PDA

View Full Version : No Photo ID Required to Vote in GOP's Iowa Caucus



Qtec
12-30-2011, 01:13 AM
link (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9016)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No Photo ID Required to Vote in GOP's Iowa Caucus

For all of their years of claims that massive voter fraud is going on at the polling place, such that Photo ID restrictions are required to ensure the integrity of the vote, you'd think that when Republicans have a chance to run their own elections, they'd be sure to want it to be as "fraud" free as possible.

Nonetheless, despite onerous polling place Photo ID requirements now passed into law in about a dozen states where the GOP controls both the legislative and executive branches, voters will be able to cast their ballot in next Tuesday's "First-in-the-Nation" Republican Iowa Caucuses without bothering to show a Photo ID --- even though the Republican Party itself sets their own rules for voting there.

Unlike most primary elections where an official state election board or agency sets the rules and runs the registration and balloting processes, the Iowa Republican Party runs its own state caucuses, determines the rules, tabulates all the votes and announces the results to the public and media themselves. They have complete control over the entire process, and yet they don't bother to ask their own voters to show a state-issued Photo ID before casting their ballot.

I wonder why that would be?

Actually, I don't. I know exactly why that's the case. Polling place photo ID laws, passed in states where Republicans took control in the wave election of 2010, are instituted for one purpose and one purpose only: to suppress the votes of voters such as the elderly, minorities and students, all of whom have a dastardly tendency to vote for Democratic candidates rather than Republicans. Since only Republicans are on the IA Republican Caucus ballot, unlike general elections, the GOP has no interest in disenfranchising their own voters.</div></div>

Q

LWW
12-30-2011, 02:31 AM
And?

Do you realize that your source of "TRUTH" lied to you when they referred to this as a "PRIMARY ELECTION" ... or do you even care?

pooltchr
12-30-2011, 12:15 PM
Do you have a problem with producing a photo id to cash a check?
Do you have a problem producing a photo id to walk into an office building?
Do you have a problem producing a photo id to a traffic cop?

Why would you have a problem producing one before you votee?

And don't argue that it discriminates against the poor. You need a photo id to collect welfare.
And, at least in one state, they are available for free (at taxpayer expense, that is) and if you have mobility problems, they will come to your home and take your picture for your id. Other that trying to beat the system, or commit some kind of voter fraud, what possible reason could anyone have for opposing voters providing some simple evidence that they are a registered voter, and are who they say they are?

Steve

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 12:34 PM
It's true that a caucus isn't exactly like a primary, but it's also true that the differences don't matter when it comes to an issue of fraud. Delegates for the various nomination seekers will be empowered to vote at the national party convention based on the results of the caucus, just as on the basis of true primaries.

Someone could show up and falsely vote as someone else at the caucus, even perhaps an ineligible voter under the law, perhaps even an undocumented alien, and swing the award of convention floor votes one way or another.

So other than the technical differences that I acknowledge, what differences do you find in the two that makes the technical inaccuracy meaningful in this respect? If you agree that the technical differences do not make any real difference, then what are you howling about again?

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 12:51 PM
voters providing some simple evidence that they are a registered voter, and are who they say they are?

That happens already in the majority of states where photo ids are not required.

How could that possibly happen? Well, there's this thing called a voter's registration card, along with signatures required at the polling place. You show up at the place where you are registered by name, you present your official voter registration card (which doesn't cost money, or require you go somewhere to have a picture taken), you sign your name, and your signature is checked against the specimen on file.

I would say the burden of proof that this is inadequate should rest on the advocates for photo id, and that they are only interested in preventing fraud ought to require that they show any significant level of fraud is occurring. And the problem is that no one has been able to show it exists at any significant level.

You'll excuse the skepticism, but when as in WI or Ohio, the new photo id is required to be gotten at the DMV offices, and then the DMV offices in the Democratic areas of the country or state are CLOSED (budget measures, of course, of course!), requiring these people who do not drive to take a half day off work at least to use public transportation (if it exists) to go there, and typically pay money for these ids in addition to missing time from work, it appears to be entirely about targeting Democratic voters to remove them from the voting rolls.

LWW
12-30-2011, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true that a caucus isn't exactly like a primary, but it's also true that the differences don't matter when it comes to an issue of fraud. Delegates for the various nomination seekers will be empowered to vote at the national party convention based on the results of the caucus, just as on the basis of true primaries.

Someone could show up and falsely vote as someone else at the caucus, even perhaps an ineligible voter under the law, perhaps even an undocumented alien, and swing the award of convention floor votes one way or another.

So other than the technical differences that I acknowledge, what differences do you find in the two that makes the technical inaccuracy meaningful in this respect? If you agree that the technical differences do not make any real difference, then what are you howling about again? </div></div>

Actually ... it isn't anything close to what a primary is.

In the Iowa caucus you vote to elect delegates who vote to elect delegates who go to the national convention unbound to any candidate.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that the Iowa system even requires you to be registered to vote.

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 05:20 PM
I may be wrong, but I don't believe that the Iowa system even requires you to be registered to vote.

Yes, that part is wrong.

pooltchr
12-30-2011, 06:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i] You show up at the place where you are registered by name, you present your official voter registration card (which doesn't cost money, or require you go somewhere to have a picture taken), you sign your name, and your signature is checked against the specimen on file.

</div></div>

I have been voting for over 40 years, and have yet to have been asked to show my voter registration card or sign anything. I walk up, state my name, and am directed to the voting booth.

I have always thought it was odd that nobody ever checked to verify that I was who I said I was. And I see absolutely no reason that producing a valid photo id to vote is any kind of inconvenience. The states adding these laws are giving photo ids to anyone that needs one, so cost isn't an issue. They will come to your home if you can't get out, so not having transportation isn't a good excuse either. In fact, there isn't any good excuse for anyone wanting to vote to not be able to identify at the polls.

Now, what is the reason so many lefties are against voter id laws? Afraid of losing many of your dead constituants???????

Steve

eg8r
12-31-2011, 12:58 AM
I think what qtip is saying is that if the GOP feels a photo id is required during the Presidential election, shouldn't it also be required at the GOP nomination? I agree that the photo id should be required every single time any vote is made.

eg8r

pooltchr
12-31-2011, 01:18 AM
I agree with that as well.

Steve

Qtec
12-31-2011, 02:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think what <s>qtip</s> Q is saying is that if the GOP feels a photo id is required during the Presidential election, shouldn't it also be required at the GOP nomination? </div></div>

Well done eg8r. That's exactly what I am saying.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that the photo id should be required every single time any vote is made. </div></div>

So do the GOP - except in their own elections! Its hypocrisy of the highest order.

Photo ID for voting, is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist! Voter fraud is a myth. It has no basis in fact.

Q

LWW
12-31-2011, 03:00 AM
You are pimped so easily by leftist liars.

Unlike you, I bothered to check these claims out.

Here's what I learned:

1 - Iowa's legislature is not ran by the (R) party, it is a bicameral body with the (R) party controlling the house and the demokrooks controlling the senate.

2 - The (R) led house passed a voter ID law in 2011.

3 - The demokrook led house rejected it.

4 - The reason you don't have to show an ID to vote in Iowa is because of the demokrooks.

5 - That bever stopped the demokrooks from blaming others for their own treachery.

6 - You will believe whatever version of "TRUTH" the party tells you that you believe.

LEAPING LIZARDS ... THE LEFT HAS BEEN PLAYED LIKE PERLMAN PLAYS A STRAD. AGAIN. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_General_Assembly)

AND THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. AND AGAIN. AND AGAIN. (http://www.uiowa.edu/~ipro/Papers%202011/Voter%20Indentification%202011.pdf)

Next ridiculous bit of propaganda you would like to parrot please?

Soflasnapper
12-31-2011, 01:33 PM
I have always thought it was odd that nobody ever checked to verify that I was who I said I was.

That is odd. I misspoke a bit about how it works in Florida-- they never ask to see my voter id card, I do have to sign my name next to a specimen of my signature on the voter rolls, AND THEY ask to see my FL DL or perhaps other valid photo id. But they didn't use to, iirc.

And I see absolutely no reason that producing a valid photo id to vote is any kind of inconvenience.

Producing it isn't much of one, I agree. It's the GETTING OF ONE that is the problem, involving time and money or both.

The states adding these laws are giving photo ids to anyone that needs one, so cost isn't an issue. They will come to your home if you can't get out, so not having transportation isn't a good excuse either.

If some are doing these things, others are not, although still requiring the photo id be shown. That is, many states with the photo id requirement do not provide it free of cost, and do not provide it at your house if it's a problem.

In fact, there isn't any good excuse for anyone wanting to vote to not be able to identify at the polls.

Except if they do not do what you say they are all doing. Otherwise, if you have to go somewhere in particular and spend money (and especially if they CLOSE THAT PARTICULAR PLACE that's close to you, requiring greater distance of travel), that is exactly the objection that is accurately raised.

Soflasnapper
12-31-2011, 01:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are pimped so easily by leftist liars.

Unlike you, I bothered to check these claims out.

Here's what I learned:

1 - Iowa's legislature is not ran by the (R) party, it is a bicameral body with the (R) party controlling the house and the demokrooks controlling the senate.

2 - The (R) led house passed a voter ID law in 2011.

3 - The demokrook led house rejected it.

4 - The reason you don't have to show an ID to vote in Iowa is because of the demokrooks.

5 - That bever stopped the demokrooks from blaming others for their own treachery.

6 - You will believe whatever version of "TRUTH" the party tells you that you believe.

LEAPING LIZARDS ... THE LEFT HAS BEEN PLAYED LIKE PERLMAN PLAYS A STRAD. AGAIN. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_General_Assembly)

AND THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. AND AGAIN. AND AGAIN. (http://www.uiowa.edu/~ipro/Papers%202011/Voter%20Indentification%202011.pdf)

Next ridiculous bit of propaganda you would like to parrot please? </div></div>

Geeze, complete fail in answering or even colorably attempting to contradict the claims you think you've answered.

This is NOT about the requirement the state puts on voters as of the general election, which would be a matter of state law. It is about the internal policies of the GOP and how they run their own caucuses. If the following is true, and nothing you've stated says anything at all to the contrary, then the history of the GOP trying to impose something at the state level (and failing to accomplish it) has NOTHING AT ALL to do with their own policy, which they should put in place wherever they have the ability.

Except they do not worry about voter fraud in their caucuses, only as to the minority vote or the rest of the Democratic votes in the general election.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Unlike most primary elections where an official state election board or agency sets the rules and runs the registration and balloting processes, the Iowa Republican Party runs its own state caucuses, determines the rules, tabulates all the votes and announces the results to the public and media themselves. They have complete control over the entire process, and yet they don't bother to ask their own voters to show a state-issued Photo ID before casting their ballot.
</div></div>

LWW
01-01-2012, 01:46 AM
That was funny.

Qtec
01-02-2012, 03:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i] You show up at the place where you are registered by name, you present your official voter registration card (which doesn't cost money, or require you go somewhere to have a picture taken), you sign your name, and your signature is checked against the specimen on file.

</div></div>

I have been voting for over 40 years, and have yet to have been asked to show my voter registration card or sign anything. I walk up, state my name, and am directed to the voting booth.

I have always thought it was odd that nobody ever checked to verify that I was who I said I was. And I see absolutely no reason that producing a valid photo id to vote is any kind of inconvenience. The states adding these laws are giving photo ids to anyone that needs one, so cost isn't an issue. They will come to your home if you can't get out, so not having transportation isn't a good excuse either. In fact, there isn't any good excuse for anyone wanting to vote to not be able to identify at the polls.

Now, what is the reason so many lefties are against voter id laws? Afraid of losing many of your dead constituants???????

Steve </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter,</span> which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert. A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."</span>

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz1iI2MKl8T
</div></div>

Q

LWW
01-02-2012, 03:19 AM
Why are you changing the topic again snoopy?

Qtec
01-02-2012, 04:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you changing the topic again snoopy? </div></div>

In the first place, I answered a direct question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Now,<u> what is the reason so many lefties are against voter id laws?</u></span> Afraid of losing many of your dead constituants???????

Steve </div></div>

The first paragraph of my 1st post says,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For all of their years of claims that massive voter fraud is going on at the polling place, such that Photo ID restrictions are required to ensure the integrity of the vote, <u>you'd think that when Republicans have a chance to run their own elections, they'd be sure to want it to be as "fraud" free as possible.</u>


...<u>Polling place photo ID laws,</u> passed in states where Republicans took control in the wave election of 2010,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> are instituted for one purpose and one purpose only: to suppress the votes of voters such as the elderly, minorities and students, all of whom have a dastardly tendency to vote for Democratic candidates rather than Republicans. </span></div></div>

Photo ID is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Try and keep up.

Q

LWW
01-02-2012, 05:17 AM
1 - That wasn't your initial point.

2 - You already knew that.\

3 - Only a spoon fed demokrook shill believes this isn't a problem.

4 - Item 3 explains your "OPINION" quite well.

Qtec
01-02-2012, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only a spoon fed demokrook shill believes this isn't a problem.
</div></div>

Should be easy to prove me wrong then.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute<u> a single person</u> for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter </span></div></div>

Q

LWW
01-02-2012, 06:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only a spoon fed demokrook shill believes this isn't a problem.
</div></div>

Should be easy to prove me wrong then.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute<u> a single person</u> for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter </span></div></div>

Q </div></div>

You don't believe it ... nor does aitch, charlotte, sofanapper, dick, stretch or any of the cabal.

Oh ... you are all also spoon fed demokrook shills.

Thanks for verifying my point.

Gayle in MD
01-02-2012, 08:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">voters providing some simple evidence that they are a registered voter, and are who they say they are?

That happens already in the majority of states where photo ids are not required.

How could that possibly happen? Well, there's this thing called a voter's registration card, along with signatures required at the polling place. You show up at the place where you are registered by name, you present your official voter registration card (which doesn't cost money, or require you go somewhere to have a picture taken), you sign your name, and your signature is checked against the specimen on file.

I would say the burden of proof that this is inadequate should rest on the advocates for photo id, and that they are only interested in preventing fraud ought to require that they show any significant level of fraud is occurring. And the problem is that no one has been able to show it exists at any significant level.

You'll excuse the skepticism, but when as in WI or Ohio, the new photo id is required to be gotten at the DMV offices, and then the DMV offices in the Democratic areas of the country or state are CLOSED (budget measures, of course, of course!), requiring these people who do not drive to take a half day off work at least to use public transportation (if it exists) to go there, and typically pay money for these ids in addition to missing time from work, it appears to be entirely about targeting Democratic voters to remove them from the voting rolls. </div></div>

Politics is a dirty business.

When it comes to Repiglicans, it's a filthy dirty business.

This is just another Repiglican tactic for throwing the election.

That IS what Repiglicans are known for...throwing elections? Just ask Tom Delay....

Or, you might even ask the Repiglican operative who wrote How To Throw An Election after he got out of jail, that is.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

pooltchr
01-02-2012, 09:00 PM
So, you don't care if anyone is allowed to vote in our elections whether they are entitled to vote or not?

Somehow, I'm not surprised at that.

Steve

LWW
01-03-2012, 03:36 AM
How can you expect a demokrook to ever win an election without the necro-american and illegal voting blocs?

Soflasnapper
01-03-2012, 10:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - That wasn't your initial point.

2 - You already knew that.\

3 - Only a spoon fed demokrook shill believes this isn't a problem.

4 - Item 3 explains your "OPINION" quite well. </div></div>

3 - Only a spoon fed demokrook shill believes this isn't a problem.

Actually, among those who don't believe it's a problem include a number of US attorneys appointed by George W. Bush, who were essentially ordered to find some of this going on and prosecute it in a high profile manner for election benefit to the GOP.

When they reported back null results, they were ordered to re-do the investigation. When some refused, and when some did but had the same results, they were fired. Which they knew would happen, considering the political pressure they felt from the WH, the AG, Rove, and various GOP senators, but since they FOUND NO VOTER FRAUD, they refused to bring false cases for political reasons. And said so.

Qtec
01-03-2012, 10:42 AM
Despite claiming voter fraud is a huge problem, he has yet to produce any evidence that disputes the facts I have provided.

As you have reminded them, US Attorneys were fired because they refused to waste their time on political wild goose chases designed to promote a myth that suits the Republican agenda. ie, the 'we don't want everybody to vote' objective.
A myth that is still today used as justification to make voting less available to certain sections of the population.

Q

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 10:58 AM
The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
01-03-2012, 12:05 PM
Lets cut through all the bs and get down to the main point. The Reps want to have laws that ensure that voter fraud isn't a problem, and the dems do not want them. One group supports honest elections...and one doesn't.

wonder why that is......



Steve

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Despite claiming voter fraud is a huge problem, he has yet to produce any evidence that disputes the facts I have provided.

As you have reminded them, US Attorneys were fired because they refused to waste their time on political wild goose chases designed to promote a myth that suits the Republican agenda. ie, the 'we don't want everybody to vote' objective.
A myth that is still today used as justification to make voting less available to certain sections of the population.

Q

</div></div>

Same method they used to lie us into the illegal, immoral War and Occupation of Iraq: create a false premise, and use it for a corrupt hidden agenda.

PIGS!

Only the dumbest of the dumbest would buy into this BS. It's so transparent. The statistice prove that voter fraud, is not even a serious issue. They are doing what they always do, disenfranchise honest voters, who they know will never pull the lever for any of them, Katherine Harris was proof of that, along with the Repiglican Operative, in Ohio, who wrote: How To Throw An Election after he got out of jail, LMAO!

The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.



G.

pooltchr
01-03-2012, 06:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets cut through all the bs and get down to the main point. The Reps want to have laws that ensure that voter fraud isn't a problem, and the dems do not want them. One group supports honest elections...and one doesn't.

wonder why that is......



Steve </div></div>

Aren't the lefties the ones who think we need more oversight and regulation for business, but fight tooth and nail when someone tries to set up some oversight and regulation over the voting process? What is it they are afraid of? If voter fraud isn't a problem, then showing an ID won't be a problem either. And if they are wrong, and voter fraud is a real problem, ID laws will cure the problem.

WHAT ARE YOU LEFTIES AFRAID OF????????????

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-03-2012, 07:16 PM
Yep, too true.

Soflasnapper
01-03-2012, 07:40 PM
[s]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets cut through all the bs and get down to the main point. The Reps want to have laws that ensure that voter fraud isn't a problem, and the dems do not want them. One group supports honest elections...and one doesn't.

wonder why that is......
</div></div>

Aren't the lefties the ones who think we need more oversight and regulation for business, but fight tooth and nail when someone tries to set up some oversight and regulation over the voting process? What is it they are afraid of? If voter fraud isn't a problem, then showing an ID won't be a problem either. And if they are wrong, and voter fraud is a real problem, ID laws will cure the problem.

WHAT ARE YOU LEFTIES AFRAID OF????????????

Steve </div></div>

The claim of those (me, for instance) is that these moves have no good and sufficient purpose (protecting against a problem that is negligible), and at the same time are instead designed to block voting by Democrats.

If these moves were modified to take away the aspects of disenfranchisement they contain, I think many who oppose them would change their mind. I would, even though there would still be little reason to bear such costs.

So, and to wit:

1) Such ID should be free, by which I mean, up-front free, not pay for it now and through some process get refunded.

2) Such ID should be available widely, in many locations that are spread around all locales. Public libraries, DMV offices, the city halls and county offices, and perhaps several more categories of locations, however and whatever is required so that several such sites are within a 5 mile radius of any resident, and directly on public transporation routes.

3) Other measures designed to curb turnout of the electorate ought to be eliminated as a sweetener to bear these extra costs for no particularly good reason, such as maintaining or extending the time period for early voting.

A key reason the photo ID is resisted is that the photo ID proposal comes with the reverse of all these things as well.

And lastly, it is absurd to be concerned about the issue of voter fraud, when counting the ballot fraud is still so easily accomplished with the touchscreen/no-paper-trail machines, owned by right-wing religious fanatic GOPrs.

pooltchr
01-03-2012, 09:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[s][

designed to block voting by Democrats.



</div></div>

???????
Are Republicans somehow more capable of producing picture ID than Democrats????

Again, it seems that it is only the left who feel threatened by voter ID laws. The right don't seem to have a problem with self identification.

I can only think of one possible legitimate reason.

Steve

LWW
01-04-2012, 03:03 AM
Just trust dear leader Steve.

After all ... he just signed a bill that allows him to lock up any US citizen indefinitely and without legal counsel and without trial, and swore he would veto the bill unless US citizens were included, but swears he would never use it.

Qtec
01-04-2012, 05:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets cut through all the bs and get down to the main point. [ <span style="color: #CC0000">Fine by me</span> ] The Reps want to have laws that ensure that voter fraud isn't a problem..



Steve </div></div>

Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 <u>failed to prosecute a single person</u> for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter </div></div>

The reason is twofold, present rules are obviously adequate and the fact you can get 5 yrs in prison if you get caught.

Q

LWW
01-04-2012, 06:54 AM
The reason is that if someone goes to the polls and votes, with no ID required, the law has no idea who to prosecute.

You are fooled by these moonbat "FACTOIDS" so easily that it simply defies belief.

Gayle in MD
01-04-2012, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[s]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets cut through all the bs and get down to the main point. The Reps want to have laws that ensure that voter fraud isn't a problem, and the dems do not want them. One group supports honest elections...and one doesn't.

wonder why that is......
</div></div>

Aren't the lefties the ones who think we need more oversight and regulation for business, but fight tooth and nail when someone tries to set up some oversight and regulation over the voting process? What is it they are afraid of? If voter fraud isn't a problem, then showing an ID won't be a problem either. And if they are wrong, and voter fraud is a real problem, ID laws will cure the problem.

WHAT ARE YOU LEFTIES AFRAID OF????????????

Steve </div></div>

The claim of those (me, for instance) is that these moves have no good and sufficient purpose (protecting against a problem that is negligible), and at the same time are instead designed to block voting by Democrats.

If these moves were modified to take away the aspects of disenfranchisement they contain, I think many who oppose them would change their mind. I would, even though there would still be little reason to bear such costs.

So, and to wit:

1) Such ID should be free, by which I mean, up-front free, not pay for it now and through some process get refunded.

2) Such ID should be available widely, in many locations that are spread around all locales. Public libraries, DMV offices, the city halls and county offices, and perhaps several more categories of locations, however and whatever is required so that several such sites are within a 5 mile radius of any resident, and directly on public transporation routes.

3) Other measures designed to curb turnout of the electorate ought to be eliminated as a sweetener to bear these extra costs for no particularly good reason, such as maintaining or extending the time period for early voting.

A key reason the photo ID is resisted is that the photo ID proposal comes with the reverse of all these things as well.

And lastly, it is absurd to be concerned about the issue of voter fraud, when counting the ballot fraud is still so easily accomplished with the touchscreen/no-paper-trail machines, owned by right-wing religious fanatic GOPrs.

</div></div>

Excellent explanation, accurate, thorough, yet succinct.

Just don't expect it to penetrate the brains of the brainwashed Religious flyover nutjobs on this forum.

Repiglicans are clearly afraid of losing another election. Their usual M.O. is to create fear of circumstances that don't even exist, for the sake of a hidden agenda, which is bad for all of us and bad for our Constitution, and our democratic principles. They NEVer Change.

Wonder if they will resurrect another Katherine Harris, or maybe one in each state. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

LWW
01-04-2012, 11:47 AM
So the both of you are admitting that demokrook voters are both less intelligent and less honest thatn the general population.

BRAVO!

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 02:28 PM
No, asserting as a fact that they may be poorer, less likely to drive a car and hence more likely not to have a picture driver license id.

LWW
01-04-2012, 04:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, asserting as a fact that they may be poorer, less likely to drive a car and hence more likely not to have a picture driver license id. </div></div>

I don't know of any state that requires a DL to vote.

pooltchr
01-04-2012, 06:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, asserting as a fact that they may be poorer, less likely to drive a car and hence more likely not to have a picture driver license id. </div></div>

Nobody is asking for a driver license for id...they are requiring a photo id...and the states that are passing these laws are providing them, usually free of charge. Seems getting one is little more than a minor inconvenience for the vast majority of voters. Most states already issue a voter registration card...adding a picture shouldn't be a big deal at all.

Again, what is it about these laws that the left fears?????


Steve

LWW
01-04-2012, 08:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, what is it about these laws that the left fears?????


Steve </div></div>

They cannot win without masses of undocumented demokrooks.

Qtec
01-05-2012, 02:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, what is it about these laws that the left fears?????


Steve </div></div>

This Q has been answered many times in this thread but you ignore those answers. How come?

Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?



The Q is, why are the republicans doing everything they can to stop people voting?

Its not just photo ID you know.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Overall, legislators introduced and passed the following measures:
•<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Photo ID laws.</span> At least thirty-four states introduced legislation that would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote. Photo ID bills were signed into law in seven states: Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. By contrast, before the 2011 legislative session, only two states had ever imposed strict photo ID requirements. The number of states with laws requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification has quadrupled in 2011. To put this into context, 11% of American citizens do not possess a government-issued photo ID; that is over 21 million citizens.
• <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Proof of citizenship laws.</span> At least twelve states introduced legislation that would require proof of citizenship, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>such as a birth certificate</span>, to register or vote. Proof of citizenship laws passed in Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee. Previously, only two states had passed proof of citizenship laws, and only one had put such a requirement in effect. The number of states with such a requirement has more than doubled.
•<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Making voter registration harder.</span> At least thirteen states introduced bills to end highly popular Election Day and same-day voter registration, limit voter registration mobilization efforts, and reduce other registration opportunities. Maine passed a law eliminating Election Day registration, and Ohio ended its weeklong period of same-day voter registration.

Illinois, and Texas passed laws restricting voter registration drives, and Florida and Wisconsin passed laws making it more difficult for people who move to stay registered and vote.
• <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Reducing early and absentee days</span>. At least nine states introduced bills to reduce their early voting periods, and four tried to reduce absentee voting opportunities. Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia succeeded in enacting bills reducing early voting.
•<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Making it harder to restore voting rights</span>. Two states—Florida and Iowa—reversed prior executive actions that made it easier for citizens with past felony convictions to restore their voting rights, affecting hundreds of thousands of voters. In effect, both states now permanently disenfranchise most citizens with past felony convictions. </div></div>

link (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=374543#Post374543)

Q

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

If ypu don't know who voted, how can you know who to prosecute.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In October, KTVU Channel 2 cross-checked California's state death registry record across voter lists in the nine Bay Area counties, finding that in eight elections in the last ten years, "232 people with death certificates had voted after they had died – some more than once." 153 of these cases were from one county, Alameda. Karin MacDonald, the director of the Election Administration Research Center at UC-Berkeley, said "Probably what we're looking at is a lot of administrative error. There may very well be someone in there that somebody has voted for. Absolutely."

Dave MacDonald, the Registrar of Voters for Alameda County, said that his office attempts to keep the list of registered voters updated through the process of obtaining a file from the department of health "once or twice a year of everyone who's died in California and then we apply that to our voter registration database." He said he believes the irregularities on the voter list have to do with bookkeeping errors.</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting)

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

If ypu don't know who voted, how can you know who to prosecute.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Election officials in Connecticut removed names from the state's voter rolls after journalism students found that thousands of dead people were still registered to vote. After conducting their own investigation, students at the University of Connecticut said this spring that about 8,500 dead people remained registered to vote. </div></div>

LEAPIN LIZARDS! (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting)

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

If ypu don't know who voted, how can you know who to prosecute.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Madison County, Mississippi has 123% more registered voters than people over the age of 18.</span> 486 people on the list of registered voters are over 105. 190,000 new voters have registered for the 2008 election.
Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann says, "It is terrible. Combined with the fact that we don't have voter ID in Mississippi, anybody can show up at any poll that happens to know the people who have left town or died -- and go vote for them.</div></div>

GREAT CAESAR'S GHOST! (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting)

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

If ypu don't know who voted, how can you know who to prosecute.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Melvin Porter, although he died in January 2007, cast a vote in the March 4, 2008 Democratic primary in Dallas County. A subsequent investigation by Texas Watchdog turned up the names of 6,000 dead voters on the Dallas County list of registered voters. </div></div>

BY LENIN'S BEARD, HOW CAN THIS BE? (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting)

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

If ypu don't know who voted, how can you know who to prosecute.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More than 4,000 people's names are listed both on Harris County’s voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis has found.[10]

Dozens have apparently cast ballots from beyond the grave, records since 2004 show. One expert says the number of deceased names used to cast ballots may be higher than what Texas Watchdog’s analysis found. Instances of dead voters’ names being used to cast ballots were most frequent in three elections, the November 2004 general election, the November 2006 general election and the March 2008 Democratic primary, the analysis found.</div></div>

JESU MARIA GIUSEPPE! (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting)

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

If ypu don't know who voted, how can you know who to prosecute.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An analysis of census figures and voter registration numbers in Illinois reveals a baffling conundrum: fourteen of the state's 102 counties have more registered voters than voting-age residents.

Rock Island County is the largest county with such a discrepancy: its elections website lists 125,875 registered voters, while the latest census figures list only 114,359 residents 18 years of age or older. That's a difference of 11,516 people. </div></div>

IT'S THE CHICAGO WAY! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/illinois-counties-have-mo_n_852141.html)

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

If ypu don't know who voted, how can you know who to prosecute.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are about 560,000 registered voters in the city of Detroit. But the 2010 U.S. Census found only 523,430 Detroiters over 18, according to Data Driven Detroit.*</div></div>

IT'S THE DEMOKROOK WAY! (http://www.youpolls.com/details.aspx?id=10198)

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

If ypu don't know who voted, how can you know who to prosecute.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the 2010 Census, East St. Louis had a total population of 27,006. The population for those 18 and over, or those eligible to vote, was 19,098. With 22,000 registered voters, it seems to be a numerical impossibility for East St. Louis’ Board of Elections to have an accurate or legal list of register voters.</div></div>

ANOTHER DEMOKROOK TOWN! (http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/east-st-louis-more-voters-registered-than-citizens-that-live-there/)

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?

Q </div></div>

Just man up ... you adore thugocracy.

Gayle in MD
01-05-2012, 09:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, what is it about these laws that the left fears?????


Steve </div></div>

This Q has been answered many times in this thread but you ignore those answers. How come?

Voter fraud isn't a problem. Don't you get that?



The Q is, why are the republicans doing everything they can to stop people voting?

Its not just photo ID you know.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Overall, legislators introduced and passed the following measures:
•<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Photo ID laws.</span> At least thirty-four states introduced legislation that would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote. Photo ID bills were signed into law in seven states: Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. By contrast, before the 2011 legislative session, only two states had ever imposed strict photo ID requirements. The number of states with laws requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification has quadrupled in 2011. To put this into context, 11% of American citizens do not possess a government-issued photo ID; that is over 21 million citizens.
• <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Proof of citizenship laws.</span> At least twelve states introduced legislation that would require proof of citizenship, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>such as a birth certificate</span>, to register or vote. Proof of citizenship laws passed in Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee. Previously, only two states had passed proof of citizenship laws, and only one had put such a requirement in effect. The number of states with such a requirement has more than doubled.
•<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Making voter registration harder.</span> At least thirteen states introduced bills to end highly popular Election Day and same-day voter registration, limit voter registration mobilization efforts, and reduce other registration opportunities. Maine passed a law eliminating Election Day registration, and Ohio ended its weeklong period of same-day voter registration.

Illinois, and Texas passed laws restricting voter registration drives, and Florida and Wisconsin passed laws making it more difficult for people who move to stay registered and vote.
• <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Reducing early and absentee days</span>. At least nine states introduced bills to reduce their early voting periods, and four tried to reduce absentee voting opportunities. Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia succeeded in enacting bills reducing early voting.
•<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Making it harder to restore voting rights</span>. Two states—Florida and Iowa—reversed prior executive actions that made it easier for citizens with past felony convictions to restore their voting rights, affecting hundreds of thousands of voters. In effect, both states now permanently disenfranchise most citizens with past felony convictions. </div></div>

link (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=374543#Post374543)

Q </div></div>

Reasonable discussion of this obvious
REpiglican effort for disenfranchisement of Democratic voters, and their overall un-American attack on Voter's rights, requires a genuine value of insuring equal rights of all Americans.

We already know that the right has no value for equal rights, anymore than they believe that people in this country who do not subscribe to their screwewd up views, have a right to their own personal, private decisions, in their lives. They do not support the standard of Separation Of Church and State, which this country was founded upon.


Any man who would write, or think that "When a woman spreads her legs, she loses her defense" which amounts to saying that any woman who has sex with any man, at any time, under any conditions, thereafter has no personal rights to choose her own path, control her own body, and enjoy the freedom and privacy, which every American should enjoy, can't begin to grasp any standard of what is fair, what is just, nor what is Americanism.
That man would be a raging, ill person, and an extreme misogynist.

No accident that those same types of people, become outraged when a black president accomplishes something that their favorite white disastrous president, couldn't accomplish, after all of his belicose bragging and threatening, the killing the world's most sought after killer and pig, bin Laden, while such a twisted RWer, ignores that his own beloved Repiglican President, one of our worst in history, wanted bin Laden's head in a box on his desk, and said so..... "Wanted, Dead or alive" this sicko additionally had to twist that meaning, to try to soften his own outrageous attack on our special forces, and on our president, after a very successful mission accomplished, a real one, BTW, the killing of one of our country's and the world's most vicious attackers, condemning it simplyy because of his hatred for our first bi-racial, part African American President, because it fits with his own hatred for all things liberal.

We can't expect rationality from someone who gets on an internet forum, and praises a cold hearted, cowardly murderer, who kills people because their views and conscience differ from his own radical religious misogynistic, sicko views.

Or someone who thinks they have the right to dictate what others think, write, feel about human rights, and hence, investigates until he thinks he has found something he can use to terrorize the writer, and then tries to extort them through intimidation, in an effort to force them to do as he says. Sicko!

We have several very sick people on this forum, who think they have a right to dictate to others.

Their statements here prove their racism, misogyny, homophobia, and anti-American views.

They place no value on personal rights, and hence, they do not care if the poor, the old, or thoses of color, are deprived the right to vote, or forced to go out of their way to prove who they are, beyond what has always been an American right to a democratic process, for all Americans.

As long as they think those who will be facing that obstruction to their American Voting Rights, are the poor, the black, and most of all, the likely Democratic voters, loike the Lemmings thay have alwasys been, they will jump behind any REpigliocan effort to twist reality into another Repiglican thrown election, regardless of how many Americans are disenfranchised for their rights.

That is far from the ONLY personal, private, human American right which they would seek or support to deny others.

Wannabe dictators, are Un-American, and also very ill.

That's as un-American as it gets.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, OBL was an evil person, responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. BUT, he was also the leader of a rather large group of people, not a country, but a large group of like minded people. In some ways, that would make him as much of a world leader as some third world dictators.

steve


How would you define a world leader? Do they have to be a leader of a country? Why? Is the Pope a world leader?
If I buy an island and have a dozen people living there, can I claim status as a country and become a world leader?
Is the leader of China more of a world leader than the POTUS, simply because more people live in that country?
Is it a matter of size, or power, or influence? If it is, then OBL certainly had influence ofer the group he lead.

Your opinion is that OBL would not be considered a world leader, but on what exactly do you base your opinion?

Steve


Had OBL had a gun in his hand, and was threatening our troops, it would have been proper, though regretable, for them to use deadly force to protect their own lives.

</div></div>



The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.