Apparently, the members of the Cult Of Climastrology are too stupid to obtain proper identification
If You Care About Climate Change, You Need to Care About Voter ID Laws
In late 2014, the Supreme Court gave the nod to Texas’ tough voter ID law, despite cries that it would unconstitutionally disenfranchise thousands of American voters who would otherwise be perfectly eligible to register and cast ballots. Voters in the state would be required to present Texan or federal identification to cast their ballots—and poll workers could be quite choosy about what they’d accept. That presented a problem for Lindsay Gonzales, a voter who only had an out of state driver’s license, and consequently would be cut out of the vote, like many Texans.
Voter ID laws are a pressing political issue, but as Brentin Mock at Grist notes, there’s another problem with them: They’re terrible for the climate. The very same population that’s most invested in action on climate change is the population that is getting the short end of the stick on such laws, leaving them unable to cast votes to make their opinions heard. Republican pushes to pass and protect voter ID laws are, along the way, limiting action on climate change, and in some cases that’s a deliberate decision. By pushing for the election of Republican lawmakers who aren’t interested in climate change action, lobbyists and supporters can avoid potential policy changes like increased fines for polluters and pressure to adopt more environmentally-friendly business practices.
If Warmists are too moronic to be able to obtain an ID, perhaps they’re too dopey to listen to on Hotcoldwetdry.
Low-income people are at a particular disadvantage with voter identification laws because they may lack the funds needed to procure the necessary documentation..
Of course, all the States that require voter ID have included measures to make sure that these people can obtain them for little to no cost.
Many are also racial minorities, as people of color are more likely to be poor.
That’s a rather racist attitude, wouldn’t you say?
Some immigrants, moreover, may have difficulty tracking down documents like birth certificates and translating them so they can be used to apply for American identification documents, even if they are in the United States legally and have taken citizenship in the U.S.
If they’ve gone through the citizenship process or are here legally, then they would have needed identification in the first place. Of course, what this is really pushing is getting illegals to vote, linking another issue into the mix.
In theory, fair elections could create a radical push for climate change action as politicians would be forced to respond to voter questions and to make good on campaign promises. Voter ID laws, however, are making it difficult to put that theory into action. Thanks to such laws, minority voters can’t hit the polls, and the status quo is upheld—no wonder the faces promoting voter ID tend to be conservative and white.
Gotta love that Warmists, typically part of the Far Left, have such a low opinion of minority (meaning Black) people.
Anyhow, what could be more fair than making sure that the person voting is eligible to vote and is the actual voter? This is just more confirmation that “climate change” is not about science, but about far left Progressive politics.
Many are also racial minorities, as people of color are more likely to be poor.
You find facts to be racist? Do you know what racist means?
The goal of Republicans is not fair elections, but Republican victories. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are their only hope, facing the electoral demographics.
The link between global warming and voter suppression should be obvious. It’s the reason the Republicans practice voter suppression. They want to make policy to support their donors.
Still those voices, I see. The only thing being suppressed is people who are ineligible to vote, which is a good thing. But like I said yesterday, the climate clowns will try and associate everything and anything with the small addition of a trace gas.
Jeff,
Gerrymandering was started by the Democrat-Republican party in Massachusetts to take seats away from the Federalist Party. The Dem-Rep is now the Democrat Party and they have continued to gerrymander in modern times. Since it was started by a Dems in the 1812 elections the GOP is only learning from the masters of fraud.
Also the Dems are masters of voter intimidation. Dems kidnapped, raped and murdered blacks in many parts of the country, mainly in the South to prevent blacks from voting. The GOP has been paying the price as the courts enforce the Voting rights Act for problems caused by the Dems.
Since the mainstream media is in the bag for the Dems I would expect to hear about cases of voter fraud committed by the GOP but I have only report fraud committed by the Dems.
CB,
Thanks for the lesson in ancient history. But currently, the state level Repubicums are gerrymandering and suppressing the vote.
Jeff,
Current events show Democrats also continue to gerrymander to keep their incumbents in office so pointing at the GOP is just another misdirection by liberal scum who wish to remain in power.
As stated in my previous post it was the Democrats who intimidate voters, not the GOP. It was New Black Panthers loitering at the poles trying to intimidate white voters in 2008.
I know these facts are hard for you to comprehend Jeff but you should try, you might become a better person if you do.
Of course, Jeff can’t ever give any evidence of his alleged gerrymandering or “voter suppression” but that’s never stopped him in the past, as we’ve all seen. In J’s head, Democrats have somehow never gerrymandered themselves, just Republicans. Sure. Another fact never mentioned is that gerrymandering, if done at all, on the federal level would effect only House races, not the Senate or President. So,please enlighten us on how Voter ID suppresses votes.
Of course, Democrats gerrymander. But only if they are in power. I assumed that everyone understood gerrymandering and that it was limited to House races.
Any barrier to voting reduces the number of voters. We spend too much on polling places, and to save money should limit them to cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. It’s not too much a burden for inhabitants of small towns in Arkansas to make their way to Little Rock, is it? All Mississippians can make their way to Jackson on a Tuesday. No Texan would have to drive more than 200 miles to vote.
Anyhow, what could be more fair than making sure that the person voting is eligible to vote and is the actual voter?
Any answers to a simple question?
dp,
Agreed. What’s wrong with the current system?
How many in-person fraudulent votes get cast?
Photos IDs can be manipulated and don’t go far enough. How about a national registry. Every American is fingerprinted, with all their personal information stored in a single federal file. At the polling place, they place their finger in a “reader” that confirms their identity as an American citizen with the right to vote.
dp,
But don’t you agree that having large centralized voting meccas in each state makes it easier to control who votes? We could have voting centers in each large city, preferably in the poorest part of the city to stimulate the economies there, and have tight ID controls – Super secure photo or fingerprint IDs.
That way we could guarantee that only duly registered voters voted.
What’s wrong with my plan?
I like the data base idea although it to can be corrupted
By a power elite like the libs
Personally I like what happened in lraq with the ink and thumbs also to restrict the vote to just a day or two
Now I’m confused. The global warming folks have been telling us for 15-plus years now that only ignorant backwoods hicks don’t believe in global warming, because they don’t have the intelligence to understand the evidence. Oh, and shills for the energy company’s will deny it in public even though they know it’s true. But the number of people who are energy company insiders is tiny. They’d do little to change the vote by themselves. Their power lies in convincing ignorant people that global warming is a hoax, hence back to group A.
So if voter ID laws make it harder for the poor and uneducated to vote, wouldn’t this HELP the cause of global warming? If only the best-educated, upper class people could vote, global warming measures would pass easily.
It almost sounds like they think that ignorant, gullible, and stupid people are more likely to believe in global warming.
“Any barrier to voting reduces the number if votes.” And voter ID is not a barrier. “Of course Democrats gerrymander, but only if they are in power.” Meaning ..what? First, gerrymander bad. Now, maybe not so bad according to certain conditions. “I assumed that everyone understood gerrymandering and that it was limited to House races.” Really? Than why say “the goal Of Republicans is not fair elections…voter suppression and gerrymandering are their only hope.” Gee, Jeffery, I don’t know why I understood your over-dramatic, paint with a broad brush unfounded statement to mean all elections. I guess I just missed your code words.
“
Meaning that when Dems have control of a state legislature they gerrymander districts. It’s bad, regardless.
Again, I’m sorry I confused you. Do you know what gerrymandering is?
Nice try, J. If one wanted to convey the message, in response to mine, that Democrats also gerrymander, one would say……. and I know this is hard: “yes, Democrats gerrymander, too.” Yes, I know what gerrymandering is. Do you know how to put across a simple thought?
My apologies-after looking at it I see what you meant. I took it the wrong way.
“How many in-person fraudulent votes are cast?”
An excellent question. I don’t think anyone knows the answer.
I saw an article not long ago claiming that Republicans were blowing the issue out of proportion and that the number of fraudulent votes was tiny. Their proof: very few people are convicted of this crime.
But the nature of the crime is that if you don’t get caught, no one knows that a crime was even committed. It’s like: If the police find a dead body with gunshot wounds to the back of the head, they know a murder has been committed, even if they don’t know who did it. But how many people have been murdered in ways that make it look like they died of an accident or natural causes? How could you collect statistics on that?
All the talk about how voter ID laws would disenfranchise voters is just plain silly. It is not that hard to get a driver’s license. It’s even easier to get a state ID. If we were talking about a process that requires months of work, thousands of dollars, and tests that require a PhD to pass, I could understand an objection. But nobody is suggesting anything of the kind. It’s more like, you have to go to the motor vehicle bureau and show them a birth certificate or immigration papers, and they hand you the id card. Maybe they charge you $5. If this process is too difficult for someone, maybe he’s not qualified to be deciding the future of the country.