or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 41

post #601 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The partisan political gamesmanship about voter ID laws is pretty unambiguous. Suppressing the voter of people without ID, who are predominantly poor and/or black (and thus likely Democratic voters) is a feature, not a bug. That's well known,

It's true. NPR hired a team of psychics and they read the minds of all the people who support verifying the identities of voters, and they agreed that it was racism, pure and simple.
post #602 of 3283
Ata's not entirely off base here. In many states civil judgments can't attach as a garnishment. Sure, child support, taxes, student loans, government stuff, that can be. But for example here in PA you can't garnish a person's paycheck for unpaid rent. So you have to seek out if they have a bank account, and if they do you can seize whatever is in the account. Using Ace Check Cashing prevents the money from ever hitting an account so they don't have to worry about losing it.
post #603 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It's true. NPR hired a team of psychics and they read the minds of all the people who support verifying the identities of voters, and they agreed that it was racism, pure and simple.

It's not so much racist as it is partisan. The effects on voter turnout are well known, and this is right in line with other efforts to diminish voter turnout (in ways that differentially hurt Democrats) like limiting early voting. This isn't some kind of dark secret, various Republican officials have said straight up that they know these laws will suppress Democratic votes (and not via fraud).
post #604 of 3283
What I'm talking about is the inability to garnish certain kinds of payments. (Generally) you can't garnish social security, welfare, unemployment, etc., out of the check, like you can for wages. But you can (generally) take bank accounts after the money is deposited. There are certain exceptions, it's all very complicated, and there are some recent limitations on some bank account garnishments for small amounts of money (basically two months of benefits, I think they did this to encourage people to direct deposit their benefits), but anything beyond that is going to be taken.

As far as electronic transfers, last I heard there was still a small percentage of people getting paper checks. You might think, oh, a a few percent, how many could that be, but it turns out to be millions since about half the people in the country are getting them.
post #605 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It's not so much racist as it is partisan. The effects on voter turnout are well known, and this is right in line with other efforts to diminish voter turnout (in ways that differentially hurt Democrats) like limiting early voting. This isn't some kind of dark secret, various Republican officials have said straight up that they know these laws will suppress Democratic votes (and not via fraud).

What some dumbass politician said shouldn't be the basis for public policy decisions. I just don't see how requiring an id to vote is burdensome. You should be able to get a free state id if needed.
post #606 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

What some dumbass politician said shouldn't be the basis for public policy decisions. I just don't see how requiring an id to vote is burdensome. You should be able to get a free state id if needed.

Whether it "ought" to be burdensome or not, the effect on voting is well known and these laws don't include any measures to help mitigate those effects. Maybe there is some interest in preventing fraud (misguided, given the poor evidence for real voter fraud), but you combine the known effects with those public statements, and it's fairly clear that this is intended to be a finger on the scale of voting outcomes.


And similarly, if they were really concerned about voter fraud, absentee balloting would be a bigger priority than in-person voting instead of neglected entirely.
post #607 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Whether it "ought" to be burdensome or not, the effect on voting is well known and these laws don't include any measures to help mitigate those effects. Maybe there is some interest in preventing fraud (misguided, given the poor evidence for real voter fraud), but you combine the known effects with those public statements, and it's fairly clear that this is intended to be a finger on the scale of voting outcomes.


And similarly, if they were really concerned about voter fraud, absentee balloting would be a bigger priority than in-person voting instead of neglected entirely.


Well, here in Minnesota Al Franken won by 312 votes, and people were convicted of voter fraud, with several hundred additional people were investigated by the various sheriff departments in the Twin Cities alone.

 

Have any states which have implemented voter ID laws (there are 27 states that require some form of ID) had sudden changes in election outcomes?  Where is the evidence that there is some kind of systematic disenfranchisement that is changing the outcome of elections?

post #608 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 


Well, here in Minnesota Al Franken won by 312 votes, and people were convicted of voter fraud, with several hundred additional people were investigated by the various sheriff departments in the Twin Cities alone...

 

... and they found that no alleged fraud had changed the outcome of the election. 

post #609 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


Well, here in Minnesota Al Franken won by 312 votes, and people were convicted of voter fraud, with several hundred additional people were investigated by the various sheriff departments in the Twin Cities alone.

Have any states which have implemented voter ID laws (there are 27 states that require some form of ID) had sudden changes in election outcomes?  Where is the evidence that there is some kind of systematic disenfranchisement that is changing the outcome of elections?

I don't think "changing the outcomes of elections" is really the meaningful metric. It's as much an attempt to retain power as flip districts. Using legislation to manipulate the systems of voting to get partisan political benefits is bad for democracy.


Again though, if Republicans really wanted to crack down on voter fraud, they'd include absentee ballots in these measures. They aren't, and that leads you to think they might not really care so much about fraud when preventing it would suppress their voters.
post #610 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post
 

 

... and they found that no provable fraud had changed the outcome of the election. 

 

Like I said, they convicted a few dozen people in the Twin Cities,  They investigated a few hundred more, but they couldn't find enough evidence where they thought they could get a conviction.

post #611 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


I don't think "changing the outcomes of elections" is really the meaningful metric. It's as much an attempt to retain power as flip districts. Using legislation to manipulate the systems of voting to get partisan political benefits is bad for democracy.


Again though, if Republicans really wanted to crack down on voter fraud, they'd include absentee ballots in these measures. They aren't, and that leads you to think they might not really care so much about fraud when preventing it would suppress their voters.

 

I'm not going to defend any politician because I think they're all out only for their self-benefit, but regardless of their motives, I believe requiring an ID to vote is a good thing as well as, to your point, examining ways to make absentee ballots less of a target for fraud.

post #612 of 3283
Strong presumption of guilt.
post #613 of 3283
Thread Starter 
Btw, absentee ballots of old folks living in facilities with some cognitive problems? Yeah, the social worker fills them all out the she/he wants them. Social worker...how do we think that person is voting? We're talking 100s of thousands of ballots here.
post #614 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Btw, absentee ballots of old folks living in facilities with some cognitive problems? Yeah, the social worker fills them all out the she/he wants them. Social worker...how do we think that person is voting? We're talking 100s of thousands of ballots here.

This is true. I have a relative in such a facility, visited before 2008 election and she had her absentee ballot filled out. By the social worker, exactly the opposite of what she wanted.
post #615 of 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

This is true. I have a relative in such a facility, visited before 2008 election and she had her absentee ballot filled out. By the social worker, exactly the opposite of what she wanted.
This can't be right, democrats are the most altruistic, truthful people on the planet. So much so that their rivals should be cut down using ad hominem attacks whether or not the accusations are true.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS