Last-Minute Ohio Directive Could Trash Legal Votes And Swing The Election

reply to post by Taiyed

The burden for actually voting is on the voter too. Your argument that someone might actually have the horrible burden of getting the means to identify themselves is absurd when put that way. The OP broke it down into specific groups with specific issues each faces (or..doesn't) and so it's a fair point to address...

You're making it so general, it's not even something we can discuss. The burden on the voter to get an ID? Well..geeze... Yeah. To some degree, of course it is. I mean, I suggest transportation for Elderly be offered...maybe even poor, if it's a requirement. I'll bend over backwards to come up with an idea that could work for compromise.

However..your logic, taken to it's ultimate conclusion, would almost have the polling place brought TO people...after all, the burden to actually GO to a location and vote is probably a lot for some people.....................and I'd say, not every one of the 300 million people in this nation HAS TO VOTE. 50% or so is the best we ever see in this country on the HIGH profile elections. They'd be in good company. Half the nation doesn't show up anyway.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Taiyed

The problem with the voter ID laws that the Republicans have been trying to pass (and have been struck down by the courts, if that tells you anything) is that they put the burden on obtaining the proper ID on the voter.

What is the burden when they can use a free form of ID called SS? I'm all for offering a free ID for those who do not have anything, BUT they still need to show some kind of proof they are an American, that burden is still on them.

edit on 4-11-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

Most of the GOP voter ID laws are requiring photo ID, SS cards are not photo ID.

Now if the government wants to start issuing SS cards with photos, that is fine with me. But not a few weeks before the election, make it a program to start in 4-8 years so there is a transition period.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Now where getting somewhere. Sorry for not elaborating on the Student ID. In most cases, getting a college ID, all you need is your Highschool photo ID, and a picture of you in your Senior yearbook. There you go, two forms of official ID. You don't really need a State to get one. On the other hand, in states like in Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Student ID's are not consider official, even if it did come from a state university or college. In the case of Pennsylvania, the courts struck down the voter ID law, so anyone with or without an ID can vote.

I completely agree on your thesis for the rest of your post. The state needs to provide a "State ID" (non-drivers) for absolutely no cost to any citizen that requests one, and remove any additional costs to acquiring a secondary ID needed to get the state.

Originally posted by ssj2gohan83
(R) Admits Voter ID Laws About Helping Romney Win Election

This voter id law was recently struck down by the courts.

Yes, these laws do exist.

Even when you spell it out for them, even when you show them video evidence of it coming from the horses mouth, the idiots will STILL deny that it's happening.

I really don't trust either party, the US is financially doomed whoever you elect. But, the idea that people still choose to support the Republican party when they are REPEATEDLY caught RED HANDED being corrupt, criminal, unethical and downright fanatical is completely insane to me.

Plenty of people will completely ignore this video, because they have no defence for it. A part of their brain is screaming at them that this is disgusting, but another part of their brain tells them it cannot possibly be true. So, to remove any doubts and confusion, they'll just pretend it doesn't exist.

reply to post by detachedindividual


True true, most wouldn't want to hear this, and completely ignore it. For example not related to this post, Geraldo Rivera is defending the decisions of the Obama Administration and not politicize the whole Benghazi affair. His beef with the whole situation is that the media is giving out false information, and he is trying to correct their mistakes, but no one is listening. And I will defend him for that, even though we have different political worldviews.

I subscribe myself as a moderate progressive, and I generally live outside the political brouhaha. Right now, I will support and defend the democrats and their policies out of principal. Just so people can see what a dirty bastard the GOP has become and defeat them. Then the people can deal the the lone party and exact real change. Unfortunately this takes time and patience.

reply to post by ssj2gohan83

You know, now that you put it that way.....I suppose I can't say for certain that every person running around with a college ID had a formal state issue ID to get it. Entering how I did and so far removed from high school years, I never saw that side. ....assumptions.. Sometimes, I'm as guilty as anyone. When I go in tomorrow I've got spend some time at Admin anyway, so I'm going to ask about that. We're a state school so requirements there should be a fair sample for this area anyway.

I'll let ya know back here either way. Whether it turns or I was right or wrong...because now it's bugging me. I hadn't considered the possibility that Colleges might accept High School ID's..which have any number of different circumstances to be issued in the first place. What a tangled little mess it becomes, huh?

In the end though, we both want to see State ID issued without hassle or cost. In one sense, it is a fair point to make about ID requirements reminding some people of the Poll Tax days. I had no clue what all that was in a real sense to understand the fears people have until our Political Science instructor explained, by his 1st hand memory, what Poll Taxes were for how it really operated in this area. Evil......just, evil. That said, to note why I'm a bit sensitive for this and do care. There is a legit concern...That is true.

reply to post by ssj2gohan83

I might be opening up a hornet's nest here, but I just can't let this slide...

I am so getting tired of the voter fraud occurring from both parties, especially from the GOP. And all of this so they can force a government run by the Bible. It's called a theocracy people. Why do think there was a large influx of laws base entirely on the Bible these past two years.

Can you please provide a list of some of these theocratic laws based on the Bible that you claim?

I don't like Romney any better than I do Obama - both are poor excuses for leaders IMO - but it would make getting the truth about them out a lot easier if people did not make wild unsubstantiated statements like that one above.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Certainly, these are the laws that I could find based on Dominionism, but not necessarily on the Bible. Though they can be related.

1. Defense of Marriage Act.
   
2. Any law that discriminates against LGBT, and any other minority in some fashion.
   
3. Laws that protect the rights of conscious of "Christians" to bully, and discriminate those they disagree with their faith.
   
4. Laws that inject creationism and downplay evolution in public schools.
   
5. Anti Abortion laws, and any other laws take reproductive choices away from women. As well as protections from domestic violence.
   
6. Laws that displace public school funds, and gives them to religious schools that base there curriculum on the Bible.
   

There's a lot more to it these, and to explain them would require a whole new thread, and a lot of additional research. I have been studying Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism for a few years now. So I have a good understanding how they operate.

Sorry I couldn't elaborate further without going completely off topic. I assume people would take the time to study a little bit about Dominionism to understand these issues more.

Dup post

Ok here is another scenario on why this is so important. After not voting several times, I decided to show up one year. I even had a fresh voter registration card in my hand to assure nothing expired. But I was sent away from the polls since my card was no longer available. They asked me, are you certain that you didn't vote already? Grrr.... I was out in the parking lot fuming and at the same time fighting off the crowd of folks trying to sway everyone, and ran into a nice lady. And she said, "what, your card is missing? This means someone used your identity to vote." And she took me back inside. I guess I was talking to the right person, since I got set up to vote. And she said that this was going to be investigated.

Now It has been a while again. But I checked my registration and it is fine. So come Tuesday, I will be there. But I wonder if my card will be.

Originally posted by Golf66
Personally, I think there should be a general knowledge test on US government and history along with a part on the current candidates, where they stand on certain issues and basic biographical data. Heck interviews on the street indicate that most people don't even know the 3 branches of government nor the way the electoral college works or even the most basic of information about our government.

I think I have a better idea.

Instead of putting a candidate's name and political party on the ballot, put a list of ten things they say they support and ten things they claim to oppose. Then see if the voters can figure out which candidate they are voting for.

I have to show my ID and or SS and prove I am who I say I am to:

Buy a bottle of wine or a drink in a bar
Enroll in school
Travel
Use my credit card
Write a check
Get a library card
Buy insurance
Take certain tests like the SAT or the ACT
Get the morning after pill
Adopt a pet
Purchase a home
Get a marriage license or any kind of license
Drive a car
Rent just about anything
Receive welfare, SS, food stamps,
Buy antihistamines

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. It is pretty difficult, maybe even impossible to get by without ID.

This voter argument is just a smoke screen for fraud.

I've been thinking about this and want to highlight a point here. No one need wonder where my politics lay but that's part of the point. I see photo ID as an absolute requirement we should have and think it's insane we haven't before. Why?

Because ONE person may fraud the system and that one person may represent many many more.


Now, Liberals want NO photo ID requirement and feel that is an absolute must. Why?

Because ONE person may be denied their chance to vote and that one person may represent many many more.


It seems to me we all have good points here, but have tended to take the extremes on both ends so that each sits on the high ground, lobbing shells at each other and never considers meeting down in the valley between positions to find a SOLUTION.....not just more fighting.

I never expected to find middle ground with the OP here. Why should I have? The recent patterns in the most general way says I should never have managed. I'll bet many would say the same of me if roles were reversed. However...as seen..we did manage to find some basic common ground and I'll bet we'd build nicely on that and in good faith if given a chance and the outcome mattered.

So....If a couple bloggers from very VERY...*VERY* different sides of ideology can give a little...take a little..and find a way that meets the real concerns of both, why cant our elected officials? I believe we need to simply keep firing the incumbents, ALMOST without regard for who (oh...Akin ...I can't forget Akin.. ugh!) until we do et a set at least willing to work together. It was a thousand years ago, I know, but Congress actually DID work together until the end of the 90's. It could again.

reply to post by ssj2gohan83

1. Why does a political stance against homosexual marriage have to be based on Biblical tenets? Is it not possible that some people have concerns about this issue that are not based on the Bible?
   
2. Same question... and from what I have seen, voicing an opinion is often taken as 'discrimination'.
   
3. "Rights of conscious"? I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The very Constitution provides for the free exercise of religion and forbids government sanction o a particular religion.
   
4. Evolution is a theory, as is Creationalism. The problem is that it is in many cases being taught as an inviolable fact.
   
5. Abortion is legal. The only problem comes about when legal isn't good enough: it also has to be taxpayer-funded. There are many of us who disagree with abortion-on-demand, not necessarily for Biblical reasons, but because we see it as the taking of a human life.
   
6. I am against using public funds for religious schools, but I know of nowhere that this is being done. There may be some charter schools which hold a religious background, but so far as I know the students still have to pass the same tests they do in public schools and typically outperform public school students. So what is so wrong with parents having the choice to send their children to schools which are more capable of providing a superior education?

To be honest, I had never heard of "Dominionism" until now. I did look it up in wikipedia though:

Dominionism or Dominionist is a term used to describe politically active conservative Christians who are believed to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States, with the goal of establishing either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

As a Christian myself, I assure you that none of the followers of the religion I know have any desire to turn this country into a theocracy... we may voice our opinion on political issues, but last time I checked, that is called "freedom of speech" and generally held to be a good thing. Perhaps one could question, however, whether those who coined the word "Dominionism" are interested in free speech or in preventing those they disagree with of having free speech.

I know it's easy to lump a group of people one disagrees with into a well-ordered belief system, but life simply doesn't work that way. One may be for education without being Christian, and one may value human life without being Christian, and one may question a scientific theory without being Christian. All these are human opinions.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


One thing you have to understand is that Dominionism has a stranglehold on many churches throughout the country. One way you can identify if a church is part of it, is to see if it preaches hate, and preaches about taking "back" this country for "Christ", along with the Prosperity Gospel, yes this actually exist.

I'll tell you what, since you are just getting started on what Christian Reconstruction/Dominionism is, and many people on this forum doesn't know what it is either. This is what I will do; I can start a series of threads on this very topic. But it won't be easy, and it will take me some time to do. For one, I will have to checkout more books from the library, and gather more resources on the subject. And no, it cannot be explained in one thread. There is just too much information to be had. The best way to describe learning about this movement, is being in Hotel California.

I will elaborate more my points in another post in this thread, and I will be providing links to where this is happening. And you will still have a hard time believing it.

reply to post by ssj2gohan83

I look forward to reading it.

The fact remains, however, that everything you mentioned as examples of 'theocracy' can also be attributed to human opinion without the need for religious fanaticism. And, seeing as your entire OP was based on the concept that voter registration laws were intended to remove voters in order to implement this theocracy, it would seem to follow that your entire theory just fell like a house of cards.

As has been stated many times already, ID is required for almost every action we take except for voting in some states (Alabama does have a voter ID law, and I for one am happy to show my ID). If we accept that voting is the most basic right of a free society, and that voter fraud is damaging to the concept of a free election, then it follows logically that anyone opposing a voter verification system would also be opposed to free elections.

I will agree with Wrabbit that if ID is to be required, the burden of cost should be on the taxpayers and not on the individual. But that is a far cry from saying that no voter ID should be required. Without ID, especially in hotly-contested elections such are becoming the norm in the US, the voting process is a circus of seeing who can out-defraud the system the most.

TheRedneck

The thinkprogress website link:
Link
is nothing more than a lawsuit.
No judge ruled in favor, nor will they, unless they intend to change Ohio voting law..

Ohio Provisional ballot Law

Nice try on the spin, though.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Heck..I'm just trying to find any common ground for even folks at our level to see a middle ground for solving this,

I'm with you on this, but I'm for ID checks of some kind, and what I mean as some kind is a person's name is verified as an American at some point in the process. They can have a signature on file or use photo ID if they go in person. I just have a hard time believing that someone can go 4 years and not care about ID (or their whole life) or getting their voter's registration up what is required and all of a sudden wake up on Nov 6th and say "OMG I need to vote".

Originally posted by Taiyed

Now if the government wants to start issuing SS cards with photos, that is fine with me. But not a few weeks before the election, make it a program to start in 4-8 years so there is a transition period.

The OP's post suggests they can put down their last 4 as proof too.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ssj2gohan83

 

Well, lets look at this a bit. You've been professional in your replies and I'll certainly be the same. I even agree with you...to a very well defined point....in your argument on this.

First, what I believe are the outright half-truths here.

* College Students without ID? Okay, on this, someone has to show me a college student without a Photo ID. Just one will do. A current, enrolled and active College student who is attending a physical location. Someone taking online courses through "No Value University" doesn't count.

Among that group. I don't just find this hard to believe...I find it impossible. Just flat out, don't believe it. I need to show a photo ID at school just to talk to faculty who don't know me by sight. Generally, it's the photo ID issued by the school, but it required a state ID to get that one.

* Poor without ID? Here, we have SOME limited agreement. Limited, because some states HAVE tried to address this by offering State issue ID free of charge to those needing it. That is seemingly pushed aside as being insufficient. That baffles me....However, I will absolutely agree that NON-DRIVER State-ID should be available to any citizen, free of charge and on demand. Our taxes should cover AT LEAST the cost of a cheap card with a picture on it.....and so, sure, that's fair. Make it free and the cost issue is moot.

*Elderly without ID? Now, we have a major point of agreement. This IS an issue for that group. My Grandmother is over 90, God bless her. She lives in the Valley outside Los Angeles....and never learned to drive. Her whole life, never once has she driven an automobile. So the idea that every elderly person should, naturally have an ID ..IS silly and wrong. So what solution? Well, the Government finds the way and finds the resources to help the elderly get to medical and other appointments when and as needed. Why can't they offer the SAME thing for both ID's (free to them) and the polling place itself on vote day? Giving those folks a ride....STATE supplied....and the assistance they require to participate seems a small thing to do for our elderly folks, right?


So.. Honestly, tell me this. If the above accommodations were made and I mean sincerely with total good faith, would that go a way toward finding common ground between simply being accepted as you because you SAY you are you.....and showing an ID card we can agree, not everyone has or feels they can get as easily as maybe they should? Those who just don't want to vote...never need to get one anyway. I just propose we make every possible effort, in all 50 states, to see that anyone wanting an ID, has one. Heck..it ought to be that anyway.

I find myself in agreement with you Wrabbit; I would add this caveat: States that choose to add an identification requirement for voters must allow a nine month window prior to an election for the requirement to be enacted on election day (For example: Requirement passed by legislature & signed into law by governor by the first Tuesday in February, requirement enacted for that year's November general election date. However, if the requirement is passed by the legislature & signed into law by governor less than nine months prior to general election day, the ID requirement would be enacted for voters casting ballots in the following years primary election)

Essentially, this nine month window allows for innovation by the States regarding how they issue Identification cards and similar services (I could easily see mobile ID trailers/busses which would be similar to the mobile health clinics that many of us are familiar with and might target senior centers, youth centers, various community centers, etc to make it easy for people to get ID while adhering to the same ID requirements that State has) and innovation by State political parties to utilize their resources to assist folks on their target list of registered voters in getting the needed identification.

IMO the above method would allow States wanting to add an identification requirement for voters with the proper safeguards to use the requirement to empower all voters.