FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you want change, go out and vote. Register people and get them to vote.

And then you get states where Republicans have taken over the state government and started changing voting laws in various ways, whether it's rolling back early voting hours, implementing voter ID laws and then changing the hours at DMV locations in "unfriendly" parts of the state, or changing the law to make it harder for students to vote.

You get states like Georgia that sit on 40,000 voter registrations because they've found a fraudulent few (and let's not forget that registrars are required by law to submit every registration they receive; they're not allowed to be the gatekeepers) and then argues to the courts that there is no law that requires them to process registrations in time for the election.

You know, shit like that. But yeah, people should just vote instead of doing other things to call attention to injustice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Noop

I think teaching these young black men emotional discipline at an early age would go a long way to helping the present situation. I am not sure what marching and protesting does or than make a speculate of the situation. Getting members of the community to organize and choose legitimate leadership who understands and supports their interest would resolve a lot of these problems.

To bad people like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Co. have made a mockery of black (perhaps poor) plight.

We ain't often on the same page on societal issues, and we've clashed publicly on occasion, so this is notable enough that I'd like to thank you publicly for saying that.

I'll simply add that it isn't just young black men that need more guidance in a variety of areas either. The manifestations of that shortcoming might be different but there's a lack in a lot of white areas too. (Presumably the same could be said for Hispanic youth, honestly off the top of my head I dunno if Asians / Asian youth have the same issues or not)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But yeah, people should just vote instead of doing other things to call attention to injustice.

People ought to have enough discernment to know the difference between "justice" and "injustice".

That would solve a helluva lot of these idiotic worse-than-worthless "protests".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And then you get states where Republicans have taken over the state government and started changing voting laws in various ways, whether it's rolling back early voting hours, implementing voter ID laws and then changing the hours at DMV locations in "unfriendly" parts of the state, or changing the law to make it harder for students to vote.

You get states like Georgia that sit on 40,000 voter registrations because they've found a fraudulent few (and let's not forget that registrars are required by law to submit every registration they receive; they're not allowed to be the gatekeepers) and then argues to the courts that there is no law that requires them to process registrations in time for the election.

You know, shit like that. But yeah, people should just vote instead of doing other things to call attention to injustice.

I know there are situations where politicians are trying to skim votes off the rolls, but these involve a small number of people. It's not difficult to register and vote in this country. I'd argue there has never been an easier time for it. Stop treating the population like idiots.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know there are situations where politicians are trying to skim votes off the rolls, but these involve a small number of people. It's not difficult to register and vote in this country. I'd argue there has never been an easier time for it. Stop treating the population like idiots.

Number one, bullshit. It doesn't fucking matter if it's a "small number of people." It adds up, and suppressing any votes, whether it's .01% or 10%, weakens the democratic process for everybody.

Number two, did you read what I said? Like, even one word? ALL OVER THE COUNTRY you have one political party that is fucking INVESTED in making it HARDER to vote. You have people from that party who have said, nearly verbatim, "I don't want everybody to vote; the fewer people who vote, the better our chances to win elections." And not only are they erecting new barriers to voter registration in the states they control, but you appear to have missed the part where Georgia said "we have to let them register, but we can process the registrations whenever we damn well feel like it. Who cares if there's an election coming up?"

Sure, as long as you're white, reasonably young and not poor, you can probably vote fairly easily. If you're non-white, you're 25% less likely to have an acceptable form of ID. If you're poor or elderly, you are going to have a harder time getting the ID if you need one, either because it costs money to get copies of the proper documents and time off work to go hang out at the DMV, or because you're old enough that there may not be easy access to the requested documents.

Say, here's a fun bit detailing what was going on in Pennsylvania after their voter ID law passed:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Required IDs were only available through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs are openly only one day per week in nine counties and two days per week thirteen counties. The Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to providing IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID".[21] Photo IDs are not required to vote in PA.[22]

Here's the link: Voter ID laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds to me like, until the courts ruled against enforcement, it was never easier for Pennsylvania voters to register and vote! Damn courts erecting roadblocks by striking down the law...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Sure, as long as you're white, reasonably young and not poor, you can probably vote fairly easily.

Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2010 - Tables - Census Bureau

There are more elderly white people registered to vote than middle aged people....and more middle aged people registered than adults...and more adults than young adults....

And guess what? It's the same way for elderly blacks. The 75+ years old demographic for registered voters is kicking the shit out of all other demographics...both white and black! Why? Because old people aren't handicapped and they aren't as stupid as you lead us to believe. And as for the black youth that you're suggesting are being held back somehow...the young black adults out-registered young white adults in 2010.

If the elderly (75+) can get registered at a 70-75% clip (blacks and whites), why can't everybody else get up into that range? (Most age groups are in the 60-70% range outside of 18 year olds which is at ~46% for white's and black's.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Sure, as long as you're white, reasonably young and not poor, you can probably vote fairly easily.

I don't know why you think black and poor people are so incompetent. Voting in this country is not hard if it is something you care about. Just because you have darker skin or less income doesn't make you an invalid.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know why you think black and poor people are so incompetent. Voting in this country is not hard if it is something you care about. Just because you have darker skin or less income doesn't make you an invalid.

I always find the liberals who cry racism all the time the most amusing. Somehow in their mind it isn't racist at all to imply black people are so helpless that they can't register to vote and/or know who to vote for. Everything is racism that, racist white people that while the only people discounting the minorities are themselves.

[JPhillips]

Nobody is saying that minorities can't vote. The argument is that in several states the GOP has rolled back registration and voting in an effort to make it more difficult for strong Dem demographics to vote.

Are people really denying that? What's the point of all the new laws passed in the last five years if not that?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nobody is saying that minorities can't vote. The argument is that in several states the GOP has rolled back registration and voting in an effort to make it more difficult for strong Dem demographics to vote.

Are people really denying that? What's the point of all the new laws passed in the last five years if not that?

What part of "Who cares what Republicans are doing/trying, go register to vote like everybody else does" are you having difficulty with? You can't "roll-back registration", that's a fancy way of implying registration has been banned, but that's completely inaccurate, everybody can register to vote. And how the hell are the Repbulicans "rolling back voting"? It's all a farce drummed up by liberal white's and Democratic leaders trying to get an edge.

Go out and register and then vote if you care enough to do so. It's one of the easiest things you can do in America. What liberals keep saying is akin to saying that Republicans are running out in the street and putting a couple of orange cones on the I-95 and white people know well enough to just go around them or run them over but black people just fucking slam on the breaks and ask, "What the fuck do I do now??? There's a road-block on the I-95???? Oh well, I guess I better just turn back." Give us a break, people are not as stupid as you make them out to be.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What part of "Who cares what Republicans are doing/trying, go register to vote like everybody else does" are you having difficulty with? You can't "roll-back registration", that's a fancy way of implying registration has been banned, but that's completely inaccurate, everybody can register to vote. And how the hell are the Repbulicans "rolling back voting"? It's all a farce drummed up by liberal white's and Democratic leaders trying to get an edge.

Go out and register and then vote if you care enough to do so. It's one of the easiest things you can do in America. What liberals keep saying is akin to saying that Republicans are running out in the street and putting a couple of orange cones on the I-95 and white people know well enough to just go around them or run them over but black people just fucking slam on the breaks and ask, "What the fuck do I do now??? There's a road-block on the I-95???? Oh well, I guess I better just turn back." Give us a break, people are not as stupid as you make them out to be.

The alternative though is that poor people (black and white) know neither party gives a shit about them and so they don't care and don't vote. But it's much easier to cry racism with the bonus that if you try and argue with them you just must be a racist.

[cartman]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...e-minority-law

[JPhillips]

So none of the laws passed over the past five years make any difference? Eliminating same day registration? Voter ID? Limiting weekend voting? Changes in provisional ballots? Changes in what poll workers can say? Changes in hours of registration locations? Changes in location of registration? Changes in what IDs are acceptable? Changes in absentee eligibility? Reducing early voting days? Making it more difficult for third party organizations to register? Voter registration purges?

Why do you think the GOP has been passing these laws if not to make it more difficult for Dem constituencies?

[nol]

Duh, if you can't make time to pick up your voter ID the few hours a week the place is open between working at your minimum wage job, studying at taxpayer-fuded libraries to increase your knowledge (because that will get you out of poverty), shopping for and preparing cheap, nutritious meals, and being a strong authority figure in your child's life, then you don't deserve to take part in the democratic process.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by nol

Duh, if you can't make time to pick up your voter ID the few hours a week the place is open between working at your minimum wage job, studying at taxpayer-fuded libraries to increase your knowledge (because that will get you out of poverty), shopping for and preparing cheap, nutritious meals, and being a strong authority figure in your child's life, then you don't deserve to take part in the democratic process.

Wow this is a low opinion of the lower class. They are really worthless to you huh? And the DMV's are only open a few hours a week where you live? They are open 40+ a week here.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by nol

Duh, if you can't make time to pick up your voter ID the few hours a week the place is open between working at your minimum wage job, studying at taxpayer-fuded libraries to increase your knowledge (because that will get you out of poverty), shopping for and preparing cheap, nutritious meals, and being a strong authority figure in your child's life, then you don't deserve to take part in the democratic process.

Woah, woah, woah! Nobody's asking people to be in the top 99th-percentile in order to vote. It's EASY for everybody to get a photo ID. If we at least recognize that, then those who actually need help can get it. Saying all poor black people need help is ridiculous.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Woah, woah, woah! Nobody's asking people to be in the top 99th-percentile in order to vote. It's EASY for everybody to get a photo ID. If we at least recognize that, then those who actually need help can get it. Saying all poor black people need help is ridiculous.

Plenty of people here have pointed how it's not as easy for everybody else as it is for you Dutch. So your starting premise is flawed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

Duh, if you can't make time to pick up your voter ID the few hours a week the place is open between working at your minimum wage job, studying at taxpayer-fuded libraries to increase your knowledge (because that will get you out of poverty), shopping for and preparing cheap, nutritious meals, and being a strong authority figure in your child's life, then you don't deserve to take part in the democratic process.

We are talking about a 45 minute task once in your life.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Plenty of people here have pointed how it's not as easy for everybody else as it is for you Dutch. So your starting premise is flawed.

It's harder for everybody else to get an ID than it was for me? How so?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We are talking about a 45 minute task once in your life.

For me, apparently everybody else has to climb to the top of Mt. Ranier do 500 pushups and then ski back down to get a photo ID.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Woah, woah, woah! Nobody's asking people to be in the top 99th-percentile in order to vote. It's EASY for everybody to get a photo ID. If we at least recognize that, then those who actually need help can get it. Saying all poor black people need help is ridiculous.

The 99th percentile? I was just listing some of the "wisdom" that's been compiled in this thread about what poor people should be doing to better their situation if they weren't so goshdarned lazy.

Never mind that if you live in a big city and take public transit so you can wait around at the DMV for a couple hours to eventually get your ID card (better hope you have a copy of your birth certificate laying around!), that may represent enough lost wages that you can't afford rent or healthy groceries or whatever else you have to do to stay out of the "shitty parent/don't deserve to have children" zone.

[Dutch]

Nol,

I don't know of anybody who ever worked 40-hours a week year round for their entire life without getting time off to go to the DMV to get their photo ID. They needed the photo ID to get the job in the first place!

[JPhillips]

It isn't about making it impossible. The gal is to make it difficult enough that some small percentage says fuck it and doesn't register/vote. If a party can spend zero and reduce turnout by even a percentage point, it's a huge deal. There aren't many persuadable voters right now, the whole game is getting your voters out and keeping their voters home.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It isn't about making it impossible.

You'll have to bring that up with Nol, he's on that trip...hook, line and sinker.

The gal is to make it difficult enough that some small percentage says fuck it and doesn't register/vote. If a party can spend zero and reduce turnout by even a percentage point, it's a huge deal. There aren't many persuadable voters right now, the whole game is getting your voters out and keeping their voters home.

Agreed. But if you tell people the facts. In 2010, registered whites was sitting at 66% and whites who voted was at 46% and registered blacks was sitting at 64% and black voters was at 44%, it's pretty damned close and nobody gets to fired up one way or the other. You have to emotionalize it and put a raci$t twist in there if you really want to mobilize more "fuck it" (i.e. apathetic/lazy) voters.

"It's not equal across the board because the Republicans are doing all this crazy racist shit!"

And all's fair in political warfare I guess, but don't tell me this shit is impossible (nol, I'm talking to you, buddy!) because it's not. It's really easy for a VAST MAJORITY of people. Vast as in 99.99%. As in, the numbers that can't get a photo ID are pretty irrelevant to the debate that this is some sort of national crisis affecting millions.

[cartman]

Number estimated affected by the Texas law was 600,000. That's hardly irrelevant.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Number estimated affected by the Texas law was 600,000. That's hardly irrelevant.

That's 600,000 that have 2 years to get a photo ID. That's Republicans and Democrats...White, Black, and Hispanic....and a lot of those are those pesky teens and early 20-somethings (across the board the one demographic way behind in the 40%-45% registered) and those who don't give a shit. Not those that have been "affected". 600,000 were not turned away from registering/voting.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's 600,000 that have 2 years to get a photo ID. That's Republicans and Democrats...White, Black, and Hispanic....and a lot of those are those pesky teens and early 20-somethings (across the board the one demographic way behind in the 40%-45% registered) and those who don't give a shit. Not those that have been "affected". 600,000 were not turned away from registering/voting.

And once more, with feeling: the point of the voter ID laws is not, beyond lip service, about reducing voter fraud. When George W. Bush took office, one of the first things he did was go 'we're gonna root out voter fraud,' and the investigation by the Department of Justice came back with "huh, it's actually effectively irrelevant."

They pay lip service to that idea because it gets support from people who go "well, gosh, sure, why SHOULDN'T people show ID to vote?" At its heart, the whole fucking POINT is to make it harder for people to vote so some percentage of the Democratic base doesn't/can't turn out.

It's the exact same thing as with efforts to restrict availability of abortion. "Well, there's that one clinic out in West Texas or in New Mexico so women in East-Central Texas aren't harmed by this law, they can just drive ten hours to get an abortion there." See? Aren't we swell? There's a DMV just a few hours away if the local one has had their hours rolled back 20%. It's no big deal, just take a day off from work. Oh, you're minimum wage and barely scraping by? If you wanted to be involved in the Republic you shouldn't have been poor, I guess.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You'll have to bring that up with Nol, he's on that trip...hook, line and sinker.

Uh no, I was illustrating a more concrete example for the troglodytes who don't have that same capacity to think abstractly and see who on the margins it would affect more.

The point that everyone else is understanding is that in a vacuum, having to get a photo ID isn't the biggest deal in the world, but as part of a larger series of microaggressions, one or another is going to cause someone to trip up along the way. Besides, someone with your reading and writing aptitude talking about things that should be really easy for the vast majority of people to do is the definition of throwing stones in a glass house.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by nol

blah, blah, blah...having to get a photo ID isn't the biggest deal in the world...blah, blah, blah.

Thank you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

There's a DMV just a few hours away if the local one has had their hours rolled back 20%. It's no big deal, just take a day off from work. Oh, you're minimum wage and barely scraping by? If you wanted to be involved in the Republic you shouldn't have been poor, I guess.

I don't know of many people who are hours away from a DMV. Maybe in real rural parts of the country, but I have a feeling those people aren't the type of voters you're concerned with. It's also mighty tough to get a job in this country without some form of ID.

Again, no one is asking for people to attend weekly meetings at the DMV. It's an hour long trip you'll make once. It's an incredibly easy task. Most of us did it when we were 16 and lived to tell the tale.

[Arles]

Just curious, but how do people have a job without a photo ID? I live in the illegal sanctuary of Phoenix, Arizona - and you still need a photo ID to get a job out here.

Either A) you run your own business and therefore can schedule an hour to run by the DMV or B) the are employed and required to have a photo ID to get the job. I can't see this as being the reason many poor don't vote.

Plus, you are required to have a photo ID to register your kids at a public school, pickup your kids from after-school care at a public school, get a bank account or credit card, drive a vehicle and even get state AID or health insurance. Essentially, by saying it's hard for the poor to get a photo ID, you are saying they don't have a job, don't get any kind of state or federal assistance, don't send their kids to public school, have a bank account or drive a vehicle.

[cartman]

There is a difference between a photo ID, and a voting law acceptable photo ID. See the numerous example from the recent Texas law. There were people who had IDs they had used all of their lives to when they registered to vote, and now all of a sudden those IDs weren't considered valid. Even former Speaker of the House Jim Wright got turned away initially.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

Just curious, but how do people have a job without a photo ID? I live in the illegal sanctuary of Phoenix, Arizona - and you still need a photo ID to get a job out here.

Either A) you run your own business and therefore can schedule an hour to run by the DMV or B) the are employed and required to have a photo ID to get the job. I can't see this as being the reason many poor don't vote.

I think a lot of people aren't looking for work for whatever reason (especially if they're older), or are just working odd under-the-table kinds of jobs (if they're younger). I don't think we need voter ID laws, but I also don't think anywhere close to 500,000 people in Texas or whatever have actually tried to get IDs and failed, and that they all want to vote Democrat but simply can't. I think both the fraud angle and the the people-being-unable-to-vote angles are overblown. Just something else to fight about besides governing.

[cartman]

I had to cast a provisional ballot this last election because my name didn't match exactly between my driver's license and the voter registration card. The voter registration has 'Greg', and my driver's license said 'Gregory'. When you cast a provisional ballot, you have to go back to a county office within 4 days with supporting evidence. When I did that, they said that I shouldn't have had to cast a provisional ballot, since the names were substantially similar. Who knows how many other people had the same thing happen to them, and either didn't/couldn't follow up at the courthouse. I bet the number is a huge multiple of the found previous cases of voter fraud.

The number never was that 500,000 people tried to get IDs and failed, it was that number had a previously accepted ID that was used for voter registration, and with the new law would have to get another one.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Number estimated affected by the Texas law was 600,000. That's hardly irrelevant.

The USA has required 10.8 million people to show photo ID since Obamacare was passed and nobody said a word.

[Lathum]

Officer fatally shoots armed man in town near Ferguson - CNN.com

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The USA has required 10.8 million people to show photo ID since Obamacare was passed and nobody said a word.

Except:

1) You're making some awful big assumptions about the socioeconomic status of those 10.8 million people. Many of those folks are going to be people engaged in upward or lateral mobility; maybe they're moving to a position of greater responsibility with another company, or maybe they're changing jobs in a lateral way that satisfies some other requirement, such as perhaps enabling them to work from home, or commute less, or whatever. Many of those jobs are going to be out of reach of the very people who are affected by these voter ID laws. If you lack access to regular transportation, if you're only a high school graduate (or worse), if you live in communities which haven't enjoyed the same economic resurgence as the rest of the country, you're probably not one of those eleven million. And if you're not, voter ID is still a pain in your ass if you want to participate in the Republic.

2) That's also disingenuous as fuck. ACA was signed into law in March of 2010, four years and nine months ago. That means somebody who gained employment - burger flipper, retail wage slave, what-have-you - at the age of 17 could still be in that same job. It's not unreasonable. I worked for Best Buy for nearly 11 years - more than 2x that duration - and I was in a much better place, economically, than the affected. Yeah, I lacked a degree at the time, but I had transportation, I lived with my parents, who are reasonably well-off, and I'd been in a position to have a reason to get my driver's license at 16. I would not have been affected by these laws. That doesn't make them right.

But back to the point I was in the process of making; at 17, you can satisfy the I-9 requirements with a report card and your Social Security card. Neither of those documents are going to be sufficient to register to vote. In Wisconsin, if the voter ID law is ultimately upheld, a prospective registrant seeking to gain an ID so as to be able to vote would need a birth certificate, proof of WI residency (probably an electric bill or somesuch), proof of US citizenship (presumably that pertains to citizens not natural-born) and a Social Security card. So, yeah. It is entirely possible to have entered the workforce at 17, the day after ACA passed, and still never have had to show photo ID for employment purposes.

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that those affected may be unemployed (given the socioeconomic class affected in the first damn place, I'd say that's actually more likely than not) or working under the table.

Once again, and I say this despite the knowledge that you have your ears closed on this issue, Dutch: the voter ID laws passed have been with the explicit intent not of reducing voter fraud, but of suppressing the Democratic voter base. If voter fraud is the sole intent of these bills, there's no need to end same-day registration (those ballots have always been provisional and are not counted unless the registrant's identity is verified), to roll back early voting hours, or any of the other concomitant measures the Republican Party has taken when passing these bills. It is completely and entirely about erecting roadblocks to voting for people who don't vote Republican, and cloaking it in the mantle of "reducing voter fraud" to get the support of their base and independents who go "well, gosh, who wouldn't want to reduce voter fraud?"

Except, functionally speaking, it's a myth. Texas' Governor-elect, Greg Abbott, went hunting for voter fraud in 2005 in Texas. He found about two dozen cases worthy of prosecution. Most of them were not preventable with ID, but were rather cases of people who helped the elderly with mail-in ballots, but did not sign their names on the ballots attesting to that. $1.5 million spent to find an average of 9 cases a year - which, again, ID would not have stopped.

George W. Bush launched a voter fraud investigation following his victory over Al Gore in 2000. By 2007, 86 people had been convicted of voter fraud. Over the 5 year scope of the investigation, that's, what, 19 people per year? Of those 86, 30 or so were convicted in vote-buying schemes for local office, such as sheriff.

That leaves a maximum of 56 convictions in five years for federal-level voter fraud. That includes, offhand, the 121 million ballots cast in 2004 during his re-election campaign against John Kerry.

The sort of election fraud that exists in this country is not, largely, reducible with voter ID laws. The sole purpose of those laws is to make sure the "right" sort of people vote. You know, kind of like literacy tests and poll taxes a century ago.

If it were honestly about concern that massive voter impersonation were taking place, that bill would need two sentences and a table. "An acceptable form of photo or other identification is necessary to cast a ballot for local, state or federal office in _______. Persons who otherwise meet eligibility requirements but lack a proper ID can obtain a free ID for voting purposes from (state agency here)." The table would show the list of acceptable forms of ID, and the requirements necessary to gain the voting-only ID. That would be the end of it, and proponents of voter ID would have a much stronger case that it's about reducing fraud. The more that bill gets packed with riders to do things like end same-day registration, end or reduce early voting, etc, the more manifest it becomes that it's a bill intended to make it harder for likely non-Republican voters to vote.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Except:

1) You're making some awful big assumptions about the socioeconomic status of those 10.8 million people. Many of those folks are going to be people engaged in upward or lateral mobility; maybe they're moving to a position of greater responsibility with another company, or maybe they're changing jobs in a lateral way that satisfies some other requirement, such as perhaps enabling them to work from home, or commute less, or whatever. Many of those jobs are going to be out of reach of the very people who are affected by these voter ID laws. If you lack access to regular transportation, if you're only a high school graduate (or worse), if you live in communities which haven't enjoyed the same economic resurgence as the rest of the country, you're probably not one of those eleven million. And if you're not, voter ID is still a pain in your ass if you want to participate in the Republic.

So those aren't NEW jobs for unemployed people? What the hell good is this graph then?

2) That's also disingenuous as fuck. ACA was signed into law in March of 2010, four years and nine months ago. That means somebody who gained employment - burger flipper, retail wage slave, what-have-you - at the age of 17 could still be in that same job. It's not unreasonable. I worked for Best Buy for nearly 11 years - more than 2x that duration - and I was in a much better place, economically, than the affected. Yeah, I lacked a degree at the time, but I had transportation, I lived with my parents, who are reasonably well-off, and I'd been in a position to have a reason to get my driver's license at 16. I would not have been affected by these laws. That doesn't make them right.

I found the fact that the graph ONLY showed the Bush years under the recession to be a little disingenuous too, but who cares...it's just a graph. A "retail-wage slave" is also pretty disingenuous...it's a job, not slavery. Let's not get too caught up in the details, we're not actually going to solve anything here anyway.

But back to the point I was in the process of making; at 17, you can satisfy the I-9 requirements with a report card and your Social Security card. Neither of those documents are going to be sufficient to register to vote. In Wisconsin, if the voter ID law is ultimately upheld, a prospective registrant seeking to gain an ID so as to be able to vote would need a birth certificate, proof of WI residency (probably an electric bill or somesuch), proof of US citizenship (presumably that pertains to citizens not natural-born) and a Social Security card. So, yeah. It is entirely possible to have entered the workforce at 17, the day after ACA passed, and still never have had to show photo ID for employment purposes.

One of the things that I think we really need to do a better job of is explaining to everybody the importance of key documents. My mother and father drilled into my head early (and often...sometimes annoyingly often) that I could not lose my social security card or my birth certificate...that these documents are extremely important to safeguard. I feel like the message here is that lots of people haven't really considered those documents important enough to keep hold of. So to be fair, that's a completely foreign concept to me that so many could give a fuck about such important documents as to lose them or not have them safeguarded for themselves and their families. If that is true, I guess it's time for government intervention to explain to people what paperwork is important and what paperwork is not important and if you lose it, you should get a new copy as soon as possible.

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that those affected may be unemployed (given the socioeconomic class affected in the first damn place, I'd say that's actually more likely than not) or working under the table.

Unemployed people have access to welfare and therefore have money and oh, by the way, plenty of time to acquire said lost documentation. FWIW.

Once again, and I say this despite the knowledge that you have your ears closed on this issue, Dutch: the voter ID laws passed have been with the explicit intent not of reducing voter fraud, but of suppressing the Democratic voter base. If voter fraud is the sole intent of these bills, there's no need to end same-day registration (those ballots have always been provisional and are not counted unless the registrant's identity is verified), to roll back early voting hours, or any of the other concomitant measures the Republican Party has taken when passing these bills. It is completely and entirely about erecting roadblocks to voting for people who don't vote Republican, and cloaking it in the mantle of "reducing voter fraud" to get the support of their base and independents who go "well, gosh, who wouldn't want to reduce voter fraud?"

And you won't listen to me on this either. Register to vote, then vote. These "roadblocks" (aka establishing standards for the rule of law) stop absolutely nobody from voting that wants to vote. But it does stop stupid shit like the Demcorats handing out free cigarettes to bums to go vote for "their guy". So, as inconsequential as those shenanigans may be, I'm perfectly okay with the laws to stop that crap.

Except, functionally speaking, it's a myth. Texas' Governor-elect, Greg Abbott, went hunting for voter fraud in 2005 in Texas. He found about two dozen cases worthy of prosecution. Most of them were not preventable with ID, but were rather cases of people who helped the elderly with mail-in ballots, but did not sign their names on the ballots attesting to that. $1.5 million spent to find an average of 9 cases a year - which, again, ID would not have stopped.

Sounds like something entirely different....spending shit-loads of cash to track down random cases of fraud...yeah, that seemed like over-kill.

George W. Bush launched a voter fraud investigation following his victory over Al Gore in 2000. By 2007, 86 people had been convicted of voter fraud. Over the 5 year scope of the investigation, that's, what, 19 people per year? Of those 86, 30 or so were convicted in vote-buying schemes for local office, such as sheriff.

That's how many were caught. Who knows how bad it could get with a mobilized effort down the road though...the current state is easily exploitable...look how much money it costs to catch a few dozen? I don't believe we've had an issue before, but leave it wide-open to fraud and eventually I can see the Democrats exploiting it to get a win. If putting up "roadblocks" as the adverse affect of "changing a winner here or there"--as I've been reading--not setting up standards to protect the "one citizen:one vote" could equally effect who should win.

That leaves a maximum of 56 convictions in five years for federal-level voter fraud. That includes, offhand, the 121 million ballots cast in 2004 during his re-election campaign against John Kerry.

Agreed, hard to catch fraud right now and really expensive.

The sort of election fraud that exists in this country is not, largely, reducible with voter ID laws. The sole purpose of those laws is to make sure the "right" sort of people vote. You know, kind of like literacy tests and poll taxes a century ago.

I again disagree with this, or at least the later part of this. We are talking about laws that enact the lowest common denominator of our citizenship responsibilities...proof of citizenship. Absolutely different than literacy or poll taxes which are not LCD requirements for being an American.

If it were honestly about concern that massive voter impersonation were taking place, that bill would need two sentences and a table. "An acceptable form of photo or other identification is necessary to cast a ballot for local, state or federal office in _______. Persons who otherwise meet eligibility requirements but lack a proper ID can obtain a free ID for voting purposes from (state agency here)." The table would show the list of acceptable forms of ID, and the requirements necessary to gain the voting-only ID. That would be the end of it, and proponents of voter ID would have a much stronger case that it's about reducing fraud. The more that bill gets packed with riders to do things like end same-day registration, end or reduce early voting, etc, the more manifest it becomes that it's a bill intended to make it harder for likely non-Republican voters to vote.

You can acquire a non-drivers license ID from your local DMV. Again, if you work, you already displayed this and just need to submit a lost license request. If you don't work, you can receive welfare and have plenty of time to get to your local DMV to acquire this...normally it's like $10 or $15 dollars of your welfare check or salary or paycheck.

In Florida, it's $25, but that $25 is waived if you report your license lost or stolen to the police.

Replacing a Lost Florida Drivers License | DMV.org

If you've never had a license or ID, you'll have to prove you aren't here illegally! Sorry. That means Birth Certificate, Passport, or Social Security Card. Birth Certficates can be produced in Florida for $9 if you've lost yours.

Where to Write for Vital Records - Florida

We have bent over backwards as a society to not only make these things possible, but extremely easy to acquire. The hard part is getting people (apparently this mostly affects Democrats from what I'm reading here) to keep a hold of their important documentation or know how to find it. Losing all proof of citizenship and having zero proof they were ever born at all will certainly make it harder, but anybody can do it. And again, in EXTREME circumstances, I'm okay with additional resources to help prove somebody is legit, but I'm not just going to waive that because "crime is expensive to clean up". Crime is cheap to clean up when you enact and enforce the proper laws for our citizens. We ask people to be accountable for very little and in return the USA provides so much back in return...nobody should ever abuse that.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Officer fatally shoots armed man in town near Ferguson - CNN.com

"Town near Ferguson" = St Louis City... a city with close to 200 murders a year. I love how the media is playing Ferguson off like it is some suburb with manicured lawns and newspaper boys. It is North St. Louis... a war zone inside the United States that is largely ignored unless the national media can play off on some sort of pending race war.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Officer fatally shoots armed man in town near Ferguson - CNN.com

The Huffington Post desperately tried to incite violence in the name of a good story- they reported, in their news story, an account of a random twitter user named "Jesus Christo", who said that the officer opened fire after the shooting victim refused to let the officer search him. The twitter user mocked the Huffington Post afterwards for believing him.

Huffington Post gets it wrong in last night’s St. Louis police shooting story - The Washington Post

Irresponsible media's goal in these things will always be to try to increase tension, to make one side or the other look worse (depending on what "side" they think their readers are on). I think they're a actually a pretty big obstacle to positive change.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Except:

1) You're making some awful big assumptions about the socioeconomic status of those 10.8 million people. Many of those folks are going to be people engaged in upward or lateral mobility; maybe they're moving to a position of greater responsibility with another company, or maybe they're changing jobs in a lateral way that satisfies some other requirement, such as perhaps enabling them to work from home, or commute less, or whatever. Many of those jobs are going to be out of reach of the very people who are affected by these voter ID laws. If you lack access to regular transportation, if you're only a high school graduate (or worse), if you live in communities which haven't enjoyed the same economic resurgence as the rest of the country, you're probably not one of those eleven million. And if you're not, voter ID is still a pain in your ass if you want to participate in the Republic.

2) That's also disingenuous as fuck. ACA was signed into law in March of 2010, four years and nine months ago. That means somebody who gained employment - burger flipper, retail wage slave, what-have-you - at the age of 17 could still be in that same job. It's not unreasonable. I worked for Best Buy for nearly 11 years - more than 2x that duration - and I was in a much better place, economically, than the affected. Yeah, I lacked a degree at the time, but I had transportation, I lived with my parents, who are reasonably well-off, and I'd been in a position to have a reason to get my driver's license at 16. I would not have been affected by these laws. That doesn't make them right.

But back to the point I was in the process of making; at 17, you can satisfy the I-9 requirements with a report card and your Social Security card. Neither of those documents are going to be sufficient to register to vote. In Wisconsin, if the voter ID law is ultimately upheld, a prospective registrant seeking to gain an ID so as to be able to vote would need a birth certificate, proof of WI residency (probably an electric bill or somesuch), proof of US citizenship (presumably that pertains to citizens not natural-born) and a Social Security card. So, yeah. It is entirely possible to have entered the workforce at 17, the day after ACA passed, and still never have had to show photo ID for employment purposes.

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that those affected may be unemployed (given the socioeconomic class affected in the first damn place, I'd say that's actually more likely than not) or working under the table.

Once again, and I say this despite the knowledge that you have your ears closed on this issue, Dutch: the voter ID laws passed have been with the explicit intent not of reducing voter fraud, but of suppressing the Democratic voter base. If voter fraud is the sole intent of these bills, there's no need to end same-day registration (those ballots have always been provisional and are not counted unless the registrant's identity is verified), to roll back early voting hours, or any of the other concomitant measures the Republican Party has taken when passing these bills. It is completely and entirely about erecting roadblocks to voting for people who don't vote Republican, and cloaking it in the mantle of "reducing voter fraud" to get the support of their base and independents who go "well, gosh, who wouldn't want to reduce voter fraud?"

Except, functionally speaking, it's a myth. Texas' Governor-elect, Greg Abbott, went hunting for voter fraud in 2005 in Texas. He found about two dozen cases worthy of prosecution. Most of them were not preventable with ID, but were rather cases of people who helped the elderly with mail-in ballots, but did not sign their names on the ballots attesting to that. $1.5 million spent to find an average of 9 cases a year - which, again, ID would not have stopped.

George W. Bush launched a voter fraud investigation following his victory over Al Gore in 2000. By 2007, 86 people had been convicted of voter fraud. Over the 5 year scope of the investigation, that's, what, 19 people per year? Of those 86, 30 or so were convicted in vote-buying schemes for local office, such as sheriff.

That leaves a maximum of 56 convictions in five years for federal-level voter fraud. That includes, offhand, the 121 million ballots cast in 2004 during his re-election campaign against John Kerry.

The sort of election fraud that exists in this country is not, largely, reducible with voter ID laws. The sole purpose of those laws is to make sure the "right" sort of people vote. You know, kind of like literacy tests and poll taxes a century ago.

If it were honestly about concern that massive voter impersonation were taking place, that bill would need two sentences and a table. "An acceptable form of photo or other identification is necessary to cast a ballot for local, state or federal office in _______. Persons who otherwise meet eligibility requirements but lack a proper ID can obtain a free ID for voting purposes from (state agency here)." The table would show the list of acceptable forms of ID, and the requirements necessary to gain the voting-only ID. That would be the end of it, and proponents of voter ID would have a much stronger case that it's about reducing fraud. The more that bill gets packed with riders to do things like end same-day registration, end or reduce early voting, etc, the more manifest it becomes that it's a bill intended to make it harder for likely non-Republican voters to vote.

So the original point that started all of this was Rainmaker saying that while he doesn't mind protests and marching he wishes more people would vote to create change. (Scroll to the top of this page to reread his post) You and several others have posted thesis's on why this isn't possible. Simple question... instead of a 2 hour march on the courthouse how about the "leaders" take these people (who don't have any time supposedly) to go get registered to vote and create some actual change? Give me either a simple answer or 20 pages if you would like. People post about Occam's razor quite a bit on here. Wouldn't that explain the real motivation behind people like Al Sharpton or locally like Antonio French? They don't want change they want controversy to keep their pockets lined.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

So the original point that started all of this was Rainmaker saying that while he doesn't mind protests and marching he wishes more people would vote to create change. (Scroll to the top of this page to reread his post) You and several others have posted thesis's on why this isn't possible. Simple question... instead of a 2 hour march on the courthouse how about the "leaders" take these people (who don't have any time supposedly) to go get registered to vote and create some actual change? Give me either a simple answer or 20 pages if you would like. People post about Occam's razor quite a bit on here. Wouldn't that explain the real motivation behind people like Al Sharpton or locally like Antonio French? They don't want change they want controversy to keep their pockets lined.

Well, considering the DMV has a hard enough time processing people in a timely manner when just a few dozen are there, I'd hate to think what the waits would be if several hundred all showed up at the same time.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

Well, considering the DMV has a hard enough time processing people in a timely manner when just a few dozen are there, I'd hate to think what the waits would be if several hundred all showed up at the same time.

That's why Al Sharpen doesn't come into town and register voters? Your answers are so much more thoughtful and insightful on every other discussion on this board. Why is it so easy to make excuses for people like him who perpetuate the race problem?

[cartman]

What do you think would happen if several hundred people all showed up at the same time to get an ID? Doesn't take much thought to figure out that would be a massive clusterfuck that would take more than 2 hours to process.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Well, considering the DMV has a hard enough time processing people in a timely manner when just a few dozen are there, I'd hate to think what the waits would be if several hundred all showed up at the same time.

Yeah, that would never work, the DMV is packed with people all the time getting things like ID cards and driver's licenses...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yeah, that would never work, the DMV is packed with people all the time getting things like ID cards and driver's licenses...

The narrative has changd. Before it was lack of time but once I found them some time now the DMVs are overcrowded and Inefficient. Next when I ask why the Democrats like Barrack Obama nationally or Francis Slay locally don't make the DMVs more efficient it will be back to some George Bush thing or a cut and paste of a Huffington Post article about Texas voter ID laws.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

The narrative has changd. Before it was lack of time but once I found them some time now the DMVs are overcrowded and Inefficient. Next when I ask why the Democrats like Barrack Obama nationally or Francis Slay locally don't make the DMVs more efficient it will be back to some George Bush thing or a cut and paste of a Huffington Post article about Texas voter ID laws.

Why do you think those two things are mutually exclusive? Wouldn't an inefficient DMV cause the amount of time you'd have to allocate to get something done at the DMV increase?

edit: in any event, your scenario isn't one that has anything to do with efficiency, it is a simple ability to process situation. If the DMV was sized to handle several hundred to a thousand people in a two hours span, but on average only sees a few dozen in a two hour span, then there would be calls of why such a waste and an example of government bloat.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Why do you think those two things are mutually exclusive? Wouldn't an inefficient DMV cause the amount of time you'd have to allocate to get something done at the DMV increase?

edit: in any event, your scenario isn't one that has anything to do with efficiency, it is a simple ability to process situation. If the DMV was sized to handle several hundred to a thousand people in a two hours span, but on average only sees a few dozen in a two hour span, then there would be calls of why such a waste and an example of government bloat.

The DMV has been built to handle thousands of people through local branch offices, there isn't just one DMV in America.

Nobody wants Al Sharpton to hold their hand into the DMV to get an ID, at least, I hope nobody does. When you become an adult, you can pretty much do it on your own...it would be pretty hard for some people to get to wherever Al Sharpton is anyway, so it's best to go to the DMV closest to you, the State of California (for example) has built 188 branch offices to account for this, using our tax dollars mind you, and I would like to think that has been effective to account for California's population. When I lived in Los Angeles during the 90's, it was a mad house, but me and about 4 million other people always got our drivers licenses and registration renewed.

Have you ever been in a DMV before? Yeah it sucks, but we all share that suffering together while we wait. There are people from all walks of life and all circumstances in there....well to do people, blue collar, white collar, unemployed, handicapped people, blind people (probably going for the ID card there), people who need translation services, elderly people, young people, black people, Hispanic people, white people, smart people, dumb people, Republicans and Democrats...lots of people are in the DMV getting their licenses. That's why I have no doubt that the vast majority of Americans can do this but what truly makes up the large majority of people who don't have photo ID isn't Republican lawmakers, but those here illegally and what I suspect is the vast majority...lazy assed people that don't want to make the trip. I'm sure there is some small number of people that have tried and tried and tried and failed completely due to circumstances out of their control, but it's not many. It's really easy if you *want* to do it.

And I showed the 2010 consensus earlier, the numbers are really close. 66% of white people have registered, 64% of black people, more elderly (75%) than young people (50%) have registered, more young black people than white people registered (and voted) in 2010...it's not race related or age related at all. It's the give a shit factor. Don't blame Republicans if your base doesn't give a shit. But the reality though is that the give-a-shit factor is pretty equally distributed between R's and D's.

[JPhillips]

There are numerous examples of voter registration drives along with protests.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be, "Yes, it is marginally more difficult, but if people want to vote they will overcome it."

If that's your belief, we'll never come to agreement. I think we should make it easier to register and to vote and I'm pretty much always going to oppose efforts to restrict registration and voting.