3 ms·

What I am claiming is that the current batch of voter ID schemes are part of an organized vote suppression effort by the American right wing under the pretense

by djur 13y ago

What I am claiming is that the current batch of voter ID schemes are part of an organized vote suppression effort by the American right wing under the pretense of preventing fraud. I would be willing to believe that the programs were being adopted in good faith if there was any evidence of widespread voter fraud and if the programs included aggressive efforts to ensure that every eligible voter has access to a free ID.

smsm42 13y ago
There's no evidence of widespread terror campaign in US airport and yet TSA grabs my balls each time I fly, and NSA collects my phone calls. There's no evidence of widespread harm from drugs like marijuana and yet thousands of people are jailed for mere possession of it. There's no evidence of gun bans be effective measure of crime control and yet cities like Chicago and Washington insist on it. There's no evidence RIAA and MPAA are seriously hurt by piracy and yet we have DMCA and almost had SOPA. There's no evidence copyright extensions are necessary and yet we have Mickey Mouse protection act[1]. There's no evidence of US being a criminal wasteland and yet you may very well commit three felonies every day[2]. If you really want to go into "show me the data before you make the law", you're waking up way too late. It's not a conspiracy, it's called "federal government". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Exte... [2] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870447150...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > There's no evidence of widespread terror campaign in US airport and yet TSA grabs my balls each time I fly, and NSA collects my phone calls. [...] > If you really want to go into "show me the data before you make the law", you're waking up way too late. Campaigns for voter ID laws -- and the opposition to them -- are older than the NSA warrantless surveillance programs or the TSA. Not to mention that the opponents of all three of those things have substantial overlap, so saying that people who oppose one of them have categorically "woken up to late" because the other ones exist (no matter which one you pick) doesn't make a lot of sense, since its not unlikely that the people you are criticizing as late to wake up are also already opponents of whichever the "earlier" outrage is that you are pointing to to make that claim.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  I am and have been an opponent of the TSA, NSA wiretaps, drug prohibition, the DMCA, SOPA, copyright extensions, and the criminalization of everyday life from their inception and/or for my entire adult life. I disagree fundamentally on the lack of evidence for gun bans. You don't get to argue that we're wrong about this being bad just because there are other bad things out there!
  - smsm42 13y ago
    That's not my argument. My argument was that saying "there's no evidence of X so nobody could genuinely support measures to combat X" is nonsense - there are plenty of examples of existing laws and regulations purported to combat things that either do not exist or not dangerous or way less dangerous that the laws against them. Still, people support them despite the evidence. So the argument "anybody that supports voter ID must be after voter suppression" makes no sense - there are plenty of people that support voter ID because they think voter fraud is a problem or can be a problem, not because they want to suppress voters.

by djur 13y ago

smsm42 13y ago

There's no evidence of widespread terror campaign in US airport and yet TSA grabs my balls each time I fly, and NSA collects my phone calls. There's no evidence of widespread harm from drugs like marijuana and yet thousands of people are jailed for mere possession of it. There's no evidence of gun bans be effective measure of crime control and yet cities like Chicago and Washington insist on it. There's no evidence RIAA and MPAA are seriously hurt by piracy and yet we have DMCA and almost had SOPA. There's no evidence copyright extensions are necessary and yet we have Mickey Mouse protection act[1]. There's no evidence of US being a criminal wasteland and yet you may very well commit three felonies every day[2]. If you really want to go into "show me the data before you make the law", you're waking up way too late. It's not a conspiracy, it's called "federal government". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Exte... [2] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870447150...

dragonwriter 13y ago
> There's no evidence of widespread terror campaign in US airport and yet TSA grabs my balls each time I fly, and NSA collects my phone calls. [...] > If you really want to go into "show me the data before you make the law", you're waking up way too late. Campaigns for voter ID laws -- and the opposition to them -- are older than the NSA warrantless surveillance programs or the TSA. Not to mention that the opponents of all three of those things have substantial overlap, so saying that people who oppose one of them have categorically "woken up to late" because the other ones exist (no matter which one you pick) doesn't make a lot of sense, since its not unlikely that the people you are criticizing as late to wake up are also already opponents of whichever the "earlier" outrage is that you are pointing to to make that claim.
nknighthb 13y ago
I am and have been an opponent of the TSA, NSA wiretaps, drug prohibition, the DMCA, SOPA, copyright extensions, and the criminalization of everyday life from their inception and/or for my entire adult life. I disagree fundamentally on the lack of evidence for gun bans. You don't get to argue that we're wrong about this being bad just because there are other bad things out there!
- smsm42 13y ago
  That's not my argument. My argument was that saying "there's no evidence of X so nobody could genuinely support measures to combat X" is nonsense - there are plenty of examples of existing laws and regulations purported to combat things that either do not exist or not dangerous or way less dangerous that the laws against them. Still, people support them despite the evidence. So the argument "anybody that supports voter ID must be after voter suppression" makes no sense - there are plenty of people that support voter ID because they think voter fraud is a problem or can be a problem, not because they want to suppress voters.