NAACP petitions the UN

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
Going to the UN is a lame publicity stunt.

However, the statistics show that these proposals - uniformly coming from the GOP - disproportionately result in decreased participation by poor minorities.

I think it less racist and much more simply an effort to reduce votes for the other side.
Click to expand...

You are the only who sees race. The rest of us see people.
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
Learn to read, please.
Click to expand...

Good one. The criteria has nothing to do with minorities nor reducing legitimate voters for either side. It has everything to do with cutting down on voter fraud. Somehow that objective turned into "disproportionately result in decreased participation by poor minorities." Interjecting the race card where it doesn't apply. I believe all eligible US citizens have the ability to show proper photo ID, proof of citizenship, and register in advance of the election. Not difficult. Race nor political affiliation have absolutely nothing to do with the aforementioned criteria. Anything to the contrary is complete BS.
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
PKT_VOL said:
Good one. The criteria has nothing to do with minorities nor reducing legitimate voters for either side. It has everything to do with cutting down on voter fraud. Somehow that objective turned into "disproportionately result in decreased participation by poor minorities." Interjecting the race card where it doesn't apply. I believe all eligible US citizens have the ability to show proper photo ID, proof of citizenship, and register in advance of the election. Not difficult. Race nor political affiliation have absolutely nothing to do with the aforementioned criteria. Anything to the contrary is complete BS.
Click to expand...


The fraud argument is dubious, at best, and is a rather transparent cover for the real purpose, which is to reduce Democratic votes. The claims of voter fraud based on these items is extremely low, as in tiny, tiny fractions of a percent. Not nearly enough to justify the measures, and certainly nowhere near enough to warrant the expense they cause.

The simple fact is, it is the GOP that proposes and passes such measures, and they do it for political gain. When the GOP takes over a state legislature or governorship, these proposals soon follow.

The NAACP and other minority advocacy groups feel targeted by these proposals because the numbers don't lie and show that it is their constituency which is negatively affected the most, by far.

As I say, I think it has less to do with race, and much more to do with the GOP simply trying to manage the numbers game and to weaken turnout by traditionally Democratic voters.
 
#30
#30
yes proving who you are, that you're a US citizen and that you decided to vote prior to election day is just terrible. Must be a rich Repub to meet that criteria
 
#31
#31
utvolpj said:
yes proving who you are, that you're a US citizen and that you decided to vote prior to election day is just terrible. Must be a rich Repub to meet that criteria
Click to expand...


I didn't say that you cannot make an argument in favor of each proposal. What I am saying is that the purpose behind the GOP-backed proposals is not racially-motivated, but rather is clearly to reduce Democratic votes. I really don't think the point is even debatable.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
I didn't say that you cannot make an argument in favor of each proposal. What I am saying is that the purpose behind the GOP-backed proposals is not racially-motivated, but rather is clearly to reduce Democratic votes. I really don't think the point is even debatable.
Click to expand...

wanting to make sure the votes are valid reduces Dem votes? Admitting some pretty strange things with that statement. Of course the NAACP is also
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
The fraud argument is dubious, at best, and is a rather transparent cover for the real purpose, which is to reduce Democratic votes. The claims of voter fraud based on these items is extremely low, as in tiny, tiny fractions of a percent. Not nearly enough to justify the measures, and certainly nowhere near enough to warrant the expense they cause.

The simple fact is, it is the GOP that proposes and passes such measures, and they do it for political gain. When the GOP takes over a state legislature or governorship, these proposals soon follow.

The NAACP and other minority advocacy groups feel targeted by these proposals because the numbers don't lie and show that it is their constituency which is negatively affected the most, by far.

As I say, I think it has less to do with race, and much more to do with the GOP simply trying to manage the numbers game and to weaken turnout by traditionally Democratic voters.
Click to expand...

I disagree. But, by using your logic, advocating for measures which enable voter fraud increases the political gain for the Democratic Party. That is not something flattering about your party. I am for neither party but damn. If that is not telling, I don't know what is.
 
#34
#34
PKT_VOL said:
I disagree. But, by using your logic, advocating for measures which enable voter fraud increases the political gain for the Democratic Party. That is not something flattering about your party. I am for neither party but damn. If that is not telling, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence if significant fraud based on, for example, impersonating a voter without I.d. There is no evidence of significant fraud associated with early voting.

You can probably find a news report of some claim of a few here or there, but no systemic fraud, tied to any group or party.

It is not about curbing the effectively nonexistent fraud. It is about reducing votes.
 
#36
#36
if you can't produce a photo ID, can't prove you are a US citizen and can't decide until the day of the election whether you are going to vote or not then the likelihood of you casting an informed ballot is very, very low. Of course it's no surprise the Dems would be pissed about this

they aren't having to take a test, prove land ownership or pay money to access the polls.
 
#37
#37
utvolpj said:
if you can't produce a photo ID, can't prove you are a US citizen and can't decide until the day of the election whether you are going to vote or not then the likelihood of you casting an informed ballot is very, very low. Of course it's no surprise the Dems would be pissed about this

they aren't having to take a test, prove land ownership or pay money to access the polls.
Click to expand...

Which is why I don't really take up issue with this. I can't even remember where my voter registration card is or if it's current since I've moved 4 times since the last time I voted.
 
#38
#38
utvolpj said:
if you can't produce a photo ID, can't prove you are a US citizen and can't decide until the day of the election whether you are going to vote or not then the likelihood of you casting an informed ballot is very, very low. Of course it's no surprise the Dems would be pissed about this

they aren't having to take a test, prove land ownership or pay money to access the polls.
Click to expand...


Naive.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
There is no evidence if significant fraud based on, for example, impersonating a voter without I.d. There is no evidence of significant fraud associated with early voting.

You can probably find a news report of some claim of a few here or there, but no systemic fraud, tied to any group or party.

It is not about curbing the effectively nonexistent fraud. It is about reducing votes.
Click to expand...

Again as PJ and I have been saying, if verifying that you are indeed an eligible US citizen voter by showing proper photo ID, proof of citizenship, and registering in advance of the election is too difficult for you, you ought not nor should have the right to vote.

If this measure is enacted, and Democratic turnout drops substantially as you suggest, the Democratic Party should be embarrassed that their members are unable to show proper photo ID and proof of citizenship on election day.
 
#41
#41
LG brings up an interesting point in that, as a percentage, occurrences of voter fraud is low. When there are millions of individuals voting, then thousands of "defects" would still be considered a low percentage. However, if thousands of individuals are "prevented" from voting then somehow that becomes a much bigger issue. It only took one search to come up with the following...
In an age when NASA has machines roving Mars, many states are extending the voting life of citizens for years after they are medically pronounced dead. There are 116,000 dead eligible voters in Massachusetts. And in Florida, one major newspaper recently investigated and reported that almost 15,000 dead Floridians are still hanging around on the election rolls. South Dakota, Texas, Kentucky, Mississippi and Indiana report in excess of a dozen counties with more registered voters than breathing human beings old enough to vote. West Virginia, Maryland, Iowa and North Carolina also reported having eligible deceased voters on their rolls.
Click to expand...
 
#43
#43
IBlvNTmWrk said:
LG brings up an interesting point in that, as a percentage, occurrences of voter fraud is low. When there are millions of individuals voting, then thousands of "defects" would still be considered a low percentage. However, if thousands of individuals are "prevented" from voting then somehow that becomes a much bigger issue. It only took one search to come up with the following...
Click to expand...


Thousands still on the rolls because they haven't been purged does not = even 100 people voting in their place.

The latter is the important number.

The former is the fake scare statistic used to justify the requirement of showing identity.

Translation: how many of the dead on the rolls somehow cast a vote in the last election? If significant number, you have my attention. Otherwise, pretty obvious you are reaching ....
 
#44
#44
My question is, why aren't they removed from the eligibility list after they're declared dead?
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
Thousands still on the rolls because they haven't been purged does not = even 100 people voting in their place.

The latter is the important number.

The former is the fake scare statistic used to justify the requirement of showing identity.

Translation: how many of the dead on the rolls somehow cast a vote in the last election? If significant number, you have my attention. Otherwise, pretty obvious you are reaching ....
Click to expand...

You've yet to establish that more legit voters will be denied the right than bogus voters will participate. It's a fake scare tactic to say photo IDs will cause any widespread disenfranchisement. In either case, the outcome is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
VOLatile said:
My question is, why aren't they removed from the eligibility list after they're declared dead?
Click to expand...

Takes time, effort, and money. Most state agencies running these things are a bit short handed these days and its no surprise to me this occurs. Bet you your state's drivers license roll has thousands of dead people still on it.



volinbham said:
You've yet to establish that more legit voters will be denied the right than bogus voters will participate. It's a fake scare tactic to say photo IDs will cause any widespread disenfranchisement. In either case, the outcome is the same.
Click to expand...

It is well established -- all over the place -- that these measures reduce turnout of voters likely to vote Democratic.

It is not, on the other hand, proven that more than a handful of abuses related to these measures has ever occurred.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
Takes time, effort, and money. Most state agencies running these things are a bit short handed these days and its no surprise to me this occurs. Bet you your state's drivers license roll has thousands of dead people still on it.





It is well established -- all over the place -- that these measures reduce turnout of voters likely to vote Democratic.

It is not, on the other hand, proven that more than a handful of abuses related to these measures has ever occurred.
Click to expand...

well established all over the place - that's sure convincing. When you say reduce turnout do you mean prevent or makes it too much of a hassle?

handful - you mean 5 total instances?

At least use facts.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
well established all over the place - that's sure convincing. When you say reduce turnout do you mean prevent or makes it too much of a hassle?

handful - you mean 5 total instances?

At least use facts.
Click to expand...


Go ahead and Google it. I have confidence in you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top