PDA

View Full Version : Repub In Pa. Admits True Purpose Of NewVoter ID



Gayle in MD
06-26-2012, 06:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8


BUSTED!


So now it is documented, on video, by a Pennsylvania Republican...who clearly states, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Voter Id! Which will allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." </span>

He names several other efforts, first, but ONLY when he says, VOTER ID, does he add, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Which will allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania!"</span>

Those are his exact words, flat out identifying the purpose, which we already knew, of their new voter ID laws, and the Republicans in that room applaud it! SHAME!

Absolutely disgusting! Another election, thrown by Repiglicans, this one alone will block at least 700 to 800 thousand votes, likely all of them, far more likely to be for the president!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

Sid_Vicious
06-26-2012, 06:39 PM
As I keep saying...the whole system is broken. Any optimism for a recovery to sanity, is useless, until there is a revolution, and that means a near, if not a real, civil unrest within this country. Big world money has already staged against that...just research the info about the building up of new detention centers around this country. If there is ever to be a revolution...it best happen quickly. The 100 year cycle for the Great Depression is coming, and we haven't learned a damned thing! Greed and political lawlessness has taken over, completely.

IF-IF-IF the electorate college is ever abolished, and popular vote is the law,,,we could survive. JM2C sid

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8


BUSTED!


So now it is documented, on video, by a Pennsylvania Republican...who clearly states, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Voter Id! Which will allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." </span>

He names several other efforts, first, but ONLY when he says, VOTER ID, does he add, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Which will allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania!"</span>

Those are his exact words, flat out identifying the purpose, which we already knew, of their new voter ID laws, and the Republicans in that room applaud it! SHAME!

Absolutely disgusting! Another election, thrown by Repiglicans, this one alone will block at least 700 to 800 thousand votes, likely all of them, far more likely to be for the president!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif </div></div>

Gayle in MD
06-26-2012, 06:57 PM
LOL, well, According to what I'm reading, a lot of these prisons are being built by private corporations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I guess we know with whom they're linked?

I suppose by the next election, the Republicans will just send out their privatized police forces, and lock up every Democrat they can find the day before the election. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

So what was your take on the video?

G.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 06:57 PM
Obama won by over 10%, and over 500,000 votes, last time v. McCain.

Could they really overcome that? Or is it so close now that it is a far lower hurdle to cross?

Gayle in MD
06-26-2012, 07:28 PM
Well, they're doing this in as many of the swing states as they can get away with, so that's plenty enough to throw this election.

This is the reason why CRIMINAL CROOK Repiglican ISSA, wants to keep our Attorney General reeling over his insulting, unfounded accusations, based on nothing!


Two Democratic Representatives from Pennsylvania, were on Chris Matthews show tonight, and they said they predict that Republicans will block 700,000 to 800,000 votes in Pa.

I haven't seen any polls from Pennsylvania these last few days, so I don't know exactly what the average polling spread is, in that state. However, 800,000 votes? That's a lot of votes!

This is truly a disgrace to our country!

I saw one governor, from a Southern state, I believe, just caught the end of that interview, but he was definitely a Republican governor, in a red state, and he was actually trying to justify his own new Voter ID laws, or, as I call them, his big voter purge in his state, by stating that they found 3, as in T-H-R-E-E, illegal votes in the last election!

This is the very kind of filthy political operation, so often practiced by Republicans, that really makes me furious!

It is just this kind of low down Republican cheating, that makes me reconfirm to myself, I would never vote for a Republican.

G.

LWW
06-27-2012, 03:10 AM
Well as the OP admits ... one elections are moved outside the margin of fraud, demokrooks cannot win.

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 05:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama won by over 10%, and over 500,000 votes, last time v. McCain.

Could they really overcome that? Or is it so close now that it is a far lower hurdle to cross? </div></div>

Here you go, friend. Great News!

WASHINGTON -- NBC and the Wall Street Journal are out with their monthly poll, a gold standard of sorts for measurements of the electorate's temperature. The top line numbers don't jump out as particularly newsworthy. President Barack Obama enjoys a statistically insignificant lead of three percentage points over GOP challenger Mitt Romney, 47 percent to 44 percent.

Backers of the president could argue that holding steady is, in some respects, a victory, as he's sustained a fairly steady stream of bad news on the economy. Last month, Obama was up, 47 percent to 43 percent.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
But the revelation in the poll is found in the swing-state numbers. Among voters polled from Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, Obama leads Romney, 50 percent to 42 percent. That number continues a positive trend for the president. Two months ago, the swing-state number was 47 percent to 45 percent. One month ago it was 48 percent to 42 percent. </span>What's to account for the change? The crew at NBC points to this:

Among swing-state respondents, 18 percent say what they’ve seen and heard about Romney’s business record gives them a more positive opinion about the Republican candidate, versus 33 percent who say it’s more negative. That’s compared to the national 23-to-28 percent margin on this question.
As a Democratic source summarizes: "Can’t ask for much stronger proof of Bain attacks working than this."

There are some caveats here. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- states often associated as Democratic-leaning -- are being counted as battlegrounds.

Also, for Obama's team in Chicago, the job situation is still a soft spot. While 51 percent of respondents say the economy is recovering (compared with 44 percent who say it is not), and 60 percent believe Obama inherited the current conditions (versus 26 percent who say he is responsible for them), not everyone is feeling sympathetic to the White House. Forty-three percent of respondents said May unemployment numbers were reason for optimism; 52 percent said they were not.


Finally, there is this totally irrelevant but slightly humorous data point: 1 percent of respondents believe the president is a Mormon, while 8 percent believe he is a Muslim. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/obama-battleground-states-poll_n_1629086.html?ref=topbar

Sid_Vicious
06-27-2012, 06:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, well, According to what I'm reading, a lot of these prisons are being built by private corporations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I guess we know with whom they're linked?

I suppose by the next election, the Republicans will just send out their privatized police forces, and lock up every Democrat they can find the day before the election. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G. </div></div>

The video expresses my point...the system is broken, and "more-broken marches on." It sucks.

I will get off topic and say that I also find Jan Brewer as exactly right...the feds are leaving AZ out in the cold when they later said following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the provision to check immigration status, that they'd not assist detection and arresting using the federal data bases after an illegal alien is actually located. Obama lost at least one gold star with me on this one, if not more.

As far as the detention centers being totally private???, I don't believe that, plain and simple. sid

sack316
06-27-2012, 07:04 AM
Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with requiring a valid photo ID in order to vote? Everyone is supposed to have some form of ID anyway for a myriad of other purposes and requirements. How does such a law really disenfranchise anyone who is doing right anyway?

And to the topic itself... yeah pretty dumb and partisan comment to make. Should have said something like "will ensure a fair election process" or something like that if he was going to comment at all.

Sack

eg8r
06-27-2012, 07:50 AM
I don't blame him...anyone out there committing voter fraud generally is voting Democrat.

eg8r

eg8r
06-27-2012, 07:53 AM
We have never received an honest response to such a common sense question. I also would really like to understand.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, well, According to what I'm reading, a lot of these prisons are being built by private corporations. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I guess we know with whom they're linked?

I suppose by the next election, the Republicans will just send out their privatized police forces, and lock up every Democrat they can find the day before the election. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G. </div></div>

The video expresses my point...the system is broken, and "more-broken marches on." It sucks.

I will get off topic and say that I also find Jan Brewer as exactly right...the feds are leaving AZ out in the cold when they later said following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the provision to check immigration status, that they'd not assist detection and arresting using the federal data bases after an illegal alien is actually located. Obama lost at least one gold star with me on this one, if not more.

As far as the detention centers being totally private???, I don't believe that, plain and simple. sid

</div></div>

Here you go friend.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/arizona-immigration-law-border-crossings_n_1625956.html

Oops, forgot to add the link, so I had to edit this...sorry.

The Feds, are not leaving any state out in the cold.

Illegal entry is down tremendously from what it was under Republican Presidents, in border states.

The president has more border partols, than under Republican Prasidents, not less.

Crime is down in border states.

More criminally guilty illegals are being deported, in fact, the right criticizes the president for his high deportation numbers, when they are processing flipping their etch-a-sketches.

IMO, it is irrational to have a country with every state having a different policy on illegals.

The Federal Government has the sole authority to set immigration policy, always has had....these are the S.C. findings.

Also, there have been so many Republicans LIES about this issue, it might be worth reading the true facts about this entire debate....and the finding by the courts.

Be sure to check out the correction, also, about what and why in the Supreme Court Decision.

We have different views on the subject, but to me, when I think of kids who have been for all intents and purposes, American kids, being denied education, or health care, because of the circumstance their parents put them in by bringing them here illegally, that just isn't fair, at all, IMO.

Additionally, how do you purpose to deal with the situation? We can't deport thirty million people, can we?

Do you want to pay to jail all of them.

What's your solution?

Too bad Reagan made this mess, and not one Republican has done a damned thing to handle it with any rational presentation, IMO.

And as for the Arizona Governor, that woman has made quite a number of heartless, vicious decisions during her tenure, IMPO.

Now, she had been out there claiming some sort of constitutional victory, when nothing could be further from the truth, IOW, another radical, heartless, Repiglican LIAR!

Just my 2C.

G.

sack316
06-27-2012, 08:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have never received an honest response to such a common sense question. I also would really like to understand.

eg8r </div></div>

Me too. You need one to purchase tobacco or alcohol, to open a bank account, to cash checks, to go to the doctor, to apply for assistance, to apply for school, to rent/buy home, for loans, for prescriptions, to apply for government assistance, and so on and so on.

I honestly don't see how anyone can live (legally) period without government issued photo ID with everything one is supposed to be required for. So why would presenting one to vote be an issue? And if it is somehow disenfranchising some on the voting issue, well then we must be really screwing them over in every other aspect of life as well (?) /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with requiring a valid photo ID in order to vote? Everyone is supposed to have some form of ID anyway for a myriad of other purposes and requirements. How does such a law really disenfranchise anyone who is doing right anyway?


<span style="color: #990000">How? By making it more difficult for the poor to be able to exercise their right to vote, that's how.

Look into it for yourself, what it costs to get a copy of your birth certificate, which is the demand in some of these Red STATES.

What it costs people who are poor to get anywhere, when thhey don't even own a car!

What it's like for poor people who have never even owned a credit card, or a a car, particularly when they have already been out of work due to the BUSH DEPRESSION, and barely have enough money to get by.

Frankly, I'm surprised you would even ask such a question, Sack. The statistics have been all over the news, and the newspapers, as well. There is not problem of any real consequence with illegal votes, period. Check out the stats for yourself, there are official records, you know.

Additionally, if you believe that Republicans are doing this truly unconstitutional dis-service to mostly poor, African American and Latino and Hispanic legal voters, due to voter fraud, and not as a political trick, to help Romney win an election, then there isn't really much for us to discuss, because I HAVE studied this issue, quite thoroughly, and their actions are completely unwarranted, and speak for themselves, they are throwing another election, by disenfranchising legal, but poor voters, for no legitimate reason.

There is NO ISSUE appreciable of voter fraud in this country, of any substance, at all.

</span>

And to the topic itself... yeah pretty dumb and partisan comment to make. Should have said something like "will ensure a fair election process" or something like that if he was going to comment at all.

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">It was what is known as a GAFF, which means he revealed a truth, that wasn't supposed to be revealed.

They are NOT trying to ensure a fair election process, at all, but rather they are trying to throw an election, hence, he slipped and spoke the truth, they are doing this to insure a win for Romney, and for no other reason at all.

G. </span>

sack316
06-27-2012, 08:18 AM
No state costs more than $24 to get a photo ID (most are not nearly even that high) and most are good for 4-5 years.

See my post above for a beginner list of things a gov't issued photo ID is required for.

I'm sorry but the "poor" excuse doesn't fly well. I've been poor and without transportation myself... I managed to have legal identification without a problem.

We require it for government assistance... so is that a big conspiracy to prevent poor from getting help too? Because somehow ID manages to be provided for that.

Sack

sack316
06-27-2012, 08:25 AM
Now if you'd like to make the argument that given the number of things an ID is required for, that obtaining an ID should be free of charge... well that I would fully 100% agree with

Sack

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No state costs more than $24 to get a photo ID (most are not nearly even that high) and most are good for 4-5 years.

See my post above for a beginner list of things a gov't issued photo ID is required for.

I'm sorry but the "poor" excuse doesn't fly well. I've been poor and without transportation myself... I managed to have legal identification without a problem.

We require it for government assistance... so is that a big conspiracy to prevent poor from getting help too? Because somehow ID manages to be provided for that.

Sack </div></div>

There is no picture on my Medicare card, nor on my Social Security Card.

If one deals in cash/cash, all of the time, they don't have a need for pictured ID, at all.

Many African Americans, who have been voting for their whole lives, are now old, can't drive, don't own a credit card, or a car, and are living hand to mouth.

Have YOU ever had to live hand to mouth, at eighty years old? Ever had to either walk, or take a taxie to get anywhere?

You've been poor? Define Poor.



G.

sack316
06-27-2012, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You've been poor? Define Poor.
G. </div></div>

I have, at various points, been unable to purchase food and had no transportation. Was 10 months behind on paying rent for the apartment I lived in... fortunate that the managers at the time were really crappy and didn't keep up with much administratively... so I lived with a huge hole in the ceiling of the bedroom that poured water through every time it rained out of fear of drawing attention to myself.

And as I've said many times here before, my hard times were brought on by my own doing... so you won't hear me crying about them.

I've always had legal identification.

Granted I'm not 80 and not from that different generation.

My grandma and Dad don't have pictures on their Medicare card either... but admitting at a hospital/doctor will view photo ID to use it (of course with the exception of a regular doctor who knows you).

And I am sure you are correct in that there are SOME instances of people who have never used ID and have never had a need for it. But that will far greater be the exception rather than the rule.

Maybe you can help that 80 year old out... let them know they can draw social security and can go cash that check at banks and stuff with their ID. Won't solve all their problems but may help them out some

Sack

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 08:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You've been poor? Define Poor.
G. </div></div>

I have, at various points, been unable to purchase food and had no transportation. Was 10 months behind on paying rent for the apartment I lived in... fortunate that the managers at the time were really crappy and didn't keep up with much administratively... so I lived with a huge hole in the ceiling of the bedroom that poured water through every time it rained out of fear of drawing attention to myself.

And as I've said many times here before, my hard times were brought on by my own doing... so you won't hear me crying about them.

I've always had legal identification.

Granted I'm not 80 and not from that different generation.

My grandma and Dad don't have pictures on their Medicare card either... but admitting at a hospital/doctor will view photo ID to use it (of course with the exception of a regular doctor who knows you).

And I am sure you are correct in that there are SOME instances of people who have never used ID and have never had a need for it. But that will far greater be the exception rather than the rule.

Maybe you can help that 80 year old out... let them know they can draw social security and can go cash that check at banks and stuff with their ID. Won't solve all their problems but may help them out some

Sack </div></div>

Here is the point of this thread.

There is no voter fraud to prevent, in the first place.

Voter Id's are not the only low down policies that REpublicans are trying to implement in order to disenfranchise voters.

Have you read any of the information about Florida? Read anything about the statements made by the Election suprevisors? Ever thought about how hard it is for some people to even afford to take time off to get things done, when they are living on the edge.

I have a friend in Florida, lives pretty much hand to mouth, and he was floored by the cost of renewing his drivers license, it had gone up so much since the last time, and he has a car, and is a veteran, with health problems, so the costs vary from state to state.

If you really believe this effort is for any other purpose than to disenfranchise typical Democratic voters, you must not have done any research on this subject.

If memory serves, you believed the whole Pimp/Acorn story, as well?

G.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 08:58 AM
As far as the detention centers being totally private???, I don't believe that, plain and simple

I don't know what you mean by 'totally private.' But Arizona has already decided to 'privatize' corrections facilities, by hiring on this large private prison company to run them. There are no Arizona state employees involved. Now likely the state builds the prisons, or had already built the prisons that they turned over to private administration. But there was to be a bonanza of new business from turning (federal) non-criminals newly into (state) criminals.

This 'illegal alien' language is sloppy and for a reason. Because simply being here without proper immigration documentation is NOT A CRIME (Arizona MADE it one, but that was struck down). Crossing the border is a crime. Facilitating others' crossing the border is a crime. Caught in the act yields a jail term. But you need evidence, and there is a statute of limitations. 40% of undocumenteds entered the country legally on a visa (that later expired).

But just BEING here undocumented is not a crime. It's a civil administrative matter that does not carry a jail term or any other criminal penalty. You get a notice to appear for deportation hearings, and are released on your own recognizance, or you may be detained in the meantime under exigent circumstances.

sack316
06-27-2012, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Here is the point of this thread.

There is no voter fraud to prevent, in the first place.</div></div>

I wouldn't say there NO voter fraud to prevent. I would agree, however, that is is NOT NEARLY as prevalent as some would like us to believe.

And my point is, what's so hard about presenting ID?

At my polling location, you simply give your name and address and they highlight your name off of a list (a plainly visible list). When I was around 19 they said I already voted. It turned out they simply checked my name off when my Dad voted (he is Richard John, I am Johnny Richard). Was an honest mistake and no biggie, really. But I surely could have returned numerous times stating any name and address I saw on that list just the same.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you read any of the information about Florida? Read anything about the statements made by the Election suprevisors? Ever thought about how hard it is for some people to even afford to take time off to get things done, when they are living on the edge.

I have a friend in Florida, lives pretty much hand to mouth, and he was floored by the cost of renewing his drivers license, it had gone up so much since the last time, and he has a car, and is a veteran, with health problems, so there costs vary from state to state.

If you really believe this effort is for any other purpose than to disenfranchise typical Democratic voters, You must not have done any research on this subject.

G.

</div></div>

Florida cost: $25 and you don't even have to be a US citizen. You can renew in person, online, by phone, or by mail.

http://www.dmv.org/fl-florida/id-cards.php

Given your friend's veteran status, I'm certain he should also have a military ID (government issued photo ID). So he's good to go either way.

Sack

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 09:08 AM
No state costs more than $24 to get a photo ID (most are not nearly even that high) and most are good for 4-5 years.

The old 'poll tax' was a bar to minority voting in the South, and any poll tax, a fee required to vote, has long been struck down by the SCOTUS as impermissible.

Here's where you have to argue that requiring someone spend money to vote is not a poll tax, constructively. Even though it walks, talks, and squawks just like a poll tax, except worse, really.

You can't just go to the polls and pay that ID fee and get the ID issued. You have to go somewhere ELSE, ahead of time, and pay the money then. So, even more burden than a poll tax.

They won't even allow federal identification at these places, so a picture ID from the VA isn't accepted, and neither is a passport, iirc.

What the PRIVATE sector requires for participating in their OPTIONAL activities isn't a good gauge of what the RIGHT of VOTING should require.

I of course have a driver's license, but as of when I come up for renewal, I must now scurry around to get a copy of my birth certificate to gain that renewal, by new Florida law. This requires I contact Alameda County in California, pay THEM some money, wait a week, etc. For WHAT? I've had a Florida DL since '83, WTF?

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 09:14 AM
You can renew in person, online, by phone, or by mail.

Not always, and not exactly. Official Florida site. (http://www.gathergoget.com/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Beginning January 1, 2010, Florida has new documentation requirements for residents renewing or obtaining a new driver license or identification card. For office visits, you must bring original documents that prove your identity, social security number and residential address.

12.18.09 Statement regarding the Department of Homeland Security's extension of material compliance deadline.

You must visit an office with these documents:

if you are applying for your first driver license or identification card
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>when your current credential expires and you have already used the one-time "convenience" renewal option</span>
if you have changed your name since your last renewal (eg: by marriage or divorce)

If none of these apply then you can renew your license online, or by mail.

Remember: if you visit an office to obtain a driver license or ID card after January 1, 2010, you will need to meet the new requirements.</div></div>

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Here is the point of this thread.

There is no voter fraud to prevent, in the first place.</div></div>

I wouldn't say there NO voter fraud to prevent. I would agree, however, that is is NOT NEARLY as prevalent as some would like us to believe.

And my point is, what's so hard about presenting ID?

At my polling location, you simply give your name and address and they highlight your name off of a list (a plainly visible list). When I was around 19 they said I already voted. It turned out they simply checked my name off when my Dad voted (he is Richard John, I am Johnny Richard). Was an honest mistake and no biggie, really. But I surely could have returned numerous times stating any name and address I saw on that list just the same.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you read any of the information about Florida? Read anything about the statements made by the Election suprevisors? Ever thought about how hard it is for some people to even afford to take time off to get things done, when they are living on the edge.

I have a friend in Florida, lives pretty much hand to mouth, and he was floored by the cost of renewing his drivers license, it had gone up so much since the last time, and he has a car, and is a veteran, with health problems, so there costs vary from state to state.

If you really believe this effort is for any other purpose than to disenfranchise typical Democratic voters, You must not have done any research on this subject.

G.

</div></div>

Your situation does not cover all situations...things may be quite different for others.

Florida cost: $25 and you don't even have to be a US citizen. You can renew in person, online, by phone, or by mail.

http://www.dmv.org/fl-florida/id-cards.php

Given your friend's veteran status, I'm certain he should also have a military ID (government issued photo ID). So he's good to go either way.

Sack </div></div>

Not AS prevalent? That would be Not Prevalent, at all, anywhere in this country.

It's nothing but a scam. That's the point. We should be trying to make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote, not harder.



Twenty-five dollars is a lot to him, given he has disabilities, and is living on a limited income, to the dollar every month.

That was my point. Not his ability to vote. In your case, you already had things in place. there are many people who are not set up like you were, and hence, any additional costs, are prohibitive.

For the elderly, any time they have to go anywhere, it's a problem, given health and financial issues, and I don't think those folks by and large, even own computers.

Your situation does not cover all situations...things may be quite different for others.



G.

sack316
06-27-2012, 11:05 AM
[quote=Soflasnapper
What the PRIVATE sector requires for participating in their OPTIONAL activities isn't a good gauge of what the RIGHT of VOTING should require.
[/quote]

Now that is a different perspective that I must admit I had not considered. Thank you for that.

And it's not that I don't see the issue being raised here with these requirements... and the concerns with the reasoning behind them.

But part of my thing is, what's the big deal with needing to present something one is supposed to have anyway?

Sack

sack316
06-27-2012, 11:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...Ever thought about how hard it is for some people to even afford to take time off to get things done, when they are living on the edge....

...For the elderly, any time they have to go anywhere, it's a problem, given health and financial issues, and I don't think those folks by and large, even own computers...

</div></div>

So then acquiring time off and/or transportation to even go to a polling place to cast a vote would fall into the same category

Sack

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 11:16 AM
You keep saying that and it simply is not true for everyone.

There is no law that says that every single American must carry a pictured Identification. This is yet another case of Repiglicans throwing out a hundred years of voter rights, just to rearrange the law, to suit their political purposes.

Same thing is true of the ridiculous "personhood" BS!

Their legislative efforts to encourage and protect Doctors from being sued if they to lie to woman, about the condition of her own fetus.

Not ALL people drive. Not ALL people use credit cards. Not ALL people are young enough, healthy enough, or have the means to go through the Republican Voter Obstruction, obstacle course that Republicans are illegally setting up in order to disenfranchise Democratic Voters!

Did you hear what the man said?

He put it very clearly, the reason why Repiglicans are doing this, to put Pa. in the bag for Romney.


G.

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 11:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...Ever thought about how hard it is for some people to even afford to take time off to get things done, when they are living on the edge....

...For the elderly, any time they have to go anywhere, it's a problem, given health and financial issues, and I don't think those folks by and large, even own computers...

</div></div>

So then acquiring time off and/or transportation to even go to a polling place to cast a vote would fall into the same category

Sack </div></div>

OK, now you're just being so far off the charts, you aren't even making any sense.

NO! They wouldn't fall into the same category.

Loads of people make the effort to get there to vote, and many of them are either too ill, too old, or too poor, to go through purgatory, in order to exercise that right.

People died to protect everyone's right to vote.

The question you should be asking, is whhy are REpublicans trying to make it harderr for a certain group of people, those who vote Democratic, by and large, to do so!

Sheesh!

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 11:47 AM
But part of my thing is, what's the big deal with needing to present something one is supposed to have anyway?

Until we have a new national id law or something, there is no requirement in general that citizens must have officially issued picture ids. And so, if someone isn't a driver, many have never gotten such an id.

Now, increasingly, since 9/11, and Sarbanes/Oxley and 'know your depositor' rules, such photo ids have been required for opening bank accounts, flying on airplanes, and other security related areas of daily life.

However, no one has to fly on an airplane, or rent a car, or drive a car, or open a new bank account, as a rule.

I see all these new demands for ids as an entry to tyranny, based on lies, mainly. Likely ending in forcible implantation of rfids for the use of the cashless money system they have in mind. Perilously close to the mark on the hand or the forehead without which man can not buy or sell, as the Good Book foretells.

sack316
06-27-2012, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
However, no one has to fly on an airplane, or rent a car, or drive a car, or open a new bank account, as a rule.
</div></div>

Nobody <u>has</u> to vote either.

But as with all things mentioned in your post, there are certain things one must do if they want to exercise such a privilege/right.

So is flight, driving, bank accounts, cashing a check, and ALL other things that require ID "the man" trying to prevent poor, elderly, minorities, etc from accessing such things?

And Gayle, are there not poor conservatives? Elderly conservatives? Minority conservatives? Won't such a rule affect those as well?

I hope you guys don't think I am missing your point... because I really do see what y'all are saying. There's just a lot more to it than this guys gaffe of a comment... and I also hope you see my point of "what's the biggie" about flashing an ID as you go to vote. It's not some outlandish thing for people to have a photo ID. Just ask any cop who has ever had to deal with anyone ever.

Sack

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 02:30 PM
We do not have mandatory voting, that is correct.

However, there is a right to vote in the law. And things cannot be done concerning those rights that invidiously impact the potential voting population along racial lines.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.[2]

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.[2][4]

The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called "covered jurisdictions") could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance.[5] These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the South) that had used a "device" to limit voting and in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote in 1964.[5] The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.[6] </div></div>

By this law, if there is disparate impact that falls along racial lines, that isn't allowed in voting, however reasonable or otherwise well-crafted such provisions may be.

If upon analysis, it has a racially disparate impact, it is ILLEGAL. As to exercising the franchise, voting, that is.

As the quoted politician helpfully explains, these changes are expected to reduce the votes for Democrats, by reducing it among racial minorities who vote predominantly Democratic. Ipso facto, that is illegal, whether that was the intent (it was) or not.

llotter
06-27-2012, 03:56 PM
I remember a report about how vote totals out of some Philidelphia precincts were greater than the number of registered voter. So, so some sort of validation scheme is bound to help Republicans.

eg8r
06-27-2012, 05:19 PM
Looks like they still won't answer even with you asking the question. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 06:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
However, no one has to fly on an airplane, or rent a car, or drive a car, or open a new bank account, as a rule.
</div></div>

Nobody <u>has</u> to vote either.

But as with all things mentioned in your post, there are certain things one must do if they want to exercise such a privilege/right.

So is flight, driving, bank accounts, cashing a check, and ALL other things that require ID "the man" trying to prevent poor, elderly, minorities, etc from accessing such things?

And Gayle, are there not poor conservatives? Elderly conservatives? Minority conservatives? Won't such a rule affect those as well?

I hope you guys don't think I am missing your point... because I really do see what y'all are saying. There's just a lot more to it than this guys gaffe of a comment... and I also hope you see my point of "what's the biggie" about flashing an ID as you go to vote. It's not some outlandish thing for people to have a photo ID. Just ask any cop who has ever had to deal with anyone ever.

Sack </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And Gayle, are there not poor conservatives? Elderly conservatives? Minority conservatives? Won't such a rule affect those as well?

</div></div>

Poor Conservatives are not the group being targeted.

This is yet another of the times when you lapse into the usual RW denial policy, IMHO.

As I asked back a few posts ago, weren't you also determined that the fake RW Pimp, had "Caught" Acorn, and the clip proved that, and didn't you insist that was the case, even after it was proven that he doctored the clip?

As we all now know, that wasn't the case. Acorn was vindicated, but the right continues to deny it, just like the right continues to call Valarie a Secretary!

This, also, is not a case of some consciencious, reasonable, or legal and innocent effort to weed out illegal votes, because, as has been proven before, by Election Supervisors, the problem is practically non existant.

The man in the clip stated, clearly, what the program was actually about. You can deny it forever, but the ever so clear meaning was there, the words were very clear, not taken out of context, not havivng been edited, clearly stated.

Additionally, it is far from the first time Repiglicans have intentionally set out to disenfranchised DEMOCRATIC voters, prevented counting all the votes, and even pre-emptively thrown votes Democratic votes out, for political purposes, and actually done so more than once, as is documented, as is proven, they have thrown elections, just as they admit in the clip, they are doing right now in every state where they cann get away with it.

It is conscious, intentional and unConstitutional, and it is against the law.
G.

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 06:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I remember a report about how vote totals out of some Philidelphia precincts were greater than the number of registered voter. So, so some sort of validation scheme is bound to help Republicans. </div></div>

Oh really? Proof? Anyone convicted of that, serve time, and then after being released from prison, admit they had been a Repiglican Operative, who threw an election, (In OHIO) and then write a book, entitled, How To Throw An Election. (?)

G.

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I remember a report about how vote totals out of some Philidelphia precincts were greater than the number of registered voter. So, so some sort of validation scheme is bound to help Republicans. </div></div>

Cast, and counted, are two different things.

A proper election supervisor would have those votes cast scrutinized for registration, and those not registered there would be tossed. Unless they were provisional ballots of people, and THOSE are also scrutinized.

In 2000 and 2004, W was accorded district voting totals at 150% and even 200% of the GOP registration there. Yawns all around, as obviously, so many Democrats must have voted for him. Nothing to see here folks!

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 11:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I remember a report about how vote totals out of some Philidelphia precincts were greater than the number of registered voter. So, so some sort of validation scheme is bound to help Republicans. </div></div>

Cast, and counted, are two different things.

A proper election supervisor would have those votes cast scrutinized for registration, and those not registered there would be tossed. Unless they were provisional ballots of people, and THOSE are also scrutinized.

In 2000 and 2004, W was accorded district voting totals at 150% and even 200% of the GOP registration there. Yawns all around, as obviously, so many Democrats must have voted for him. Nothing to see here folks! </div></div>

No documented proof included in his post, as usual.

G.