Democrats Conveniently Revise History by Claiming They Were Never Against Voter ID
“That’s one of the fallacies of Republican talking points that have been deeply disturbing. No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting,” voter ID opponent Stacey Abrams proclaimed.
Fresh off of their efforts to rewrite their history of supporting the Defund the Police movement, Democrats have moved on to trying to revise another aspect of their history: Their opposition to voter ID.
Staunch Democrat opposition to voter ID laws has led to many lawsuits filed in states like North Carolina and Georgia. In particular, NC’s voter ID law has been tied up in the courts for several years. Democrats like Stacey Abrams and others claim that voter ID is just another supposed attempt by Republicans to “suppress the black vote.” Abrams, President Biden, and Sen. Raphael Warnock have called voter ID a modern-day version of racist Jim Crow laws, which were, incidentally, implemented by Democrats.
But if you listen to Democrats now and didn’t know of their history of opposing voter ID, you’d never know it. For example, here’s what House Majority Whip James Clyburn said Sunday when asked about Sen. Joe Manchin’s compromise election reform bill, which included elements of voter ID:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said Sunday that he “absolutely” could support a proposed national voter ID requirement offered last month by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite Clyburn previously calling voter ID laws a form of “voter suppression.”
“When I first registered to vote as a 21-year-old — back then, 18-year-olds could not vote — I got a voter registration card, and I always present that voter registration card when I go to vote, and that is voter ID,” Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, told CNN’s “State of the Union”.
“We are always for voter ID. We are never for disproportionate voter ID,” Clyburn added. “When you tell me that you got to have a photo ID, and a photo for a [college] student for an activity card is not good, but for a hunting license it is good, that’s where the rub is.”
Watch:
Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn says he's "absolutely" open to a voter ID requirement as long as it is "equitable:" "You ought to be able to vote with whatever ID that you have" #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/v9QynSQFTo
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) July 4, 2021
It was a rather odd statement for Clyburn to make, considering his past comments in opposition to voter ID don’t include any qualifiers about supporting ID if only Republicans would relent and allow any photo ID. For example:
Long voting lines.
Closed polling locations.
Voter ID laws.
They're all voter suppression.Tune in as I'm joined by @JointCenter president @SpencerOverton to continue the conversation about why we must secure the right to vote for ALL Americans. https://t.co/fmHIQPsYta
— James E. Clyburn (@WhipClyburn) October 23, 2020
Abrams is another who has conveniently done a 180 on her past opposition to voter ID laws. She said this last month:
When asked about the compromise on Thursday, Stacey Abrams, the former gubernatorial candidate for Georgia and Fair Fight Action founder, who has long railed against voter ID laws, said she “absolutely” could support Manchin’s proposal even if voter ID was a part of it. “That’s one of the fallacies of Republican talking points that have been deeply disturbing. No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting,” Abrams told CNN.
Except no, it’s not a “deeply disturbing fallacy” to point out the truth of Democrat objections to voter ID, objections Abrams made as recently as April:
Democrat Stacey Abrams suddenly supports voter ID. pic.twitter.com/uMpM5bVHUe
— GOP (@GOP) June 20, 2021
Warnock, who along with Abrams, helped lead the fight in Georgia against their new election law, in part, based on the voter ID requirement, flip-flopped last month as well:
“I have never been opposed to voter ID,” Warnock told NBC News in an interview published Thursday. “And in fact, I don’t know anybody who is — who believes people shouldn’t have to prove that they are who they say they are. But what has happened over the years is people have played with common sense identification and put into place restrictive measures intended not to preserve the integrity of the outcome, but to select, certain group.”
Except no, his claim that he has “never been opposed to voter ID” is not true:
Democrat Raphael Warnock today to NBC News: "I have never been opposed to voter ID"
Warnock in 2012: "most destructive assault on the voting rights… since the ugly days of Jim Crow… it all began right here in Georgia with these unnecessary and unjustifiable voter ID laws…" pic.twitter.com/K7SlG9Zo13
— Nathan Brand (@NathanBrandWA) June 17, 2021
After being opposed to voter ID for years, Democrat Raphael Warnock suddenly supports voter ID.pic.twitter.com/o92fON7dNj
— GOP (@GOP) June 22, 2021
Predictably, the Washington Post spun the left’s switcheroni on voter ID not as a flip flop but as an “evolution”:
In the last two months, @staceyabrams has gone from calling proposed voting laws “Jim Crow in a suit and tie” to something no one ever objected to and, rather than rightly point out the gaslighting, @washingtonpost and @AaronBlake called it “an evolution” pic.twitter.com/n8XDYelxru
— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 21, 2021
There’s a reason Democrats believe they can get away with doing about-faces on their prior positions with no political repercussions, and the Washington Post proved it with their attempt at running interference.
As to Manchin’s bill, thanks to the successful Republican filibuster last month, it’s off the table for now. But Democrats have made clear they plan on trying again at some point soon.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They can’t keep the lies straight anymore.
1. Defund Police. Just 6 to 9 months ago they were painting street in LA, NY and DC that said BLM and Defund Police. Now that the polls show it hurting them – they say “we were never for Defunding – that was the Republicans”
2. Voter ID. It was just 7 or 8 weeks ago they were talking about Voter ID being the new Jim Crow. Now they say they were never against Voter ID.
To be fair Ben I think the public discourse loses a lot of nuance. I appreciate the statements regarding voter ID laws are ambiguous but its a fair point to say that a restrictive set of voter ID requirements vs a broad set of allowable voter ID (in Clyburns case saying that should include voter registration card) is a more nuanced version of the claim.
“If you’re 94 years old, you don’t drive anymore, but you’re still watching the news every day, and you want to keep up, you want to vote, and you don’t have a photo ID, then you ought to be able to vote with whatever ID that you have,” he said. “One being your voter registration card.”
To be fair Mark – republicans and conservatives lie too. The difference is that lately you could get whiplash from the amazing about-face statements from Progressives. If your keeping up on the 180-degree reversals – its an astounding change. And on major policy items that were headline news – not minor policy or changes on the margin.
It’s true that media are not precise. But these are media that are friendly to Progressives and are well in tune with the core positions on voting rights and defund police.
All politicians are hypocritical to some extent. Rarely, however, do you see positions change within months so dramatically and have politicians pretending they never had any other position.
We live in interesting times.
Yeah I’m not a fan of the imprecision that seems to plague discourse. Maybe that’s part of the problem. IT seems to me that many are guilty of being to easy with speech and not spending long enough thinking about what they say or type.
You’re not a fan of “imprecision”???? Then call a spade a spade…it’s blatantly disingenuous and dishonest to pretend that they are all in favor of voter ID now and never were against it. The bridge from this crap to outright lying is an ant march away…be truthful or join them in this garbage (which you already have multiple times).
I would respect their position slightly more if they’d admit that something has changed their minds, but they’re not even extending that modicum of courtesy. They are insulting our intelligence and nonchalantly brushing aside our stakes in this field by arrogantly pretending that nothing has changed and trying to pull their second such disgusting and clumsy sleight of hand. Without media interference, they would be primaried for this crap.
@healthguyfsu
Well id have to check exactly what ‘they’ all said, the references within the article are to voter id laws not voter id specifically so I’m not entirely sure.
which you already have multiple times, your going to have to be more precise. I do my best to give a clear view so maybe that’s down to me but I get the inkling that perhaps you are missing some of the nuance of the points I make.
Bullshit, like all other communists you’re nothing but a liar.
I don’t think you know what a communist is, nor are you able to identify a policy item from myself that might be construed as communist. In fact I don’t think you know much at all and therefore are ignorant with respect to anything I say being a lie or not. for clarity I haven’t lied, and you cant show that’s the case.
Hey, Einstein, if you make the claim, it’s up to you to show your work. Ever think critically, like, at all?
@UJ
Well lets be clear the claim is from Ironclaw with respect to communism.
You support communists, that’s more than enough. And FYI, I have live-in experts on communism in my household as I have people in my family that grew up enslaved under the type of communism people like you want.
Let’s keep it civil. I disagree with Mark on many things too. But name-calling accomplishes nothing. America is great because we are free to share our opinion. You learn nothing from people who agree with everything you say and never challenge you. You learn most from those who have a different POV.
There’s only so civil you can be to somebody who keeps pissing down your back and telling you it’s raining. At some point, if you respect yourself at all, you stop allowing it.
mark is not a good faith actor on this site and has shown it multiple times…I appreciate your attempt at higher discourse but you are debating with a worm in Joseph Lieberman clothing.
@healthguysfu
Is that so, prove it. From where I’m sitting that’s an empty statement.
@Henrybowman
You mean you’ve been called out for spewing nonsense and have nothing to show for it. I’ve no need to fool you, you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
“Called out for nonsense?” Ha ha ha, kettle!
I’ll compare my ratio to yours anyday, troll.
I don’t think civility helps much. See, manners are for people, not communists who are all sub-human.
Mark311 is irrelevant, because he fails to cite to any authority for anything he says.
You learn most from those who have a different POV.
I have read everything mark311 has ever posted and haven’t learned a damned thing.
There comes a time when civility in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive in the defense of liberty.
And while I don’t often comment here at LI, I have read mark311’s comments and recognize the passive-aggressive, word-parsing bob-and-weave that is a common characteristic of intellectually-dishonest Progressives.
Yep, best thing to do is ignore him. He’ll either go away on his own or become so outraged that no one cares what he thinks, cross the line, and get himself banned. Win-win. 😛
Quote from Jester sums it up best: “I have read mark311’s comments and recognize the passive-aggressive, word-parsing bob-and-weave that is a common characteristic of intellectually-dishonest Progressives.”
Yet we are told to be civil toward him, coddle him and and learn from him while in the history his postings here mark311 has been anthing but civil. He comes here, hijacks a thread and makes the whole thing about himself, throwing the whole comment section into dissaray while people try to respond to his “passive-aggressive, word-parsing bob-and-weave.”
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. We’ve been treated to your assertions without evidence or the occasional bad faith link from progressive spin zones that you think serve as valid in your warped limited mind. You deserve no “proof” and at the same time your every day posting activity is the proof.
@Healthguysfu, userP, Henrybowman, fuzzy, Ironclaw, fine report, Jester Naybor
All I’m seeing is assertions that I’ve made assertions with limited to no evidence. That’s simply not true and you all know it.
““Called out for nonsense?” Ha ha ha, kettle!
I’ll compare my ratio to yours anyday, troll.”
Is that a ratio based on your warped sense of reality or where you’ve actually stated a reasonable and coherent argument., I’m still not a troll
“I don’t think civility helps much. See, manners are for people, not communists who are all sub-human.”
This says everything about you Ironclaw.
“Mark311 is irrelevant, because he fails to cite to any authority for anything he says.” Hilarious since I’ve linked in this thread, once again a liar.
“And while I don’t often comment here at LI, I have read mark311’s comments and recognize the passive-aggressive, word-parsing bob-and-weave that is a common characteristic of intellectually-dishonest Progressives.”
Yeah I think what you actually mean is I explore the nuance of topics and don’t have black and white opinion. That’s the exact opposite of being intellectually dishonest
“Yep, best thing to do is ignore him. He’ll either go away on his own or become so outraged that no one cares what he thinks, cross the line, and get himself banned. Win-win. 😛”
Oh so your great strategy is to ignore me, that works for me too because for the most part you have nothing to offer. You are so lazy when it comes to thinking its hilarious. I feel sorry for any kids you taught.
“The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. We’ve been treated to your assertions without evidence or the occasional bad faith link from progressive spin zones that you think serve as valid in your warped limited mind. You deserve no “proof” and at the same time your every day posting activity is the proof.”
Hilarious, typical of your type – oh its not a credible link oh but its a left wing voice of but but … no substantive rebuttal, no attempt to engage with the actual data which is presented. Its hilarious how much you think you know when its so obvious that you have nothing, you know so little that you think you know it all. Typical really.
It has to be said the standard of argument you guys display is, well, pretty shoddy. I wonder if you all meet up to discuss your various versions of flat earth theory.
@Ironclaw
Name some communists, if you are referring to AOC she isn’t a communist she is a Democratic socialist.
“I have live-in experts on communism in my household as I have people in my family that grew up enslaved under the type of communism people like you want.”
Demonstrate some actual knowledge then. You claim I want communism yet have no idea what policies i support, you claim to know what communism is yet cant give a functional definition. In fact communism has never really existed its the end goal of policies to create a utopia. The communist societies you refer to (is suspect) might be Russia in that instance it wasn’t communist at all. Maybe your relatives know the term ‘communism behind the Kremlins walls’ which perfectly illustrates why Russia wasn’t communist it was an authoritarian one party state.
FYI I studied Russian history from 1917 up to the first term of Putin, as well as smaller sections of Cuban and Chinese history. One of my lecturers was Russian and lived during the fall of the Berlin wall etc
It seems to me your argument reduces to ‘you have a different view therefore you are wrong’
You don’t seem able to answer any questions posed to you which only leaves the impression that your ad hominem is a replacement for actual knowledge.
Socialist, communist, fascist? They’re all differing degrees of the same poison, retard.
Ironclaw Jesus man, you really are ignorant. Its pretty clear you have no idea what each of those words actually means. Nor do you seem to appreciate what a personal attack entails. in the absence of any other argument it really shows how little you have.
Give it up”mark311”—your ‘arguments’ grow weaker by the minute. Your like a swordsman, standing on a wet slope, flailing away against an opponent standing up-slope from you. The ‘life-force of your ‘arguments’ are clearly in decline when you put forth, as you did, an assertion like this: “…if you are referring to AOC she isn’t a communist she is a Democratic socialist.” That, sir, is a distinction without a difference. What a weak-tea argument!
@Julian A Smith
“That, sir, is a distinction without a difference. What a weak-tea argument!”
Yeah you’ve just demonstrated how ignorant you really are, there are numerous differences between a communist and a social democrat. One major difference is that communism tends towards a one party state whereas a Social Democrat believes in multiple parties and Democratic values. That’s a significant difference.
With respect either address the substance or stop talking because you sound stupid.
Mark311 is a troll with poor grammar. When you argue with him, you are investing time you can never get back. He’s incapable of actually arguing the issue. He just argues. Give him the silent treatment.
Nuance, my ass. Spin blatant hypocrisy any way you like, troll, you’re not fooling anybody here.
Voter ID laws – inclusive of voter id restrictions including preferences for specific types of voter ID
Voter ID – clarified by Clyburn as being broad to include voter registration cards not to be limited too forms of ID that might be restrictive such as driver licence
Your position – there is no difference even when the descriptive terms are not equivalent.
If you cant be honest about language and the plain meanings of things, including the fact that the article is plainly cherry picking parts of speech for emphasis then you have a problem. I appreciate the hyper partisan nature of converse these days but when its pointed out that perhaps there is more to the statements than just plain hypocrisy then your response starts to look like it needs a bit more thought.
I sure learn a lot by reading your opposite POV, especially the part where you accuse Henry of not being honest, being hyper partisan, plain hypocrisy and needing more thought. Ah yes, we must be civil. Apparently that applies to everybody but you. One thing that does apply to you, however, is you are taking the same road as Ragspierre.
Agreed, UserP, though I do have to say that at least Rags had a brain and could argue a point (well, not towards the end when he was so Trump-deranged he couldn’t formulate a coherent sentence, but before that he was quite intellectually nimble. I liked that about him). But this troll is really an actual troll, best ignored. It seems that the more he types, the more people catch on. It’s amusing–and gratifying–to watch.
Mark,
In the US for about 25 years we have linked voter registration with obtaining a DL. ‘Motor voter’. Those who don’t want a DL can receive a ID card instead right at the DMV.
The argument against voter ID is disingenuous IMO. Everyone who participates in the activities of daily life is required to present a DL or ID card.
Student ID and workplace ID ECT don’t cut it. They lack robust anti fraud measures and are not compliant with the ‘Real ID Act provisions.
If a DL or Real ID is required to purchase cigarettes, alcohol, enter a bar, rent a car, buy a car, lease an apartment, buy a home, get a loan, create a bank account, establish utility services then requiring it to register and vote doesn’t seem too much to ask.
In reality, having a government-issued photo ID is no burden whatsoever for any person who is minimally engaged in everyday life. You can do practically nothing without valid ID in this world and a driver’s license or non-driver’s ID from the State is the minimum common denominator there. Now stop trying to loosen the requirements to the point that they no longer serve their purpose, we want MORE secure elections, not communists cheating constantly.
@Userp
As was pointed out by Ben that tends to be in response to people like you attacking me personally. So that’s an outright lie isn’t it.
I assume you mean Robespierre. I have the benefit of being able to know what a cult of personality is which is one reason of many that following his path is unlikely, which is more than I can say for you given your blind following of Trump.
You know what I’ve learnt nothing from you, mainly because you say almost nothing of value.
@Commochief
That’s getting into the nitty gritty of what’s entailed. The main points are that 1) in person voter fraud is extremely rare 2) there is a known effect ion restrictive voter ID laws and therefore any law that uses voter Id needs to be broad enough that it wont entail 2)
“If a DL or Real ID is required to purchase cigarettes, alcohol, enter a bar, rent a car, buy a car, lease an apartment, buy a home, get a loan, create a bank account, establish utility services then requiring it to register and vote doesn’t seem too much to ask.”
Well it depends on the circumstances of the person. Younger and older, and more urban voters are less likely to have drivers license. Often you need an Id to get another ID as well so I’m not clear its quite as simple as you make out.
I’m happy to make some compromise on voter ID laws but the reality is (which you haven’t really addressed) is that there isn’t an issue with in person fraud.
@ironclaw
There are specific demographics which tend to have less Id such as young people for example.
Again prove that fraud is a problem then I might take you seriously. At the moment the case for fraud is rapidly turning into a question about Trump interfering in elections. Do you have a proposal to deal with him obviously interfering with Arizona and Georgia given that he tried phoning up election supervisors to stop counting ballots. Funny really when Trump was ahead in ballot counting he wanted counts to stop but when he was behind it was all about the fraud.
Mark
Ok. The logic of your opposition to ID seems to be your contention that, in your eyes, ID fraud at the polls is rare therefore these laws are unnecessary.
Do you feel the same about firearms laws? Use of firearms in commission of crimes by individuals who have passed the required background check is also rare. Extremely so.
Therefore any further restrictions on these firearms owners as to where they choose to bring their firearms seems equally unnecessary. Surely you would agree?
The problem is that most jurisdictions have a free or very low cost state ID available to the elderly, disabled or poor. Where I live it’s free for some and costs $0.50 for others.
I think it’s rare these days that someone not have a photo ID available at all; I’m so old I remember they used the argument that not everyone had a birth certificate as a reason not to require ID. Since the government too over vital statistics at least a century ago, and people need photo ID for so many things, it’s unrealistic to think that people don’t have one.
That hypothetical 94 year old needs a photo ID to show at the doctor’s office, bank and pharmacy at minimum.
https://www.demandthevote.com/truth-about-voter-id
There are genuine issues for some demographics to get voter Id,
Mark,
There are plenty of organizations and groups to assist these very few people in obtaining a low or no cost real ID compliant form of identification.
If they don’t avail themselves of the assistance from these groups then family members could assist. A pastor, a member of their church or other trusted member of an association they have.
Outside of an anti-social hermit living off the grid of our society, I can’t imagine who couldn’t obtain a DL or state issued ID. Unless they refuse to do so.
@Commchief
So your excuse is that because its fine that’s its hard to get ID because some organisations make that maybe marginally easier. Your logic doesn’t work there is a demonstrable empirically quantified evidence that voter suppression has an impact. You have asserted that this doesn’t exist despite the demonstrable effect, that’s just silly. Nor have you identified why Voter ID is even needed given the vanishingly low fraud rates in the US.
Can anyone say Lying Sacks Of Excrement.
Politicians will lie. News media lies too. Setting bad examples for our kids.
Our future kids will be dress-wearing boys and, butch girls who lie with abandon.
This isn’t 1964 and Walter Cronkite has your back you liar. WE can check the video and audio and prove you on the left did everything in your power to avoid Vote ID.
Typical, the communists are just now realizing that they’re on the losing side of quite a few arguments. Voter ID has nearly 80% support among the American public. Don’t just let them back off their position, make them eat sh*t over it.
Democrats were never against voter ID. They just don’t think it should be mandatory. Or something like that.
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
Paging Winston Smith. We’ve got another rush job for you.
They can get away with blatant lies now because the corporate media has their back and will never call them on it.
At some point Twitter and Facebook will start banning people who post receipts that prove they’re lying. And then they’ll delete the receipts.
History is what the Dems/Marxists, the corporate media, and Big Tech say it is. For other examples see the so-called 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory.
“They can get away with blatant lies now because the corporate media has their back and will never call them on it.’
Well, no. Back in the days of Cronkite, the only “alternative news” was mimeographed stinksheets passed out by commies and students on street corners, and they usually had even less truth in them than the corporate compost piles. Today, we have a relatively massive and accessible industry devoted to presenting alternative news at a single click, most of them quite respectable. That the average sheeple doesn’t know where (or doesn’t care) to seek them out is a problem, to be sure, but a second-order one, hardly existential. We’ve made progress.
What changed in the voter ID debate? Besides the d/progressive position that is?
Polling data. The electorate, across parties and demographics, strongly supports it. The d/progressive were left with a choice of being on the side of a losing issue that absolutely blocked any hope of their proposed Federal takeover of elections or changing their stance and claiming they didn’t oppose it.
“Democrats conveniently revise history.”
Should read: “Democrats continuously revise history.”
Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia.
That’s right. They were at war with Freedonia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4OJGdtRx10
Just ask Mark311.
They aren’t against voter ID, they’re against effective voter ID. Voter registration cards are not ID, since they have no photographs, and “any photo ID” is similarly flawed, since merely having a photograph of yourself proves nothing.
This … and/or they think they can count on the courts overturning voter ID laws because reasons, giving them what they originally wanted with political deniability.
This is how you know we are winning.
The vile Dhimmi-crats are such brazen liars — even days ago, I’ve seen ads on YouTube featuring the ugly offspring of crone Hillary Clinton and Idi Amin — vile Stacey Abrams — in an ad created by the Dhimmi-crat Senate Campaign Committee — reading from a script that calls these voter ID laws “a new Jim Crow.”
A synonym for “liar” and “fabulist” is “Dhimmi-crat.”
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
― George Orwell, 1984
the left lies about everything all day long.
They’re just playing semantic games to make themselves more palatable to the voters.