Which of these three are you lacking? You seem to be doing all three just in your posting here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter joffer
- Start date
Which of these three are you lacking? You seem to be doing all three just in your posting here.
Nugget
Footballguy
I'm good. They updated the website in 2017 with the Real ID requirements - it was a bit rougher in 2014 when I ran into this issue.
Nugget
Footballguy
Paywall - new-drivers-license-requirements-causing-headaches
But for people like Underwood, who was born in Minnesota, got married in Iowa and lived in other states before settling in Kansas in the 1970s, even that may not be enough.
That’s because, in addition to all of those requirements, anyone who has ever changed their name — because of marriage, adoption or any other reason — also must show legal documents explaining the name change.
“Then they told me I needed my marriage license, because my Social Security name didn’t match,” she said. “So I got all that and went back (Wednesday) and was told that my birth certificate wasn’t the correct one, even though I’ve had it all my life. So I have to contact Minnesota and get a different one.”
The new licenses require an official, state-issued birth certificate, not a hospital certificate, which is not an official document.
“And then my marriage license too, which I’ve always used for identification, wasn’t the one they wanted either,” she said, “so I have to contact the state of Iowa and get that done.”
In addition, Underwood said, she has to obtain a new Social Security card because the one she has now shows only her middle initial, not her full middle name.
Rachel Whitten, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Revenue, said she has heard a number of similar stories since the new licenses debuted in August. And as a result, she said, the department plans to roll out an advertising campaign starting this coming week to make people more aware of the new requirements.
“It can be tricky. You’ve got people who are used to doing things one way, and so now we’re trying to get the word out,” she said in an interview. “We’re making every effort to get it out, but certainly we know there are always ways we can improve, and that’s what we’re doing.”
Whitten said the ad campaign initially will include only digital ads spread through social media networks, but she said it could expand later to include public service announcements on radio and television.
But for people like Underwood, who was born in Minnesota, got married in Iowa and lived in other states before settling in Kansas in the 1970s, even that may not be enough.
That’s because, in addition to all of those requirements, anyone who has ever changed their name — because of marriage, adoption or any other reason — also must show legal documents explaining the name change.
“Then they told me I needed my marriage license, because my Social Security name didn’t match,” she said. “So I got all that and went back (Wednesday) and was told that my birth certificate wasn’t the correct one, even though I’ve had it all my life. So I have to contact Minnesota and get a different one.”
The new licenses require an official, state-issued birth certificate, not a hospital certificate, which is not an official document.
“And then my marriage license too, which I’ve always used for identification, wasn’t the one they wanted either,” she said, “so I have to contact the state of Iowa and get that done.”
In addition, Underwood said, she has to obtain a new Social Security card because the one she has now shows only her middle initial, not her full middle name.
Rachel Whitten, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Revenue, said she has heard a number of similar stories since the new licenses debuted in August. And as a result, she said, the department plans to roll out an advertising campaign starting this coming week to make people more aware of the new requirements.
“It can be tricky. You’ve got people who are used to doing things one way, and so now we’re trying to get the word out,” she said in an interview. “We’re making every effort to get it out, but certainly we know there are always ways we can improve, and that’s what we’re doing.”
Whitten said the ad campaign initially will include only digital ads spread through social media networks, but she said it could expand later to include public service announcements on radio and television.
Mile High
Footballguy
What legislation can the senate or house pass that covers inflation and covid.So the Dems are going to use a sleazy end around to get this bill debated in the Senate:
https://www.axios.com/schumer-loophole-elections-reform-fa66e1d0-8e1d-4b05-96a2-ffdfa650a068.html
Americans are concerned about inflation, immigration, and Covid, but hey let's prioritize voting "rights."
The Commish
Footballguy
Its always interesting to see what people choose to get worked up over and when. Guess its better late than never even if we know theyll reverse course when their guy does it. 
Two sides.....exact same coin
Two sides.....exact same coin
So the Dems are going to use a sleazy end around to get this bill debated in the Senate:
https://www.axios.com/schumer-loophole-elections-reform-fa66e1d0-8e1d-4b05-96a2-ffdfa650a068.html
Americans are concerned about inflation, immigration, and Covid, but hey let's prioritize voting "rights."
Actually, the Dems are going to make congress do their job and debate voting rights. The filibuster is a made up tool to prevent congress from doing their job.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
The Dude said:
That's not suppressive at all - its passing rules/laws/restrictions etc that ensure integrity in our elections
If you can't wait an hour to vote - don't vote. Vote early. mail in your ballot
no, not suppressive at all and those neighborhoods ? are they not almost all ran by Democrats ?
BassNBrew
Footballguy
On the fence here and can see both sides. It should be easy to vote and non-time consuming. Wish we could do something online as the federal systems in place are pretty secure, however voting is more of a state and even local issue so they really need their own systems.
I think anyone with a driver's license or state ID should automatically be registered and you should be able to go online and have a ballot mailed to the address on that ID. No problem with IDs required at the polls as long as I'm required to provide an ID to buy liquor at the state store or board a plane. As @roadkill1292 mentioned, getting an ID should be made easy.
I think anyone with a driver's license or state ID should automatically be registered and you should be able to go online and have a ballot mailed to the address on that ID. No problem with IDs required at the polls as long as I'm required to provide an ID to buy liquor at the state store or board a plane. As @roadkill1292 mentioned, getting an ID should be made easy.
Republicans are afraid that if more people get access to voting, they're gonna lose elections. So, instead of coming up with policies that are more popular, they make it harder to vote.
Basically, Republicans believe in the free market for everything except themselves
---thedailyshow
Basically, Republicans believe in the free market for everything except themselves
---thedailyshow
Limiting mail in opportunities has nothing to do with process integrity. Two different animals.
That is how a left-wing kook comedian spins it. In reality the right knows that there are some people will cheat to win elections, so hpw about putting a few very easy for everyone mechanism in place to ensure that only people who are legally allowed to vote can.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Yes, we're seeing now how that can play out. Like, 7 states sending fake documents to the National Archive.
Agreed on the last part. That should be the goal.
so what changes are being made in red states that support that goal?
Regarding limiting mail in, you appear to be starting from flawed idea that mail in is fraudulent.
Maybe on getting prosecuted. Dems do far more questionable tactics in harvesting ballots, but are not prosecuted.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
No kidding. Love how the MSM and Dems are fearmongering with the word "rights" to create a faux crisis.Americans are concerned about inflation, immigration, and Covid, but hey let's prioritize voting "rights."
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Most securer election ever. ---Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and Sector Coordinating Council Executive Committees
80 lawsuits dismissed. You have to give up this narrative.
The Commish
Footballguy
It's also amusing to me the amount of projection "the right" casts on "the left" when it comes to voting and cheating. It's as if people believe "the right" is trying to protect the electorate from "the left" when incident after incident (especially in the last two Presidential election cycles) shows who's really going there in terms of election fraud. I'm sure it's just selective reporting.
FairWarning
Footballguy
That is my point also - it seems like all of these problems are in D-run cities. Good thing we have absentee ballots in Michigan. Waiting in line for an hour to vote in a national election for these clowns isn’t much fun.
OMG!!! New processes/legislation had kinks that needed to be worked out? I'm shocked!!! Of course, Real ID was a federal requirement so you can blame them for forcing states to change what worked for a long time. But, seems like the issues have been worked out so not sure why we're discussing problems from almost a decade ago now.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
The right is very aware of this. In fact, I think in the last election Trump even asked his people to vote twice to make sure the system is working.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-vote-idUSKBN25U0KK
sho nuff
Footballguy
its not just a goal...we already have that...we have had that.
Its funny reading people complain that the dems are manufacturing issues rather than dealing with real issues. Voter ID is a manufactured issue to deal with a non-problem.
Voters rights is an actual issue because of legislative attempts to limit voting in other places or limit the power of the people's votes.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
If you're getting your insight and knowledge from the Daily Show I would appreciate it if you don't post on important topics anymore.
Stick to topics like favorite colors, favorite movie, etc...
Peggy Noonan bringing the heat…
Biden’s Georgia Speech Is a Break Point
He thought he was merely appealing to his base. He might have united the rest of the country against him.
By Peggy Noonan
Jan. 13, 2022 6:43 pm ET
It is startling when two speeches within 24 hours, neither much heralded in advance—the second wouldn’t even have been given without the first—leave you knowing you have witnessed a seminal moment in the history of an administration, but it happened this week. The president’s Tuesday speechin Atlanta, on voting rights, was a disaster for him. By the end of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s answering speech on Wednesday you knew some new break point had occurred, that President Biden might have thought he was just crooning to part of his base but the repercussions were greater than that; he was breaking in some new way with others—and didn’t know it. It is poor political practice when you fail to guess the effects of your actions. He meant to mollify an important constituency but instead he filled his opponents with honest indignation and, I suspect, encouraged in that fractured group some new unity.
The speech itself was aggressive, intemperate, not only offensive but meant to offend. It seemed prepared by people who think there is only the Democratic Party in America, that’s it, everyone else is an outsider who can be disparaged. It was a mistake on so many levels. Presidents more than others in politics have to maintain an even strain, as astronauts used to say. If a president is rhetorically manipulative and divisive on a voting-rights bill it undercuts what he’s trying to establish the next day on Covid and the economy. The over-the-top language of the speech made him seem more emotional, less competent. The portentousness—“In our lives and . . . the life of our nation, there are moments so stark that they divide all that came before them from everything that followed. They stop time”—made him appear incapable of understanding how the majority of Americans understand our own nation’s history and the vast array of its challenges.
By the end he looked like a man operating apart from the American conversation, not at its center. This can be fatal to a presidency.
He was hardly done speaking when a new Quinnipiac poll showed the usual low Biden numbers, but, most pertinently, that 49% of respondents say he is doing more to divide the country, and only 42% see him as unifying it.
In the speech Mr. Biden claimed he stands against “the forces in America that value power over principle.” Last year Georgia elected two Democratic senators. “And what’s been the reaction of Republicans in Georgia? Choose the wrong way, the undemocratic way. To them, too many people voting in a democracy is a problem.” They want to “suppress the right to vote.” They want to “subvert the election.”
This is “Jim Crow 2.0,” it’s “insidious,” it’s “the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies.”
The problem is greater than Georgia. “The United States Senate . . . has been rendered a shell of its former self.” Its rules must be changed. “The filibuster is not used by Republicans to bring the Senate together but to pull it further apart. The filibuster has been weaponized and abused.” Senators will now “declare where they stand, not just for the moment, but for the ages.”
Most wince-inducing: “Will you stand against election subversion? Yes or no? . . . Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace ? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor ? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
If a speech can be full of itself this speech was.
From the floor of the Senate the next day came Mr. McConnell’s rebuke. It was stinging, indignant to the point of seething. He didn’t attempt to scale any rhetorical heights. The plainness of his language was ferocious.
Mr. Biden’s speech was “profoundly unpresidential,” “deliberately divisive” and “designed to pull our country further apart.” “I have known, liked and personally respected Joe Biden for many years. I did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday.” Mr. Biden had entered office calling on Americans to stop the shouting and lower the temperature. “Yesterday, he called millions of Americans his domestic ‘enemies.’ ” That, a week after he “gave a January 6th lecture about not stoking political violence.”
“Twelve months ago, this president said that ‘disagreement must not lead to disunion.’ But yesterday, he invoked the bloody disunion of the Civil War to demonize Americans who disagree with him. He compared a bipartisan majority of senators to literal traitors.”
“Twelve months ago, the president said that ‘politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path.’ . . . Yesterday he poured a giant can of gasoline on that fire.”
“In less than a year, ‘restoring the soul of America’ has become: Agree with me, or you’re a bigot.”
“This inflammatory rhetoric was not an attempt to persuade skeptical Democratic or Republican senators. In fact, you could not invent a better advertisement for the legislative filibuster than a president abandoning rational persuasion for pure demagoguery.”
American voters, said Mr. McConnell, “did not give President Biden a mandate for very much.” They didn’t give him big majorities in Congress. But they did arguably give him a mandate to bridge a divided country. “It is the one job citizens actually hired him to do.” He has failed to do it.
Then Mr. McConnell looked at Mr. Biden’s specific claims regarding state voting laws. “The sitting president of the United States of America compared American states to ‘totalitarian states.’ He said our country will be an ‘autocracy’ if he does not get his way.” The world has now seen an American president “propagandize against his own country to a degree that would have made Pravda blush.”
“He trampled through some of the most sensitive and sacred parts of our nation’s past. He invoked times when activists bled, and when soldiers died. All to demagogue voting laws that are more expansive than what Democrats have in his own home state.”
“A president shouting that 52 senators and millions of Americans are racist unless he gets whatever he wants is proving exactly why the Framers built the Senate to check his power.”
What Mr. Biden was really doing was attempting to “delegitimize the next election in case they lose it.”
Now, he said, “It is the Senate’s responsibility to protect the country.”
That sounded very much like a vow. It won’t be good for Joe Biden.
When national Democrats talk to the country they always seem to be talking to themselves. They are of the left, as is their constituency, which wins the popular vote in presidential elections; the mainstream media through which they send their messages is of the left; the academics, historians and professionals they consult are of the left. They get in the habit of talking to themselves, in their language, in a single, looped conversation. They have no idea how they sound to the non-left, so they have no idea when they are damaging themselves. But this week in Georgia Mr. Biden damaged himself. And strengthened, and may even have taken a step in unifying, the non-Democrats who are among their countrymen, and who are in fact the majority of them
Biden’s Georgia Speech Is a Break Point
He thought he was merely appealing to his base. He might have united the rest of the country against him.
By Peggy Noonan
Jan. 13, 2022 6:43 pm ET
It is startling when two speeches within 24 hours, neither much heralded in advance—the second wouldn’t even have been given without the first—leave you knowing you have witnessed a seminal moment in the history of an administration, but it happened this week. The president’s Tuesday speechin Atlanta, on voting rights, was a disaster for him. By the end of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s answering speech on Wednesday you knew some new break point had occurred, that President Biden might have thought he was just crooning to part of his base but the repercussions were greater than that; he was breaking in some new way with others—and didn’t know it. It is poor political practice when you fail to guess the effects of your actions. He meant to mollify an important constituency but instead he filled his opponents with honest indignation and, I suspect, encouraged in that fractured group some new unity.
The speech itself was aggressive, intemperate, not only offensive but meant to offend. It seemed prepared by people who think there is only the Democratic Party in America, that’s it, everyone else is an outsider who can be disparaged. It was a mistake on so many levels. Presidents more than others in politics have to maintain an even strain, as astronauts used to say. If a president is rhetorically manipulative and divisive on a voting-rights bill it undercuts what he’s trying to establish the next day on Covid and the economy. The over-the-top language of the speech made him seem more emotional, less competent. The portentousness—“In our lives and . . . the life of our nation, there are moments so stark that they divide all that came before them from everything that followed. They stop time”—made him appear incapable of understanding how the majority of Americans understand our own nation’s history and the vast array of its challenges.
By the end he looked like a man operating apart from the American conversation, not at its center. This can be fatal to a presidency.
He was hardly done speaking when a new Quinnipiac poll showed the usual low Biden numbers, but, most pertinently, that 49% of respondents say he is doing more to divide the country, and only 42% see him as unifying it.
In the speech Mr. Biden claimed he stands against “the forces in America that value power over principle.” Last year Georgia elected two Democratic senators. “And what’s been the reaction of Republicans in Georgia? Choose the wrong way, the undemocratic way. To them, too many people voting in a democracy is a problem.” They want to “suppress the right to vote.” They want to “subvert the election.”
This is “Jim Crow 2.0,” it’s “insidious,” it’s “the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies.”
The problem is greater than Georgia. “The United States Senate . . . has been rendered a shell of its former self.” Its rules must be changed. “The filibuster is not used by Republicans to bring the Senate together but to pull it further apart. The filibuster has been weaponized and abused.” Senators will now “declare where they stand, not just for the moment, but for the ages.”
Most wince-inducing: “Will you stand against election subversion? Yes or no? . . . Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace ? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor ? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
If a speech can be full of itself this speech was.
From the floor of the Senate the next day came Mr. McConnell’s rebuke. It was stinging, indignant to the point of seething. He didn’t attempt to scale any rhetorical heights. The plainness of his language was ferocious.
Mr. Biden’s speech was “profoundly unpresidential,” “deliberately divisive” and “designed to pull our country further apart.” “I have known, liked and personally respected Joe Biden for many years. I did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday.” Mr. Biden had entered office calling on Americans to stop the shouting and lower the temperature. “Yesterday, he called millions of Americans his domestic ‘enemies.’ ” That, a week after he “gave a January 6th lecture about not stoking political violence.”
“Twelve months ago, this president said that ‘disagreement must not lead to disunion.’ But yesterday, he invoked the bloody disunion of the Civil War to demonize Americans who disagree with him. He compared a bipartisan majority of senators to literal traitors.”
“Twelve months ago, the president said that ‘politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path.’ . . . Yesterday he poured a giant can of gasoline on that fire.”
“In less than a year, ‘restoring the soul of America’ has become: Agree with me, or you’re a bigot.”
“This inflammatory rhetoric was not an attempt to persuade skeptical Democratic or Republican senators. In fact, you could not invent a better advertisement for the legislative filibuster than a president abandoning rational persuasion for pure demagoguery.”
American voters, said Mr. McConnell, “did not give President Biden a mandate for very much.” They didn’t give him big majorities in Congress. But they did arguably give him a mandate to bridge a divided country. “It is the one job citizens actually hired him to do.” He has failed to do it.
Then Mr. McConnell looked at Mr. Biden’s specific claims regarding state voting laws. “The sitting president of the United States of America compared American states to ‘totalitarian states.’ He said our country will be an ‘autocracy’ if he does not get his way.” The world has now seen an American president “propagandize against his own country to a degree that would have made Pravda blush.”
“He trampled through some of the most sensitive and sacred parts of our nation’s past. He invoked times when activists bled, and when soldiers died. All to demagogue voting laws that are more expansive than what Democrats have in his own home state.”
“A president shouting that 52 senators and millions of Americans are racist unless he gets whatever he wants is proving exactly why the Framers built the Senate to check his power.”
What Mr. Biden was really doing was attempting to “delegitimize the next election in case they lose it.”
Now, he said, “It is the Senate’s responsibility to protect the country.”
That sounded very much like a vow. It won’t be good for Joe Biden.
When national Democrats talk to the country they always seem to be talking to themselves. They are of the left, as is their constituency, which wins the popular vote in presidential elections; the mainstream media through which they send their messages is of the left; the academics, historians and professionals they consult are of the left. They get in the habit of talking to themselves, in their language, in a single, looped conversation. They have no idea how they sound to the non-left, so they have no idea when they are damaging themselves. But this week in Georgia Mr. Biden damaged himself. And strengthened, and may even have taken a step in unifying, the non-Democrats who are among their countrymen, and who are in fact the majority of them
BladeRunner
Footballguy
It's also amusing to me the amount of projection "the right" casts on "the left" when it comes to voting and cheating. It's as if people believe "the right" is trying to protect the electorate from "the left" when incident after incident (especially in the last two Presidential election cycles) shows who's really going there in terms of election fraud. I'm sure it's just selective reporting.
What's also amusing is the guy who's shtick is to pretend he's above it all but praises "the left" or criticizes "the right" on every post he makes.
The Commish
Footballguy
He also criticizes the left and praises the right when applicable....I know it's probably weird to see that sort of thing.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Truth hurts.
But thanks for your suggestion
I'm sorry it hurt you, but it needed to be said.
I think there is probably a Super Weenie Hut Jr forum somewhere on the internet for you if you find the truth so hurtful and uncomfortable here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
The hubris in these remarks is astonishing. So sure that the hill he's speaking from is the moral high ground that he's alienating all the moderates he had eagerly voting for him last election.
What a travesty of a speech this was.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I've heard of the ballot harvesting issue being mentioned for CA. Is just the one state or is there a widespread concern? And if that's the biggest issue, why are other laws restricting mail-in ballots being passed?
Sand
Footballguy
Isn't it always, though? It isn't as if the losing side is just red or blue. I give you Stacy Abrams, Gavin Newsome with their scrutinizing of signatures in the recall, a whole boatload of people after Hillary lost, people still complaining about Bush-Gore.
We need a reasonable set of rules that allow for easy voting close to or on election day that also allows for enough security to also assuage any fears of vote tampering. This is not a hard charter.
joffer
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
This is also terribly insecure, particularly the way some states did it - pre-emptively mailing ballots to everyone on the rolls. I think CA did that and it's an awful solution to voter integrity.
I tend to agree, but the active response/ # of actions by the losing side 2020 is WAYYYYY over the top in comparison to any alleged inconsistencies.
Sand
Footballguy
I'm not disagreeing there. I think it's on par with the Gore times. Actually I think Bush-Gore was worse, but it may be my memory.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Its not though. States have been doing it for decades. Utah's been doing just that since '86. Why is it a problem now, especially since there is zero evidence of fraud? IMO, its only being brought up now (in blue states only I'll add) because Trump claimed massive fraud with mail in ballots.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I disagree, it has everything to do with integrity when the laws/rules/restrictions of the process is questioned
Either way - we both can agree its not discrimination to have rules/laws/restrictions that apply equally and fairly to everyone
Stealthycat
Footballguy
wrong
Republicans are afraid more people will vote who aren't truly qualified to vote
again, why are Democrats so afraid of elections/voting where everyone is very confident in the system ?
i thought everyone would be on board for election integrity but Democrats fight it hard ... why ?
Cjw_55106
Footballguy
That is such a BS reply.
"Ive never experienced or heard of it actually happening to anyone, so please enlighten me" is much more accurate.
Clearly you cant produce anything.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
which is why a national voting day IS a good idea
me? I would make it hard to vote by mail .... if you can't spend the time to get to a voting booth in the pre-voting or election day, I question just how much voting really means to you
I know some people need that option - but it should be reserved like handi-cap parking IMO
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Getting more people on the rolls that are never going to vote is simply a way to get more ballots to harvest for their side. If people can’t see through that, then that’s sad.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Please explain how you think that works. And what exactly do you mean by "harvest".
Similar threads
