Republican Judgement

[Minor Axis]

Minor it was a great read. Easy reading and informative and not political

you should get a copy and pretend it was written by somebody else.

Help me out on this Ohio thing. Are they claiming that the state controls voting in individual districts? If so I have not heard of this. I thought elections were state wide and all had the same hours and dates. If not and it is done at the local level then how is it that so called democrat areas can not dictate control the time allowed to vote.

My understanding is that the counties that asked for extended hours were the GOP is predominant got permission with the help of local Democrats on the board of election. In other words the Democrats agreed. But in the counties where Democrats prevail, the Republicans on the board of election disagreed, there was a tie, and the Ohio Sec of State, a Republican jumped in and sided with the Republicans in not allowing counties with predominant Democrats to have extended voting.. This is one area where we can't afford this kind of BS and where the State should step in and set rules for the entire State, not to try to make it harder for certain sections of the populace to vote based on party affiliation.

 

[Minor Axis]

Quid pro quo, Clarice.

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?65350-Republican-Judgement&p=2239769&viewfull=1#post2239769

Come on say something bad about the GOP. I dare you. When I point out what I don't like, usually about the GOP you ALWAYS counter. Why don't you dig up a post where I criticized the GOP and you agreed with me? Hah! Here is a case where the GOP sucks once again. Now you can tell me I'm right, wrong, or just imagining this issue.

When you post something about the Dems you don't like, I'll either agree with you or not. It's not up to me to dig up dirt on the Dems, who at this point in time I prefer greatly over the GOP. Here is one example though, they tend to spend too much, but this is almost laughable as compared to the Iraq/Afgan war fueled by the GOP. And yes, I'm pissed that Obama took so long to pull back from it. But I'd still pick him over Romney any day. The GOP is more dangerous today then they were in the 50's.

So your turn.

 

[Maulds]

I normally stay out of the pissing contests you guys have, but I have a question. Why is it any time I see someone calling for voters showing proof of ID its always a Republican? Likewise why are Democrats so opposed to the idea?

 

[Tim]

I normally stay out of the pissing contests you guys have, but I have a question. Why is it any time I see someone calling for voters showing proof of ID its always a Republican? Likewise why are Democrats so opposed to the idea?

It's not that the democrats are opposed to the idea. The problem is the timing (just before the election) and who it effects (the poor and elderly)
Let's use PA as the example since I'm here and have read into it at depth.

Just a few months before the presidential election all Pennsylvanians will need to show proper photo ID to vote. This was pushed through by the republicans and it has been shown that it will disenfranchise millions of registered voters.
A good example of people who don't have the proper photo ID are the elderly in Philadelphia. They don't drive and a large number do not have the required ID. They may have a photo ID or some other ID that most people will accept, but they aren't on the list of ID's required to vote.

Here are the numbers.
There are 18,200,000 voters in PA
10% do not currently have the proper ID to vote (this number is known through state records search comparing who has a voter ID card and does not have a current drivers license or state issued ID)
That's 1,820,000 voters that have a couple of months to get the right ID or they will be turned away at the poles.
It's overwhelmingly poor and elderly people in large cities that are effected (mostly democrats)
There has NEVER been one case of voter ID fraud in the state of PA

and after the bill was passed into law...

Republican House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told the Republican State Committee last month to wild applause: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Now I don't know how you vote in your state, but let me tell you how we vote.
I can ONLY vote in one polling place that is decided by my address.
When I show up I give them my name and they find it in the voter log.
I must sign my name in my allocated space.
They then flip the page and check my signature to the one used when I registered to vote, if it doesn't match, I must prove my identification with photo ID.
I am then allowed to vote.

So you tell me where there was the possibility of voter ID fraud.
Now explain to me why 1,820,000 voters need to be disenfranchised for something that has never happened before in the state. And explain to me why the republicans had to pass this right before the election when it is proven to disenfranchise democrats.
Why couldn't they do this and give the residents more time to comply?

 

[Maulds]

Here they don't play the elderly angle so much as the race aspect. They claim that requiring a photo ID will intimidate black voters. I don't see why that is any more intimidating than showing an ID at Blockbuster when they rent a movie.

I understand some elderly don't drive but why would anyone not have some form of photo ID in this day and age? I can't imagine not having it even if I chose not to drive. If someone has stolen my identity or ripped me off I wanna be able to walk in the bank and show my ID.

90% of the people there are already in possession of photo ID (from your post), and voter turnout usually hovers around 60-65% in elections in the US so I wonder how many would really be kept from casting a ballot. I would think the people who wanted to vote would make the effort to get the ID.

Looking at vote411 for the state of PA is doesn't look all that hard to obtain an ID. Free photo IDs are available and there are more options than just a drivers license. Even a student ID or nursing home ID card are acceptable for voting.

ID Needed for Voting
All voters are required to show a photo ID before voting. All photo IDs must contain an expiration date that is current, unless noted otherwise. Acceptable IDs include: Pennsylvania driver's license or non-driver's license photo ID (IDs are valid for voting purposes 12 months past expiration date Valid U.S. passport U.S. military ID - active duty and retired military (a military or veteran's ID must designate an expiration date or designate that the expiration date is indefinate). Military dependents' ID must contain an expiration date Employee photo ID issued by Federal, PA, County or Municipal government Photo ID cards from an accredited Pennsylvania public or private institution of higher learning Photo ID cards issued by a Pennsylvania care facility, including long-term care facilities, assisted living residences or personal care homes If you do not have one of these IDs, you may be entitled to get one free of charge at a PennDOT Driver License Center. To find the Driver License Center nearest you, and learn what identification and residency documentation you will need to get a photo ID visit PennDOT's Voter ID website or call the Department of State's Voter ID Hotline at 1-877-868-3772.

 

[Tim]

You are missing the point.

They do this just before the election, why? Why the need at all since it's never been a problem?

And it is proven that 1.8 million registered voters in PA DO NOT have the appropriate ID to vote come November.
Why not give them time, like the next election cycle? Again, this isn't a problem and they aren't going to prevent voter ID fraud with this law.

Even the local republican radio talk show hosts think this is wrong to do this the way they did.

You can sit there and say why people should have a valid ID but that doesn't make it so. And if you ever tried to go to our DMV, expect to spend the day. How many of these elderly and poor people are going to have a chance to do this when they have been voting for years without a problem?


Forget about all of the hypothetical here. Just answer these question. Why now when it has NEVER been a problem before? Why risk keeping valid voters from the polls to prevent something that has never happened before?

 

[Maulds]

I get your point just fine. I won't argue in favor of the timing. If it was that big of a deal to them they could have done it sooner. If they proposed it a year from now would you be as opposed to it?

You already answered my question about the voter intimidation argument. Here its intimidation, there its inconvenience.

 

[Tim]

It doesn't do anyone any good to spin it and use decisive words, so I don't. But it isn't spin to say that many more democrats will be affected by this change than republicans. That's just the facts. And these changes will benefit any republicans running this election.
So the timing of voter ID laws (all pushed through by republicans) is not only suspicious, it's down right appalling. It's a political move to suppress democratic votes. And I for one am sickened that anyone would mess with our right to vote.

No matter how you slice it, it's wrong

 

[Minor Axis]

I get your point just fine. I won't argue in favor of the timing. If it was that big of a deal to them they could have done it sooner. If they proposed it a year from now would you be as opposed to it?

You already answered my question about the voter intimidation argument. Here its intimidation, there its inconvenience.

Voter fraud is a red herring whose real purpose is to suppress the vote of those who are perceived to vote Democratic. Incredibly dishonest and anti-democratic. No surprise what so ever it is the GOP pushing this crap. It's just another form of gerrymandering.

 

[Accountable]

It doesn't do anyone any good to spin it and use decisive words, so I don't. But it isn't spin to say that many more democrats will be affected by this change than republicans. That's just the facts. And these changes will benefit any republicans running this election.
So the timing of voter ID laws (all pushed through by republicans) is not only suspicious, it's down right appalling. It's a political move to suppress democratic votes. And I for one am sickened that anyone would mess with our right to vote.

No matter how you slice it, it's wrong

I agree that the timing thing is wrong & shouldn't be passed for that. A one-year lag is more than enough time, don't you agree? It seems that the timing is the only real objection you have to this, right?

 

[Tim]

I agree that the timing thing is wrong & shouldn't be passed for that. A one-year lag is more than enough time, don't you agree? It seems that the timing is the only real objection you have to this, right?

Yes, the timing is the worst part. I think that any law that's put into effect should have ample time allotted for all to comply. Especially when it comes to something as important as voting.

 

[Accountable]

Yes, the timing is the worst part. I think that any law that's put into effect should have ample time allotted for all to comply. Especially when it comes to something as important as voting.

I agree.

 

[Minor Axis]

Heard on Meet the Press 08/12/12: Paul Ryan, Mr. $15K voucher, rubber stamped every budget busting proposal of the Bush Administration INCLUDING 2 unpaid for Wars and now wants to give more budget busting tax breaks to the most comfortable in our society, while raising taxes on the lower/middle class.

 

[Minor Axis]

An Amazing Transformation from the GOP Platform since Sat, Aug 11: Attack Obama on his medicare cuts while claiming to be the party who is going to preserve Medicare without ANY impact on current seniors?

I heard this come out of Romney's mouth. Is he kidding? Are voters going to be that gullible?

 

[MoonOwl]

Are voters going to be that gullible?

They elected Dubya TWICE. Do you really need to ask?

I don't see those voters having removed their blinders yet. Do you?

That Mitt even made the nomination says much.

 

[Accountable]

You mean Medicare's gone, no matter who wins the election? Go figger.

 

[Minor Axis]

They elected Dubya TWICE. Do you really need to ask?

I don't see those voters having removed their blinders yet. Do you?

That Mitt even made the nomination says much.

In response to your question: No. If it plays out the way I think it will play out, despite the last year of the GOP indicating they want to take an axe to entitlements, now all they have to do is say soothing things about medicare, without any firm details about how they'll fix the program, how the pain will be spread, and they might just win.

 

[Minor Axis]

Conservatives Try to Paint Ryan Budget as a Moderate Proposal.

Rich Lowry, the editor of conservative magazine National Review, appeared on a Meet The Press roundtable this morning to defend vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) widely panned budget plan as a moderate solution built upon the foundations of the Bowles-Simpson tax proposal, which both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have opposed.

Responding to charges that Romney’s plan cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans, Lowry tried to deflect criticism by saying that the Romney/Ryan plan is really a version of Bowles-Simpson:

But as fellow panelist Rachel Maddow was quick to point out, if the architect of the Romney/Ryan budget is such an admirer of Bowles-Simpson, he has a funny way of showing it: Paul Ryan voted against Bowles-Simpson, and helped blow up the so-called “Gang of Six” that was responsible for proposing a deficit-reduction budget.

 

[robdawg1]

I get your point just fine. I won't argue in favor of the timing. If it was that big of a deal to them they could have done it sooner. If they proposed it a year from now would you be as opposed to it?

You already answered my question about the voter intimidation argument. Here its intimidation, there its inconvenience.

I think that the timing of this speaks volumes in what promises to be a tight race. if they proposed it a year from now number one it would not be a major election year, but number two it would still be determined to be a bit questionable considering the VERY low number of voter fraud cases that have even been reported much less prosecuted in the nation much less PA. What is the need for the change?

 

[Maulds]

They elected Dubya TWICE. Do you really need to ask?

I don't see those voters having removed their blinders yet. Do you?

That Mitt even made the nomination says much.

You only mean once right?