(Advertisement)

Republicans Dedicated To ‘Voter Fraud’

Posted: September 3, 2013 at 5 a.m.

Reading Greg Harton’s column “Voters May Tune Out GOP” (Aug. 19), I tried to find some logical explanation for why Republicans have turned their backs on issues that are important to large blocks of voters. According to Harton, the Republican National Committee is overreacting to programs about Hillary Clinton, which NBC and CNN are developing, by declaring that Republican presidential hopefuls will boycott debates on those two networks if the programs are aired. This, Harton wrote, “demonstrates a GOP “trying to manipulate” coverage of the 2016 elections. They remind me of spoiled children taking our ball home because we won’t play by their rules.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 09/03/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

LETTERS

Benton County votes Once again the Benton County Election Commission is considering a computer software package to create various electronic ballots in-house. This appears ... Read »

Next Story »

Wilson Park Pool Renovations Planned

Chairs are stacked next to the pool house at the Wilson Park pool Thursday afternoon as crews prepare to renovate the pool house and concession building in late September. The buildings haven’t had any major work done for 30 years.

The second phase of a face-lift for Wilson Park Pool is about to get under way. Read »

"voter fraud" is Republican dog whistle for vote suppression:

North Carolina's new vote suppression laws

"The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that “early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.” - :
--Phylis Schlafly

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content...

In Arkansas the new voter ID law, passed by Republicans and vetoed by the Governor, then overridden, has ZERO funds allocated to inform voters about the new law and voting requirements.
There is no provision for popular education or announcements on the matter of what we be required to vote in upcoming elections. What ID's are acceptable, who is exempt, absentee voting requirements, there's no information coming from the Ark Sec of State, Mark Martin (R). It's well orchestrated by Republicans.
.

Posted by: cdawg

September 3, 2013 at 12:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm afraid the Republicans have successfully made the issue seem all about showing ID.
Most people don't realize that there are many other limitations such as the ones cdawg describes--reducing early voting, faililng to inform voters about new requirements.
Also in some cases not only does the ID have to be a photo ID but a particular kind of photo ID, that one has to go to a particular place to get.
This limits people without a car, whether they are too poor to own one or perhaps too elderly to drive.

Posted by: Coralie

September 3, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If voters are uninformed enough to not know how, when, and where, to vote; I have to assume that their voting choices will and/or would have been equally ignorant. Is this really a bad thing? Also, if you support extensive & universal background checks in order for someone to exercise one right, why would you oppose a simple showing of ID to vote?

Posted by: Libertas

September 3, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And don't forget these jewels.
Mike Turzai, 23 June 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1b...
Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Rob Gleason, 17 July 2012:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...
Apostate Colin Powell knows what's going on:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/3186...

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 3, 2013 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "If voters are uninformed enough to not know how, when, and where, to vote"
Because precinct lines and polling locations never change, and reducing the times when it is possible to vote has to do only with ignorance, and not accessibility?

RE "I have to assume that their voting choices will and/or would have been equally ignorant"
The Constitution in all its elegance does not include knowledge or awareness as a requirement for exercising one's right to vote. The surprising success of Teabaggery is proof enough of that.

RE "Is this really a bad thing?"
Maybe we should bring back the poll tax and the voting test while we're at it.

RE "Also, if you support extensive & universal background checks in order for someone to exercise one right, why would you oppose a simple showing of ID to vote?"
Also, if you support extensive & universal background checks in order for someone to exercise the right to vote-- a more basic right than gun ownership, and one that has been put into prominence by several amendments-- why would you oppose a simple background check in order to exercise a right that was hastily and ineffectively articulated to ensure ratification?

The fact that a voter is on a roster means that he has already been vetted; a photo ID does not change that. Most voter fraud occurs in absentee voting (no photo ID) and by actions of election officials and candidates.

Why aren't Republicans addressing the real issues of voter and election fraud? Because it offers them no advantage in elections.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 3, 2013 at 6:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Most voter fraud occurs in absentee voting (no photo ID) and by actions of election officials and candidates.<

That's not true in Arkansas. If you choose absentee voting they request some ID prior to granting absentee voting status.

However, it should be noted Ark Republican vote suppressors left absentee voting alone and for good reason. Republican voters use more absentee ballots than any other group or party.

Posted by: cdawg

September 4, 2013 at 10:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg,

Since I have been absentee voting as an Arkansas resident for 13 years, I am interested in where you got your information about how absentee voters vote.

Is it conjecture or are you pulling it from somewhere?

Alpha,

RE-

"Most voter fraud occurs in absentee voting (no photo ID) and by actions of election officials and candidates."

If there isn't any fraud regarding the ID issue, then there won't be any problem producing an ID to vote.

There is nothing wrong with requiring an ID to vote.

Shanah Tovah.

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 5, 2013 at 12:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "That's not true in Arkansas. If you choose absentee voting they request some ID prior to granting absentee voting status."
But is it required at the time of voting? All voters provide identification when registering to vote, and presumably, when they amend their voter registration. My point is, absentee votes-- where fraud is an actual problem-- are submitted without ID. It is foolish to require ID for voting in person when there is very little in-person voting fraud, when the real voter fraud problem is not even acknowledged.

RE "If there isn't any fraud regarding the ID issue, then there won't be any problem producing an ID to vote."
There is virtually no voter fraud that would be addressed by voter ID laws, and your statement is inane. Fraud (if it even existed) is an entirely different issue from the imposition of requiring an ID (and the truncation of voting times and locations, which you ignored). And why should Republicans demand a solution to a nonexistent problem when there are actual problems that they ignore, such as absentee voting fraud, election, campaign and candidate fraud, and jobs?

Study of voter fraud: http://votingrights.news21.com/articl...

RE "There is nothing wrong with requiring an ID to vote."
Is there also nothing wrong with universal background checks for firearms purchasers?

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 5, 2013 at 2:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The flimsy excuses the dems give to denounce voter ID. The only reason for being against it is that they don't want the most honest election we can have. Hence, goes to show you which party is the most dishonest.
.

Posted by: mycentworth

September 5, 2013 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank - "Rosh Hashanah is viewed as a day of judgment at the beginning of a 10-day period terminating with Yom Kippur."

You probably know that and, also, many believe this is the time when Christ (our Messiah) will return, when He does. Keep looking up.

Posted by: mycentworth

September 5, 2013 at 10:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is the beginning of the New Year, I wasn't disputing that, just to clarify.

Posted by: mycentworth

September 5, 2013 at 11:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "The flimsy excuses the dems give to denounce voter ID."
False witness. What is flimsy about the fact that in-person voter fraud virtually doesn't exist? Read the study.

RE "The only reason for being against it is that they don't want the most honest election we can have."
False witness. How does making the vote less accessible make elections more honest? Remember that Republicans are also cutting down early voting times and voting locations.

RE "Hence, goes to show you which party is the most dishonest."
False witness. If the Republican Party were more honest, they would go after absentee voting fraud, election, campaign and candidate fraud. That's where the real problems are.

You're making Baby Jesus cry again.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 5, 2013 at 12:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, can you list some Democrats that are against having fair elections and do not want people identified at the polls so fraud can be committed?

The talk I hear is not that they are against voters having ID, if they are it is because they see no need to have it, it is not going to stop something that doesn't exist.

Most of the talk is how voter ID is implemented. If it take an unusual amount of time and/or money to get the required ID, and that keeps some voters from voting, how is that creating law to make sure elections are fair? That amounts to creating a poll tax, and those were ruled to be unconstitutional many years ago.

You want fair elections, stop letting people that cannot vote for a candidate donate to a candidate. That means outside influences and corporations.

If corporations are people, why do corporation get to spend unlimited amounts of money on a campaign, and individuals have very small limits?

You don't want fair. The Republicans don't want fair.

They just want to win.

As for the gerrymandering issue, everyone realizes that only the congressional districts in a state can be gerrymandered, at least for the federal offices. Is it any surprise then that a majority of all the voters selected a Democratic President, and that in the Senate, majorities in the states have elected more Democrats, but in the House, where the districts can be gerrymanders, a Republican majority exists.

Posted by: ecsmith2

September 5, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>cdawg,

Since I have been absentee voting as an Arkansas resident for 13 years, I am interested in where you got your information about how absentee voters vote.

Is it conjecture or are you pulling it from somewhere?<

I don't do "conjecture." I do opinion but it's clear when I do.

Mine comes from the experience I had two years ago when I became insufferably allergic to chemical fragrances and needed to vote via absentee. I called and asked what was required. The WashCo clerk told me if I was already registered to vote I would need to send a copy of an ID along with my application. I did that and the rest was smooth sailing. Ballots arrive in a timely fashion including the necessary mailing envelopes.

Slightly more than two years ago I was told at a Springdale polling place that I "had to" show a photo ID. At first I presented my WashCo voter registration card and the loud woman said that wasn't sufficient. She went on to remark that they were "required" to ask for a photo ID. I later discovered she was wrong. But I showed them a drivers license and voted.

When first voting in Chickenopolis my polling place served the old section of town around Emma Ave, the hospital and Thompson St. The polling folks were elderly, proper and very courteous. About 3 years ago we bought a bigger house for the big, fenced yard.(the missus does dog rescue, one at a time). But the poll workers at Parsons Stadium are rough, loud people. They don't know the law very well either.

I'm of the opinion the poll workers were rather upset by the noticeable community of 'messicuns' voting there and wanted to get tough on them but had to spread it around in order to be fair n' balanced.

Posted by: cdawg

September 6, 2013 at 1:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Interesting article a year ago in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (you can Google it) showed that voter turnout among minorities has increased significantly since Georgia enacted a voter-ID law several years ago. This indicates, to me at least, that legitimate voters who want to participate in the voting process will find voter-ID to be no barrier.

Posted by: RDodger

September 6, 2013 at 6:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RD: "voter turnout among minorities has increased significantly since... several years ago. This indicates, to me...">>

Voter turnout goes up and down quite independently of a single variable like republican attempts to restrict voters with unnecessary ID laws. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that having Obama on the ticket increased interest, and turnout, in certain groups.

Of all of the logical fallacies humans love to appeal to, perhaps the most popular of all is this appeal to unwarranted causation or, false cause. The fancy name is:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is:

"Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy. "Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event." It is often shortened to simply post hoc."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc...

We know categorically these voter ID laws will restrict certain voters, and in particular minorities who are most likely to not vote for your conservatives. We know this in part because your republicans have openly admitted as much.

D.
----------------
"I don’t think there is a mature democracy that has as bad of an elections system as we do,” said Richard Hasen, a professor of political science and election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. “We have thousands of electoral jurisdictions, we have non-professionals running our elections, we have partisans running our elections, we have lack of uniformity.”
Excerpt from Alphacat's excellent article mentioned above:

"Comprehensive Database of U.S. Voter Fraud Uncovers No Evidence That Photo ID Is Needed"
http://votingrights.news21.com/articl...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 6, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Asking for an ID doesn't restrict anyone because we all have the same access to an ID. Period. Saying otherwise is pandering, race-baiting nonsense.

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 7, 2013 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker: you imply that I made a false cause-effect conclusion. However, neither I nor the Atlanta newspaper suggested that increased voter turnout among minorities was the result of the voter ID law, or that the law did not stop anyone from voting. My only conclusion, as I stated, was that the law in Georgia is apparently not a barrier to legitimate voters. It may well stop some folks, such as those in the now infamous cases of the guy in Kansas City who couldn't be bothered to unpack his boxes to find his passport and the elderly lady on the east coast who didn't want to have to correct her name on the voter rolls. I wouldn't call a voter who is too lazy to find or secure a photo ID or take care of a bit of paperwork in order to exercise a right to vote "legitimate."

As to the News21 study you referenced, authored by graduate journalism students, I had to chuckle at their finding that many "fraud" cases are actually just folks "accidentally" voting twice! Equally disturbing from that report is the fact that voter fraud is rarely prosecuted because there has to be proof that it was done intentionally. Fraudulent voters generally do not admit to intentional fraud.

I'll throw out a theory which no doubt will elicit blistering responses: People who have no photo ID nor the documents to obtain one, when so many everyday transactions require one, are not fully a part of the society in which they live and are therefore low-information voters who can be counted on to support the left. That is the reason for the loud opposition to voter-ID laws .

Posted by: RDodger

September 7, 2013 at 11:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says "we all have the same access to an ID."
But we do not all have the same access to an official ID card if, in some cases, a law has made it difficult to obtain one.
The SB 14 law passed in Texas for instance.
"The Justice Department says Texas Republicans set up the law to be discriminatory.
"There is no driver license office in scores of Texas counties, and driver license offices in dozens of additional counties are open only one or two days a week," the complaint states. "SB 14 requires some voters to travel approximately 200 miles roundtrip in order to obtain an EIC. Because Texas driver license offices do not conduct business during the weekend or after 6 p.m., some voters are required to take hours of time out of a workday to obtain an EIC.
"Once at a Texas driver license office, a voter must present one or more of the following documents to obtain an EIC: (1) an expired Texas driver's license or personal ID card; (2) an original or certified copy of a birth certificate; (3) U.S. citizenship or naturalization papers; or (4) a court order indicating a change of name or gender. ...
"Each of the documents needed to procure an EIC costs money to obtain. A copy of a certified birth certificate from the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics - the least expensive option for those born in Texas - is $22. It costs $345 to obtain a copy of a U.S. citizenship or naturalization papers."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08...

Posted by: Coralie

September 7, 2013 at noon ( | suggest removal )

However, voter ID is just one part of voter suppression.
"At least 16 states introduced bills to end highly popular Election Day and same-day voter registration, limit voter registration mobilization efforts, and reduce other registration opportunities.[3] Florida, Illinois and Texas passed laws restricting voter registration drives, and Florida and Wisconsin passed laws making it more difficult for people who move to stay registered and vote."
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis...

Posted by: Coralie

September 7, 2013 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RDodger speaks of "legitimate voters" by which he intends to judge who is or is not qualified to vote.
How about white adult male property-owners?
*
I hadn't previously heard of his two "now infamous cases" which at best are anecdotes proving nothing.
*
"low-information voters who can be counted on to support the left" which is code for poor and minority.
From my point of view, RDodger is a low-information voter who is informed by FOX News, RW websites, and talk radio.
But I wouldn't take away his vote.

Posted by: Coralie

September 7, 2013 at 12:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "Asking for an ID doesn't restrict anyone because we all have the same access to an ID.">>

Again you reveal you aren't familiar with the topic you are going on about. Tell Ms. Frank she has the "same access to an ID" as anyone else:

"Ruthelle Frank, a resident of Brokaw, Wisconsin since her birth in 1927, has none of the accepted forms of photo ID under Wisconsin’s photo ID law which goes into effect at the February primary election. In order to get a state ID card, she needs to prove citizenship, but since she was born at home, she has never had a birth certificate. The state Register of Deeds, however, does have a record of her birth and can produce a birth certificate at a $20 cost. There’s one problem though — her maiden name (Wedepohl) is misspelled in the record. That record can only be amended by legal proceeding, and the combined fees will run Ruthelle potentially upwards of $200. The state will not waive any of these fees, and under the new law, if she cannot obtain a state ID card, Ruthelle will be sent away from the polls....

In Wisconsin, it takes at least 3 types of proof to get a state ID card that can be used to vote. For most people, the combination of required documents is a certified copy of a birth certificate, a Social Security Card, and some proof of residency like a utility bill or government mail. But it takes ID to get ID. And, in some cases, it takes (A) ID and/or money to (B) get the ID required to (C) get the ID you actually need to vote. This obstacle course is leaving eligible voters discouraged and disenfranchised.

...Ruthelle, a sitting member of her village board, has voted in every election since 1948, the year in which Truman signed the Marshall Plan and NYC subway fares jumped from 5 to 10 cents. She is a longstanding participant in this democracy. And sadly, her story is in no way unique — every day, eligible voters are finding out that, under current law, they will not be able to vote in 2012 or will face numerous and significant hurdles on the road to making their voice heard." http://tinyurl.com/kec4fpu

This has nothing to do with voter fraud and it's a little embarrassing that anyone could think others could be stupid enough to believe that it is.
Voter fraud is a canard. It's virtually non-existent to several decimal places of insignificance and completely irrelevant to vote outcomes. All of this republican blather about it is entirely, 100%, due to the coming changes in voter demographics which will absolutely kick rightwing conservative ass in the coming years. The people that go on about voter fraud are either profoundly ignorant of these facts, or they are just straight up dishonest. In some cases, and probably in your case, it's some kind of toxic combination of both.
This desperate attempt of republicans, to change the game rules and blatantly restrict voting all across the nation (I can bury you in examples) in order to slow their demise, is just disgusting.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 7, 2013 at 12:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RD: "you imply that I made a false cause-effect conclusion.">>

No implying about it, that's exactly what you said. Do you need me to walk you through your comment? Let's do that.

p1 "voter turnout among minorities has increased significantly since Georgia enacted a voter-ID law"

Conclusion: "This indicates, to me... voters will find voter-ID to be no barrier."

Since there are unquestionably voters who will find it to be a barrier (see Ruthelle Frank example above), your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You assume causation through a single correlation. Pitiful.

RD: "[I didn't] suggested that increased voter turnout among minorities was the result of the voter ID law,">>

No, you suggested it went up anyway, *therefore* no one should worry about these voter ID laws being a barrier. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

RD: "the law in Georgia is apparently not a barrier to legitimate voters.">>

That conclusion doesn't follow from your anecdotal example. Grasp this: Voting participation goes up and down independently of the single category of restrictive voter ID laws. There are other variables. You can't draw a direct causal line of effect from one to the other, in each instance. See Post hoc fallacy.

RD: "News21 study you referenced, authored by graduate journalism students,">>

They did a rather extensive study. What you have done besides watch the Fox Box?

RD: "many "fraud" cases are actually just folks "accidentally" voting twice!">>

When you have about 100 million people engaging in an event, you are going to have all sorts of accidents and mistakes. Voter fraud is a farce. Republicans don't give a flip about it because it doesn't matter. All that matters is their need to restrict voting by a few percentage points in certain demographics. This is because they can't win elections on the merit of the atrocious, idiotic beliefs anymore, so they have to cheat.

https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...

D.
-------------
Colin Powel thinks it's going to backfire. I hope he's right:
"These kind of procedures that are being put in place to slow the process down and make it likely that fewer Hispanics and African Americans might vote, I think, are going to backfire, because these people are going to come out and do what they have to do in order to vote, and I encourage that," he said." --Colin Powell

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 7, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Voter fraud is a completely canard, 99.9% fake outrage, and that's being charitable. This fellow gives a nice overview:

***
THERE IS INDIVIDUAL NO VOTER FRAUD.

In spite of allegation of voter fraud by Republicans, it has been repeatedly proven that there is no voter fraud.

1. BUSH LOOKS FOR FRAUD. Between 2002 and 2005 the Bush administration made it a high priority to find voter fraud cases. This is what they found: Individual Voter Fraud:
26 Cases - 12 convictions, 14 acquitals/dismissals Less than four cases per year.

2. JOHN ASHCROFT COULDN'T FIND VOTER FRAUD. Bush's Attorney General dedicate his entire time in office to finding voter fraud. After several years of intensive efforts, Ashcroft found 95 cases over a three year period and only 40 were convicted. Out of millions of votes cast, that's only 14 per year. One of his attorney generals said "you more likely to get hit by lightening than to find voter fraud."

3. REPUBLICAN LAWYER COULDN'T FIND FRAUD. The Republican National Lawyers Association attempted to prove that there was wide-spread voter fraud. They combed through the records and found:
Over a 15 year period, 310 allegations of voter fraud. Many of the cases were later dismissed. That's about 20 cases per year.

4. SOUTH CAROLINA COULDN'T FIND ANY FRAUD. In October of 2011, the South Carolina election commission announced that they had no record of voter fraud in any recent election.

5. THE CARNEGIE CORPORATION COULDN'T FIND VOTER FRAUD. The Carnegie Corporation spent 12 years analyzing voter fraud. Result:
They asked all 50 State Attorney General and 1,000 counties for all record of voter fraud between 2000 and 2012. They received 2,068 reports of alleged election-fraud. Of these 2,068 case only 10 were the type of voter fraud that ID card could prevent. The rest of the cases were committed by Campaign Officials, and Election Officials, which are not detected by voter ID.

6. MOST ALLEGED VOTER IS FRAUD IS CLERICAL ERRORS.
The Brennan center examined 30,656 cases of voter fraud including Double Voting, Deceased Voters, Fraudulent Addresses, Felony Voting, Noncitizen Voting, Registration Fraud and Vote Buying. 99.9% of all these cases of supposed voter fraud turn out to be clerical errors by the election commissions.

The real goal:

7. VOTER ID SUPPRESS MINORITY VOTE BY 10%
According to Rutgers University, just requiring a NON-PHOTO ID reduced African American turn out by 1.050-million voters.
Bottom line: Voter ID Laws Are 97,402 times more Effective at Suppressing Democratic Voters than they are at fixing voter fraud.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 7, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Asking for an ID doesn't restrict anyone because we all have the same access to an ID. Period."
I see that Tank chimed in again with his assertion, but again he didn't answer my question:
Is there also nothing wrong with universal background checks for firearms purchasers?

RE "Saying otherwise is pandering, race-baiting nonsense."
Saying that universal background checks is "taking away our guns" or "infringing our rights" is distracting, fearmongering nonsense.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 7, 2013 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

You keep posting stuff all day long. It doesn't change anything. Do you think requiring people of every color and creed to have driver's licenses to drive is meant to keep the black man down as well? ......Or, is all the opposition from the Left just meant to get his vote? Hmmmm???

If folks are having issues getting a government issued ID, then that is what we need to fix and early voting needs to be protected and employers need to be forced to give people time to vote. I have a hard time believing that working folks don't have id cards.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/76378...

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 7, 2013 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE-

"All that matters is their need to restrict voting by a few percentage points in certain demographics. This is because they can't win elections on the merit of the atrocious, idiotic beliefs anymore, so they have to cheat."

"idiotic beliefs"... You keep acting like a third grader, and remember when you venture too far from downtown weirdoville, you are privileged to reside in a place with a sound majority of people that have beliefs that are polar opposites to yours. That doesn't make everyone else "idiots" and your accusatory tone speaks to either your mood or your character.

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 7, 2013 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says "If folks are having issues getting a government issued ID, then that is what we need to fix and early voting needs to be protected and employers need to be forced to give people time to vote."
However none of that is what the new voting restriction laws are designed to do.
And extremely unlikely that Republican-dominated legislatures will push a fix.
Would, shoulda.

Posted by: Coralie

September 7, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Calling beliefs "idiotic" is not exactly the same thing as callilng people idiots.
*
"you are privileged to reside in a place with a sound majority of people that have beliefs that are polar opposites to yours."
True if you are talking about the state of Arkansas but not so true of the city of Fayetteville or the nation of the USA as demonstrated by the last two elections.
Also I would say "very different from" rather than "polar opposites."

Posted by: Coralie

September 7, 2013 at 3:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "You keep posting stuff all day long. It doesn't change anything.">>

Not with you, because you have a learning disorder. That was apparent years ago. But I don't rebut your posts for your benefit, I do it for others and upon the principle that nonsense and lies posted in public should be corrected.

Tank: "I have a hard time believing that working folks don't have id cards.">>

Again we we see that what you "have a hard time believing" is actually something that is true. For some reason, you consistently have a hard time believing things that are actually true, if they disagree with ideology that you would like to believe in for comforting reasons. This must present quite a bit of problem in your life. Reality doesn't give a flip about what you find comforting to believe. In some cases this kind of delusion can be life threatening.

I said: "[republicans] can't win elections on the merit of the atrocious, idiotic beliefs anymore, so they have to cheat.">>

Tnk: "idiotic beliefs"... You keep acting like a third grader,">>

If you weren't aware of the idiotic beliefs of the republican party, I can quite easily bring you up to speed with a exhaustive compilation of examples. One might start with this article I have posted on this forum at least a dozen times which was written by GW Bush's adviser and speech writer:

"When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?"
http://nymag.com/news/politics/conser...
"Some of my Republican friends ask if I’ve gone crazy. I say: Look in the mirror."

When you're done with that, I have more. A mountain in fact.

D.
--------------------
An overview: "The 7 Types Of Republican Idiots"
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 7, 2013 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dang. Tank neglected to answer my question again.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 7, 2013 at 3:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For third grade behavior...... see above. [you're dumb and I'm smart. neener neener neener (adult translation: I disagree with you)]

learning disorder? ok, Slick.

FFT,

If you talk to folks like that in person in NW Arkansas, I think you probably would have a real dilemma on your hands.

And not for the first time, I'm am not a Republican.

Alpha,

Even though the background check thing is a different issue (and it is), I am not opposed to background checks that meet certain criteria. I've had to show my ID every time I've bought a firearm or slingshot. I am pleased to answer your question. I'm still looking to that lunch at Neal's... pink shirts and all.

Coralie,

It is a pleasure to converse with nice folks like you and Alpha, even though we disagree. I will venture to say that your rather extended experience of living in this world has benefited your ability to talk to folks.

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 7, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "[you're dumb and I'm smart.">>

I've never said that, or anything like that. Do try to respond to actual comments made rather than comments you make up and then inaccurately attribute to the other person. It's not useful and it's not honest.

Tnk: "I'm am not a Republican.">>

Excellent. Then it makes sense that you won't be so hyper defensive when I simply point out that a considerable portion of the republican party that you are not a member of, fall in the category of idiotic. That's simply an uncomfortable truth.

"-In Tennessee only 33% of GOP primary voters think Barack Obama was born in the United States, while 45% do not.
-In Georgia 40% of Republican primary voters think Obama was born in the United States, while 38% do not.
-In Ohio 42% of Republican primary voters think Obama was born in the United States, while 37% do not.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/ma...

"[The] polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) revealed that 29 percent of likely GOP voters surveyed in Mississippi believe that interracial marriage should be illegal."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03...

Etc.

D.
--------------------
"7 Jaw-Droppingly Dumb Things Republicans Think About Science
"Masturbating fetuses is just the start. From trees causing global warming to fetuses in your Pepsi, here are some of the battiest things Republicans have said about science"
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-poli...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 7, 2013 at 5:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

I could dig up the same kind of trash lists for people in the party I am a member of. Your links don't mean anything more than a bucket or warm spit. It is simple partisan name calling crap. You don't care about anything more than trashing people that disagree with you. Good evening. Half time is almost over and I have some more Hog ball to get back to.

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 7, 2013 at 7:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "I could dig up the...">>

Talk is cheap. I'm not interested in what you claim you "could do" but only what you show you actually can do. And there seems to be a very big difference between the two.

Tnk: "It is simple partisan name calling...">>

No, actually it isn't. It's me backing up my claim with evidence that a large portion of the current republican party is represented by people that are profoundly ignorant. And this is so obviously true that I can make that point all day long by appealing only to comments by republicans.

Tnk: "Half time is almost over...">>

That's nice. I haven't the slightest interest in sports. Perhaps you should stay with your area of expertise.

D.
-------------
"She doesn't know anything."
--John McCain's chief campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, referring to Sarah Palin.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/0...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 7, 2013 at 9:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Enjoy your night of name calling , FFT.

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 7, 2013 at 9:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Talk is cheap. I'm not interested in what you claim you "could do" but only what you show you actually can do. And there seems to be a very big difference between the two."

Most of us won't bother to respond to your evidence. Once you get past the first level of it you realize that most of your evidence is liberal meme's and biased data sources.
We get great entertainment from you looking like a fool.
Please feel free to respond with your genetic fallacies call outs.
I consider those who use terms like wing nut and ankle biter beneath me and not worthy of comment.

Posted by: P5harri

September 7, 2013 at 9:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

All the voter ID laws nationwide came from models created by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ditto with all the "gun rights" bills, charter schools bills and welfare drug testing bills. Every one was designed to benefit ALEC's corporate clients in one way or another.

It's called "inverted totalitarianism," the gradual take-over of state and federal government by corporate and multi-national entities pulling the strings of power anonymously through incremental legislation, all while using the images and iconography of American nationalism to do so. It's insidious and it threatens our very democracy.

The head of ALEC once stated publicly that the less people vote, the better. The more that people feel powerless and disenfranchised, the better for him and his corporate clients.

The Arkansas legislature even postponed its business between August 6th and August 8th so that its Republican legislators and their families could fly to Chicago to be lavishly wined, dined and entertained at a swank hotel-- expense-free-- at the invitation of ALEC. So of course they felt compelled to legislate the ALEC agenda, including a tweeked version of the voter ID law.

This is what happens when your values reflect power and wealth instead of truth and justice.

Posted by: BradBailey

September 8, 2013 at 2:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, Brad, for the concept of "inverted totalitarianism" which was new to me. I see there's quite a bit online.
Well, we knew that transnationals had an inordinate amount of power. They are now using it in a more deliberate, organized way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted...

Posted by: Coralie

September 8, 2013 at 1:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "Most of us won't bother to respond to your evidence.">>

Of course you won't. And there's a very good reason why. You can't.

D.
---------------
P5: "your evidence is liberal meme's and biased data sources">>

Why yes, here comes one of those now, GW Bush's adviser and speech writer:

"Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a... Conservative Entertainment. Because the followers, the donors and the activists are so mistaken about the nature of the problems the country faces the nature--I mean, it's just a simple question. I went to Tea Party rallies and I would ask this question: "have taxes gone up or down in the past four years?" They could not answer that question correctly. Now it's true that taxes will go up if the President is re-elected. That's why we're Republicans. But you have to know that taxes have not gone up in the past. And "do we spend a trillion dollars on welfare?" Is that true or false? It is false. But it is almost universally believed."
http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/11...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 8, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who in the hell would believe anything mediamatters has to say or did have to say?

OK, freeby would.

But surely anybody sane wouldn't

Posted by: Moneymyst

September 8, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Troll: "anything mediamatters has to say...">>

I provided the transcript of Frum's comment from another site. That he made this comment is not in question since, if you were a little brighter, you might have noticed that media matters is careful to back up their claim with iron clad evidence by providing the actual video clip of him making that comment on TV.

Simply click on the link, if you can muster the courage.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/11...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 8, 2013 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE-

"Again we we see that what you "have a hard time believing" is actually something that is true. "

Again "we we" see that you are good at pushing a make believe issue to support your thoughts and wants.

FFT,

There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. There is something wrong with calling others liars for standing up for what they believe in.

There is room for improvement on voting laws; requiring an ID is one.

http://rightpunditry.files.wordpress....

Posted by: Tankersley101

September 8, 2013 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

IQ is another and there should be a conflict of interest if you are sucking at the tit and are able to vote for more milk out of an empty saggy tit which ran out of milk a long time ago.

Suck to sow dry.

Posted by: Moneymyst

September 8, 2013 at 8:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "There is something wrong with calling others liars for standing up for what they believe in.">>

When did I call someone a liar?

A simple word search of this page shows the word "liar" only occurs once, and that is in your comment, and the word "lie" doesn't occur at all. I have no idea why you find it necessary to constantly make things up.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 8, 2013 at 9:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. There is something wrong with calling others liars for standing up for what they believe in.

There is room for improvement on voting laws; requiring an ID is one." - Tankersley101

Yes, there is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. There is also nothing wrong with being able to explain your reasoning for why you have your beliefs you are standing up for.

There is something slightly wrong with having beliefs that one can't explain the reasoning for why one has those beliefs.

What, exactly, are the details from any state that has passed new laws requiring more restrictive ID to be required to vote?

Where is the problem that these laws are solving?

Posted by: ecsmith2

September 9, 2013 at 12:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money says "there should be a conflict of interest if you are sucking at the tit."
I guess that means that you want to disenfranchise all the millionaires and corporations who can afford to pay lobbyists and good tax lawyers to bend the laws their way.

Posted by: Coralie

September 9, 2013 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Don't disenfranchise anyone who pays taxes.

Posted by: Moneymyst

September 9, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am with you Moneymyst.

Only let the people that pay taxes vote. And we should give them one vote for every dollar they actually pay.

Matter of fact, make the taxes voluntary, and if you think it is so screwed up that not voting won't hurt, then let people not pay taxes. We keep thinking that the government is actually being run for he benefit of the rich, let those that benefit pay for it as well.

It supports no taxation without representation!

Posted by: ecsmith2

September 9, 2013 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The point of having the lobbyists and the high-powered lawyers is to get out of paying taxes!
Here' are 26 major corporations who paid no corporate income taxes for last 4 years:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012...

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-acc...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/1...
(Reuters is an international wire service, so don't pretend it's a liberal source.)

Posted by: Coralie

September 9, 2013 at 6:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "there should be a conflict of interest if you are sucking at the tit"
Define "sucking at the tit".

RE "Don't disenfranchise anyone who pays taxes."
Define "anyone who pays taxes".

RE "There is room for improvement on voting laws; requiring an ID is one."
Requiring voter ID is a change. Change is not automatically improvement. In order for a voter ID requirement to be an improvement, it would have to reduce or eliminate an existing problem, and increase the accuracy of voting by a statistically significant amount. Voter ID requirements do neither of these things.

If these fine law-giving Republicans were interested in improving elections, they would ram through laws that actually addressed the problems with elections. Requiring voter ID does not address a problem. But these fine law-giving Republicans are not interested in improving the quality of elections; they are interested in skewing the results by disenfranchising and discouraging voters.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 9, 2013 at 6:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

A full 25% of the highest-paid companies in the U.S. pay no income taxes whatsoever.

Posted by: BradBailey

September 10, 2013 at 12:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )