It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Court blocks Texas Voter ID law: Calling it a "Poll Tax"

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

this is gonna be something of a sloppy reply, as i'm tired, and i honestly don't give enough of a s**t to build a wall of text..

that guy you mentioned?...Spakovsky?.....yeah, screw that guy. Bush administration, and heritage foundation...he's not even worth the time it would take to research him. the heritage foundation helped bring us the ACA..screw that organization, and everyone associated with it..

i don't think they were looking as hard as you say....otherwise, they would have found the things Bev Harris found....




posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

and, had you bothered to read the whole post, you would have noticed that you're not paying for a voting license...you're paying for a state-issued ID, that is used for more than just voting...it's not a one trick pony. so, no, it's not a poll tax...



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   

You also have to do it early in the day because the later the day goes, the more likely the person you're impersonating will actually go in to vote.


not if the person you're impersonating has been dead for years....



The real fraud all happens by manipulating the machines. The memory cards on the voting machines that get sent to the various precincts are the vulnerable point.


this, i agree with.

electronic voting machines are just a bad idea, at this point in time...it's far too easy to manipulate counts, and rig an election.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Truth is what your going to end up having are some folks getting their ID checked at the station and others are not. And yes this is as insane as it looks and sounds.

As far as republicans, I am not a party member of any sort. Having said that, when "republicans" complain about xyz number of unregistered voters in the future, turning elections, they will be called racist ect and just mad they lost ect ect.

No you don't have to demonstrate cause here. If you are trying to tell anyone that voter fraud will be about what it is now under this ruling you must be subversive or very ignorant.

Also, this ruling is FRAUD! Its Racist!



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus


This ruling is the product of a person that graduated at the top of their class. Hilarious isn't it. A real cool aid drinker there.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: macman

No on-topic commentary with facts to back you up?

No comment from me; you like reading what you write, keep going.

I have better things to do.



What facts? That this ruling encourages a fraud on the democratic process? That it encourages any sort of non-citizen to vote, which is fraud. This judge is a fraud.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Aazadan

and, had you bothered to read the whole post, you would have noticed that you're not paying for a voting license...you're paying for a state-issued ID, that is used for more than just voting...it's not a one trick pony. so, no, it's not a poll tax...


And right there is where it is not a poll tax. If the requirement is to procure a specific ID, which has a cost associated to it, and it is used solely as a "voting ID", then it is a poll tax.

Since the requirement is that, of a photo Govt based ID, where there are numerous Govt based photo IDs, some free and some fee based, it is not a poll tax.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


The fact that you continue to insist that my argument is just a 'what I say so' shows that you are incapable of original logical or rational thought.

The argument I made doesn't rely on what I say at all. If you want to counter a logical argument you have to do one of two things.

You have to either show how the logic behind the argument is not VALID, or you have to show how one or more of the premises are not true.

Here, let me help you...

One of the premises I suggested in my argument is that the current voting system doesn't require verification that the person registered to vote actually cast the vote.

You can attempt to show that that ISN'T the case to kill my argument.

You could also try to show that the conclusion that the only type of voter fraud that can be detected under the current voting system is multiple cast votes of the same person or invalid voter registration, is not a valid conclusion given the premise.

Your attempt at stating that my argument is only, my say so, is NOT a valid argument against my argument though because I made a postulation that is easily verified and a logical argument with a valid conclusion based on the premises postulated.

Until you use one of the two methods of invalidating the logical argument I put forth, you fail sir...

Jaden

edit on 14-10-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

i'm having a hard time determining whether your excessive use of sarcasm is perceived, or real...please clarify.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Might want to review your Philosophy 101 notes again as the entire basis of your "logic" is flawed. I'm pretty sure that your teacher (or instructor if you're old enough for college) probably told you that when an argument seems airtight (as yours seems to you) that one of your assumptions is more than likely either hopelessly vague or overgeneralized or just obviously wrong.

You see, there's no need to formally deconstruct or counter your syllogism, because your fundamental assertion is, on its very face, both ludicrous and hopelessly semantic.

Just in this thread alone, multiple citations have provided mounds of evidence that has very clearly demonstrated to anyone who isn't simply vapid or resolutely disputative, that indeed, the veracity of votes can and has been determined multiple times in every state of the Union for over a decade.

SInce that's where your whole "argument" turns so to speak, you're stating there's no way to verify votes is blatantly, obviously, and, I hate to point it out to you, quite elementarily untrue.
edit on 14Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:06:09 -050014p0220141066 by Gryphon66 because: Basics



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Aazadan

and, had you bothered to read the whole post, you would have noticed that you're not paying for a voting license...you're paying for a state-issued ID, that is used for more than just voting...it's not a one trick pony. so, no, it's not a poll tax...


And right there is where it is not a poll tax. If the requirement is to procure a specific ID, which has a cost associated to it, and it is used solely as a "voting ID", then it is a poll tax.


That is idiotic logic! As long as the required purchase has another use it is not a poll tax????

Why not just restrict it to home owners?

In the early history of the United States, in order to vote you needed to be a White Male that owned at least 50 Acres with taxable income.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Aazadan

and, had you bothered to read the whole post, you would have noticed that you're not paying for a voting license...you're paying for a state-issued ID, that is used for more than just voting...it's not a one trick pony. so, no, it's not a poll tax...


And right there is where it is not a poll tax. If the requirement is to procure a specific ID, which has a cost associated to it, and it is used solely as a "voting ID", then it is a poll tax.


That is idiotic logic! As long as the required purchase has another use it is not a poll tax????

Why not just restrict it to home owners?

In the early history of the United States, in order to vote you needed to be a White Male that owned at least 50 Acres with taxable income.





Yes, and thanks for bringing the race card back into the mix.

The requirement for a Govt Photo ID is not a poll tax. A poll tax, is very much defined as "You want to vote, you pay money to do so".

Requiring this does not have that.
The photo ID is not just for voting. The ID is used for other items.
A Driver's License was not designed for voting, but for driving. It can be used for voting. Not a poll tax.

A regular ID was not designed for voting. It was for identification for every day life. But can be used for voting. Also not a poll tax.

I guess that the need to travel to vote could, by your logic, constitute a poll tax. Because I have to drive there, and pay for gas. Or take a bus, and pay a fee and so on.

This is not very difficult to get.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
How can somewhat reasonable people miss this.

New Voter ID required to vote.

New Voter ID costs money or requires documentation that costs money.

Money required to vote = Poll Tax.

Voila.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

/thread



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
That is idiotic logic!


this statement, right here, tells me that you have absolutely NO grasp of what logic actually is..




As long as the required purchase has another use it is not a poll tax????


Yes...this is just fact.

it's no more a poll tax, than mcdonalds requiring a shirt and shoes, is a "fast food tax".

it's no more a poll tax, than needing an I.D. to open a bank account is a "bank tax"

the fact that you think that an identification card that has many uses outside of voting, is a "poll tax" is absolutely laughable, and shows that your thought process is deeply defective.




Why not just restrict it to home owners?


because not only would it be tragically stupid, but...wait for it...completely illegal, as it would disenfranchise anyone living in an apartment, co-op, boarding house, condo, or any other property that is leased or rented.....




In the early history of the United States, in order to vote you needed to be a White Male that owned at least 50 Acres with taxable income.


in case you haven't noticed, it's 2014....that kind of thing is no longer considered acceptable.....pesky civil rights, equality, and all that...you know, all that stuff that people of character, moral fiber, strength of convictions, fortitude, and intelligence fought for...

i'm gonna hafta go with mac on this one.....thanks for bringing the race card back into the mix....your dimwitted argument just doesn't have the same fake weight, or zip to it, without it...



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How can somewhat reasonable people miss this.
New Voter ID required to vote.

New Voter ID costs money or requires documentation that costs money.

Money required to vote = Poll Tax.

Voila.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

/thread



Oh good hell.

There is no "New" Voter ID required.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How can somewhat reasonable people miss this.

New Voter ID required to vote.

New Voter ID costs money or requires documentation that costs money.

Money required to vote = Poll Tax.

Voila.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

/thread



Except that the Texas voter i.d. has no cost.

Thus,

No *Money* required to vote = No Poll Tax.

Voila



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
talkingpointsmemo.com... another article talking about the appeal process going on


In June 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, freeing Texas and 13 other states (all with a history of voter discrimination) which previously needed federal pre-approval to change their voting laws as they please. The high court ruled the formula irrational because it dated back to the 1970s, but it left intact Section 5, which set up the "preclearance" rule in principle. Section 3 of the law allows the DOJ to "bail in" jurisdictions under preclearance if it manages to prove that the jurisdiction acted with the intent — not merely the effect — of discriminating against minorities. That's very difficult to prove in court, but for now the Obama administration has gotten a boost at the trial court level. Judge Ramos's opinion said his court would "set a status conference to address the procedures to be followed for considering" the DOJ's request to bail in Texas under preclearance. Section 3 gives judges discretion, Hasen said, in how long preclearance would last (a maximum of 10 years) and whether it applies to all voting changes or only certain ones, for instance redistricting and voter ID. "If the court indeed follows up with a bail-in order, Texas could become the first state brought back under a preclearance regime since Shelby County," wrote Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Texas is appealing the decision — including the question of "bail in" under preclearance — at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which leans conservative and might reach a different conclusion. The case may land up in the Supreme Court, which also tilts conservative on the issue of voting rights.


so seems the appeal process is going to a more conservative judge and then potentially up to the supreme court to either hear the case or not which will effect the ruling

www.cbsnews.com... this one talks about the potental impacts of the law if it stands or is repealed

electionlawblog.org... link to the actual ruling by the judge (Ramos) its 147 pages but i had not seen it posted here yet



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Except that the Texas voter i.d. has no cost.

Thus,

No *Money* required to vote = No Poll Tax.

Voila




Perhaps you should read the court ruling before declaring that it 'has no cost'
Opinion of the Court

From page 23 of the opinion:

Thus, unless the voter already has an official copy of his or her birth certificate,
the minimum fee to obtain an SB 14-qualified ID to vote will be $2.00 and, according to
the individual Plaintiffs’ testimony, will likely be much more because of prevalent
problems with the accurate registration of births of minorities.


The court opinion shows that the cost for a valid Texas ID to vote is anywhere from $2 to $680. And any cost to vote in the United States that exceeds $0 is a violation of the 24th amendment.

So unless you're willing to just give away ID's to anyone, which would invalidate the point of voter ID, then you'll never have a case.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

But But


Election Identification Certificate (EIC)

and why this....


Exemptions

If you are voting by mail, you do not have to submit a photo ID.

If you have a documented disability, you may apply at your county voter registrar for a permanent exemption from the photo ID requirement. If approved, you will not need a photo ID to vote.






If you do not have any of the following acceptable forms of ID, beginning June 26, 2013, you may apply for an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) at no charge.






posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you really think you can win an argument by stating,.....wait for it..... NOTHING:?????

That's what you just did.

You said.... your argument is ludicrous, without addressing a single part of the actual argument, as people on the left so wantonly do...

Come on... I know you can do better.

You can at least use an ad hominem and attack my character or something, rather than not saying anything other than..."you're ahhhh dumb"...

Come on at least try to put some effort into your nonsensical position...

Jaden



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join