All those scare tactics about "voter fraud"? This is what they are really about. Making it more difficult to vote - especially for the already marginalized. Or should I say "disenfranchised"?
[ December 29, 2011, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yeesh.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm always amused when some one in the GOP slips up and tells the truth.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Especially considering that this last year and the upcoming election have incredibly massive conservative run voter disenfranchisement programs being enacted on a massive level. They are literally trying to do whatever they can to keep as many young and poor people from being able to vote. It is kind of blatant in some places.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The important thing to remember about this sort of thing is, well, Democrats and liberals do some pretty shady stuff too!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Really... that's the important thing to remember? Are you sure?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Anyone have a link to the speaker's full quote?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I disagree but if you want to show me examples of how they disenfranchise conservatives, I would be interested.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I would be interested in an argument that there is a concerted effort among liberals to discourage and disenfranchise conservative voters, particularly through constitutionally and ethically questionable manipulation of local and state laws.
Because I think it's *perfectly fine* to put up signs saying: "Please Don't Vote." It is most definitely *not* okay to bend and change the interpretation of the law, and to change the law, with the intent of disenfranchising any legitimate voter. And as far as I'm concerned, these voter ID laws are transparent attempts to do just that.
And leaves aside entirely the flagrant lying to and abuse of voters that occurs every year, without fail. That's all very clear cut stuff, and the conservatives *are* doing more of it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
From the headline I was hoping some GOP speaker at a college had told the audience not to vote.
That would have been priceless. (Though I realize in hindsight it would require a member of the GOP to be allowed to speak to college students, so, clearly it was fantasy).
This is way less funny.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Rakeesh:
I got it! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: it would require a member of the GOP to be allowed to speak to college students
Well, they've got to order coffee sometime
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
From a barista? Come on, man, you should know there are only two kinds of Republicans.
One kind doesn't even know how to pronounce "espresso" and orders coffee in ceramic mugs from middle aged diner waitresses.
The other kind has a minion fetch their coffee for them, or handpull a cup in their own private espresso bar.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
What a dummy. Everyone knows the best way to keep a college kid from voting is by repeatedly reminding and encouraging them to vote.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Rakeesh:
I got it!
I got it... I thought it was perhaps *too* subtle.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Between your and kmbboots' responses, I couldn't tell if EVERYONE was just playing a really subtle game, or if people were genuinely confused.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I was honestly slightly unsure. I should have known better.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Didn't even occur to me. I am so used to hearing that defense in earnest. Sorry, Rakeesh.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I like how Rakeesh hasn't ACTUALLY confirmed that it was a joke. I'm imagining him staring at his screen now, thinking "I.... I actually really meant that.... but after all this I can't tell them that..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tell me again that Republicans are worried about voter fraud. And then pull the other one.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: What a dummy. Everyone knows the best way to keep a college kid from voting is by repeatedly reminding and encouraging them to vote.
Close! the absolute best way is to demand them to vote with a "Vote or Die" campaign. So much of my generation is already so burnt out that they would rather die than elect yet another rich old guy into a position that he will as those before him abuse for personal gain.
"Vote or die!"
"Who are the only real options?"
"Bush or Kerry"
"Right... say, if I use a sharpie to mark the spot where my brain stem connects to my spine, could you be nice and quick about the execution?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, seeing this thread come up again reminded me of the way my post was received, and then also reminded me that like Raymond said, I hadn't really confirmed it!
Yeah, I was funnin'. That whole false equivalency used to be less false, years ago, I think, but over the past decade and especially since the rise of the Tea Party it has become much more false. It's ridiculous.
As for voter fraud, I'd actually be perfectly fine if there was a requirement to show state photo ID before voting-once it didn't cost citizens a dime to obtain such an ID, nor cost them potentially many hours in a local DMV or something. I'm kind of, y'know, leery of directly charging citizens to vote.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for voter fraud, I'd actually be perfectly fine if there was a requirement to show state photo ID before voting-once it didn't cost citizens a dime to obtain such an ID, nor cost them potentially many hours in a local DMV or something. I'm kind of, y'know, leery of directly charging citizens to vote.
Exactly. Requiring an ID that costs money in order to vote is a de facto poll tax. It is an attempt to get around the 24th amendment which was ratified to address just such nonsense as the Republicans are trying now - suppressing the ability of minorities and the poor to vote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I really don't think it was a conscious effort to do so, at least not at first. Or even in the minds of most people. For most people, having a photo ID-even though it DOES cost money to obtain-feels 'free' I think. It's just a part of life, as ubiquitous as an alarm clock. Again, for most people. It's only when you examine it that you'll realize, wait, a state-issued photo ID isn't just something everyone has. It's something that almost everyone has and only rarely thinks about getting, which is quite different.
I'll even go further to say that I'm not convinced most Republicans view it as a means of culling the vote, but in the generally greater Republican concern about security, it probably feels completely justified and not at all limiting to most people. As for those national and state level politicians who are actually at the place where the tire hits the asphalt, so to speak...well. For them it's quite different. They cannot be unaware of the fact that it costs money to get a state-issued photo ID.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If they are really concerned about security, why aren't they requiring IDs for their own primary?
And as I have said before, more concerned about who is counting the votes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Like I said, I have no illusions about Republican politicians.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Like I said, I have no illusions about Republican politicians.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, or to a lesser extent, any of them. But I still can't say they're equivalent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A thought occurs: how do we actually know the poor, elderly, minorities, disabled, etc., actually want 'voter security' loosened? I mean they're not out voting against this kind of thing...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah a little late to the bandwagon but I also felt rakeesh was clearly joking.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Well, or to a lesser extent, any of them. But I still can't say they're equivalent.
Well, even a complete cynic could point out, they don't *have* to be. If everyone in the country voted in every national election, congress and the executive would be completely controlled by the democrats. Control would be so complete that the party would likely split into various leftist factions as is common in Europe, where most countries have a coalition of left and center parties vying for votes.
So the democrats can say, with a straight face, that it would be nice for them if everyone voted. At least, it would be nice for them for an election cycle or two, until their own base split up and the dems would have to jockey or votes among liberals, instead of the votes of *all* liberals.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: If everyone in the country voted in every national election, congress and the executive would be completely controlled by the democrats.
They know it; time and widespread american poverty make this worse, so the resulting conservative mobilization of vote suppression techniques — one unrivaled, to be sure — is practically guaranteed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My point about not having illusions was to say I can see how a Republican voter, likely to be more concerned about security, enforcement, in general (not just voting), could honestly and ethically view this as a legitimate non-impeding security measure. I then went on to say, pretty clearly, that it was different for Rrpublican politicians. Then strangely I was asked, "If they don't know any better, why aren't they requiring photo ID for their own primary?"
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)