Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 118     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #151 
bhblue - Oh, they're going to suppress other poor people too.  It's just that since minorities make up a higher percentage of the poor population, they'll be effected more.  Of course, they are trying to suppress poor voters as well. 

As for "understanding", I'm not sure I get your point.  I'm saying those thinking like me understand very well, (yes little doubt), what is taking place and if you want to call us out as being wrong, I would think you would at least have some "understanding" as to why.  If you're not sure why these laws are taking place, then you can't begin to tell us we're wrong.  In fact, having no idea, you should assume it's possible we are right.

PS:  I reread my post to you and either I wrote it wrong or you read it wrong.  "When things are done for reasons you can't understand"...I was talking about you not understanding, not me.  Maybe that wasn't clear.

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,972
Reply with quote  #152 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue

I'm not sure why some states want to make changes to the early voting periods.  I do know that 18 states, including NY, MI, MA, CT, and DE, don't allow early voting at all.  All historically Democrat leaning states.  I haven't heard you or your cohorts complaining about them. 



So those 18 states have been suppressing poor and minority voters all these years?  Does eric holder [the black Mr. Bean], know that those states have been suppressing voters by not allowing them a month to get on the short bus at the civic center to go down to vote with Sheila "big weave" Jackson Lee?  The black Mr. Bean will be outraged I'm sure

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,048
Reply with quote  #153 
Dewey - I did read it wrong.  However, you'll need to show where I said you were wrong about these states' motivation to change their voting laws.  I don't think I ever said that.  You answered my question about your choice to only mention minority voters.  Now my biggest question, as I can't understand your and others' assertion:  In what way does reducing the early voting periods suppress ANY voter, minority or otherwise?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #154 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
  In what way does reducing the early voting periods suppress ANY voter, minority or otherwise?


bhblue - It's a suppression when compared to the previous laws on the books.  We're talking about the reasons behind changing these laws that were on the books now.  In addition, if reducing early voting means taking away weekends, then I would think you could understand that might inhibit some working voters.

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,048
Reply with quote  #155 

No, Dewey, you're talking reasons behind the change.  I'm talking about the mechanics of suppression of voters.  If they are trying to suppress only certain voters, how do they, and you, think these changes accomplish it?  The weekend thing cannot be the best you have.  Or do you think they're trying to suppress their own voters too?

ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,838
Reply with quote  #156 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
ForeverInBlue - Some red states are reducing the days one has to vote and/or to register.  In addition, they are requiring your ID to be presented when you register, which may have been years ago, and now again when you show up at the voting booth.  The only answers I come up with on my own, or have been provided to me by others, that make significant sense as to the motivation of those behind these laws, are this is an attempt to reduce the minority participation in elections. 

I've given you several opportunities to provide me with an alternative reason that I could ponder and you've refused.  I would think you would want to go out of your way to convince me I'm wrong.  All you've managed to do, by refusing to provide a quality alternative answer, is help me solidify my conclusions are accurate. 


So you rest your assertion that decreasing available voting days is to "suppress minority folk" solely on the basis that that is the only explanation you can come up with.

Speaking to your argument, BHBlue noted earlier that 18 states allow no early voting, and they are ALL Dem states. I'm sure we can agree these minority folk you reference tend to vote strongly Dem (otherwise you would be complaining in the first place), and yet thy don't appear disadvantaged when there is no early voting. In light of these facts, I'm not sure how your guess holds up, but it doesn't look good.

Given that, one could look at the extra time and costs involved in each extra voting day. Having a 7 day voting period is certainly more time consuming and costly than a one day voting period, don't you think? Or did that never occur to you?

So there's a response to your question - time and cost are two good reasons to limit voting days.

Suggesting that minority folk need more time to vote is an insult to minority folk. And racist.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,838
Reply with quote  #157 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
  In what way does reducing the early voting periods suppress ANY voter, minority or otherwise?


bhblue - It's a suppression when compared to the previous laws on the books.  We're talking about the reasons behind changing these laws that were on the books now.  In addition, if reducing early voting means taking away weekends, then I would think you could understand that might inhibit some working voters.


Now you're just flailing. Lol
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #158 
FIB - Thanks. It took you all morning to come up with a reason for these laws to be changed.  It's the only answer I could have come up with, cost, and I'm surprised the Right doesn't use it more often.  Probably because it's an extremely weak argument and it begs the cost of getting everyone ID's to satisfy the other laws being passed.  But at least you finally gave an answer so I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.  However, I'll stick with my logical conclusion that I think is shared by a large segment of our population.  Thanks to these laws popping up around the nation, working class, poor, and minority voters, (and yes everyone to some extent although the less fortunate will be effected more), are being suppressed when it comes to voting. 

We've put our arguments out there and we'll let the readers decide.  You think we need to make elections cheaper and I think there is a suspicious ulterior motive out there.

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,183
Reply with quote  #159 
Dewey -

I haven't a clue, but I will try to research it to find out.  I have friend who's brother is a state Senator in NC.  I'll ask him to ask his brother, but that will probably take some time.

I will see what I find.

In the meantime, you really mean to tell me that a whole state legislature, with the compliance of the Governor, rewrote a law, for the express purpose of discriminating against minorities?  Is this not 2013?

I can not get my head around the idea that a whole state government would conspire against minorities, especially in this day and age or uber-political correctness. 

Do you really think that we here in the south still require federal review of our elections because we are overtly discriminatory?

If so, you should come down here sometime.  We bend over backwards here in the South to be inclusive.  Racism is worse up north than it is down here.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #160 
mikec - I'll be interested in what you find out.  I admit I'm surprised you can't hazard a guess as to what you think is going on with these laws or that you can't understand why the less affluent might see these steps, rightly or wrongly, as an attack on their abilities to vote.  As I told bhblue, it's not aimed at strictly minorities but they will be significantly effected.  Some on your side often paint the less fortunate as low information voters and probably wouldn't object to seeing less of them vote.  That's my perspective of what's going on.  Please let me know what you learn.

Please know, I'm not here to search out racism. Kiir thinks I'm calling people racist.  Not true.  Very hard to determine who is or is not a racist.  I have no special ability to do so.  But I do recognize things that won't be too popular in the minority community, or with me.  These new voting laws are one of those things.  I don't think people repeat Obamaphone over and over unless they're trying to stir the pot.  Kiir doesn't like me being offended at marking the White House with an "X" but I think that was a horrible comment.  Looks like the reverse may be happening.  If you object to something said that appears to go over the top racially speaking, then you are accused of insinuating people are racists.  My friend Hammer just said blacks are more likely to just not want to work.  Another very unfortunate comment that I hope showing my displeasure was fair to do. 

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,183
Reply with quote  #161 
Here's a quick article I found.  I'll look for some more.  It is interesting though that opponents fail to mention an expansion of sites to register, in conjunction with reducing the time allowed.

As for ID, I am in the camp of having to provide ID when you vote.  I see no reason whatsoever to not require that.  Showing it years ago to get a voter ID does nothing to prevent someone from committing fraud on election day.

Anyways, here you go:

Another day, another wrongheaded attack on Shelby v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. But this one contains a bit of a surprise.

Writing at Slate, Richard Hasen begins by fundamentally misstating the court's finding: "Substituting their own judgment for that of Congress, the five justices in the Shelby County majority expressed confidence that the act's 'preclearance' provision was no longer necessary, and that there would be ample other tools to fight discrimination in voting."

In fact, the court let stand the automatic preclearance provision, known as Section 5. Section 4, which the justices invalidated, specified the formula for determining which jurisdictions were subjected to the strict review of Section 5. The trouble with Section 4 was that the data it used to make that determination hadn't been updated in over four decades. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "Congress--if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions."

Hasen aims most of his fire on the state of North Carolina. Although the Tar Heel State as a whole was not a covered jurisdiction under Section 4, many of its counties were, which meant that if the state General Assembly enacted changes to voting laws, they couldn't take effect without the approval of the U.S. Justice Department or a panel of federal judges.

Freed from the strictures of preclearance--and with Republican majorities elected in 2010 and a GOP governor elected in 2012--lawmakers in Raleigh passed a series of changes to the state's voting laws, including an ID requirement, elimination of same-day voter registration and "preregistration" of minors in high schools, and a reduction in the number of days on which early voting is allowed. (Hasen fails to note that last provision is accompanied by an expansion of early-voting sites and hours.)

Hasen describes the new law as "the mother of all voter suppression bills" and asserts that its enactment by North Carolina illustrates, as the subheadline puts it, "why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary."

He thereby commits two logical fallacies: His characterization of the law begs the question by assuming the lawmakers' invidious intent. And his assertion that "the Voting Rights Act is still necessary" is a complex-question (or loaded-question) fallacy.

There is little dispute that the Voting Rights Act is still necessary. There is some question as to whether Section 5 is still necessary, but the court did not address that question. Sections 2 and 3, which allow federal courts to enjoin voting laws and subject states to preclearance after a showing of discrimination were not even under challenge.

The question the court considered was not whether Section 4 was necessary but whether it was proper--whether it was constitutional for Congress to substitute its own judgment for that of lawmakers in (among other places) Raleigh based on a legislative finding of discrimination that hadn't been updated since Richard Nixon was president.

In arguing that it is "still necessary" to subject North Carolina to preclearance, Hasen concedes that many of the state's new provisions are otherwise legally inoffensive. In particular, "there hasn't been a successful Section 2 challenge to voter id [sic] laws," and the Supreme Court has held (in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 2008), "that voter identification laws are generally constitutional, with a possible exception for voters who can demonstrate that the law imposes special burdens on them."

Even before Shelby County, then, states not covered by the Section 4 formula were free to adopt strict voter-ID requirements like the one just enacted in North Carolina. Several of them--Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee--had done so. Hasen's fallacious reasoning is an effort to conceal the inability to formulate a reasonable argument for treating states differently on the basis of obsolete information.

But here's the Easter egg in Hasen's piece:

If North Carolina can demonstrate that it is motivated in its election laws by an intent to discriminate against Democrats rather than on the basis of race (despite the high correlation between the two), many constitutional claims will fail for lack of proof of intentional racial discrimination. Texas has already made this argument in defending its redistricting that a federal court found to be the product of intentional race discrimination: "DOJ's accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party's electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates."

The Texas redistricting case hasn't been decided yet, but it's true that racial gerrymandering is constitutionally suspect while partisan gerrymandering is not. (In practice, Republicans and minority Democrats often have a common interest in gerrymandering, since concentrating Democrat voters in "majority minority" districts makes other districts more Republican. But partisan gerrymandering is self-limiting, since maximizing the number of districts in which one's party can win means spreading its voters and reducing the number of safe seats.)

Hasen's premise--which Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on--is that what he terms "voter suppression" laws tend to benefit Republicans at the expense of Democrats. Another way of saying that is that loose standards of ballot integrity tend to help Democrats at the expense of Republicans.

The Constitution is silent about political parties, but the 15th Amendment forbids racial discrimination in voting and it stipulates that "the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." If a state is found to engage in racial discrimination, Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act allow the Justice Department or private plaintiffs to obtain relief. But how could it possibly be "appropriate" to tip the scales in favor of one party where there has been no showing of discrimination in two generations?


sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #162 
Days for voting and registering are being decreased because of increased fraud occuring with increased days available.  Tons of fraud occurred in this past election, especially in ohio.  Many have been put in jail and precinct workers gotten rid of.    Especially with no ID fraud is allowed to run rampant but several precinct workers have also been prosecuted for altering votes and voting multiple times, voting for dead people etc...  There is no move to suppress the vote.  There is a move to make sure elections are clean for both sides.  Dewey is just saying the classic liberal propaganda for which there is no proof but there is plenty of people in jail in ohio over fraudulent activity to increase votes for obama.  I also believe PA has had prosecutions for fraudulent actions for obama.
__________________
Susan
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,972
Reply with quote  #163 
Maybe this will help dewey understand that when we disagree with obama and his merry band of gypsies, that it does not have to be about "race relations".  Hillary likes to yell and here she is yelling about our rights as Americans.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,838
Reply with quote  #164 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
FIB - Thanks. It took you all morning to come up with a reason for these laws to be changed.  It's the only answer I could have come up with, cost, and I'm surprised the Right doesn't use it more often.  Probably because it's an extremely weak argument and it begs the cost of getting everyone ID's to satisfy the other laws being passed.  But at least you finally gave an answer so I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.  However, I'll stick with my logical conclusion that I think is shared by a large segment of our population.  Thanks to these laws popping up around the nation, working class, poor, and minority voters, (and yes everyone to some extent although the less fortunate will be effected more), are being suppressed when it comes to voting. 

We've put our arguments out there and we'll let the readers decide.  You think we need to make elections cheaper and I think there is a suspicious ulterior motive out there.


"Suspicious ulterior motives out there"

Ooh, conspiracy theory time!

Getting into LWNJ territory there girlie.

ROFLMFAO!!
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,838
Reply with quote  #165 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
FIB - These laws are intended to suppress the vote of minority folks who may need to take advantage of additional days for voting and registering.  I doubt there are many voters in any community who would risk going to jail in order to drop in and vote a second time in place of their dead Aunt June.  I don't expect many Conservatives to come out and openly admit it but I have little doubt it is well understood why these laws are being put into place.  Now do you intend to explain the motivation behind reducing the days open to vote and/or register, or did I get, as you like to say, railroaded to go solo?  


Racist Dewey,

Please explain why you think it takes "minority folks" longer to vote and register to vote.

And when you're done explaining your racist attitudes, maybe you can say what you really mean in this statement you made:

 I don't expect many Conservatives to come out and openly admit it but I have little doubt it is well understood why these laws are being put into place. 

What is exactly that you don't expect many Conservatives will admit?

If you're making statements like that shouldn't you have the balls to back it up?

With your vile racism already  on full display, why hold anything else back?

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #166 
FIB - Cute, let's keep these racist accusations flying as if you can possibly believe they have any merit.  If you read all the posts, it started with us talking about why the black community, and Hillary Clinton, might be upset at voter suppression laws and the discussion led to how minorities would find their voting privileges made more difficult.  bhblue already highlighted the fact I wasn't being clear enough and I should be saying "the less affluent" and not minorities.  He's right, the suppression these laws create is aimed at the less affluent which, in the end, will effect minorities considerably.  I think many on the Right would like to see fewer poor people voting and that's the point I wondered if Conservatives would eventually admit.  Hopefully that answers all your questions and explains away my vile racist label.
__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,972
Reply with quote  #167 

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,490
Reply with quote  #168 
 "I think many on the Right would like to see fewer poor people voting and that's the point I wondered if Conservatives would eventually admit."

First, what information leads you to this opinion?
Second, you say "I think" and then you wonder if Conservatives are ready to admit to something that you posit as an opinion.  Makes no sense.
Third, I thought you were against generalizations.
Last, with comments like these, can you really be surprised that people call you names?

Those of us on the right want everyone who is eligible to vote to be able to vote.  Naturally, eligibility should be proven.  Tell me why that is a problem for you.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,838
Reply with quote  #169 
Ah, so since bhblue already pointed out your racism, the rest of us should let it slide.
Yeah, that'll happen.
  
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #170 
pabar - Are you telling me you need a reason to call people names?  Maybe that's what I should have told my kids growing up...if you have a good reason, let em rip.  Anyways, back to the subject.  Like many others, I believe these voter laws, reducing the days one can vote or register, are meant to suppress voters.  If you have a different opinion as to why you think these changes are being made, please share it with us.  Dewey out.
__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,490
Reply with quote  #171 
I agree with Susan - there is rampant fraud and it needs to be addressed or we become just another banana republic.  That is the reason to reduce the days.  But the reality is that there is still ample time for people to register and vote.
TheHammer

Registered:
Posts: 11,135
Reply with quote  #172 
don't you believe that we have already become a banana republic /??????????
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,838
Reply with quote  #173 
I think they want to change the voting laws just to watch liberals go spastic and fall off their soapbox.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,838
Reply with quote  #174 
Rumor going around that in one of the propaganda biopics, Hilary will be played by Philip Seymour Hoffman.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,972
Reply with quote  #175 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Rumor going around that in one of the propaganda biopics, Hilary will be played by Philip Seymour Hoffman.

I had heard it was 

Mickey Rourke


__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #176 
People call dewey names because they fit perfectly.  That was definitely a nice racist rant.  

Every citizen that is eligible to vote has plenty of time to register and vote if they so choose.  Dewey putting up classic straw man that has no validity.  Dems want more days to bus people to polls because they know they dont always show up if they dont bus them and basically vote for them.  Last year in either nc or sc they found that they were bussing mentally ill patients in that hardly new their name much less who the candidates were but trained them to vote for obama.  Talk about fraud and disgusting. That why libs want more day.  And the straw men are always things like racism, sexism, etc... when if you really look at the reality, its disgusting.  I  do think they finally got rid of filner in san diego, but weiner and whats his name are still going strong in new york.  

__________________
Susan
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #177 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
I agree with Susan - there is rampant fraud and it needs to be addressed or we become just another banana republic. 


pabar - I'm willing to read any article pointing to significant fraud.  Please link something for me to view.  I'm even willing to listen to you describe precisely what it is that voters do to cheat the results.  If fraud was as rampant as you suggest, I'm confident there would be a Fox TV special showing the lengths to which people will go.  To me, it's just a good cover story.

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,838
Reply with quote  #178 
Pabar, he'll read anything you post and then dismiss it out of hand because he has a feeling it's some big conspiracy against liberal racists. Read a page back in the thread and you will see you're just wasting time playing 20 questions here.

And isn't it amazing on one thread he's capable of reading up on state pension funds and SS but here he's is wholly incapable of understanding anything other than some whack job racist conspiracy. Lol
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #179 
Dewey dismisses everything period that a conservative posts.  He can call repubs racist without proof, but when we point out his racist rant, he's not.  Classic, just like his annointed one.
__________________
Susan
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,183
Reply with quote  #180 
Dewey, as I said, I don't know why they have made these changes. That article tries to explain some of it, I think.

I figured it was cost saving, but I don't know - I am trying to find out.

However, I do fully believe that no one is executing a mass scheme to eliminate minority, poor, or any other kind of vote. I live here - I just can't see something so grand being propogated on a mass scale.

I know many people who are elected officials - mostly republicans, but some democrats too. There is no one that I know, even for the conservative well to do suburbs, who would ever go along with something like that.

I resent the fact that a Yankee liberal like Clinton would stir that lot, without basis, to try to score points with her base.

That is an early signal that, in spite of the fact that she protested vehemently when Obama played the race card against her, she has watched him to do it to his advantage, and she is borrowing that page from the playbook.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.