<p>The topic of this thread has abruptly gone far afield. Can we redirect it to the topic at hand, please?</p>
<p>So the teen who saw the supposed fight did not say it was Zimmerman on the ground. The police pressured him to say it was Zimmerman who was wearing a red jacket, but the teen says he honestly could not see who was on the ground.</p>
<p>The police department there has a lot of problems with accusations of taking bribes, etc. </p>
<p>It was a very inept investigation and only when public pressure was put on was any sort of real investigation started.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although this disproportionately affected African-Americans, this was also an issue with anyone who was poor or lived in extremely isolated rural regions far from any local hospitals. </p>
<p>Moreover, before the mid-late 20th century…not everyone was born in hospitals or were such sticklers for filing bureaucratic paperwork as we have been in the late 20th century or more importantly…since 9/11.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The same arguments have been used throughout our history to justify limiting the franchise to property owners who passed a high minimal property/wealth threshold, inconsistently enforced poll taxes/literacy tests*, etc. </p>
<p>Do we really want to go back to those days…</p>
<p>I.e. White voters were given extremely elementary material meant for elementary school kids while African-Americans trying to vote had to read and explain a passage from a law book meant for those who studied and passed the local bar exam to the satisfaction of poll watchers who were eager to find anything to disqualify the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently we don’t all have to pay them. You and I are not required to go out and get documents which we don’t otherwise need and which cost us time and money, in order that we might vote. But according to you, it’s perfectly all right to require poor people, young people and elderly people to go through the trouble and expense of pushing through the bureaucracy to get documents they don’t otherwise need, just so they can vote. </p>
<p>According to you, it’s all right to put burdens on some people to vote, burdens that we don’t put on other people. I can just pick up my purse and walk down to the polling place, but some other people have to go to considerable trouble. Why, it’s almost as if some people think that it’s a good idea to prevent poor people and young people from voting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes, if you want to vote…or are you in favor of the corruption? I guess if it benefits a certain political party those of that party are happy to play dumb.</p>
<p>
…yet you support the forcing of people to buy health care? Surely if you are in favor of our government being able to force individuals to buy something they don’t want…a simple photo document to prove you are who you say you are to vote shouldn’t be such a big deal…</p>
<p>Just checking back in. How did this thread get so off-topic? I suspect it’ll be closed soon as it’s getting too political.</p>
<p>Is there anything that indicates that the SYG law was NOT debated in the Florida press before it was voted into law?</p>
<p>
What an utter crock of nonsense. Total, utter nonsense. those same people can’t fly, can’t take an Amtrak train, can’t rent a car, without photo identification. THe vast majority of people will need photo id for many aspects of modern life. It’s far, far, far better to ensure that those in need can get that ID so they can fully participate in our national life than it is to continue to hold them apart, segregated from that full participation. I get so tired of people crying racism when it is their choices and preferences that actually cause hardship to poor people and single out people of color. Choosing to accept a status quo that discriminates is the embodiment of racism.</p>
<p>
And it’s definite that the sanctity of the polling place is not important to you. In the last round of voter fraud cases, it’s been poor, minorities who’ve had their votes stolen. But that’s ok, because they might have gotten ideas in their heads to not vote the way some folks think is best for them. Can’t have them getting above themselves and acting free, now can we?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll grant you planes or car rentals…though the latter is mainly to ensure you have a valid driver’s license and whether you’re over/under 25. </p>
<p>However, I’ve taken two round trips on Amtrak without having to show any form of Photo ID…and both times were well after 9/11. Not only that…helped a Professor from Australia get an Amtrak ticket a few years later and she was never asked for photo ID. All she needed to do was pay the ticket clerk and she was golden. Also…on all three occasions…cash was the medium of payment.</p>
<p>
Well you know what? In modern day America, many people – regardless of race – would like the ease of using the kiosk, at which one needs ID. I am confident that many people would very much like to come and have lunch with me at my office, but they can’t do so without photo ID. Same story in many buildings in NYC. Why would you deny anyone the pleasure of my company?</p>
<p>Why are you so opposed to having poor people fully join modern American society, cobrat? What is YOUR agenda? Because we all know that in a society which grants cell phones to people who are poor, it would be a breeze to provide a photo ID – and in some case benefits come with an ID card, so why does the thought of bringing the disenfranchised into the fold bother some of you so much?</p>
<p>anyone that could possibly oppose photo IDs must have an agenda. There are only positives for the photo id holder</p>
<p>I am cranky on the issue because the stomach virus demon has invaded my house. On Thursday, instead of wallowing in misery, I had to drag myself from my death bed to retrieve my kid, who had become violently ill, from school. When I got there, clutching my barf bag, guess what I had to do in order to take custody of the child I had birthed in 40 hours of agony? Right. Show photo ID. Twice. One can not remove a child from a NYC public school (or enter the building) without providing photo ID. We have lots of poor people and people of color in NYC public schools. Should they be prevented from parenting their kids in times of illness or emergency because they don’t have photo ID? Of course not. Because most do have it in some form.</p>
<p>As for “young people” in this area, every high school provides its students with a free photo ID card in order to enter the building, sit for tests, borrow library books. In the case of those young people, those ID cards are considered government-issued ID for all sorts of purposes.</p>
<p>Please keep in mind that there’s photo id and photo id. To enter the building where I work, I need a photo id, and guess what? My employer issues it to me. Very convenient. And in getting my child out of school, we have to show photo id, and I once used my employment id to do so, and once I used a credit card with a picture on it.</p>
<p>NONE of these forms of ID is accepted by the States that require photo id for voting.</p>
<p>For just a moment, think of yourself as an 80-year old woman in an apartment in Cleveland living on social security. You use the bus all the time, and you’ve never had a car. Now, after voting for the past 50 years at the school down the street, you’re told you have to get a car or pay for a taxi to take you 30 miles away to the DMV to spend a day in line, trying to get a voter id card to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Can you not, even for a moment, understand why this is a burden?</p>
<p>
Really? Back in 1972 Amtrak wouldn’t take my passport as ID! :eek: (Really dumb clerk.)</p>
<p>I actually think that a national photo ID isn’t a bad idea, but it should be easy to get and inexpensive. Which the local DMV office definitely isn’t. Years ago a friend of mine needed a passport, I went with her to the post office and swore that as far as I knew she was an American citizen named ___ ____. I suspect it’s not as easy any more.</p>
<p>
Nope. Can’t and won’t understand the willingness to exclude that woman from full participation in our national life. DMV isn’t the only place to get government issued ID. In many places, benefits come with a photo ID and if they don’t, they should. If another poor woman decided to sign up for the social security benefits she has earned, she has to accept electronic payment and get a bank account. Guess what she needs to open a bank account? Right. I’m sorry if it is a burden for anyone, but no one is promised that they will never bear a burden. It is simply unacceptable to so completely exclude people for such a silly reason. And I don’t really believe the objection is about that poor woman because she would gain so much benefit from having a photo ID that it would be worth the trip.</p>
<p>What happened to the thread? Could those interested in photo ids or whatever the branch is, fork a new thread?</p>
<p>Again, you’re looking at all photo id as equal. I can open a bank account with photo id that is not acceptable for voting. I can apply for social security without photo id of any kind, just as my social security card has no photo on it. In my state, I can have a birth certificate, a passport, and a marriage license, but I would still need additional documents in order to get a driver’s license. I think you really minimize the difficulty.</p>
<p>But poetsheart (edited to add you too, BCEagle91 !) is correct that this thread is going too far afield.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I can understand why a conscienceless conniving weasel would be in favor of preventing people who didn’t vote like him from voting. I can’t understand why you would approve of it. And I can’t help wondering whether you’d feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot. </p>
<p>If voting lines in your polling place were three hours long, but voting lines were non-existent in polling places with people who don’t vote the way you do, and then I said brightly, “sorry, no one is promised they won’t bear a burden, I don’t care that you have to wait three hours in line to vote, gosh, I guess that will depress voting among people who vote your way, but that’s all right, we’re going to continue to make it difficult for you to vote,” I suspect you wouldn’t find that acceptable.</p>
<p>Nobody in this thread is stupid. When a certain party deliberately enacts laws to make it difficult for people in the other party to vote, and difficult for new voters to register, we’re not fooled. We’re not dummies. Don’t insult our intelligence.</p>
<p>I live in one of the most stringent states regarding picture ID and voting. I agree with the concept. Implementation was smooth, efforts were made to assist those who needed to obtain IDs, and there hasn’t been massive public outcry since. I’m in a rural state too. There’s at least one BMV in every county, and picture IDs are issued there in addition to driver’s licenses. Seems as if many people might even live closer to the BMV than they do to their polling place.</p>
<p>I’d much rather have a few (a very few) have a tiny bit of a burden (once) to get an ID rather than have more voter fraud. I find it very difficult to believe there are very many people who function in our society without a picture ID. Social Security and many other types of income are direct deposited. Banks won’t cash checks/make deposits without ID. How many people do you actually know who have NO photo ID?</p>
<p>The valid exemption of which I am aware is Amish are not required to have a photo ID. It’s a moot point since they don’t vote.</p>
<p>I do believe there’s some agenda behind those who want to make sure everyone can vote with no checking. To those who think this thread could get shut down due to these comments–really, you didn’t think the first 1,000 posts were not political enough to shut down a thread?</p>