The OK case

[Dill]

(04-06-2017, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope. I'm part of this forum and have my own biases. I am one of the folks around here. I am not above or below them. 

You are not above the people who "see what they want"?

[Rotobeast]

(04-06-2017, 12:24 AM)Dill Wrote: You were right, Roto. I had that confused with another. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2017, 12:30 AM)Dill Wrote: You are not above the people who "see what they want"?

Nope. Not above them in this forum.

I've turned a blind eye to ridiculous posts in this forum because the person that said the thing was my ally at the time. Much like the usual suspects of "can't judge on appearance" are turning a blind eye to your stereotypical photos in this thread. 

[hollodero]

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 1) In-person voter fraud is practically non-existent in the U.S.

So you say and I believe that too, there are clear signs it is not common. However. Honest question for I really don't know, if my neighbour dies before election day, I could go to the polls claiming to be him, right? Or can't I.
My stance does not stem from actual fear of fraud, it stems from establishing bigger trust in the election process. And that trust surely isn't there if Trump gets away with that bogus 3 million illegal voter claim.

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 2) Voter IDs would cost millions to implement in most places. Either the cost goes on the voter, making it in effect an unconstitutional poll tax, or it goes on the taxpayer.

So it goes on the taxpayer. I don't mind.
Let the gun licence money go to funding IDs (not just for voting, but IDs with picture, useful in many situations apart from voting) for poor people. Now who could be against that. :)

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 3) Where ids have been required, thousands of elderly voters--mostly rural minorities--have had difficulty getting these ids. (My mother in law, for example, never had a birth certificate.) Consequently, many have been unable to vote or had to pay inordinate amounts of money to secure their identification, in some cases as high as $1500. http://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FullReportVoterIDJune20141.pdf

That of course is BS, but it doesn't necessarily result in being against having to show some ID to vote. It's a problem of implementation, not a problem of the principle.

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 4) Republican boosters of the id policy have openly bragged it is a technique for suppressing the Democratic vote.

I heard. Doesn't mean the policy is inherently wrong.

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: In a nutshell--the id "protects" against a non-existent threat while suppressing demographics which vote preponderantly Democratic at voter/taxpayer expense.

So the racist card is played here to defend the rights of voters in a country with a history of disenfranchisement at the voting booth.

PS laws restricting early voting are often implemented along with voter id laws to produce the same suppressing effect.

I'm aware. Having said what I said, it probably isn't the best idea to implement IDs, I have to agree out of pragmatism and reality concact. My point was rather, being for showing ID at the polls has nothing inherently racist to it. That it's misused in a partisan and/or racist way is something else.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-06-2017, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope. Not above them in this forum.

I've turned a blind eye to ridiculous posts in this forum because the person that said the thing was my ally at the time. Much like the usual suspects of "can't judge on appearance" are turning a blind eye to your stereotypical photos in this thread. 

Explain the stereotypes to me.

[Dill]

(04-06-2017, 12:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: So you say and I believe that too, there are clear signs it is not common. However. Honest question for I really don't know, if my neighbour dies before election day, I could go to the polls claiming to be him, right? Or can't I.

Not quite that simple. You would be voting in the same district. No one would notice you voted twice at the same poll?

Where I vote, I could not likely get away with it. In a big city maybe, but how long are the lines?

A lot of work for one vote. That is why people serious about election fraud go for registration or stuff ballot boxes--nothing an id can prevent.

[Dill]

(04-06-2017, 12:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: So it goes on the taxpayer. I don't mind.
Let the gun licence money go to funding IDs (not just for voting, but IDs with picture, useful in many situations apart from voting) for poor people. Now who could be against that. :)

I heard. Doesn't mean the policy is inherently wrong.

In 2012 in Minnesota, a voter education campaign managed to counteract Republican disinformation about millions of illegals voting to quash a voter id proposal. They did this by explaining the PRACTICAL hurdles in the way of implementation--the difficulty for seniors in nursing home, for military serving overseas, country people who normally vote by mail, etc. Those people don't care if the id law is ok "in principle."  And in a state of less than 6 million people, a tax bill of somewhere between 8-23 million dollars for the first year alone spent to prevent a crime which apparently had not occured in Minnesota for over two decades doesn't sound right. You'd have to sell a lot of gun licenses to get that money.  Non-socialist Americans start thinking of how those taxes could be spent on something useful or returned to the people, not whether the policy is "inherently wrong."

http://www.mn2020.org/issues-that-matter/fiscal-policy/the-fiscal-costs-of-minnesotas-voter-id-amendment
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/09/minnesota-voting-amendment-would-change-much-more-you-might-think

[Dill]

(04-06-2017, 12:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: That of course is BS, but it doesn't necessarily result in being against having to show some ID to vote. It's a problem of implementation, not a problem of the principle.

Not sure what you think is BS. If you do not have a birth certificate, are elderly, and live 30 miles in the country, you have pay legal fees to create and verify documents which for which there was previously no public record. This will require legal multiple trips to the city on the right days at the right time, and you may have to pay someone to drive you. There are not a few people like this, but thousands.

The link I gave is a very good resource for these kinds of costs, as well as costs to states for implementation and legal challenges.

Here are more links on race targeting and voter id laws. The second link includes a summary history of suppression of the black vote with polling restrictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272023853_The_Cost_of_the_Vote_Poll_Taxes_Voter_Identification_Laws_and_the_Price_of_Democracy

Check out the graph on p 21 http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf  The effect of voter id laws on turnout is measurable. Thousands are affected.

[Dill]

(04-06-2017, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope. Not above them in this forum.

I've turned a blind eye to ridiculous posts in this forum because the person that said the thing was my ally at the time. Much like the usual suspects of "can't judge on appearance" are turning a blind eye to your stereotypical photos in this thread. 

Sounds like you are more angry at these nameless "suspects" than you are at me.  I stereotyped some little girls in a joke and these hypocrites are silent.

There is an alternative hypothesis here, and that is that perhaps that you are on about nothing.

You are not above people who see what they want because you see what you want.
You are upset now, though, because you want others to see what you want--but they are not.

[hollodero]

(04-06-2017, 03:25 AM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you think is BS.

That there are such difficulties. Not what you said. That didn't come out quite clear.

(04-06-2017, 02:26 AM)Dill Wrote: Not quite that simple. You would be voting in the same district. No one would notice you voted twice at the same poll?

Ah, what, worked three million times with democratic voters. Guess black people really do all look alike. - But aside from horrendously racial comments (I'm Austrian though, I'm entitled to do that), the technical answer for me would be, depends. If you're a breathtakingly attractive blone with spectacular breasts (are you, by any chance?), it might be more difficult as if you're the average Joe. As which you could wear a wig, glasses, some disguise and in crowded districts, you'd have a good shot.
Now of course, I agree, this doesn't really happen that often in reality, that is quite safe to say. So the real answer for me would be: Whatever. It still seems odd that your best protection against voter fraud seems to be "ah, it would at least be some effort" and "the fraudster would possibly take a risk". This is not strong protection and it's a pretty odd system.
And I don't say that to deny the undocumented mother or the disenfranchised ethnic minority voter, I say it because it is odd. Trump uses that notion, and there's a reason it works.

Of course, it also strikes me as odd how anyone could not own a photo ID, I said that, but it's hard for me to understand. Never mind travelling abroad, but how do you get bank accounts, loans, hiring contracts or whatever done if you don't have photo ID? Everyone has one here, no matter how modest the income. Not primarily for voting.
But that's how we vote, there are districts, there is a list, you go there, show your ID, they cross you off the list, you go to the booth, put your vote in an envelope, step out, put the envelope in a box and leave. This is fool-proof, simple, effective and not that hard to do, we all can do it in Europe. And I have a hard time believing that a similar system is impossible to implement in the US and instead you need your brilliant system kept in place so the black vote doesn't get even more suppressed. That is - just odd.

And my proposal would be to propagate that every citizen gets at least one piece of photo ID, doesn't have to be something fancy, expensive or something you need to renew every 10 years. Just ID. If you can't afford it, there can be subsidies for that, the taxpayer already handles so much, he can handle that. But no ID, no voting, that just makes good sense from a pure theoretical standpoint - and that is kind of true, if the response to that is "that is a racist policy", that's not a fair evaluation. I sure do see your point, but I would solve that by giving people IDs, not by lowering the safeguard at the voting booth. Granted, that's just me and I don't know the specifics, so imho.

(04-06-2017, 02:26 AM)Dill Wrote: A lot of work for one vote. That is why people serious about election fraud go for registration or stuff ballot boxes--nothing an id can prevent.

I don't know how these frauds would work, but requiring photo ID would make registration fraud sure a lot harder, doesn't it? One can always forge a passport, sure. Fraud will never be impossible, e.g. in the counting process, where trust always is part of the equation.

(04-06-2017, 03:25 AM)Dill Wrote: If you do not have a birth certificate, are elderly, and live 30 miles in the country, you have pay legal fees to create and verify documents which for which there was previously no public record. This will require legal multiple trips to the city on the right days at the right time, and you may have to pay someone to drive you. There are not a few people like this, but thousands.

The link I gave is a very good resource for these kinds of costs, as well as costs to states for implementation and legal challenges.

OK, that's my point, I just don't get why it takes multiple trips to cities, fees, challenges and whatnot. I'm sure no expert in these things. Maybe it would be a good choice to set an initiative to get people's status cleared, though. There is money for the 13th aircraft carrier and walls and nukes and whatnot, there could be money for that. That there are so many people with obviously no legal proof of their existence doesn't seem to be a good thing.
But honestly, I get a bit lost in these details. I gave an opinion, I don't claim it's the appropriate one, but I don't really want to dig deeper into that. :)

[hollodero]

Regarding gun licenses. What about not needing a license to possess a gun, but to purchase ammunition. That solves some concerns.

This is, of course, the last offer to close the culture gap. If you're not all behind ammunition licenses, the US won't be considered for the next EU expansion. Trump already put you on thin ice.

Then again, ammunition licenses might open the door for an ammunition ban, sure. I don't know if ammunition is protected by the second amendment. Says something about right to bear arms, says nothing about them being loaded.

[Dill]

(04-06-2017, 04:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know how these frauds would work, but requiring photo ID would make registration fraud sure a lot harder, doesn't it? One can always forge a passport, sure. Fraud will never be impossible, e.g. in the counting process, where trust always is part of the equation.

OK, that's my point, I just don't get why it takes multiple trips to cities, fees, challenges and whatnot. I'm sure no expert in these things. Maybe it would be a good choice to set an initiative to get people's status cleared, though. There is money for the 13th aircraft carrier and walls and nukes and whatnot, there could be money for that. That there are so many people with obviously no legal proof of their existence doesn't seem to be a good thing.
But honestly, I get a bit lost in these details. I gave an opinion, I don't claim it's the appropriate one, but I don't really want to dig deeper into that. :)

Sure, it makes an almost non-existent fraud a lot harder, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars. There is a reason why that fraud is almost non existent, and it is not because it is "easy."

Let's say you have never had a birth certificate and you were born on a farm. How do you get one? You have to gather and provide haphazard records--affidavits from people who knew your family, familiy Bible, military service records, school records and the like. For the elderly problems arise. The witnesses from the past are all gone. You no longer live in the county or state where you were born. School records might not be there.  The earliest record may actually be the first time you voted 60 years ago. But that alone won't enable you to vote now. Some counties provide legal help pro bono to get all this done--hours of work--some not. And then you have to have it done in time. The laws are usually timed to come into force just before an election. People find out too late.

Worst case scenario--you were adopted. check out some of the frustrating stories here, on this site offering legal advice. http://www.justanswer.com/family-law/68vz7-dont-birth-cerifcate.html

Also, you may be unaware of how these laws vary and are applied variously.In some states, like Tennessee, a gun license will work but not a student id. In some states you have to have an id to register. After that you don't need an id at the polls. For others, you need to show an id when you vote,but it doesn't have to be a photo id; most any id works, including a drivers license or student id. The people who want strict voter id laws want a special voter id like a driver's license, passport, or military id.

And finally, you are still having difficulty grasping the primary impetus behind voter id laws. They are not to prevent voter fraud; they are designed to shave percentages of one party's vote totals.

Why would you go to all the trouble of passing laws to cut down on that party's voting, and then turn around and make it easy for all those voters to vote?

[hollodero]

(04-06-2017, 05:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Sure, it makes an almost non-existent fraud a lot harder, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars. There is a reason why that fraud is almost non existent, and it is not because it is "easy."

Let's say you have never had a birth certificate and you were born on a farm. How do you get one? You have to gather and provide haphazard records--affidavits from people who knew your family, familiy Bible, military service records, school records and the like. For the elderly problems arise. The witnesses from the past are all gone. You no longer live in the county or state where you were born. School records might not be there.  The earliest record may actually be the first time you voted 60 years ago. But that alone won't enable you to vote now. Some counties provide legal help pro bono to get all this done--hours of work--some not. And then you have to have it done in time. The laws are usually timed to come into force just before an election. People find out too late.

Worst case scenario--you were adopted. check out some of the frustrating stories here, on this site offering legal advice. http://www.justanswer.com/family-law/68vz7-dont-birth-cerifcate.html

Also, you may be unaware of how these laws vary and are applied variously.In some states, like Tennessee, a gun license will work but not a student id. In some states you have to have an id to register. After that you don't need an id at the polls. For others, you need to show an id when you vote,but it doesn't have to be a photo id; most any id works, including a drivers license or student id. The people who want strict voter id laws want a special voter id like a driver's license, passport, or military id.

OK, I don't want that. Any photo ID would do.

Again, a bit too specific for me.

(04-06-2017, 05:19 AM)Dill Wrote: And finally, you are still having difficulty grasping the primary impetus behind voter id laws. They are not to prevent voter fraud; they are designed to shave percentages of one party's vote totals.

Ah... yeah well, don't get me wrong, but that's your perception, doesn't mean it's true. And I'm sure many republicans take their stance for that very reason you described. But inherently, voter ID laws don't have to be designed to disenfranchise. We have voter ID laws everywhere in Europe, and it's not to inhibit anyone from voting. It's to avoid voter fraud. And because it's the easiest way to organise an election, but that's something else.
Voter ID laws just make some sense beyond the aspect of hindering certain party affiliates from voting. Just in principle. That's all I'm saying.

(04-06-2017, 05:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Why would you go to all the trouble of passing laws to cut down on that party's voting, and then turn around and make it easy for all those voters to vote?

I would prefer to do both things at the same time without turning around, but the reason is to establish basic trust in the process. (And to avoid fraud.) Just from the outside, I really do not trust your system, even though fraud doesn't seem to be common, how ever that could be measured with certainty (because that I also don't know, how to detect distinct fraud percentages in studies after the election). I know Trumps claim is BS, but I kind of get why some people might actually believe him. This whole process is not really firm and air-tight, and I'd prefer my elections to be. Just in principle.

But sure, if it's too complicated to imply such laws, if it would mean too much hinderance, I don't know all about your situation, so be it. I don't kneel into that one. Theoretically, voter ID laws are not a policy directed against certain minorities or against a certain party. In a perfect world.

About the US, well. If I had a say, what I really would change about your election process would be the voting on a workday thing. That really disadvantages the working folk, especially the poorer working folk. What I also would change is that there are too little booths open in so many areas. Half the country doesn't vote, yet at some places - probably not coincidentally in many cases - there are huge lines and hours of waiting. That doesn't look right.

These would be the first logical things I would do. Then I would go into gerrymandering and solve that one. And then I would give that ID thing a try. Can't we give all our citizens IDs - which would be beneficiary for many different purposes - would be my first step. If that really is impossible, ok I agree, let it be then. I don't want to evaluate.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2017, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope. I'm part of this forum and have my own biases. I am one of the folks around here. I am not above or below them. 

That might be the most honest thing you've ever written on any of these boards. Kudos.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2017, 12:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And no Chinese writing in the bottom corner indicating a catalogue or magazine. 

Couldn't ever be a magazine article about a serial killer.  Very observant.  

[BmorePat87]

(04-05-2017, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You go with judicial activism had to be employed to make "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." an individual right.

Of course there is and has been debate, but I will share mine:

It pointed to the purpose and need of an armed citizenry and stated because of this need the Federal Government will not infringe the individual's right to own a weapon necessary for defense. Just because we currently don't need a civilian militia does not mean an individual no longer has the right to own a weapon.

What if we go to war with China and while doing so Mexico invades California. SSF decides to form a Militia to repel the invaders, he goes by Matt's house and says "Grab your weapon and follow me". Matt says I don't have one as I didn't have the individual right to own one.

You state it took/takes a lot of judicial activism to make it an individual right. I say all you have to do is read the sentence.

Like Matt said, the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." was viewed for nearly 200 years as a protection of the rights of the states to have an armed militia.

Most of us here are in agreement with the very recent precedent that it protects an individual's right to own a firearm, but that doesn't erase 200 years of judicial precedents. The reality is that it was an act of "judicial activism" to overturn that precedent and ignore the historical context of the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't make the current precedent any less legitimate. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-06-2017, 07:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Couldn't ever be a magazine article about a serial killer.  Very observant.  

Probably not one with said serial killer striking a model pose.

Snark fail.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2017, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably not one with said serial killer striking a model pose.

Snark fail.

Which missed the point that a killer can look like anyone. 

I wish you would stop with the personal attacks.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2017, 03:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are more angry at these nameless "suspects" than you are at me.  I stereotyped some little girls in a joke and these hypocrites are silent.

There is an alternative hypothesis here, and that is that perhaps that you are on about nothing.

You are not above people who see what they want because you see what you want.
You are upset now, though, because you want others to see what you want--but they are not.

I have noticed that when a lib posts/says something that is shown to be offensive he or she is joking; however, if a conservative does it he or she is a hateful bigot.

I.m not upset; as that would take me witnessing something outside the norm. Your judging folks in this thread based on nothing more than appearance and the reaction (lack there of) is to be expected. Just as I could predict the reaction if someone such as Lucie or Sovereign posted similar images in an attempt to judge on appearance.

Just calling a spade a spade. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-06-2017, 11:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: Which missed the point that a killer can look like anyone. 

I wish you would stop with the personal attacks.  

Sure they can, they just usually aren't used as models.  There was the time Ed Gein was on the cover of GQ, but outlier and all.

Lastly, please point out the personal attack.