The lawsuit aims to reinstate extended early voting for everyone, not JUST military personnel. Of course no one on this site probably can bear to acknowledge the reality... that you LIKE discriminatory practices against poor people and minorities and you love lies that support your political agenda even better.
Why isn't there any weekend of late evening voting in Ohio? ...because Republicans there reduced early voting by three days and intentionally scrubbed times that are more convenient for working people without job flexibility.
the military members should get 2 votes each, since each is offering up his one life for this country.
Servicemen who are serving overseas vote via absentee ballots. The dates of in-person voting in Ohio has no bearing on them.
Okay, let's do this slowly. The Ohio legislature passed a law that took away voting rights from citizens who are not military. The Justice Department sees that as inherently unconstitutional (which it is - military are not exempt). They want the new law declared invalid, thereby opening up early voting for everyone, including military, once again, as it has been for a very long time until GOPs decided to screw around with it this year.
Are we clear?
I think Obama just proved himself to be an Idiot all over again. The large majority of this country have been in the Military Service of this country, or have family members who are currently serving. In his arrogance, he thinks he can attack the Military families of this country and still get re-elected. What an incredibly stupid human being. He has one of the lowest ratings of any President in History and in the few remaining weeks of a difficult campaign against a strong opponent, he decides to take on the Military families of this nation. Well, nobody ever said the man had any brains to begin with. I have looked at the problem and I have read the comments of others who say the Military voters should not have any advantage over ordinary citizens, regarding early voting. Really? Equality and all that. Let me ask you this simple question. How many of you ordinary citizens stand out there every day on the front lines facing America's enemies? You don't think, just maybe, that might be worth three lousy days of early voting for our brave soldiers, who stand watch out there where you don't stand? Give me a Goddamned break! This illegal immigrant who wormed his way into being President of the greatest nation on earth, doesn't think these soldiers are any different than other Americans? Please excuse me, but I gotta go find a place to puke.
Gonna make an off topic comment here this evening. In the late summer in Southern Arizona, we enjoy what is called the, "Monsoon season." It's a name from India, because they have the same tropical rains there in the summer, hence the name. Monsoon. It's an intense electrical storm, with lightning, thunder, and maniacal winds. Did I mention the rain? More rain than you can believe. A week's worth of rain in one hour. Cools down the desert, washes away all the dust, and gives relief to all the animals who live here, including humans. I often think it is God's way of showing Hollywood what a real show is. It is mesmerizing. I sit on my patio with a glass of Chardonnay and enjoy the spectacle of it all. It reminds me how insignificant we all are in the big picture. Not that we don't have influence in the game. Just that we have to be careful to not take ourselves too seriously. God has a plan. May not be the one you were thinking of, but a plan, nonetheless.
I am no longer surprised at how low this man-child will go. Send him out and we can wash our hands of him.
Allen West is right on the mark! Obama is undeserving of the title of President! He must go in November!
It's no wonder the spotlight is on Ohio. Ken Blackwell ran such a disaster in Ohio four years ago. I think there are still people waiting in line to vote!
Interesting isn't it. The commander in chief and his administration seek to remove from our brave men and women in uniform their right to vote by using the hated 'equality' gambit against them. EQUALITY, used as a tool of undermining the Constitution is gathering speed at a breakneck pace.
Once again, Obama has turned his sights on the very people who are our last line of defence and serve as the guareentors of our freedoms, often at the cost of their lives or horrible injuries from combat.
Politicians, regardless of the office they hold, take the same oath of fealty to the Constitution that our warriors do.
At that point all simularity ends.
The oath of office to a politician appearently is nothing more then a means to an end, a nessessary evil in order to take office and wield political power.
The Warrior on the other hand takes it as a sacred oath of service to a cause much greater then himself/herself and willingly place their lives and health in harms way.
There are key words in the oath of office that sum up the Warriors responcibility;
TO DEFEND, the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES.
Notice that the Warrior does not swear an oath to any mortal man or woman, such as the oath of fealty sworn to Adolph Hitler by the German armed forces of WW2, or the Roman leaders of antiquity.
No, our Warfighters swear their fealty to an old piece of parchment, a set of ideals set forth by the Founders of this Republic, who in their wisdom, avoided any oath to a mortal leader. Their experence with the Armies of King George and their absolute allegence to him were still fresh upon their minds. They vowed to never allow that to happen in the new Republic.
With the most unique principles of an open and free government in history set down in ink upon parchment, our nation was founded, and to continue our unique experiment of government, we REQUIRE that our Warriors swear their fealty to a document, the Constitution, and NOT to a king, a prince, a president, or a senator or congressman.
Now, in this day and time we have a president, his admin, a congress and a court system that would elevate themselves above the Constitution, in essence, become kings and princes OVER the people, RULE rather then serve, ORDER us rather then seek our approval.
Is this the America you want? Are you content to be a serf, a ward of the state rather then be a free citizen?
Can we as a free people stand by and watch as our very bravest, our own sons and daughters, lose their basic rights, to the marxist tenent of "equallity" under the law? A tenent that has wrought such upheavel and disaster in America? Are you content to sit idly by and watch as illegals are granted the rights that your sons and daughters in uniform are losing?
If we as citizens, as voters, as parents, and yes, as warriors, stand by and do nothing, the Constitution and our way of life will die. Just another failed nation in a long history of failed nations committed to the dust bin of history.
This outrage being committed against the sons and daughters in uniform in Ohio, has alarmed those wearing the uniform throughout the Armed Forces of the United States. If it can happen in Ohio, it can happen in any state!
And my friends, if it can happen to our Armed Forces, it can happen to YOU and me!
I would caution our leaders and politicians, and advise them to remember to WHAT AUTHORITY our Armed Forces swear their fealty to. It isn't THEM!
Something to consider? In the long history of the American Warrior, not once have they failed to uphold their sworn duty to UPHOLD, PROTECT, PRESERVE, and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States! NOT ONCE!
They will ALWAYS carry out their sworn duty. It is their reason for being. And they have never failed!
If I were a politician, I would think long and hard about the foolishness of removing any of our Armed Forces basic rights.
The Armed Forces of the United States have never once mutinied against civilian authority.
At least not YET.
But they are very angry at what is happening in Ohio and in our federal government. Their rightous anger frightens me to the core of my very soul.
America is in the balance. Are we "MARXIST AMERIKA"? Or are we still "CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA"?
Commonsense tells me that if we as free citizens and voters do not change the make up of government and restore it to its constitutional foundations; then there is a force, a war machine greater and more powerful then any that has ever been scene in the history of the world, watching, and waiting, for us as citizens and voters to do our duty as American citizens, and to reclaim our governments, federal and state.
Should we not do our duty to remove socialism and marxism from American and state governments through the ballot box, I am reminded that the American Armed Forces has never once failed in THEIR duty to Uphold, Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution.
"Interesting isn't it. The commander in chief and his administration seek to remove from our brave men and women in uniform their right to vote by using the hated 'equality' gambit against them."
Interesting, isn't it.The commander in chief and his administration are not seeking to remove the right to vote from ANYBODY; they're seeking to leave the military's access to the polls exactly as they've always been, and restore the same rights to civilian citizens (in the name of equality).
It's right-wing blogs that equate giving back voting rights to non-military citizens with stripping rights from military. It ain't so -- no one is trying to curtail the voting rights of any military personnel.
Actually, the only voting rights I would like to curtail are yours, because I believe anyone who votes and therefore has the ability to change the future of our nation, should have at least, half a brain. I have looked at your profile and your comments and you don't seem to achieve that mark.
You like Barack base things on the premise that everything about this country is on an uneven playing field and you need to even things out. It is time you studied world history and learn that when government runs the majority of things in the country that is where you will find oppression and inequality! Obama needs to work on protecting our borders and preserving our freedoms. Instead all he wants to do is to become mommy and daddy to the 300million plus people in this country and IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Your mindset precedes you. I read through your profile and activities.
So you think the world of Obama is your Utopia? You are pleased with the direction he is taking the country are you?
Right-wing blogs? Just what one would expect you to say judging from your previous comments, street fighter for peace. How's the OWS movement working out for you?
If you have such a low opinion of 'rightwing' blogs, why do you bother visiting them? You will change no ones point of view here with yours.
Face it, there are two very distinct political ideaologies playing out in America. They are such polarized viewpoints that neither one will persuade the other. In the end, we will still have exactly what we have now, division. Yet, you will still advocate for yours just as I will advocate for mine.
We will never see eye to eye.
This is an outrage just like most all of the proposals that this administration is pushing. You can fight for our freedom but not vote because they require extra time because of combat or other assignments. Obama has to go and so do all the dummycrats. This country was brought about by our forefathers who gave US freedom that we couldn't have elsewhere and Obama and his cronies are trying to strip it away. Everyone must wake up and get rid of the Obama administration and his followers. I just cannot understand why the presidential race is reportedly so close. Anyone with any common sense has to be able to see how Obama is ruining US.
The big hubbub in this lawsuit deals with the ability to vote 'in-person' up to 3 days prior to the election. I see two issues here.
One, we should be giving our military every opportunity to vote. Extending them 3 extra days is a curtesy that is the least of which we should do for them. Our military, time and time again, get their votes cast to the side when they're overseas and so it wouldn't hurt us to give them a couple of extra days while home, due to their potential for being shipped out at any time. Let's try to honor these people, not disparage them. They fight and die for our ability to vote, as it is, so let's give them every curtesy possible. I'll guarantee that there are no fraudulent votes with the military. Their respect for the Constitution is unquestionable, in my opinion.
Secondly, as to anyone else having these three extra days, it's not costing anybody any votes. They can still vote absentee by mail any time they want. One would think they would prefer that to 'in-person' voting. The big issue with the lawsuit seems to be that election day is overwhelmed with potential voters and these people need to be able to vote 'in-person' three days ahead. Wouldn't it be easier for them to vote by mail, but it's so important that they vote 'in-person' early. I smell a rat here. Do they already have some scheme set up with people voting 'in-person' early, so that they can also vote on election day, and possibly vote early by mail as well. The fact that it's in Ohio, the most important swing state and one Obama is afraid of losing, tells me volumes about their secret intent here.
Methinks they doth protest too much. I must look at what their other hand is doing before I accept the reasoning behind this lawsuit.
Well, I read this Blog last night and saw the first comment before it was deleted by TRS. That deleted comment as well as the other "new" commentators, most likely from Organizing for America, should be taken as a badge of honor.
The LIAR will stop at nothing to maintain the Transformation of the USA. A comment to the "new" trollers, good luck with your illegals voting and remember you are free because of the Second Ammendment and the hard work of your parents. Also ckeck to make sure there is no black mold in your basement
since when did the current commander in chief respect the constitution? Only when it suits his agenda? Mr. Obama has no regard for the laws of this country or the people, but however, if you give special rights to one group of people, then it needs to be extended to all citizens! All of this smacks of voter disenfranchisement. Something the left so despises, they actually practice!.... Tea Party...
RobertX, you must be a member of Obama's "choom gang". There are Acorn employess who have gone to jail for voter fraud. Maybe you should just scroll back through this site and actually see all the latest news on Obama's destruction of our border policy. But then again....your mind is so closed. You probably see the facts as a conspiracy.
There are ACORN employees who have gone to jail for registration fraud, and ACORN themselves are the ones who turned them in. Not a single one of the false registrations resulted in a vote or an attempt to vote.
Here's what Fox News reports on "Obama's destruction of our border policy":
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it's closing the stations in order to reassign agents to high-priority areas closer to the border.
"These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America's borders, and our objective of increasing and sustaining the certainty of arrest of those trying to enter our country illegally."
Say three Hail Mary's and go to bed without dinner!
Funny, I didn't mean to give Robertx a like and when I tried to cancel it I gave him another one. But that's OK, Bobby's a good guy, misguided to be sure, but a good guy.
Bush was not a conservative, I have no argument with you about that. But it is worth noting that everything went downhill after the Democrats took the House with Pelosi as Speaker. Between Bush and House Dems,everything went downhill quick.
Reagan had a successful presidency, what he did worked. Obama has a horrible presidency, everything he touches goes bad.
I am a little bored with you now, see ya later.
'It was seeing that Obama becomes a one-term president, regardless of the cost to the American people.' - r
I'd like to see that quote. Don't make up stuff (oops, too late). If Hitler was elected and stated his goals for the country, my number one goal would be to defeat him. Obama's socialist ideas were known to be bad for our country, yet he was able to institute them with the help of a supermajority, and guess what - it proved right.
Coming out of a recession in the 90's, Japan instituted the exact same policies that Obama has done. They have their 'lost decade', and thanks to Obama, we now have the start of ours. Try to learn from history, whether it be German, Japanese, or American.
Here's another fact for you. Bush bankrupted the country with two discretionary wars and massive tax breaks for millionaires -- all off the books. When the bills came due Obama was president, but the debts were incurred by Bush.
Meanwhile, immediately after Obama was inaugurated, McConnell announced the number one priority for congressional Republicans. Was it jobs? No. Was it the economy? Hell, no. It was seeing that Obama becomes a one-term president, regardless of the cost to the American people.
Since then, Democrats have introduced no fewer than 19 separate jobs bills, including several that would provide incentives for companies that bring jobs back to the U.S. and penalize companies that export jobs. The Republicans blocked every one of them. Meanwhile, you know how many jobs bills the Republicans introduced? Exactly ZERO.
I agree... the economy's in the shitter. The Republicans have voted in lockstep to keep it that way. To hell with what's good for the country. The country can go to hell as long as we can keep Obama from accomplishing anything worthwhile.
Nuke, you probably know by now that John Frank linked to it on a newer thread. I just wanted to tease Bobbyx a little. :-)
The thing is, when Reagan ran for reelection the economy was in great shape.
Obama's economy is in the sh!tter, he doesn't deserve to even run for reelection.
There's a fact for ya!
That was great. Here are some Reagan facts for ya:
In 1982 Reagan signed a package of tax increases that dwarfed anything Obama ever signed.
In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants.
As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After he left the presidency, he supported the passage of a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns.
Thanks for reminding us that Reagan was far to the left of Obama on a number of important issues.
Wow, toon. That was awesome. Where's it been hiding since last November? Don't waste it on a flyby troll. You should post it on a new open thread.
"These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America's borders, and our objective of increasing and sustaining the certainty of arrest of those trying to enter our country illegally."
Examples of Obama "strategic" goals:
Illegal immigrant rearrest rate at 16 %. This means they are put back on the street, if they being sent back, we're not doing a very good job of watching them come right across the border.
An ICE agent arrested an illegal immigrant who was driving without a license and had a string of other traffic violations, but was told to release him because he wasn’t a “priority” under the new unconstitutional rules of Obama’s enforcement plan for illegal immigrants.
ICE refuses to investigate:
Illegal Aliens Getting Bigger Tax Refund Checks:
-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government.Â Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.
So pardon me.
Ah, well since the US population is increasing every year, we can ignore every statistic that shows increases in successful arrests. Nobody gets credit for being tough on crime! Anywhere!
I gotta say, putting more troops and agents on the border seems like a backwards way of declaring them "wide open". Especially since 2011 was the first year in over 40 years that we kicked out as many illegals that came in. Yes, I believe "nobody getting through" is a very odd definition of "wide open"
Out of curiosity, what president has a better record on border security? In your opinion.
'You might see a pattern here' - s
Yep, I see the pattern. 2011 was an all-time record population for the US. The second biggest year was 2010. The third biggest? 2009. I'm seeing the pattern. Are you?
In a year when ICE officers can and will get publicly reprimanded, suspended and fired for doing their job, Obama has declared the borders wide open. Call yourself a dreamer and you have carte blanc.
It's going to get ugly before it's over. I'd stick my head back in the sand, if I were you. At least your head will be safe, but not the other end.
It's also 12 million new taxpayers. But your anecdotal cases aside, Obama has been tougher on border security that any president, by every measure in which you can possibly measure border security. In 2009, he signed a bill funding to the border patrol. To date, its the only branch of the federal government that increased the size of its payroll. There's now more active border patrol agents than at any point in the nation's history. Obama's "unconstitutional" plan for enforcement prioritization involves focusing on deporting violent criminals and drug cartel members over lawn workers. Since 2009, the majority of deportees fit that category, which is a first for the border patrol's history.
But contrary to gut instinct, focusing only on hardened criminals hasn't left the border patrol with their hands tied. In sheer quantity, 2011 was an all-time record for deportations. The second biggest year is was 2010. The third biggest year? 2009. You might see a pattern here. And despite the civil war going on in Mexico, property and violent crimes in the border states has been declining across the board.
Pardon me, but the whole premise is bullsh*t. The Obama administration is NOT suing (or trying) to take away the military's right to early voting; they are trying to restore everyone else's right to the same voting privilege. If the suit is successful, the military's voting rights will not be affected one iota, but civilian voting rights will be restored.
Pardon me,... would you have any Grey Poupon?
Pretty lame argument.
Obama sues states to continue the flow of illegals into the country, then he sues states to keep illegals from being purged from the voter rolls. He has disrespected servicemen from the time he has been in office, except of course when there is a political advantage to him. The military vote is not in his favor, so he needs to restrict them.
Of all the acts he has done to restrict and disenfranchise Americans and give illegals free reign, including voting, I think you are going to have to work a lot harder to convince us that he is trying to "restore" anything.
Pardon me, but the whole "voter rolls purge" thing is crap. Pennsylvania election officials have acknowledged that they can't cite a single instance of illegal voting by a non-citizen. In an interview, Heritage Foundation senior fellow Brian Darling -- an advocate of the purge, was unable to cite a single verified instance of actual voter fraud. In Florida, out of tens of thousands of potentially disallowed voters, exactly four non-citizens were registered and not a single one ever voted.
In a rare show of honesty, Pennsylvania House Republican Mike Turzai said “Voter ID is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania,” he said at a Republican State Committee meeting. The state, which recently discovered that at least 750,000 registered voters do not have required ID to vote, is currently battling over the voter ID law in court.
The purge is not to stop illegals from voting; that's a non-problem, an imaginary straw man. The purge is to stop probable Democrats from voting.
BTW, under Obama, our guards along the Mexican border have doubled, and deportations have tripled over what they were under Bush.
I just presented you with the reality that millions of American voters live in. And your only rebuttal is "well, people will just get by it, SOMEHOW". Defenders of the poll tax said the same thing, before it was ruled that any monetary cost to vote, no matter how small, is unconstitutional.
"And by the way, in most states, you can't get a mail-in ballot unless you provide ID"
Right. A social security card or birth certificate, not necessarily a photo ID. That's how we wind up with millions of registered voters that don't have a valid photo ID. Insisting that they don't exist won't change that fact. And you want states to spend millions of dollars to give out free photo IDs and government carpools to the DMV, and that millions of voters jump through a hoop, all to block one or two dozen cases of in-person voter impersonation. Do you think the cost for that incredibly meager outcome is justified? Or that there is actually way more voter impersonation going on, despite the lack of evidence?
Wow this column's getting narrow.
More exaggeration. Make it look like there is just no way people will be able to vote, all because of an ID requirement.
What a load of garbage. People will get them when they are required. Same as for all the other IDs we have.
And by the way, in most states, you can't get a mail-in ballot unless you provide ID, and a signature.
You aren't merely hand-waving, you are banging the drum, too. All over something that will be a footnote in history in a few years.
ID's will be required. People will get them. It will be incredibly easy to do. End of story.
Exaggeration? It's a documented fact. I even posted links with the evidence showing that millions of registered voters don't have valid forms of photo ID. Despite your assertion, legislators are passing voter ID laws with no regard to how much voter fraud goes on. Pennsylvania passed a voter ID law, despite there being ZERO cases of voter fraud in the state.
"Your last point is self-correcting. Anyone who wants to vote can make sure they have an ID."
You're hand-waving the issue. Most DMV's are open weekdays 9-5, with more and more offices around the country closing and cutting hours. Millions of Americans have to work 40-60 hours a week just to make ends. Millions more lack accessible transportation. How does one justify the time and logistics to get there? And please don't reply with something ignorant, like "How do they work if they don't have car?"
This is ENTIRE reason why we have mail-in ballots.
Sure. It's called "exaggeration." A very easy concept to understand. And it isn't working.
It's going to be up to the states to decide what they want on their voter rolls. Find enough cases of frau and guess what happens? The legislatures are pressured to stop it. EVERY TIME. The electorate has shown it hates fraud, so legislators from both left and right find it all too easy, and safe--politically--to make law in that area.
Your last point is self-correcting. Anyone who wants to vote can make sure they have an ID. Old folks, poor folks, and everyone else you are claiming will be harmed will find a way to get it done, and states will be very glad to help them.
Don't worry, this will all be fixed: in a few years, all states will require ID.
Voter ID laws don't change how voter registries are updated or maintained. If their felon status wasn't caught the first time, how will requiring them to flash their photo ID change anything? Nearly all of them voted under their own name.
Voter imitation is the only form of voter fraud that ID laws are designed to prevent. And if you examine the few hundred documented cases of voter fraud, you'll see that only a dozen or so involved someone claiming to be someone else.
"And the only way it could possibly be "millions" is if millions tried to vote illegally."
Millions of legitimate American voters don't have a government-issued photo ID. Either because they can't afford one or don't have the means to get to a DMV. As a result, they won't be able to vote with voter ID laws in place. This is not a hard concept to understand.
The poll workers (not poll "checkers" or "watchers") have a book they look up your name in after they see your ID. Guess what they find there? Information about the status of the person you claim to be. Simple as can be.
EVERY vote blocked due to ID's can be reviewed.
Disenfranchisement via fraud votes throws the election, which is far worse than blocking questionable votes from happening in the first place.
And the only way it could possibly be "millions" is if millions tried to vote illegally. Some elderly person who has trouble getting her ID will get that fixed ONE TIME, and that will be it, fro the rest of her life, just like those of us who have drivers licenses, gun registration, school transcripts that aren't sealed for political reasons, and a host of other things requiring ID's.
No, the only reason to continue trying to block voter ID's is to permit fraud.
A person's criminal past is not contained on any government-issued identification. So how would voter ID laws prevent the felons from voting?
And how is going from hundred(s) of votes blocked due to fraudulent voting, to millions of votes blocked due to voter ID laws an improvement?
From the article:
"so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial"
That's 177 CONVICTIONS. There are lots more in the process of being prosecuted, and still more under continuing investigation.
And more importantly for those of you who support voter disenfranchisement through fraudulent elections, the reason the haven't already secured all convictions is because it's difficult to prove intent.
The felons did vote. All of the ones in that number were found to have voted. That's fraud, and obviously most of it would have been prevented by requiring ID checks. But we can't "prove" they intended to commit fraud easily. We can only uncover the fraud, which has been done, in far, far greater numbers than you are reporting here.
There's absolutely no justification for this continuing problem of illegal voting, and those who support it are engaged in anti-American actions, anti-Democratic processes, and end up supporting the totalitarian left by default.
Right. The NRLA looked into that. Every time there's some alarming headline about hundreds or thousands of illegal votes allegedly being cast, it always shrivels up on further actual investigation. In Minnesota's case, the 1,099 number shriveled down to about 130. And voter ID laws wouldn't have blocked a single one.
I'm glad you brought up the Franken election, because all of the prosecutions were included in the NRLA's count of 340 cases of voter fraud. That one election accounted for half of the voter fraud cases to occur in the past decade. Furthermore, voter ID laws would have done NOTHING to prevent any of the felons from voting. Again, most voted absentee, and none of them impersonated another voter.
"You people who defend the voter fraud always say there is no more than 10 or twenty (metaphorically speaking) cases in the 'entire' US"
How am I defending voter fraud, exactly? And did you even read my post before replying? I said there was 340 cases. Which I don't see how you can misread as "no more than 10 or twenty".
Holy crow, do you even know what the proposed voter ID laws are? A person's criminal past is not contained on any government-issued identification. So how would voter ID laws prevent any felon from voting? Please, read:
340 cases eh? In the whole country? Where did they look, in their own wallets?
You apparently missed Scoop's NewsScoop, where a recent study found 1,099 felons had voted in Minnesota, in one election alone.
The constitution guarantees a right to vote to every law-abiding US citizen above the age of 17. It specifies under what conditions in can and can't be denied.
The Franken election was contested in the courts for 8 months, he couldn't even be seated in until July of that year. Republicans contested his election more out of an effort to delay the Democrat's senate supermajority than a genuine belief of election shenanigans, but that's besides the point. Every single vote in that election was counted, recounted, and debated before a judge. No evidence of fraudulent votes was discovered after 8 months.
"Using a SS card or bc usually requires some form of proof of birth"
Using a birth certificate requires some form of proof of birth? Are you serious?
"That's why the voter ID laws are being created, to diminish those fraudulent votes. I'm surprised you argue against it, since you're so sure of, and apparently proud of, the way you can vote fraudulently so easily."
Please, explain to me how voter ID laws would prevent me from mailing out my roommate's early ballot. Do you even know what voter ID laws are?
Yeah, you gotta love that fuzzy math. Just look at Al Franken's election alone. You people who defend the voter fraud always say there is no more than 10 or twenty (metaphorically speaking) cases in the 'entire' US, but never look at Chicago, for example.
There is no state that stops someone from voting without giving them a chance to show that they are a legitimate voter. They usually give them a provisional ballot. You love to say these people just stop them from voting. Get real.
No problem, glad you asked. The National Republican Lawyers Association (a pro-voter ID group) conducted a study on the threat of voter fraud. They found a total of 340 cases of voter fraud in this country, over the past 10 years. In-person voter fraud (the one that voter ID laws will stop) only made up a fraction of those cases. The rest were all absentee ballot fraud and registration fraud. Hypothetically, if voter ID laws were implemented and enforced in all 50 states, they would have blocked about 130 fraudulent votes. At most.
NOW, lets get an idea of how many legitimate votes that would be blocked:
Nearly ONE MILLION registered voters lack a government-issued photo ID. And that's just in the state of Pennsylvania. I'll be very generous, and assume that only 1% of them go to vote at the next election. One percent! I know that's a comically low turnout rate, but bear with me. That means 10,000 legitimate voters, turned away, in one state, in one year. Compared the 130 or so fraudulent votes that would be blocked in all 50 states, over 10 years.
So you were right, my assumption was wrong. Voter ID laws will not block 10 times as many legitimate votes as fraudulent votes, they'll block 100 times as many. You don't have to do any math to realize how crazy high that proportion will get if you add the other 49 states to the mix.
I don't know how foolish it is to attempt to diminish the amount of voter fraud out there. It's gone on so long and expanded so far that people like you actually find yourselves defending it. I'd think you'd want fair and honest elections.
No, instead you decry that any attempt to clean it up is an attempt to thwart it. Any legitimate voter should certainly want to ensure that their vote is not compromised. But you try to find any way to keep the fraud going. Picture IDs are a commonplace item. You know millions that don't have one, but I've never come across anyone who doesn't have some form of it. It's required in every aspect of our lives, but not in the most important task we have.
Whether you talk about a driver's license, a ss card or a bc, it requires proving that you are who you say you are to acquire these. That is what people are starting to demand. You can't eliminate voter fraud, but you can try to diminish it.
Other than that, I grow weary of your drivel, as you are looking for an argument rather than a solution.
Well, no. Perhaps you should read the things you post before you make a fool of yourself. Here's the last of a list of rules to obtain a voter registration, cut and pasted directly from the link you provided:
6 - Provide your current and valid Florida driver’s license number or Florida identification card number. If you do not have a Florida driver’s license number or a Florida identification card number then you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have any of these items, you must write “none” in the box or field.
Absolutely nothing about showing or having a picture ID.
There will always be fraud. That's why the voter ID laws are being created, to diminish those fraudulent votes. I'm surprised you argue against it, since you're so sure of, and apparently proud of, the way you can vote fraudulently so easily.
Why don't you analyze the election of Al Franken to the Senate. They found that he actually was put into office because of fraudulent votes, but for some crazy reason they decided not to take it back because he was already sworn in by the time the investigation was completed. That in itself is disgusting.
Registering usually requires a photo ID of some sort. Using a SS card or bc usually requires some form of proof of birth, as well. You can keep taking this back as far as you want, but the idea is to prove someone is who they say they are.
I'm surprised you are against this. Some day someone will fraudulently use your ballot to vote and you might not be so happy.
'Advocates of voter ID laws haven't compared the numbers, because no matter how you massage the statistics, voter ID laws will block 10 times as many legitimate votes than fraudulent ones.' - s
No matter how I massage the statistics? Tell me how you came up with your statistics for the number of legitimate voters unable to vote because of voter laws and the number of fraudulent voters and how you know that number is a factor of ten.
Methinks you are just making up facts now. But using the number 10 or 10% always sounds logical to liberals.
BTW, just try to get a duplicate Social Security card and see what kinds of hoops you have to jump through.
None of those things is a constitutional right. Scroll down this list of things not in the Constitution until you get to 'the right to vote'. Might be a little helpful.
Alcohol, cigarettes, loan, welfare, unemployment checks, jobs, a vote.
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is a constitutional right. Can you guess which?
"However, an ID does stop you from voting illegally"
No it doesn't. The other day I got an early mail-in ballot for my roommate, who moved out last year. I could have filled it out and mailed it back, casting a vote under his name, and my state has a voter ID law. Yet most cases of voter fraud are done through the mail, which voter ID laws do nothing to stop.
But you're setting a dangerous precedent, by suggesting that the government should pass laws before there's any evidence of problem. There's always the potential that you might go on a shooting spree. Sure there's no evidence, but the potential is there. So lets take your guns away.
Like it or not, 10% of registered voters don't have a proper photo ID. Either because they don't need one, or don't have a car, or because they work 50 hours a week and can't get to the DMV, or are too poor to pay the $20-30 fee. Advocates of voter ID laws haven't compared the numbers, because no matter how you massage the statistics, voter ID laws will block 10 times as many legitimate votes than fraudulent ones.
If you're wondering how they registered to vote without a driver's license: a social security card or birth certificate.
First of all, people in Florida shouldn't be voting in Ohio or Pennsylvania. I'd call that voter fraud, but you say there isn't any, so...
Voter registration requires a picture ID to acquire to register in Florida.
"A voter registration card is proper ID to vote, but somebody conveniently forgets that every time."
Now that we've heard your fantasy, here's the fact: In Florida and several other states, a voter registration card is not sufficient ID to vote, because it does not have a picture. If a voter registration card is good enough, there wouldn't be any controversy.
"People in situations like that are mostly minorities and elderly, demographics more likely to vote Democrat."
Yep! Of course if those Democrats wanted to go to the Democratic convention or fundraiser they would have to show an ID.
Getting a replacement ID might be difficult but it is necessary. I don't believe you don't have one.
To buy alcohol, cigarettes, get a loan, apply for welfare, apply for unemployment, or even get a job you need an ID. But to vote you can just say that you are somebody else. Get real.
'...750,000 registered voters do not have required ID to vote...' - r
Tell me just how they got registered without proper ID. A voter registration card is proper ID to vote, but somebody conveniently forgets that every time.
If Democrats hate the fact that all Republicans have IDs and most Democrats don't have any, why don't they spend their valuable time getting IDs for all those poor Democrats that are cashing welfare checks, unemployment checks, obtaining food stamps all without proper ID, but yet were able to get a voter registration card without anything at all. Hmmm...
The most likely people to not have IDs are just that demographic that needs IDs for welfare and government assistance. Where was the outrage with that and how have they survived all this time needing IDs for those things and not having them. Yours is an argument that doesn't hold water.
I think you miss the distinction. An ID doesn't stop you from using a lighter illegally. An ID doesn't stop you from using a baseball bat illegally. An ID doesn't stop you from poisoning a pot-luck dish, be it at a church picnic or at home.
However, an ID does stop you from voting illegally. It's a direct correlation. Legal voters should have no complaints about that. And, btw, there is numerous documentation about voter fraud, but most of it goes undiscovered, due to the techniques used. It's easy to say that no such abuse is documented, but that doesn't make it true. Just read a few more posts on this particular thread (or ignore them, as I'm sure you usually do. That's easier, too). They are just the tip of the iceberg.
"Anyone in this day and age who doesn't have an ID likely doesn't do anything but sit at home..."
There are literally millions of people in NYC who don't have driver's licenses; the take public transportation and taxi cabs.
I live in Florida but was born in Pennsylvania. My birth certificate was lost in Hurricane Andrew. If I did not have a driver's license for whatever reason (perhaps my family was poor and never owned a car -- perhaps I'm old and no longer drive), I'd first have to apply to Pennsylvania for a duplicate birth certificate (and pay a fee); then, after a two or three week wait, I'd have to take my Pennsylvania birth certificate to a Florida Driver's License office, wait in an interminable line, and pay another fee to obtain a state picture ID.
Sorry, toongoon, but that all sounds like a difficult enough (and costly enough) procedure that I might be discouraged and not bother. People in situations like that are mostly minorities and elderly, demographics more likely to vote Democrat.
"You don't need to prove voter fraud to acknowledge the potential for it."
You can acknowledge the potential for a lot of things. How about requiring picture ID to purchase a lighter, acknowledging the potential that the lighter can be used for arson. How about requiring picture ID to purchase a baseball bat, acknowledging the potential it could be used for assault. How about requiring picture ID to hold a church picnic, acknowledging the potential that someone bringing a pot-luck dish might use it to poison the congregation.
Requiring ID because there's potential for abuse when no such abuse is documented is the first step toward a totalitarian state, NOT for the "Land of the free and the home of the brave.""
You forgot to add context on what Mike Turazi said my friend, he wasn't advocating voter fraud but demanding voters show ID. You don't need to prove voter fraud to acknowledge the potential for it. Anyone in this day and age who doesn't have an ID likely doesn't do anything but sit at home, and if having a photo ID is so unimportant to them they likely don't care about elections either. In addition, I find it highly unlikely that 750,000 in Pennsylvania don't possess a photo ID, they are probably talking about children under the age of 18.
"The purge is to stop probable Democrats from voting."-Robertx
Seriously? I mean seriously? The purge lawsuit brought on by the same AG holder who dropped charges of intimidation outside the polling place in Philadelphia in the last election, that sends a message that voter intimidation is not only condoned but encouraged. Don't piss on me tell me it's raining.
Since you refused to acknowledge the lawsuits Obama has against states, I can only assume it doesn't help your argument.
The Obama administration is moving to shut down nine Border Patrol stations across four states:
Napolitano: "terrorists enter into the US from time to time".
That would be with the illegals across the border.
Do you need more? I'll get them for you.