By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Democrats are Racist?!

How’s this for irony: Democratic convention organizers are requiring journalists applying for press credentials to display their state-issued ID not once, not twice, but three times.

The stringent ID rules for journalists at the Democrat Party‘s convention seem a bit odd considering the party’s broad, alarmist stance on voter ID laws. The ID laws have drawn harsh criticism from the liberal establishment, including Vice President Joe Biden who has called the practice “voter suppression” and MSNBC hosts who’ve called the laws “racist” and “a GOP conspiracy.”

But for some reason, ID rules aren’t racist when it comes to security at the Democrat National Convention.

Here are the three times photo ID’s were required:

1. SECURITY ENTRANCE

 

2. WHEN RECEIVING PRESS CREDENTIALS

3. WHEN RECEIVING CREDENTIALS FOR THE FINAL NIGHT EVENTS

The DNC Press Credential packet itself states that two official forms of ID are necessary for admittance:

And to receive a credential in the first place, journalists must submit plenty of personal information:

By using the left’s arguments against voter ID laws, can it be said that the DNC is racially suppressing reporters?

 



Around the Network

The irony meter just went ka-blooey.



A day doesn't go by where people don't make this stupid comparisions. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats. It's like saying the GOP wants to ban concealed weapons because they didn't allow concealed weapons in the actual convention.

Fact all legit reporters have some form of photo identification.

Fact a decently sized minority of legitamite voters have no form of photo identification.

Photo id laws will cause more legitamite voters to not be able to vote than prevent illegitimate votes. Thus it makes no sense to have them because it could prevent the results the majority of people actually want.

If republicans want photo id laws, they should be given out freely, and by freely i mean, mailed for free to any person who is identified as a legal citizen. Forcing people to go to a building that is not in walking range, that is open one day a week makes the id not free.



I fucking hate reporters, i hope they all die, can't wait for Obama to turn the states into a socialist marxist communist dictator ship and start the ethic cleansing and kill all those elitist left wing tree huggers



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Ahh... so the basic shot at voter supression/voter fraud discussion by this. One case that can be argued is that the security level is such in order to prevent a wack from coming in and shooting up people, making sure they are legit.  There is less of a demonstrated issue that someone is going to go shoot up people from the voter boot.

I had thought MAYBE, when I read the subject header, it was going to be on Mitt Romney getting 0% of polling support among African-Americans in a recent poll:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/mitt-romney-black-vote_n_1820329.html

Actually THAT news item is far more connected to potential racism than security at a political party convention.  

Or, the throwing nuts at African-American cameraman, and saying "This is how we feed the animals":

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/gop-convention-tampa/246353-two-convention-attendees-removed-for-taunting-black-cameraman

 

And the whole voter supression/voter fraud thing involves preventing those who would vote Democratic, from being able to vote in the polls.  But, feel free to go this way, so you can feel at night you can sleep, because DEM Democrats are really also racists.



Around the Network

I'm not sure I understand. I sense you're attempting a joke somehow but I can't quite put my finger on it. Some kind of comparison between security measures at a convention filled with high ranking members of government, including the President, and voting at the local community center ...?

This is some kind of complex meta-joke isn't it? You can't see it, but I'm narrowing my eyes in suspicion right now.



huh what is the problem? everyone has a photo id, nothign wrong with tripple checking considring someone might have found another way in.



 

 

pokoko said:
I'm not sure I understand. I sense you're attempting a joke somehow but I can't quite put my finger on it. Some kind of comparison between security measures at a convention filled with high ranking members of government, including the President, and voting at the local community center ...?

This is some kind of complex meta-joke isn't it? You can't see it, but I'm narrowing my eyes in suspicion right now.

It is actually an attempt to score debate points by calling hypocrisy without context. I hold such behavior shows a person who is weak in their own values, as I claim here:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=147194



Do I really have to point out the difference between a political convention and something that's a specific right for every American?

Dems are against ID measures because requiring every voter to present ID means that you are, in essence, requiring everyone to pay money to vote. Not everybody can afford a State ID card and they shouldn't be denied their constitutional right because of it. If you want to require IDs to 'suppress voter fraud' (snicker), you need to make said IDs free of charge.



Intel i7-8086k @ 5.1 GHz | Asus Maximus X Hero | 32GB Ballistix Sport LT 2400Mhz RAM | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti

Voter ID laws simply make sense and all legitimate fears can be eliminated by simply giving away free ID for people who don't have any ID ...

Realistically though, I don't think either side is taking a principled position and they're mostly focused on how these laws will impact elections. Looking at Florida voter registration since their voter ID law has taken effect it is easy to see why:

While a large portion of the "boost" in 2008 and the "fall" in 2012 can be attributed to people embracing Obama in 2008 and becoming disillusioned in 2012, I think a very significant portion of the difference is caused by people not having the ID to vote. While there is no "smoking gun" there is evidence to suggest that some of these registered voters without ID may not have had the right to vote in the first place:

In a state that is close enough that 500 voters either way can decide an election, a small portion of people voting without the legal right to can easily change the outcome of an election