws like this?

 

The black and white statement, "If one stance is meant to help Republicans, isn't the other meant to help Democrats?" is so cynical. Democracy works only if people are allowed to express their views, and chief among them is the right to vote. You start limiting people's right to vote you no longer have a democracy.

 

I am being altruistic, and yes what I said was a slight and meant to poke and prod, but simply what I have gotten the sense from this board is that the voter ID laws don't affect me so why should I care? That is a pretty shitty thing to think. I am extremely passionate about these voter ID laws, I think they are wrong. I am sorry if I come off holier than thou. I just can't understand why people see it as ok. It is absolutely not ok.

 

Ask yourself an honest question, "Why do we want to make it harder for people to vote?"

[bleedorange]

Instead of an ID, I think the polls should administer a 2-part quiz. The first part is a simple algebra problem and the second part is the requirement that the potential voter correctly identify 30 states on a U.S. map.

[uncool2pillow]

No voter fraud period? OK, go with that. With absentee voting and satellite voting stations, it's a very hard crime to even observe, let alone report. Just because it isn't reported doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

You think being able to prove a person is who they claim to be is unreasonable, I disagree. You say that makes me uncaring. I say it wants me to make our elections more honest.

 

Why do we want to make it harder for people to vote? Because we want to know, beyond question, that those who vote are who they say they are. How expensive would it be for every state to issue FREE? Can't be too much here in Iowa. I assume the vast majority of us have drivers licenses, but for the state issues photo id's at the dmv for $5 good for five years. http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ods/types.htm

 

Five damn dollars. A burden? Yes. Unreasonable? Come on. Earlier, I said this wasn't an important issue to me, but the more you argue your side, the least convinced I become.