PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mase on July 20, 2016, 08:19:27 PM
-
What is so hard about getting a free picture ID in order to vote?
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/20/strict-texas-voter-id-law-discriminatory-federal-court-rules.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/20/strict-texas-voter-id-law-discriminatory-federal-court-rules.html)
-
What is so hard about getting a free picture ID in order to vote?
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/20/strict-texas-voter-id-law-discriminatory-federal-court-rules.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/20/strict-texas-voter-id-law-discriminatory-federal-court-rules.html)
As the article mentioned, Wisconsin's law took a similar hit this week. Activist liberal Wisconsin federal judge Lynn Adelman must think he is back in the Wisconsin State Senate, because he legislated from the bench by saying people who might be too inconvenienced to get a free ID can just sign an affidavit that they are who they say they are, and then can vote.
This shit has to stop. I'm going to write our States Attorney and ask him to ignore this ruling citing the 10th Amendment. Fuck this judge.
-
Why don't federal judges just tell the truth and admit that democrats can't win without cheating and get it over with?
-
You have to love this from the article-
The state and other supporters say the Texas law prevents fraud, while opponents say there are few cases of voter fraud.
It makes you wonder, without any ID, how they hell would they know if there was any fraud or not??? Isn't everyone required to get a Social Security card when they join the work force? Don't you have to prove who you are to get that card? Basically, it's clear the Democrats want to allow illegals to vote assuming rightly that most, if not all will vote Democrat.
It is telling that the Democrats, with all their supposed "grass roots" networks of volunteers that only care about the little people couldn't be bothered to organize a get out the vote drive. They could help all these supposed legal voters that are just too dumb, or frail to get an ID to actually fill out the forms and obtain an ID to comply with the law. Instead they turn to the lawyers and courts.
Typical I guess.
-
Everyone who has looked for all this massive voter fraud have come up empty handed. In the meantime the GOP tries to invent every means they can to prevent people voting. Given the horrid turnouts in the US I think we should do as much as possible to encourage voting.
Here's one I like. I showed up to vote a couple years ago. Didn't have any ID, I only rarely carry a wallet. Couldn't vote without ID. I was recognized by several people, including one of the folks signing people in. My ID could have been checked instantly on the internet, I am very easily looked up. But no ID, no vote.
GOP has invented an imaginary boogeyman and tries to restrict voting based on him.
-
Everyone who has looked for all this massive voter fraud have come up empty handed. In the meantime the GOP tries to invent every means they can to prevent people voting. Given the horrid turnouts in the US I think we should do as much as possible to encourage voting.
Here's one I like. I showed up to vote a couple years ago. Didn't have any ID, I only rarely carry a wallet. Couldn't vote without ID. I was recognized by several people, including one of the folks signing people in. My ID could have been checked instantly on the internet, I am very easily looked up. But no ID, no vote.
GOP has invented an imaginary boogeyman and tries to restrict voting based on him.
That is demonstrably not true - try just a little Google Fu and you will find many examples of actual voter fraud; charged, prosecuted and convicted; almost exclusively Democrat in nature.
'Gimp
-
It is a pathetic truth about the academic progressives that they invent 'stories' to support their claims that vote fraud doesn't exist but fight to the death when given a chance to prove it.
Corruption and fraud are two of the three basic tenants of the democrat party.
The third is hypocrisy.
-
Everyone who has looked for all this massive voter fraud have come up empty handed.
so a little voter fraud is ok with you?
another way to put it: nice strawman you set up there.
-
That is demonstrably not true - try just a little Google Fu and you will find many examples of actual voter fraud; charged, prosecuted and convicted; almost exclusively Democrat in nature.
'Gimp
You mean like this? https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud (https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud)
Or this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/)
-
Until someone can explain how voter fraud can be detected absent people verifying voter eligibility, claims that no fraud exists are without substance.
-
I feel obligated to make my annual mention that we should completely flip our voter registration process to an automatic system.
-
Everyone who has looked for all this massive voter fraud have come up empty handed. In the meantime the GOP tries to invent every means they can to prevent people voting. Given the horrid turnouts in the US I think we should do as much as possible to encourage voting.
Here's one I like. I showed up to vote a couple years ago. Didn't have any ID, I only rarely carry a wallet. Couldn't vote without ID. I was recognized by several people, including one of the folks signing people in. My ID could have been checked instantly on the internet, I am very easily looked up. But no ID, no vote.
GOP has invented an imaginary boogeyman and tries to restrict voting based on him.
Utter bullshit.
I like how the laws should be designed to assist people too stupid or lazy to bring their wallet to the polls.
-
Just imagine how unfair it is requiring someone to show an ID to vote!
At the next democrat function where Hillary speaks I'm going in and question her about it!
Oh wait......to get into a Hillary campaign function you need an ID.......
-
I feel obligated to make my annual mention that we should completely flip our voter registration process to an automatic system.
you have more faith in automation than I do.
-
I feel obligated to make my annual mention that we should completely flip our voter registration process to an automatic system.
And I feel obligated to refute your annual mention that any "automatic" voter registration will be out of date the day after someone registers, as it offers no proof of residency in a particular municipality, county, or other political subdivision.
As proof, I have moved no less than 17 times since I registered with the Selective Service at age 18. My first move came 6 months after I registered. The SS had no idea where I lived, nor was I obligated to advise them of my change in address.
-
Everyone who has looked for all this massive voter fraud have come up empty handed. In the meantime the GOP tries to invent every means they can to prevent people voting. Given the horrid turnouts in the US I think we should do as much as possible to encourage voting.
Here's one I like. I showed up to vote a couple years ago. Didn't have any ID, I only rarely carry a wallet. Couldn't vote without ID. I was recognized by several people, including one of the folks signing people in. My ID could have been checked instantly on the internet, I am very easily looked up. But no ID, no vote.
GOP has invented an imaginary boogeyman and tries to restrict voting based on him.
1- How does anybody know if there is any fraud or not? Without checking and documenting, how can you know? It should seem logical and natural to a scientist to document and verify.
2- Go home and get your wallet knuckelhead! ;) I think most people are the opposite because they drive cars and always have ID on them. The only time I am off my property and don't have ID on me is when I'm on vacation on a resort.
-
And I feel obligated to refute your annual mention that any "automatic" voter registration will be out of date the day after someone registers, as it offers no proof of residency in a particular municipality, county, or other political subdivision.
As proof, I have moved no less than 17 times since I registered with the Selective Service at age 18. My first move came 6 months after I registered. The SS had no idea where I lived, nor was I obligated to advise them of my change in address.
It works, in other countries and even in our own (https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/automatic-voter-registration). It can, and should, be done. It is also a proposal that could have bipartisan support, unlike this one that was struck down.
-
1- How does anybody know if there is any fraud or not? Without checking and documenting, how can you know? It should seem logical and natural to a scientist to document and verify.
To be honest, people showing up at the voting booth under false credentials is a really stupid way to throw an election. Far better to do what they did in my state, which was to jimmy the voting machines.
2- Go home and get your wallet knuckelhead! ;) I think most people are the opposite because they drive cars and always have ID on them. The only time I am off my property and don't have ID on me is when I'm on vacation on a resort.
My father took a bullet fighting people who made the saying "papers please" a hackneyed cliche. I'd be spitting on his grave if I felt compelled to carry identification with me everywhere. Anyone with a smart phone can instantly see who I am.
-
My father took a bullet fighting people who made the saying "papers please" a hackneyed cliche. I'd be spitting on his grave if I felt compelled to carry identification with me everywhere. Anyone with a smart phone can instantly see who I am.
I had no idea that you were a professor in the drama department.
-
I had no idea that you were a professor in the drama department.
And you would prefer to give up the liberty for which so many have suffered and died. Your choice.
-
And you would prefer to give up the liberty for which so many have suffered and died. Your choice.
Voter ID is a way to insure liberty, not destroy it.
Subverting the sanctity of the ballot results in a banana republic.
-
And you would prefer to give up the liberty for which so many have suffered and died. Your choice.
What Liberty is sacrificed by having to prove that you have the right as a citizen to exercise a privilege and right of citizenship?
Anarchy <> Liberty.
-
What Liberty is sacrificed by having to prove that you have the right as a citizen to exercise a privilege and right of citizenship?
Anarchy <> Liberty.
I was not referring to that at all, simply to a poster suggestion gI have ID on me at all times. Nonetheless, there is no data demonstrating the existence of the sort of voter fraud IDs prevent actually impinging an election. If it happens at all it is sufficiently sporadic to fly beneath the radar. It is easily checked, since, unlike me, most people do indeed carry their identification. I posit that massive voter fraud is nothing more than a figment of the collective GOP imagination. Prove me wrong.
-
The second amendment guarantees our rights to bear arms, so why would any citizen be required to show an ID to buy a gun?
-
The second amendment guarantees our rights to bear arms, so why would any citizen be required to show an ID to buy a gun?
Why have to show an ID to own a car?
-
Why have to show an ID to own a car?
Yep, doesn't the government understand this could keep minorities and poor people from owning a car?
-
I was not referring to that at all, simply to a poster suggestion gI have ID on me at all times. Nonetheless, there is no data demonstrating the existence of the sort of voter fraud IDs prevent actually impinging an election. If it happens at all it is sufficiently sporadic to fly beneath the radar. It is easily checked, since, unlike me, most people do indeed carry their identification. I posit that massive voter fraud is nothing more than a figment of the collective GOP imagination. Prove me wrong.
When you equate having to have an ID to vote to having to show "your papers" to the Nazis "at all times", you created what is called a straw man.
Another straw man is your demand to see proof of "massive" vote fraud.
There is no dispute that vote fraud exists. Always has, and always will. People HAVE gone to jail for it. It's also a crime that is extremely difficult to prove once a fraudulent voter exists the polling place, due to the anonymity that is required to pull it off. Any vote fraud is unacceptable, and denies citizens of their right to a free and fair election.
Finally, there is zero evidence that any citizen in any corner of the US cannot easily get a sufficient ID with which to use to cast their votes.
-
There is no dispute that vote fraud exists. Always has, and always will. People HAVE gone to jail for it. It's also a crime that is extremely difficult to prove once a fraudulent voter exists the polling place, due to the anonymity that is required to pull it off. Any vote fraud is unacceptable, and denies citizens of their right to a free and fair election.
Finally, there is zero evidence that any citizen in any corner of the US cannot easily get a sufficient ID with which to use to cast their votes.
There is dispute that sufficient voter fraud exists to necessitate the need for ID at the voting station. I am disputing it right here and right now. Prove it.
-
I posit that massive voter fraud is nothing more than a figment of the collective GOP imagination. Prove me wrong.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212216/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212216/posts)
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/432240-what-percentage-of-college-students-vote-twice/ (https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/432240-what-percentage-of-college-students-vote-twice/)
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/election2k/marquette.htm (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/election2k/marquette.htm)
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008308.html (http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008308.html)
-
You have exactly one person charged with fraud, and some allegations. Since I was prevented from exercising my franchise by the law I think we're even from the one guy who actually had the show up in court. The rest are allegations which wouldn't be stopped by the law, by the way. The aren't alleged to have voted as someone else, they're alleged to have voted twice using absentee ballots. Voter ID law wouldn't prevent this, assuming it even happened. Swing and miss, as usual.
-
There is dispute that sufficient voter fraud exists to necessitate the need for ID at the voting station. I am disputing it right here and right now. Prove it.
How much is necessary for you? You obviously have a threshold that you are seeking. What is it? And why must it reach a certain level? Have you been so dumbed down by the liberal mindset that virtually no fraud or crime is problematic if it furthers your electoral goals? See: Clinton, Hillary.
-
How much is necessary for you? You obviously have a threshold that you are seeking. What is it? And why must it reach a certain level? Have you been so dumbed down by the liberal mindset that virtually no fraud or crime is problematic if it furthers your electoral goals? See: Clinton, Hillary.
I have yet to see and example of some sort of widespread fraud that would necessitate the laws under discussion. My own franchise was nullified, thus I can prove a pejorative effect. No one can prove the sort of fraud that these laws protect against. Moreover, no one is even bright enough to realize that the sort of fraud they are worried about is one of the most inefficient ways to swing an election imaginable. Thus I claim the GOPs fixation on voter ID is a thinly veiled attempt to keep poor people away from the pols because they're more likely to vote for the other guys.
-
How much is necessary for you? You obviously have a threshold that you are seeking. What is it? And why must it reach a certain level? Have you been so dumbed down by the liberal mindset that virtually no fraud or crime is problematic if it furthers your electoral goals? See: Clinton, Hillary.
you are overlooking his strawman that it's MASSIVE fraud that we are trying to address.
or WIDESPREAD fraud.
of course, Steingar fails to acknowledge the fact that no one can claim that there is no fraud when there is no validation of voter eligibility.
-
To be honest, people showing up at the voting booth under false credentials is a really stupid way to throw an election. Far better to do what they did in my state, which was to jimmy the voting machines.
I didn't say anything about a plot to throw an election. Basically if you open the boarders and then not check any IDs at the voting place, you can get illegal immigrants voting. Which party are they likely to vote for, the one that wants to close the border, or the one that doesn't give a damn?? This is the Democrat strategy. It's not a plot so much as a strategy.
My father took a bullet fighting people who made the saying "papers please" a hackneyed cliche. I'd be spitting on his grave if I felt compelled to carry identification with me everywhere. Anyone with a smart phone can instantly see who I am.
That's neat, how does that work for the highway patrol when they pull you over? "Wait officer, let me just reach for my cell phone..." I just don't want to go there. Also, if an individual had the brain cells to be able to go to a cell phone provider and set up an account for a cell phone, they can more than easily handle the task of getting a state ID. Be realistic. Ask yourself just how hard is it to get a state issued ID?
-
I have yet to see and example of some sort of widespread fraud that would necessitate the laws under discussion. My own franchise was nullified, thus I can prove a pejorative effect. No one can prove the sort of fraud that these laws protect against. Moreover, no one is even bright enough to realize that the sort of fraud they are worried about is one of the most inefficient ways to swing an election imaginable. Thus I claim the GOPs fixation on voter ID is a thinly veiled attempt to keep poor people away from the pols because they're more likely to vote for the other guys.
How does it keep poor people away from polls when the ID is free?? It cost them nothing but time out of their busy day.
-
How does it keep poor people away from polls when the ID is free?? It cost them nothing but time out of their busy day.
'
If you're poor you may not have transportation to get to wherever the free ID is, you may not be able to get away from work or familial obligations. It would be a hardship for me. I walk to work most days and have no transportation. I can take my motorcycle, but not during the cold half of the year. I would have a tough time doing this myself. I really do have trouble with things like physician visits and the like during the winter, it kills my whole day.
Were there actually evidence of the sort of fraud these laws defend against I'd be a supporter, but there isn't. No one in this three has been able to come up with instances where someone showed up to the polls under false pretenses. GOP operatives have looked extensively and not found it.
-
'
If you're poor you may not have transportation to get to wherever the free ID is, you may not be able to get away from work or familial obligations. It would be a hardship for me. I walk to work most days and have no transportation. I can take my motorcycle, but not during the cold half of the year. I would have a tough time doing this myself. I really do have trouble with things like physician visits and the like during the winter, it kills my whole day.
Were there actually evidence of the sort of fraud these laws defend against I'd be a supporter, but there isn't. No one in this three has been able to come up with instances where someone showed up to the polls under false pretenses. GOP operatives have looked extensively and not found it.
again, you fail to acknowledge that without eligibility verification, you cannot claim no fraud exists.
Years ago, a company was pleased that the number of security infractions and violations were significantly reduced from previous years. They were also happy that, as a cost-cutting measure, they eliminated the daily afternoon security sweeps.
-
again, you fail to acknowledge that without eligibility verification, you cannot claim no fraud exists.
So basically you're saying the because you can't tell whether or not fraud exists you have to defend against it with a law that will prevent some people from voting. I can't see see angels and boogeymen. Should we have laws that protect ourselves from them, too?
-
So basically you're saying the because you can't tell whether or not fraud exists you have to defend against it with a law that will prevent some people from voting. I can't see see angels and boogeymen. Should we have laws that protect ourselves from them, too?
<sigh>
I'm saying that there isn't a means to detect fraud because no one verifies eligibility. And therefore claims (like yours) that fraud doesn't exist are fatally flawed.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
-
And you would prefer to give up the liberty for which so many have suffered and died. Your choice.
So the lie about vote fraud not existing didn;t work, so you move right on to nazis and think that defense will shut down honest debate.
Good professor of pathetic.
-
<sigh>
I'm saying that there isn't a means to detect fraud because no one verifies eligibility. And therefore claims (like yours) that fraud doesn't exist are fatally flawed.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
So you're advocating a law to prevent a potential and completely undocumented occurrence that is unlikely to sway elections and can keep people from voting. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
So you're advocating a law to prevent a potential and completely undocumented occurrence that is unlikely to sway elections and can keep people from voting.
Your intellectual blindness destroys any credence to your argument. Just because democrats can't win elections without cheating, you make up these barriers to truth so your political purity can remain intact.
If you truly believed your lies, you wouldn't hesitate to want them tested by instituting significant Voter ID laws then proving that your make believe feelings were correct.
-
So you're advocating a law to prevent a potential and completely undocumented occurrence that is unlikely to sway elections and can keep people from voting. Thanks for clearing that up.
Why are you being dishonest?
-
Why are you being dishonest?
I don't believe it's dishonesty, I believe it's the result of living within a fantasy land of academia in which its affirmed daily that the academics are superior in thought over the lowly masses, and whatever their "reasoning" is, of course, correct and superior.
Blinded by a flawed ideology and sheltered in a bubble such as a unversity only adds to the problem as real life outside the bubble is a strange and difficult environment for them.
-
Why are you being dishonest?
Could you please point to the part of my post that's dishonest.
I asked for documented instances of voter fraud. All I got were things the new laws wound NOT protect against. I was then told that the laws protected against a potential strategy that could not be documented. I pointed out that said strategy is the stupidest and most ineffective means to swing an election. I gave an example of one that was employed with greater facility and very successful results.
Can you point to where I lying? Personally, I think the accusation quite rude.
-
Can you point to where I lying? Personally, I think the accusation quite rude.
He's a Trumpkin...what do you expect:
-
Could you please point to the part of my post that's dishonest.
I asked for documented instances of voter fraud. All I got were things the new laws wound NOT protect against. I was then told that the laws protected against a potential strategy that could not be documented. I pointed out that said strategy is the stupidest and most ineffective means to swing an election. I gave an example of one that was employed with greater facility and very successful results.
Can you point to where I lying? Personally, I think the accusation quite rude.
your reply (#40)
your misrepresenting my statements is classic rudeness and dishonesty
-
He's a Trumpkin...what do you expect:
Don't be an idiot.
If you think I'm a "Trumpkin", you are completely wrong.
-
Don't be an idiot.
If you think I'm a "Trumpkin", you are completely wrong.
I was referring to Lucifer.
And, if you intend to support Trump in November, you're endorsing his agenda, and can be labeled a Trumpkin.
-
I asked for documented instances of voter fraud. All I got were things the new laws wound NOT protect against. I was then told that the laws protected against a potential strategy that could not be documented.
This sounds to me like the argument for "common sense gun safety laws."
-
'
If you're poor you may not have transportation to get to wherever the free ID is, you may not be able to get away from work or familial obligations. It would be a hardship for me. I walk to work most days and have no transportation. I can take my motorcycle, but not during the cold half of the year. I would have a tough time doing this myself. I really do have trouble with things like physician visits and the like during the winter, it kills my whole day.
Were there actually evidence of the sort of fraud these laws defend against I'd be a supporter, but there isn't. No one in this three has been able to come up with instances where someone showed up to the polls under false pretenses. GOP operatives have looked extensively and not found it.
Oh my God. I had NO idea citizenship could be SO taxing to people. I'm going to work to end all voter ID law, and actually try to get Congress to pass a law mandating that the government hire about 50 million drivers to personally drive ballots to people's homes or workplace, and provide the writing instruments needed to mark your ballot.
The democrats have a track record of selling "smokes for votes" here in Wisconsin, so we should piggy back in that model.
Thank you for highlighting the downsides of the burdens of citizenship. You're a real Patriot.
-
your reply (#40)
your misrepresenting my statements is classic rudeness and dishonesty
This is the reply to which you object:
So you're advocating a law to prevent a potential and completely undocumented occurrence that is unlikely to sway elections and can keep people from voting. Thanks for clearing that up
Now I'll parse it out:
You're advocating a law; which you appear to be doing. You are advocating the voter ID laws enacted in some states and considered in others.
to prevent a potential and completely undocumented occurrence; so far there hasn't been one shred of evidence presented in this thread (or anywhere else, for that matter)
that is unlikely to sway elections; the number of people you'd need to do this is large, thus the need for commands and control, thus the potential for discovery. It really doesn't work very well at all, except in your imagination.
and can keep people from voting; it already kept me from voting. Case closed.
Please tell me which of these statements in a purposeful mistruth.
-
Don't be an idiot.
If idiocy was brass Jeff would be a band.
-
it already kept me from voting. Case closed.
How unfortunate that you showed up at the polls just before closing and didn't have time to go home for your ID. Lesson learned?
-
How unfortunate that you showed up at the polls just before closing and didn't have time to go home for your ID. Lesson learned?
You guys say it doesn't prevent someone from voting. I do. It prevented me. Done deal, sorry you don't like it. All so you can protect against an utterly imaginary threat. You guys must believe in the Easter Bunny too.
-
So how does someone who is living on public assistance (welfare) collect benefits without showing ID?
Are we to believe that no ID is required for welfare? If it is required, then doesn't this prevent the poor and minorities from receiving it?
And why would the government require an ID for welfare? Obviously there is no one trying to defraud the government for public assistance, right?
-
I was not referring to that at all, simply to a poster suggestion gI have ID on me at all times. Nonetheless, there is no data demonstrating the existence of the sort of voter fraud IDs prevent actually impinging an election. If it happens at all it is sufficiently sporadic to fly beneath the radar. It is easily checked, since, unlike me, most people do indeed carry their identification. I posit that massive voter fraud is nothing more than a figment of the collective GOP imagination. Prove me wrong.
"Poll tax" disenfranchisement equivalence with proving who you claim to be and that you are registered in the voting district in which you are voting is nothing more than a figment of the collective DNC imagination. Prove me wrong.
-
You guys say it doesn't prevent someone from voting. I do. It prevented me. Done deal, sorry you don't like it. All so you can protect against an utterly imaginary threat. You guys must believe in the Easter Bunny too.
You must believe in Norse deities too.
-
Thank you for highlighting the downsides of the burdens of citizenship. You're a real Patriot.
The ends justify the means.
-
You guys say it doesn't prevent someone from voting. I do. It prevented me. Done deal, sorry you don't like it. All so you can protect against an utterly imaginary threat. You guys must believe in the Easter Bunny too.
No, it didn't. It prevented you from not being inconvenienced because of (a) your own incompetence for not knowing the rules, or (b) your obstinance for refusing to accept the rules designed to ensure a fair and free election.
-
"Poll tax" disenfranchisement equivalence with proving who you claim to be and that you are registered in the voting district in which you are voting is nothing more than a figment of the collective DNC imagination. Prove me wrong.
I already did. It prevented me. Case closed.
-
I already did. It prevented me. Case closed.
By the same token, if your car broke down and the State didn't pick you up, you would be prevented from voting, therefore the State not providing free transport to the polls is disenfranchisement.
You were unable to vote because you screwed up. Case Closed.
-
No, it didn't. It prevented you from not being inconvenienced because of (a) your own incompetence for not knowing the rules, or (b) your obstinance for refusing to accept the rules designed to ensure a fair and free election.
Except the rules are protecting against an imaginary crime that has never even been shown to occur in any reasonable capacity. Now here's the rub. I have really good reason for not caring a wallet, quite a few of them actually. Moreover, I frequently work from when the polls open to just about the time they close, so my access is limited. And I'm on foot. The day I was shut out I couldn't have driven if I wanted to.
You wanted a case where someone was prevented from voting and I gave you one. Now you're upping the bar, saying that isn't good enough. Lots of people work during normal business hours, when government agencies in charge of giving out IDs are open. That means they have to forego income to get your precious IDs. Plenty of people lack transportation to get to where they must go, again I know some and often am one such, though it is by choice.
I really and truly have no idea whatsoever how welfare works. The only time I saw someone use a SNAP card I didn't see any ID.
Like I said before, we have the LOWEST level of voter participation of just about any western democracy. We should be trying to get people to the polls, not inventing reasons to send them away.
-
Those reasons are why there is early voting and absentee voting. I vote absentee, do not even know where my polling place is. Voting is one of the easiest things there is to do involving government.
-
I really and truly have no idea whatsoever how welfare works. The only time I saw someone use a SNAP card I didn't see any ID.
So you don't believe that in order to apply for that SNAP card the applicant had to show an ID. Right.
Like I said before, we have the LOWEST level of voter participation of just about any western democracy. We should be trying to get people to the polls, not inventing reasons to send them away.
No one has invented a reason to send voters away. The state's have done a great job in encouraging voter registration. They also have come up with ways to get ID's in the event someone doesn't have a drivers license. They even have vote by mail, absentee voter, etc programs to help people vote.
It's very simple, doesn't discriminate. Just produce an ID to prove you are the actual voter. How simple?
-
Unfortunately for most of you, Steingar is right.
The type of fraud that photo voter ID is designed to prevent does not happen to any statistical extent. It is not true that we can't or don't know whether it is happening without voter ID. Further, other types of fraud are also rare. There have been plenty of examinations of voter rolls and voters to understand whether fraud is widespread.
The real problem is that our voter registration system is bullshit. The rolls are a mess, voter turnout is shit, we spend a fortune handling it, and we have constant battles about voter ID and disenfranchisement. The only solution that lives up to our country's ideal of making voting as open as possible to citizens, has the potential for bi-partisan support, AND assuages the GOP's unfounded fear of vote fraud, is an automatic, opt-out style registration system. Period.
But anyway, let's fight some more about voter ID.
-
John Oliver says it way better than I can:
-
The real problem is that our voter registration system is bullshit. The rolls are a mess, voter turnout is shit, we spend a fortune handling it, and we have constant battles about voter ID and disenfranchisement. The only solution that lives up to our country's ideal of making voting as open as possible to citizens, has the potential for bi-partisan support, AND assuages the GOP's unfounded fear of vote fraud, is an automatic, opt-out style registration system. Period.
But anyway, let's fight some more about voter ID.
Well put!
So, is the "problem" of voter fraud a big problem, a medium problem, or a small problem. Are we having elections being corrupted by this fraud? One would think that if voter fraud is that pervasive and blatant, the losers of these elections would be in court with slam dunk cases to reverse them. Of course the argument that ID's at the time of voting is just to show who you are and everyone has them anyway, does sound reasonable, but does have consequences. Being required to show official ID at the time of voting only potentially reduces the chance that one person is impersonating another - a VERY rare occurance.
Asechrest hits it on the head, it's the voting rolls/records that really need the upgrading. I could support an opt-out system.
-
So how much voter fraud is okay? Just wondering so I can tell all my friends.
-
So how much voter fraud is okay? Just wondering so I can tell all my friends.
Vote fraud is not acceptable. Some is inevitable. There Is effectively no fraud of the type that would be prevented by photo ID. Therefore, you may tell your friends you don't support those initiatives.
-
So there is no fraud associated with people trying to collect welfare benefits without showing an ID as well, so why should the poor and minorities have the "burden" of having to show an ID to collect?
Right?
-
So there is no fraud associated with people trying to collect welfare benefits without showing an ID as well, so why should the poor and minorities have the "burden" of having to show an ID to collect?
Right?
You have a problem with the constitution?
PS - they don't have to show a photo ID
-
PS - they don't have to show a photo ID
No photo ID to sign up for welfare benefits you say?
http://www.redstate.com/diary/badkarma6/2011/12/28/the-photo-id-myth/
http://www.calfresh.ca.gov/PG847.htm#list
So how do this poor poor people who can't get a photo ID to vote, get an ID to collect welfare???
-
'
If you're poor you may not have transportation to get to wherever the free ID is, you may not be able to get away from work or familial obligations. It would be a hardship for me. I walk to work most days and have no transportation. I can take my motorcycle, but not during the cold half of the year. I would have a tough time doing this myself. I really do have trouble with things like physician visits and the like during the winter, it kills my whole day.
Were there actually evidence of the sort of fraud these laws defend against I'd be a supporter, but there isn't. No one in this three has been able to come up with instances where someone showed up to the polls under false pretenses. GOP operatives have looked extensively and not found it.
Seriously??? This is your response? What a load of bull crap. They have buses and every poor person in the world knows how to use them. You could ride one too when it's too chilly outside. One day killed, to get an ID out of all the rest of the days of one's life, is too much of a hardship?? You have got to be shitting me!
-
You have a problem with the constitution?
PS - they don't have to show a photo ID
Photo ID laws for voting have been upheld as wholly constitutional many times.
-
I feel obligated to make my annual mention that we should completely flip our voter registration process to an automatic system.
To err is human.
To really screw things up, you need a computer.
-
Seriously??? This is your response? What a load of bull crap. They have buses and every poor person in the world knows how to use them. You could ride one too when it's too chilly outside. One day killed, to get an ID out of all the rest of the days of one's life, is too much of a hardship?? You have got to be shitting me!
That must be some tough school he works at. Can't get away for an hour or two?
Funny how the individual only matters to lefties when they can use him as a corner case to make an argument for "supporting" the collective.
-
Photo ID laws for voting have been upheld as wholly constitutional many times.
My point was not otherwise, only that collecting welfare benefits and exercising the right to vote are in entirely different leagues constitutionally. And he's still wrong (http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/) about photo ID and welfare.
-
To err is human.
To really screw things up, you need a computer.
Trust, but verify.
-
My point was not otherwise, only that collecting welfare benefits and exercising the right to vote are in entirely different leagues constitutionally. And he's still wrong (http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/) about photo ID and welfare.
Then why does your state require it?
http://www.calfresh.ca.gov/PG847.htm#list
-
My point was not otherwise, only that collecting welfare benefits and exercising the right to vote are in entirely different leagues constitutionally. And he's still wrong (http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/) about photo ID and welfare.
Now this is just getting ridiculous. Many of those "alternate" means to identify yourself are harder to get than a free government ID.
The point is, you have to prove who you are, in some way, shape, or form, before you get welfare benefits. You CANNOT just show up, give your name, and collect bennies. Yet that is PRECISELY what anti-voter ID people want voters to be able to do.
In the ultimate irony, according to your article, a VOTER ID CARD can be used as identification for welfare purposes.
-
Then why does your state require it?
http://www.calfresh.ca.gov/PG847.htm#list
I think he lives in Florida.
-
I think he lives in Florida.
Ok, I thought he was a California liberal.
Anyway, here is a sample of Florida SNAP application:
STEP 1: Your application is reviewed to see if you need an interview.
If you need an interview:
We will call you within 5 days at the phone number you provided. If we can’t reach you we will leave a message and send a notice with our contact information.
During your interview, we will ask questions about your household situation.
You may also be asked questions to help us verify your identity.
STEP 2: You may need to provide additional information.
We will give or send a notice to you showing what is needed.
The notice will give you a deadline to provide the required information. Some examples are:
Proof of identity, citizenship, and noncitizen status.
Proof of earned and unearned income for each household member (such as last four weeks of check stubs, child support, notices from Social Security or Veteran’s Administration)
You can mail, fax, upload your documents to MyACCESS Account, or turn in information at a local office or community partner. Please write your ACCESS # or case #, name, date of birth, phone number, etc., on all of the information you give us.
Allow 3 days for your MyACCESS Account to show the information was received.
So how does those poor people and minorities that have such a difficult time getting an ID, how in the world are they going to sign up for welfare?
It's just so unfair!
-
That must be some tough school he works at. Can't get away for an hour or two?
Funny how the individual only matters to lefties when they can use him as a corner case to make an argument for "supporting" the collective.
Guess Ohio doesn't have absentee voter or early voting laws.........oh wait.....
-
That must be some tough school he works at. Can't get away for an hour or two?
Funny how the individual only matters to lefties when they can use him as a corner case to make an argument for "supporting" the collective.
The left's lifeblood is problems, real or imagined. To solve them would remove the Left's need to exist; hence they never solve anything but only make it worse.
-
So after reading this, are we to assume that the university the perfesser works at doesn't require staff or students to have a photo ID as well?
Wouldn't that be unfair as well?
-
Ok, I thought he was a California liberal.
Anyway, here is a sample of Florida SNAP application:
So how does those poor people and minorities that have such a difficult time getting an ID, how in the world are they going to sign up for welfare?
It's just so unfair!
You ASSume a lot of things that aren't true. ;)
Anyway, you're also wrong about Florida SNAP. But again, your comparison is stupid. Getting SNAP benefits is not a protected right. Barriers thereof do not warrant the same scrutiny as does the right to vote.
PS - I am FOR the use of voter ID as part of an automatic voter registration system.
-
You ASSume a lot of things that aren't true. ;)
Anyway, you're also wrong about Florida SNAP. But again, your comparison is stupid. Getting SNAP benefits is not a protected right. Barriers thereof do not warrant the same scrutiny as does the right to vote.
PS - I am FOR the use of voter ID as part of an automatic voter registration system.
Actually, SNAP benefits are protected by the same clause of the Constitution (equal protection of the 14th) as the right to vote.
-
You ASSume a lot of things that aren't true. ;)
Pot, meet kettle.
Anyway, you're also wrong about Florida SNAP. But again, your comparison is stupid. Getting SNAP benefits is not a protected right. Barriers thereof do not warrant the same scrutiny as does the right to vote.
Of course you would think its stupid as it doesn't fit your narrative.
But the liberal talking point is how unjust and unfair to the poor and minorities to require them to get and use an ID to vote, but yet those same poor and minorities have no problem getting an ID (required) to obtain government assistance.
PS - I am FOR the use of voter ID as part of an automatic voter registration system.
So why is it a burden on them to show the ID before voting if they showed the ID to register?
-
Actually, SNAP benefits are protected by the same clause of the Constitution (equal protection of the 14th) as the right to vote.
I disagree. The right to vote is singled out by name more than any other in the constitution -- five separate times. In four amendments -- 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th -- it states that the right to vote shall not be abridged. Not so for SNAP benefits. You could abolish SNAP benefits entirely and not be in contravention of the constitution, in my opinion.
-
Pot, meet kettle.
Of course you would think its stupid as it doesn't fit your narrative.
But the liberal talking point is how unjust and unfair to the poor and minorities to require them to get and use an ID to vote, but yet those same poor and minorities have no problem getting an ID (required) to obtain government assistance.
So why is it a burden on them to show the ID before voting if they showed the ID to register?
SNAP benefits often don't require photo ID. SNAP benefits != voting. /fin
I don't know what you mean in your last question if you're referring to an automatic registration system. Which, I note, you've not commented on. Typical.
-
I disagree. The right to vote is singled out by name more than any other in the constitution -- five separate times. In four amendments -- 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th -- it states that the right to vote shall not be abridged. Not so for SNAP benefits. You could abolish SNAP benefits entirely and not be in contravention of the constitution, in my opinion.
Wouldn't that apply to Federal elections. Didn't the Supreme Court rule in Bush v Gore rule that there is no right to vote in the Presidential election?
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html)
-
Wouldn't that apply to Federal elections. Didn't the Supreme Court rule in Bush v Gore rule that there is no right to vote in the Presidential election?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html)
Yep.
The state could create a $1b Property Qualification to vote for electors if they so chose.
-
Wouldn't that apply to Federal elections. Didn't the Supreme Court rule in Bush v Gore rule that there is no right to vote in the Presidential election?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html)
Yes, unfortunately. That was a terrible part of the decision.
-
So after reading this, are we to assume that the university the perfesser works at doesn't require staff or students to have a photo ID as well?
Wouldn't that be unfair as well?
I'll bet they do to register for classes or for proctored exams.
-
I'll bet they do to register for classes or for proctored exams.
What?? Show an ID to take an exam! That would be a burden on the poor!
-
Yes, unfortunately. That was a terrible part of the decision.
What? That's nothing new, it's always been there and the court reaffirmed it.
-
SNAP benefits often don't require photo ID. SNAP benefits != voting. /fin
I don't know what you mean in your last question if you're referring to an automatic registration system. Which, I note, you've not commented on. Typical.
Nice twist and deflection, typical.
And you refuse to answer my question, again, typical.
-
What? That's nothing new, it's always been there and the court reaffirmed it.
What has "always been there"?
-
Nice twist and deflection, typical.
And you refuse to answer my question, again, typical.
Restate the question, since as-stated it doesn't apply to an automatic registration system.
-
What has "always been there"?
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.
-
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.
I trust that you know you're quoting a portion of the Bush v. Gore decision from the year 2000. This is an interpretation of that section of the constitution. Anyway, I acknowledge that there is no affirmative right to vote in the constitution. I'm a big fan of enshrining that right via amendment. But I think that, given the number if times it is mentioned in the constitution, the intent is clear: we have a right to vote in our republic.
-
I trust that you know you're quoting a portion of the Bush v. Gore decision from the year 2000. This is an interpretation of that section of the constitution. Anyway, I acknowledge that there is no affirmative right to vote in the constitution. I'm a big fan of enshrining that right via amendment. But I think that, given the number if times it is mentioned in the constitution, the intent is clear: we have a right to vote in our republic.
The constitution is quit clear on the subject and the decision only affirmed what was there.
We do have a right to vote and the states have a right to set the rules on how voting will be conducted.
-
I trust that you know you're quoting a portion of the Bush v. Gore decision from the year 2000. This is an interpretation of that section of the constitution.
Please then, please cite the Article and Section or Amendment and Section that provide a right to vote for President of the US.
-
Please then, please cite the Article and Section or Amendment and Section that provide a right to vote for President of the US.
I know you'll correct me, but I was under the assumption that the right to vote was inherently assumed until the Gore v. Bush ruling. Why would we pass several amendments to the constitution to prohibit local governments from inhibiting the "right" to vote based on age, gender, race, or status of land ownership?
-
Please then, please cite the Article and Section or Amendment and Section that provide a right to vote for President of the US.
As you know, the constitution isn't in the business of giving rights, but protecting them. It does not affirmatively state that people have a right to free speech or religion, but rather prohibits the government from making laws that infringe upon them. In my opinion it is the same for voting. Frankly, voting is arguably more sacred than any other right in the context of our governing, given that our Republic would cease to exist as the founders created it if citizens no longer had power to vote for the government of the people. I know this is muddied a bit by the electoral college with respect to the presidential election but it is still my opinion that citizens have a right to vote, and I think you'd have difficulty contending otherwise given its specific mention in the constitution.
Maybe we should implement a national popular vote for president, as James Madison would have preferred.
-
Why would we pass several amendments to the constitution to prohibit local governments from inhibiting the "right" to vote based on...status of land ownership?
Which amendment does this?
A state would be entirely free to impose a property requirement under the present Constitution.
-
As you know, the constitution isn't in the business of giving rights, but protecting them. It does not affirmatively state that people have a right to free speech or religion, but rather prohibits the government from making laws that infringe upon them. In my opinion it is the same for voting. Frankly, voting is arguably more sacred than any other right in the context of our governing, given that our Republic would cease to exist as the founders created it if citizens no longer had power to vote for the government of the people. I know this is muddied a bit by the electoral college with respect to the presidential election but it is still my opinion that citizens have a right to vote, and I think you'd have difficulty contending otherwise given its specific mention in the constitution.
Maybe we should implement a national popular vote for president, as James Madison would have preferred.
The people are peasants. They are too ignorant to vote.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a213/tcny05/Humor/Movie%20and%20TV%20Humor/El%20Presidente%20-%20Woody%20Allen%20Bananas_zpskymnngnj.jpg)
-
Which amendment does this?
A state would be entirely free to impose a property requirement under the present Constitution.
I wish they would, actually.
-
As you know, the constitution isn't in the business of giving rights, but protecting them. It does not affirmatively state that people have a right to free speech or religion, but rather prohibits the government from making laws that infringe upon them. In my opinion it is the same for voting. Frankly, voting is arguably more sacred than any other right in the context of our governing, given that our Republic would cease to exist as the founders created it if citizens no longer had power to vote for the government of the people. I know this is muddied a bit by the electoral college with respect to the presidential election but it is still my opinion that citizens have a right to vote, and I think you'd have difficulty contending otherwise given its specific mention in the constitution.
Maybe we should implement a national popular vote for president, as James Madison would have preferred.
That would be fantastic. The citizens of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and other large cities will elect our presidents henceforth. Citizens of the Dakotas, Wyoming, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and other less populated states get zero say in it, because Democracy!!
-
That would be fantastic. The citizens of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and other large cities will elect our presidents henceforth. Citizens of the Dakotas, Wyoming, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and other less populated states get zero say in it, because Democracy!!
I wish they would, actually.
Ok, throw Tampa and Miami into the selectoral process. Congratulations.
(And yes I made up that word.)
-
That would be fantastic. The citizens of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and other large cities will elect our presidents henceforth. Citizens of the Dakotas, Wyoming, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and other less populated states get zero say in it, because Democracy!!
Fine, fine. I'll settle for an automatic voter registration system. ;D
-
Fine, fine. I'll settle for an automatic voter registration system. ;D
If I get to develop it.
-
If I get to develop it.
Deal!
-
I know you'll correct me, but I was under the assumption that the right to vote was inherently assumed until the Gore v. Bush ruling. Why would we pass several amendments to the constitution to prohibit local governments from inhibiting the "right" to vote based on age, gender, race, or status of land ownership?
Typical bullspit.
The amendments and Bush v Gore CLARIFIED many things held in question and defined legally that many things the democrat partisans were doing to rig the 2000 election after the fact were illegal.
-
If idiocy was brass Jeff would be a band.
I found that quite humorous and decided to add one of my favorite bands; Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass
-
Now that's what I call lip sync!
-
Kitchen sink.
-
Sort of funny. In one of my classes we do require students to show ID. They take their examinations on computer, so we can't look at handwriting. We've had ringers, indeed I think I had one last semester. We have to check ID against the ID that shows up on the computer. Of course the University issues free ID to any student that is easily obtained but would not suffice in any voting station.
-
Sort of funny. In one of my classes we do require students to show ID. They take their examinations on computer, so we can't look at handwriting. We've had ringers, indeed I think I had one last semester. We have to check ID against the ID that shows up on the computer. Of course the University issues free ID to any student that is easily obtained but would not suffice in any voting station.
So you actively discriminate against students by requiring them to show ID to take an exam?
-
So you actively discriminate against students by requiring them to show ID to take an exam?
Nope. We make it very, very easy for them to obtain acceptable ID. The office to do so is right on campus, a short walk from the lecture hall. Indeed, I had to do so myself the other day, my ID was old and dog-eared. Took about ten minutes and was utterly painless. If obtaining government ID was as easy I'd have no objection. But in many, if not most places it simply isn't.
-
Nope. We make it very, very easy for them to obtain acceptable ID. The office to do so is right on campus, a short walk from the lecture hall. Indeed, I had to do so myself the other day, my ID was old and dog-eared. Took about ten minutes and was utterly painless. If obtaining government ID was as easy I'd have no objection. But in many, if not most places it simply isn't.
So if the student says he forgot his ID, you would simply go ahead and let him take the exam, right?
BTW, getting a government ID is no worse than getting a student ID at your college.
-
So if the student says he forgot his ID, you would simply go ahead and let him take the exam, right?
Yup. But it doesn't get graded until I can confirm the student is who he says he or she is. Unlike voter fraud, I can point out a clear history of ringers.
BTW, getting a government ID is no worse than getting a student ID at your college.
Prove it.
-
Yup. But it doesn't get graded until I can confirm the student is who he says he or she is. Unlike voter fraud, I can point out a clear history of ringers.
So why not take their word when they tell you who they are? Why do you want to discriminate against them?
Prove it.
Go to your state's website and look it up.
-
Go to your state's website and look it up.
This is sort of funny. I just did. I have to admit, I only looked for a couple minutes, but I am pretty good at these sort of things. I couldn't find one thing about where to get voter ID. Not one. I'm certain it can be done, but it doesn't appear as easy as all that.
-
This is sort of funny. I just did. I have to admit, I only looked for a couple minutes, but I am pretty good at these sort of things. I couldn't find one thing about where to get voter ID. Not one. I'm certain it can be done, but it doesn't appear as easy as all that.
I'm not aware of any state that has a specific "voter ID", but they will accept a government issued ID as proof when voting. (ID that has a picture)
This is usually a driver's license. For those who don't drive most states offer a state issued ID that is very easy to obtain.
Is this really that difficult to understand?
-
This is sort of funny. I just did. I have to admit, I only looked for a couple minutes, but I am pretty good at these sort of things. I couldn't find one thing about where to get voter ID. Not one. I'm certain it can be done, but it doesn't appear as easy as all that.
It took only one quick Google to find THIS (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx)
-
I remember when the Indiana case went to the Supreme Court. The trial court asked the Dems (who were challenging) to provide instances of people who would be disenfranchised by the law. You know how many examples they could find in the state of Indiana?
Zero.
-
It took only one quick Google to find THIS (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx)
The perfesser is still trying to find a "voter ID".......... ::)
-
I'm not aware of any state that has a specific "voter ID", but they will accept a government issued ID as proof when voting. (ID that has a picture)
This is usually a driver's license. For those who don't drive most states offer a state issued ID that is very easy to obtain.
Is this really that difficult to understand?
I parsed out several phrases such as "non-driver's license ID", "voter ID', and "photo ID", for my state. Didn't come up with anything clear. Not saying it can't be done, just that it isn't as easy as all that. And once I've found whatever office produces them I need to find out where it is and when its open.
Lets see you find the appropriate office for your locality. What do they consider appropriate ID to get one of the things? I bet they need a birth certificate. Still got yours?
-
It took only one quick Google to find THIS (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx)
Yeah, I found it. The law changed here, now you don't need a photo ID (last election you did). You can just give them a bill. That said, giving them a non photo ID does nothing at all to prevent voter fraud. I could just give them someone else's bill, for example.
My search was for an actual non driver's license photo ID. I am certain the my state has one, and I am certain a dedicated person could find the appropriate office where they'r issued. I just couldn't find it in a quick search.
-
I parsed out several phrases such as "non-driver's license ID", "voter ID', and "photo ID", for my state. Didn't come up with anything clear. Not saying it can't be done, just that it isn't as easy as all that. And once I've found whatever office produces them I need to find out where it is and when its open.
The state I reside will issue a government ID in about 10 minutes at the same place they issue driver's licenses. Very easy.
As I understand it most states do the same.
Lets see you find the appropriate office for your locality. What do they consider appropriate ID to get one of the things? I bet they need a birth certificate. Still got yours?
Yes, certified copy from the state. ::)
-
I googled "Voter ID in (State picked at random)". I clicked on the third URL displayed. I was surprised at what kind of docs can suffice...seems like no barrier at all to legitimate voting.
-
I googled "Voter ID in (State picked at random)". I clicked on the third URL displayed. I was surprised at what kind of docs can suffice...seems like no barrier at all to legitimate voting.
Therein lies the Democrat objection.
-
I googled "Voter ID in (State picked at random)". I clicked on the third URL displayed. I was surprised at what kind of docs can suffice...seems like no barrier at all to legitimate voting.
Da perfesser is still trying to figure out this Google thing.........give him time.
My bet is he will be back and tell you that state ID's don't actually exist.
-
Another quick Google on "(Random State) DMV" took me to the DMV page, and then two clicks gave me THIS (http://www.dmv.org/oh-ohio/id-cards.php)
-
Another quick Google on "(Random State) DMV" took me to the DMV page, and then two clicks gave me THIS (http://www.dmv.org/oh-ohio/id-cards.php)
Perfesser will tell you that's a complicated process and it discriminates.
-
Perfesser will tell you that's a complicated process and it discriminates.
Yeah. Poor people would have to go ride a bus to the library to use the internet.
Oh, wait....they could use their Obamaphone.
-
Another quick Google on "(Random State) DMV" took me to the DMV page, and then two clicks gave me THIS (http://www.dmv.org/oh-ohio/id-cards.php)
You did better than I. That said one does have to get to the BMV, which is in no way convenient if one doesn't drive, which someone probably doesn't do if one needs a non-driver's license photo ID. Moreover, the list of documents needed seemed someone on the difficult side. I doubt I have half of those.
That, and try waiting at a BMV sometime. And yes, it is utterly discriminatory. Anyone who has money has a driver's license because they have a car. Poor folks lack cars. And in this country poor folk are more likely to be black or brown.
Like I said, we should be trying to get people to the polls rather than keep them from it. The measures under consideration do nothing to prevent voter fraud, nothing at all. At least no fraud on a level that swings elections. Sort of like taking a bazooka to get rid of the neighborhood coon. You'll get him, but you're likely to do more damage to the houses than he is.
-
You did better than I. That said one does have to get to the BMV, which is in no way convenient if one doesn't drive, which someone probably doesn't do if one needs a non-driver's license photo ID. Moreover, the list of documents needed seemed someone on the difficult side. I doubt I have half of those.
That, and try waiting at a BMV sometime. And yes, it is utterly discriminatory. Anyone who has money has a driver's license because they have a car. Poor folks lack cars. And in this country poor folk are more likely to be black or brown.
Like I said, we should be trying to get people to the polls rather than keep them from it. The measures under consideration do nothing to prevent voter fraud, nothing at all. At least no fraud on a level that swings elections. Sort of like taking a bazooka to get rid of the neighborhood coon. You'll get him, but you're likely to do more damage to the houses than he is.
What a total load of bullshit.
-
ACORN will make sure they get to the polls, again and again.
-
You did better than I. That said one does have to get to the BMV, which is in no way convenient if one doesn't drive, which someone probably doesn't do if one needs a non-driver's license photo ID. Moreover, the list of documents needed seemed someone on the difficult side. I doubt I have half of those.
That, and try waiting at a BMV sometime. And yes, it is utterly discriminatory. Anyone who has money has a driver's license because they have a car. Poor folks lack cars. And in this country poor folk are more likely to be black or brown.
Like I said, we should be trying to get people to the polls rather than keep them from it. The measures under consideration do nothing to prevent voter fraud, nothing at all. At least no fraud on a level that swings elections. Sort of like taking a bazooka to get rid of the neighborhood coon. You'll get him, but you're likely to do more damage to the houses than he is.
How many times are you going to change the point when your make believe objections keep getting shot down???
What's next?
You think along withnObama-phones, free rides to get a free ID and then no obligation to register o vote?
-
ACORN Vote Fraud:
https://ballotpedia.org/ACORN_and_voter_registration_fraud (https://ballotpedia.org/ACORN_and_voter_registration_fraud)
I'm pretty sure ACORN is now defunct, their people having dispersed and reorganized under new entities.
-
I'm pretty sure ACORN is now defunct, their people having dispersed and reorganized under new entities.
yep - the DNC
-
You did better than I. That said one does have to get to the BMV, which is in no way convenient if one doesn't drive, which someone probably doesn't do if one needs a non-driver's license photo ID. Moreover, the list of documents needed seemed someone on the difficult side. I doubt I have half of those.
That, and try waiting at a BMV sometime. And yes, it is utterly discriminatory. Anyone who has money has a driver's license because they have a car. Poor folks lack cars. And in this country poor folk are more likely to be black or brown.
Like I said, we should be trying to get people to the polls rather than keep them from it. The measures under consideration do nothing to prevent voter fraud, nothing at all. At least no fraud on a level that swings elections. Sort of like taking a bazooka to get rid of the neighborhood coon. You'll get him, but you're likely to do more damage to the houses than he is.
I'll bet if they don't get their welfare check or EBT card they can get to govt office okay.