Rand Paul Is Fine With Voter ID, As Long As Racism Isn’t ‘Clear-Cut’
Paul said he had not read the Supreme Court’s Thursday decision that blocks Wisconsin from implementing a tough new voter ID law in next month’s election.
“In general, unless there is a clear cut indication they’re trying to discriminate or suppress votes, states can decide these things,” Paul said afterward. “The perception among many people is that the voter ID laws are to suppress the vote. I don’t think they are. I think there are people who truly want to have an accurate vote.”
As Politico points out, Paul has had his difficulties on this issue, running into trouble with Republicans when he told the New York Times that Republicans were “wrong” to “go crazy” on voter ID, but later explained that he just meant they shouldn’t “emphasize” the measures because the blacks are so sensitive about it. He also goes around telling audiences at historically black universities that they are demeaning the civil rights movement. Paul, like many Republicans, also dishonestly tries to characterize voter suppression efforts as a simple requirement for identification when they’re really a never-ending supply of voting restriction spaghetti that they throw at Democratic constituencies to see if they’ll stick. Even the narrow category of I.D. laws includes contortions that allow gun permits, but not college ID cards.
What makes this latest outburst notable is its Reese’s Cup combination of white denial and self-contradiction. Paul is explicitly arguing that unkess there is “clear-cut” racial intent, he’s fine with states implementing these measures. Apparently, none of this is “clear-cut” enough for him…READ MORE
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Tommy Christopher
Tommy Christopher is The Daily Banter's White House Correspondent and Political Analyst. He's been a political reporter and liberal commentator since 2007, and has covered the White House since the beginning of the Obama administration, first for PoliticsDaily, and then for Mediaite. Christopher is a frequent guest on a variety of television, radio, and online programs, and was the villain in the documentaries The Audacity of Democracy and Hating Breitbart. He's also That Guy Who Live-Tweeted His Own Heart Attack, and the only person to have ever received public apologies from both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
130 responses to Rand Paul Is Fine With Voter ID, As Long As Racism Isn’t ‘Clear-Cut’
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Maxx44 October 13th, 2014 at 16:10
A level playing field is an anathema to the GOP.
Maxx44 October 13th, 2014 at 16:10
A level playing field is an anathema to the GOP.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 16:16
Don’t blacks get tired and/or offended in being considered some sort of unique group that requires a unique approach to get their votes?
tiredoftea October 13th, 2014 at 16:18
They do. That’s why they are so supportive of Repub efforts to help them not to vote.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 16:30
“We’ve got to get the black vote! We’ve got to get the Latino vote!”
Well, aren’t they as concerned about personal liberties, governmental infringements, and taxes as every other ethnic group out there? If Republicans would stay on message and quit trying to tailor it to whatever group they’re addressing, the message has its own universal appeal.
tiredoftea October 13th, 2014 at 17:26
“Well, aren’t they as concerned about personal liberties, governmental infringements, and taxes as every other ethnic group out there?”, Yes, that’s why they vote Dem overwhelmingly every time!
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:34
So this is that whole “voting against their best interests” thing I keep hearing about?
majii October 13th, 2014 at 17:58
Please, R.J., just stop it. There’s a reason you have problems understanding why some Voter ID laws are discriminatory—it’s because none of them apply to you. I have no objection to showing an ID to vote, but many of these laws go far beyond just requiring an ID to vote. Some states won’t accept a student’s college ID, some will make women cast provisional ballots that may not be counted if the name on their birth certificates don’t match the name on a driver’s license, and some of the elderly have never had birth certificates because they were delivered by midwives and their births were recorded in the family Bible. Some states’ Voter ID laws will not accept a birth recorded in a family Bible as being a valid record of birth anymore. Some of the elderly who are being disenfranchised have voted for decades.
These new Voter ID laws don’t just create problems for Black Americans and other minorities but for many citizens for a variety of reasons.
Also, it’s kind of difficult to “vote against one’s best interests,” if one is deprived of the right to vote in the first place.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 20:54
I have no problem at all understanding why some of the laws may be discriminatory. I’ve discussed those laws here at length, and I still believe that voter ID is a good thing. And of course it would affect me — I had to get a new drivers license in Illinois a few years back, even though I’d had one just a few years prior. I even told them tne number they would give me (because the number’s aren’t random) so they could look me up. I still had to delay it by two weeks so I could go get a copy of my birth certificate. It was a pain. It cost me money and time. But I needed it. So I did it.
Now, I realize that I’m not constitionally guaranteed the right to drive, but the point was that the law had changed and I needed to adjust. Shit happens. The other point is that it applied equally under the law to white, black, rich and poor drivers alike.
And if a voter ID law were enacted, under the equal protection clause, it would affect me. And because I want to vote, I would go through the procedures.
I want them to ask me for ID at the polls. I insist on showing it, to have it waved away.
I want the IDs to be a photo ID, and I want them to be issued as part of the registration process, using the forms of identification already readily accepted.
What’s racist / classist about that?
tiredoftea October 13th, 2014 at 18:14
Well, tough to tell because of those pesky voter ID laws the right keeps putting in their way.
OldLefty October 13th, 2014 at 16:24
Don’t blacks get tired and/or offended in being considered som
_______
Yes, they do.
That’s why they don’t vote for Republicans.
Ohhh, tiredoftea beat me to it!
edmeyer_able October 13th, 2014 at 16:33
Disenfranchising thousands of students in NC has nothing to do with race.
http://www.newser.com/story/190509/students-voter-id-law-is-unconstitutional.html
edmeyer_able October 13th, 2014 at 16:35
Neither does the law in Texas.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/texas-voter-id-law-rejects-student-ids-accepts-gun-permits/
tiredoftea October 13th, 2014 at 16:16
“There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”
I’ll go with Judge Posner in his dissent in the WI. Voter ID decision.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 16:48
Bingo!
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 16:16
Don’t blacks get tired and/or offended in being considered some sort of unique group that requires a unique approach to get their votes?
tiredoftea October 13th, 2014 at 16:18
They do. That’s why they are so supportive of Repub efforts to help them not to vote.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 16:30
“We’ve got to get the black vote! We’ve got to get the Latino vote!”
Well, aren’t they as concerned about personal liberties, governmental infringements, and taxes as every other ethnic group out there? If Republicans would stay on message and quit trying to tailor it to whatever group they’re addressing, the message has its own universal appeal.
tiredoftea October 13th, 2014 at 17:26
“Well, aren’t they as concerned about personal liberties, governmental infringements, and taxes as every other ethnic group out there?”, Yes, that’s why they vote Dem overwhelmingly every time!
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:34
So this is that whole “voting against their best interests” thing I keep hearing about?
majii October 13th, 2014 at 17:58
Please, R.J., just stop it. There’s a reason you have problems understanding why some Voter ID laws are discriminatory—it’s because none of them apply to you. I have no objection to showing an ID to vote, but many of these laws go far beyond just requiring an ID to vote. Some states won’t accept a student’s college ID, some will make women cast provisional ballots that may not be counted if the name on their birth certificates don’t match the name on a driver’s license, and some of the elderly have never had birth certificates because they were delivered by midwives and their births were recorded in the family Bible. Some states’ Voter ID laws will not accept a birth recorded in a family Bible as being a valid record of birth anymore. Some of the elderly who are being disenfranchised have voted for decades.
These new Voter ID laws don’t just create problems for Black Americans and other minorities but for many citizens for a variety of reasons.
Also, it’s kind of difficult to “vote against one’s best interests,” if one is deprived of the right to vote in the first place.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 20:54
I have no problem at all understanding why some of the laws may be discriminatory. I’ve discussed those laws here at length, and I still believe that voter ID is a good thing. And of course it would affect me — I had to get a new drivers license in Illinois a few years back, even though I’d had one just a few years prior. I even told them tne number they would give me (because the number’s aren’t random) so they could look me up. I still had to delay it by two weeks so I could go get a copy of my birth certificate. It was a pain. It cost me money and time. But I needed it. So I did it.
Now, I realize that I’m not constitionally guaranteed the right to drive, but the point was that the law had changed and I needed to adjust. Shit happens. The other point is that it applied equally under the law to white, black, rich and poor drivers alike.
And if a voter ID law were enacted, under the equal protection clause, it would affect me. And because I want to vote, I would go through the procedures.
I want them to ask me for ID at the polls. I insist on showing it, to have it waved away.
I want the IDs to be a photo ID, and I want them to be issued as part of the registration process, using the forms of identification already readily accepted.
What’s racist / classist about that?
tiredoftea October 13th, 2014 at 18:14
Well, tough to tell because of those pesky voter ID laws the right keeps putting in their way.
OldLefty October 13th, 2014 at 16:24
Don’t blacks get tired and/or offended in being considered som
_______
Yes, they do.
That’s why they don’t vote for Republicans.
Ohhh, tiredoftea beat me to it!
edmeyer_able October 13th, 2014 at 16:33
Disenfranchising thousands of students in NC has nothing to do with race.
http://www.newser.com/story/190509/students-voter-id-law-is-unconstitutional.html
edmeyer_able October 13th, 2014 at 16:35
Neither does the law in Texas.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/texas-voter-id-law-rejects-student-ids-accepts-gun-permits/
tiredoftea October 13th, 2014 at 16:16
“There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”
I’ll go with Judge Posner in his dissent in the WI. Voter ID decision.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 16:48
Bingo!
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 16:47
“In general, unless there is a clear cut indication they’re trying to discriminate or suppress votes, states can decide these things,”..(Rand Paul)
Cough…
Why would they enact such laws if there was no intent to discriminate?
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 16:56
To ensure the integrity of the process? I mean, it’s slightly more important than buying cigarettes and liquor.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 17:23
But people aren’t trying to vote fraudulently, the way they try to buy smokes and beer. We already have a minority of eligible people voting. I also think election day should be on a Sunday, to make it easier. I bet the rates would jump if we could vote on Sunday.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:35
Probably would. Or even on Saturday. Or both days — make it open the whole weekend. Make it as easy to vote as possible — for registered voters.
Carla Akins October 13th, 2014 at 19:13
Yes, the question becomes what do you have to provide to prove citizenship to be “properly” registered. Awhile back you had a very good idea about getting voter ID cards but I just can’t recall the specifics. Was it the Social security department issuing the cards since they already had the data?
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 20:08
Sounds like me. Also to have them do the census.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 17:50
Buying liquor and smokes isn’t enshrined in the constitution…
Voting is..(sort of)..
Originally it was only white male property owners who had a right to vote..
Wasn’t until 1928 that women were granted the right to vote..
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 18:00
Exactly, those things aren’t enshrined — and yet they’re important enough that an ID is required. Isn’t voting more important than that?
You get a card when you register to vote. They validate who you are then. Why can’t that card be photo-ID, and why can’t that card be requested to be shown when going to the polls? Everyone’s trying to make it so complicated.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 18:01
In some states, you already can vote with just your voter registration.
Carla Akins October 13th, 2014 at 19:10
You can still do in MO, but you have to be on the list for that (proper) voting station or go downtown and wait forever to for your registration to be validated.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 19:17
I don’t get the idea of having to go to a specific precinct. I work across the street from city hall, but I live on the other side of town. I can’t take a few minutes and vote during the day, I have to do it in the morning or evening. With computers everywhere, there’s no reason for that. As long as you’re in the same city or county, they could make it easier for people.
Carla Akins October 13th, 2014 at 19:42
Our voting stations are located very close to our registered home addresses. You can always go to City Hall but the lines and crazy people are plentiful. MO is fairly stringent, mail or absentee ballots are only accepted if you have a valid medical excuse and voting hours are 6am-7pm election day only. Each of the individual stations has an actual paper list of voters for that station, and they’re checked off. Most of the stations are in (mostly old) churches, elementary schools and VFW halls. Not a lot of technology available – and don’t beat me up – but the bulk of the workers make my mother look young (yes, Mom’s an election worker) and I’m old. I’m going with not a lot of computer experience on these panels.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 18:49
Buying smokes and booze are not really that important..
Used to be you could buy both without an ID or be of a legal age..
Voting on the other hand used to require one to be 21 years of age, and before 1920, be a male.
Post 1920 there were taxes and poll test that required a voter to be able to read or pay the the appropriate tax required to register.
Both of the above have been found to have been Unconstitutional Blocks to the rights of voters.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 22:02
It was also many years before voters could directly elect their senators….and we used to be able to reelect the president as many times as he or she would run, until the FDR juggernaut arrived. I sure would have liked to be able to vote for Superstar Bill Clinton in 2000…
Rusty Shackleford October 14th, 2014 at 11:09
If you REALLY cared about stopping in-person voter fraud, why not just ink fingers? It’s cheaper, easier, more reliable, and completely bypasses all those tricky unconstitutional pitfalls (like poll taxes) that voter ID laws keep running into.
crash2parties October 14th, 2014 at 12:07
Changing the totals on the Access database utilized to store vote tallies is one thing. Asking a GOP election secretary to *correctly* add all those digitized fingerprints to an electronic voting machine’s tables while it’s in “test” mode, however, is way beyond their skill level.
Rusty Shackleford October 14th, 2014 at 12:10
Not even fingerprints. Just dip or brush someone’s index finger with phosphoric ink when they vote. Impossible to wash off, but will come off naturally in about 3 days as skin cells are replaced. Cheap as hell way to guarantee that a person can only vote once in-person, which is the only kind of voter fraud Republicans seem concerned with.
mea_mark October 13th, 2014 at 17:09
This is why states should not decide these things and it should be federalized with all states abiding by the same rules and laws. All it is doing is creating an area (state) that can be corrupted by any one particular group if they get enough power.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:11
If we federalize the election process (which I’m not against), can’t we also federalize the primaries process so that all the states use the same process? This whole “we need an experienced auror” caucus thing drives me nuts.
mea_mark October 13th, 2014 at 18:42
I kinda figured that would naturally be included.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:59
I don’t like the idea that voters registered to one party can vote in in primaries held for another party. It’s just not a good idea. Let Democrats vote for the Democratic Party candidate they want to represent the party and same for the GOP, Libertarians, Greens, etc.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 22:03
I’m down with that.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 17:46
But but but….
States rights~!
Just Like “states rights” to keep slaves..
Or states rights to enact Jim Crow laws..
Or states rights to have poll taxes…
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 16:47
“In general, unless there is a clear cut indication they’re trying to discriminate or suppress votes, states can decide these things,”..(Rand Paul)
Cough…
Why would they enact such laws if there was no intent to discriminate?
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 16:56
To ensure the integrity of the process? I mean, it’s slightly more important than buying cigarettes and liquor.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 17:23
But people aren’t trying to vote fraudulently, the way they try to buy smokes and beer. We already have a minority of eligible people voting. I also think election day should be on a Sunday, to make it easier. I bet the rates would jump if we could vote on Sunday.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:35
Probably would. Or even on Saturday. Or both days — make it open the whole weekend. Make it as easy to vote as possible — for registered voters.
Carla Akins October 13th, 2014 at 19:13
Yes, the question becomes what do you have to provide to prove citizenship to be “properly” registered. Awhile back you had a very good idea about getting voter ID cards but I just can’t recall the specifics. Was it the Social security department issuing the cards since they already had the data?
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 20:08
Sounds like me. Also to have them do the census.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 17:50
Buying liquor and smokes isn’t enshrined in the constitution…
Voting is..(sort of)..
Originally it was only white male property owners who had a right to vote..
Wasn’t until 1928 that women were granted the right to vote..
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 18:00
Exactly, those things aren’t enshrined — and yet they’re important enough that an ID is required. Isn’t voting more important than that?
You get a card when you register to vote. They validate who you are then. Why can’t that card be photo-ID, and why can’t that card be requested to be shown when going to the polls? Everyone’s trying to make it so complicated.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 18:01
In some states, you already can vote with just your voter registration.
Carla Akins October 13th, 2014 at 19:10
You can still do in MO, but you have to be on the list for that (proper) voting station or go downtown and wait forever to for your registration to be validated.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 19:17
I don’t get the idea of having to go to a specific precinct. I work across the street from city hall, but I live on the other side of town. I can’t take a few minutes and vote during the day, I have to do it in the morning or evening. With computers everywhere, there’s no reason for that. As long as you’re in the same city or county, they could make it easier for people.
Carla Akins October 13th, 2014 at 19:42
Our voting stations are located very close to our registered home addresses. You can always go to City Hall but the lines and crazy people are plentiful. MO is fairly stringent, mail or absentee ballots are only accepted if you have a valid medical excuse and voting hours are 6am-7pm election day only. Each of the individual stations has an actual paper list of voters for that station, and they’re checked off. Most of the stations are in (mostly old) churches, elementary schools and VFW halls. Not a lot of technology available – and don’t beat me up – but the bulk of the workers make my mother look young (yes, Mom’s an election worker) and I’m old. I’m going with not a lot of computer experience on these panels.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 18:49
Buying smokes and booze are not really that important..
Used to be you could buy both without an ID or be of a legal age..
Voting on the other hand used to require one to be 21 years of age, and before 1920, be a male.
Post 1920 there were taxes and poll test that required a voter to be able to read or pay the the appropriate tax required to register.
Both of the above have been found to have been Unconstitutional Blocks to the rights of voters.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 22:02
It was also many years before voters could directly elect their senators….and we used to be able to reelect the president as many times as he or she would run, until the FDR juggernaut arrived. I sure would have liked to be able to vote for Superstar Bill Clinton in 2000…
Rusty Shackleford October 14th, 2014 at 11:09
If you REALLY cared about stopping in-person voter fraud, why not just ink fingers? It’s cheaper, easier, more reliable, and completely bypasses all those tricky unconstitutional pitfalls (like poll taxes) that voter ID laws keep running into.
☽ Majorana Fermion ☾ October 14th, 2014 at 12:07
Changing the totals on the Access database utilized to store vote tallies is one thing. Asking a GOP election secretary to *correctly* add all those digitized fingerprints to an electronic voting machine’s tables while it’s in “test” mode, however, is way beyond their skill level.
Rusty Shackleford October 14th, 2014 at 12:10
Not even fingerprints. Just dip or brush someone’s index finger with phosphoric ink when they vote. Impossible to wash off, but will come off naturally in about 3 days as skin cells are replaced. Cheap as hell way to guarantee that a person can only vote once in-person, which is the only kind of voter fraud Republicans seem concerned with.
mea_mark October 13th, 2014 at 17:09
This is why states should not decide these things and it should be federalized with all states abiding by the same rules and laws. All it is doing is creating an area (state) that can be corrupted by any one particular group if they get enough power.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:11
If we federalize the election process (which I’m not against), can’t we also federalize the primaries process so that all the states use the same process? This whole “we need an experienced auror” caucus thing drives me nuts.
mea_mark October 13th, 2014 at 18:42
I kinda figured that would naturally be included.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:59
I don’t like the idea that voters registered to one party can vote in in primaries held for another party. It’s just not a good idea. Let Democrats vote for the Democratic Party candidate they want to represent the party and same for the GOP, Libertarians, Greens, etc.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 22:03
I’m down with that.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 17:46
But but but….
States rights~!
Just Like “states rights” to keep slaves..
Or states rights to enact Jim Crow laws..
Or states rights to have poll taxes…
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 17:35
Oh please stop referring to Rand Paul as the 2016 presidential hopeful.
And, please stop stating that Rand Paul is getting a lot of credit from media for reaching out to black voters which is absolutely not true, just look at his stand on important issues and his embarrassing voting records.
Rand Paul is nothing but a Libertarian and the Koch Brothers & Tea Party’s tool who is willing to say and do anything to become POTUS.
Thank God he has a zero chance of ever becoming the President.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:36
“Rand Paul is nothing but a Libertarian”
Reason enough to vote for him.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 17:39
Reason enough NOT to vote for him.
Rand Paul: I don’t want government, I don’t like government, why do we need the government for, and etc., but I like working for government because I LOVE getting my pay checks, BEST health care, retirement plans and other benefits, my staff salaries and benefits courtesy of taxpayers from the same the government I DISLIKE so much. Not to mention contributions from lobbyists and special interest groups.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 17:54
Hey RJ…:)
Vote for Rand Paul…(please)
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:57
Only if he wins the primary…
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 18:04
To be honest..
I voted libertarian several times..
Way back when Harry Brown was the candidate..(90’s)
I thought there was a chance a third party candidate had a chance..
But I see today’s “libertarian party” as nothing more than an a highjacked extension of the Tea-Party….
That is only my opinion and welcome to any feed back you may have.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 18:10
Kentucky law prevents Rand Paul from running for Senate and President at the same time.
I know he has been trying so hard by consulting with Kentucky legislators about changing the state law to allow candidates to run for two offices. But, I do not know if he succeeded or not.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 18:18
I’ve thought for a long time that anyone who runs for president, if he already holds a congressional seat, has to resign before he can declare for president. That will show that he is serious. The voters are not getting their money’s worth, because he can’t do the job he’s being paid for, because he is too busy campaigning. Arizona had one senator for at least a year and a half when McCain ran. And the states should require it for state offices too.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 18:52
That has been the Kentucky law.
I hope he resigns from Senate, in that case he will lose both his Senate seat and the presidency, it is a win win situation for us.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 19:02
Then he’ll do like Eric Cantor, and get a lobbyist job.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 19:14
As long as he doesn’t remain in the Congress without doing anything positive for the American people.
Just like his father Ron Paul who served in the U.S. Congress in three different periods, first from 1976-1977 after he won a special election, then from 1979-1985, and finally from 1997 to 2013 without even getting a single bill passed.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:55
In France, they can hold more than one office. I used to know a guy who was mayor of Toulouse and was in the national legislature at the same time. Not saying I think it’s a good idea, just throwing it out there…..
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:52
Heh heh, reminds me of the time when Republicans wanted to change the law so Arnold Schwartzenegger could run for president. Then they found out where he stood on various issues and all that support drifted away like wisps of smoke from a stubbed out cigarette butt….
forpeace October 14th, 2014 at 19:33
I do remember that, and Darrell Issa was leading them!! lol
They always do their best to change the law when they have no chance to win.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:50
After witnessing the internal squabbles between Libertarians locally, it seems to me one should be aware of the candidate’s stand on the issues, first.
I have come across some pretty wacky Libertarians online, while at the same time one of the people I most enjoy discussing politics with on another board is a Libertarian whom I have found agreement with on many occasions.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 17:35
Oh please stop referring to Rand Paul as the 2016 presidential hopeful.
And, please stop stating that Rand Paul is getting a lot of credit from media for reaching out to black voters which is absolutely not true, just look at his stand on important issues and his embarrassing voting records.
Rand Paul is nothing but a Libertarian and the Koch Brothers & Tea Party’s tool who is willing to say and do anything to become POTUS.
Thank God he has a zero chance of ever becoming the President.
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:36
“Rand Paul is nothing but a Libertarian”
Reason enough to vote for him.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 17:39
Reason enough NOT to vote for him.
Rand Paul: I don’t want government, I don’t like government, why do we need the government for, and etc., now gimme, gimme, gimme more taxpayers’ money. But, I like working for government because I LOVE getting my pay checks, BEST health care, retirement plans and other benefits, my staff salaries and benefits courtesy of taxpayers from the same the government I DISLIKE so much. Not to mention contributions from lobbyists and special interest groups.
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 17:54
Hey RJ…:)
Vote for Rand Paul…(please)
R.J. Carter October 13th, 2014 at 17:57
Only if he wins the primary…
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 18:04
To be honest..
I voted libertarian several times..
Way back when Harry Brown was the candidate..(90’s)
I thought there was a chance a third party candidate had a chance..
But I see today’s “libertarian party” as nothing more than an a highjacked extension of the Tea-Party….
That is only my opinion and welcome to any feed back you may have.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 18:10
Kentucky law prevents Rand Paul from running for Senate and President at the same time.
I know he has been trying so hard by consulting with Kentucky legislators about changing the state law to allow candidates to run for two offices. But, I do not know if he succeeded or not.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 18:18
I’ve thought for a long time that anyone who runs for president, if he already holds a congressional seat, has to resign before he can declare for president. That will show that he is serious. The voters are not getting their money’s worth, because he can’t do the job he’s being paid for, because he is too busy campaigning. Arizona had one senator for at least a year and a half when McCain ran. And the states should require it for state offices too.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 18:52
That has been the Kentucky law.
I hope he resigns from Senate, in that case he will lose both his Senate seat and the presidency, it is a win win situation for us.
Larry Schmitt October 13th, 2014 at 19:02
Then he’ll do like Eric Cantor, and get a lobbyist job.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 19:14
As long as he doesn’t remain in the Congress without doing anything positive for the American people.
Just like his father Ron Paul who served in the U.S. Congress in three different periods, first from 1976-1977 after he won a special election, then from 1979-1985, and finally from 1997 to 2013 without even getting a single bill passed.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:55
In France, they can hold more than one office. I used to know a guy who was mayor of Toulouse and was in the national legislature at the same time. Not saying I think it’s a good idea, just throwing it out there…..
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:52
Heh heh, reminds me of the time when Republicans wanted to change the law so Arnold Schwartzenegger could run for president. Then they found out where he stood on various issues and all that support drifted away like wisps of smoke from a stubbed out cigarette butt….
forpeace October 14th, 2014 at 19:33
I do remember that, and Darrell Issa was leading them!! lol
They always do their best to change the law when they have no chance to win.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:50
After witnessing the internal squabbles between Libertarians locally, it seems to me one should be aware of the candidate’s stand on the issues, first.
I have come across some pretty wacky Libertarians online, while at the same time one of the people I most enjoy discussing politics with on another board is a Libertarian whom I have found agreement with on many occasions.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 18:07
This is the same Rand Paul who said:
I’m not a firm believer in democracy because it “gave us Jim Crow.” And the same Rand Paul who hired the Southern Avenger, before he had to fire him to save himself from more embarrassment.
I thought Mitt Romney was so fast in flip-flopping until I saw Rand Paul!
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 18:11
The same Rand Paul also known as “Aqua Budda”…
http://www.salon.com/2010/10/18/rand_paul_debate_aqua_buddha/
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 18:49
Aqua Budda is Rand Paul’s Trademark®, and it is not going anywhere.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:46
Nice pull, forpeace!
On one hand greasy-haired Rand Paul is against discriminatory policies and on the other he favors them!
Is his middle name Janus?
forpeace October 14th, 2014 at 19:32
Thank you, burqa.
Those are his own words and his own actions that we will not forget.
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 18:07
This is the same Rand Paul who said:
I’m not a firm believer in democracy because it “gave us Jim Crow.” And the same Rand Paul who hired the Southern Avenger, before he had to fire him to save himself from more embarrassment.
I thought Mitt Romney was so fast in flip-flopping until I saw Rand Paul!
StoneyCurtisll October 13th, 2014 at 18:11
The same Rand Paul also known as “Aqua Budda”…
http://www.salon.com/2010/10/18/rand_paul_debate_aqua_buddha/
forpeace October 13th, 2014 at 18:49
Aqua Budda is Rand Paul’s Trademark®, and it is not going anywhere.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:46
Nice pull, forpeace!
On one hand greasy-haired Rand Paul is against discriminatory policies and on the other he favors them!
Is his middle name Janus?
forpeace October 14th, 2014 at 19:32
Thank you, burqa.
Those are his own words and his own actions that we will not forget.
AnthonyLook October 13th, 2014 at 20:18
There is no lie, no rock, nor flip, no denial, no conspiracy…; that Ayn Rand Paul would selfishly dismiss.
AnthonyLook October 13th, 2014 at 20:18
There is no lie, no rock, nor flip, no denial, no conspiracy…; that Ayn Rand Paul would selfishly dismiss.
Robert M. Snyder October 13th, 2014 at 21:16
According to a 2012 article in the Washington Post:
Poll workers in Ireland can ask voters for proof of identity, but voters have a choice of “five different forms of photo ID, in addition to bank books, credit cards, checkbooks and marriage certificates.”
“In Switzerland, every registered voter is sent a registration card prior to an election, and if the voter brings her registration card to the polling place, no additional identification is needed.”
“Canada permits any voter who lacks one of the allowed forms of photo identification to present two of forty-five other forms of identification or documentation that have the voter’s name and address on at least one. Acceptable documents include leases, student transcripts, and utility bills.”
Sweden’s policy is a bit more vague, requiring that a “voter who is not known to the voting clerks [produce] an identity document or in another way verify her or his identity.”
…in many other countries, it’s much easier to obtain identification than it is in the United States because ID cards are issued to all citizens automatically:
“Countries such as Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and Italy provide national identity documents to their citizens to use for many purposes, including travel, banking, and healthcare access as well as voting.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/voter-id-proponents-point-to-laws-in-other-countries/2012/07/12/gJQAVlGCfW_blog.html
tracey marie October 13th, 2014 at 21:19
We have voter cards as well, that was all that was needed to vote. You filled out a registration card, the info was verified and your name was added to the rolls and your card was mailed. We still get the card but it is useless now.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:38
Here is the qualifying statement that preceeds the parts that Mr. Snyder quoted:
“… Do other democracies require voters to carry photo IDs when they vote?
Many do, but the laws aren’t as strict as those in Texas and South Carolina. According to a Harvard Law & Policy Review study, plenty of democracies do require voters to show identification, but many make allowances for those citizens who, for whatever reason, don’t have official government IDs.”
The issue here is the same we faced 50 or more years ago with poll taxes, literacy tests and other requirements that disproportionately affected minority voters. Neither the article nor Mr. Snyder address this issue.
It saddens me that we have to keep fighting battles that were fought 50 and 60 years ago. Somehow the lessons learned and the advances society made have not been passed on to succeeding generations. Rand Paul is just one of many who was either poorly taught or who failed to learn the lessons that cost this nation dearly in blood and treasure and made us more divided than we should have been.
Robert M. Snyder October 13th, 2014 at 22:15
For me, the issue isn’t about whether Texas and South Carolina have good laws. The issue is whether ANY form of voter id would be acceptable. Some form of voter id is required in countries like Switzerland, Sweden, France, Belgium, and Canada. I have not heard anyone accuse these countries of voter suppression.
We are constantly warned about things like identity theft and credit card fraud. There are some pretty crafty people out there. Some might say that nobody would take the risk of committing voter fraud, because there is no personal gain. But people often commit illegal acts out of passion, without any expectation of personal gain. Some people might even consider it their patriotic and/or religious duty to cast multiple votes, at different polling stations, if they believed that one of the candidates was evil. Personally, I am just as worried about right wingers as left wingers.
mmaynard119 October 14th, 2014 at 10:01
Except in Texas showing a concealed weapon permit is an adequate Voter ID..
Robert M. Snyder October 13th, 2014 at 21:16
According to a 2012 article in the Washington Post:
Poll workers in Ireland can ask voters for proof of identity, but voters have a choice of “five different forms of photo ID, in addition to bank books, credit cards, checkbooks and marriage certificates.”
“In Switzerland, every registered voter is sent a registration card prior to an election, and if the voter brings her registration card to the polling place, no additional identification is needed.”
“Canada permits any voter who lacks one of the allowed forms of photo identification to present two of forty-five other forms of identification or documentation that have the voter’s name and address on at least one. Acceptable documents include leases, student transcripts, and utility bills.”
Sweden’s policy is a bit more vague, requiring that a “voter who is not known to the voting clerks [produce] an identity document or in another way verify her or his identity.”
…in many other countries, it’s much easier to obtain identification than it is in the United States because ID cards are issued to all citizens automatically:
“Countries such as Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and Italy provide national identity documents to their citizens to use for many purposes, including travel, banking, and healthcare access as well as voting.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/voter-id-proponents-point-to-laws-in-other-countries/2012/07/12/gJQAVlGCfW_blog.html
tracey marie October 13th, 2014 at 21:19
We have voter cards as well, that was all that was needed to vote. You filled out a registration card, the info was verified and your name was added to the rolls and your card was mailed. We still get the card but it is useless now.
burqa October 13th, 2014 at 21:38
Here is the qualifying statement that preceeds the parts that Mr. Snyder quoted:
“… Do other democracies require voters to carry photo IDs when they vote?
Many do, but the laws aren’t as strict as those in Texas and South Carolina. According to a Harvard Law & Policy Review study, plenty of democracies do require voters to show identification, but many make allowances for those citizens who, for whatever reason, don’t have official government IDs.”
The issue here is the same we faced 50 or more years ago with poll taxes, literacy tests and other requirements that disproportionately affected minority voters and functioned to disenfranchise them. One looks in vain through the article to find the minorities in Ireland, Canada or Switzerland, Spain, etc. that are disproportionately affected by the ID laws of those countries.
Neither the article nor Mr. Snyder address this issue.
It saddens me that we have to keep fighting battles that were fought 50 and 60 years ago. Somehow the lessons learned and the advances society made have not been passed on to succeeding generations. Rand Paul is just one of many who was either poorly taught or who failed to learn the lessons that cost this nation dearly in blood and treasure and made us more divided than we should have been.
Robert M. Snyder October 13th, 2014 at 22:15
For me, the issue isn’t about whether Texas and South Carolina have good laws. The issue is whether ANY form of voter id would be acceptable. Some form of voter id is required in countries like Switzerland, Sweden, France, Belgium, and Canada. I have not heard anyone accuse these countries of voter suppression.
We are constantly warned about things like identity theft and credit card fraud. There are some pretty crafty people out there. Some might say that nobody would take the risk of committing voter fraud, because there is no personal gain. But people often commit illegal acts out of passion, without any expectation of personal gain. Some people might even consider it their patriotic and/or religious duty to cast multiple votes, at different polling stations, if they believed that one of the candidates was evil. Personally, I am just as worried about right wingers as left wingers.
mmaynard119 October 14th, 2014 at 10:01
Except in Texas showing a concealed weapon permit is an adequate Voter ID..
Dcbos October 13th, 2014 at 22:59
So error on the side of discrimination ; this is a very ignorant anti American statement ; voting is the most important right that we have as Americans. This slacker thinks its no big deal to take it away .
Dcbos October 13th, 2014 at 22:59
So error on the side of discrimination ; this is a very ignorant anti American statement ; voting is the most important right that we have as Americans. This slacker thinks its no big deal to take it away .
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 23:19
Just 31 voter impersonation convictions from 2000 to 2014 with 1B+ votes cast proves Rand Paul knows he’s unelectable in a national election where everyone votes.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 23:19
Just 31 voter impersonation convictions from 2000 to 2014 with 1 B+ votes cast shows Rand Paul may know he’s unelectable in a national election where everyone votes.