No one ever asks me for ID when I buy liquor.
They don't even ask for ID when I buy a senior ticket at the theater any more.
Must be carelessness.
:doh
The study is just fine, you mite want to read what I said. :lol:
I did. Evidently you find your unsubstantiated opinion in red font more credible that I do. Sorry!
Absolutely they should! The push to allow otherwise is one of the most transparent efforts by crooked politicians to "cheat" I've ever seen in my life. IMO only politicians wishing to get illegal votes would oppose the common sense requirement to prove you have the right to vote; one of most important rights and responsibilities. You have to show your ID to do most anything else *important* in this country, the case should be the same regarding voting. I've always been required to show my ID when I vote, no having to do so is a guarantee for voter fraud.Since another Presidential election is coming up, how about this topic again?
Should people have to show their photo ID in order to vote in US presidential elections? Why or why not?
The only reason I can imagine anyone adamantly opposing the ID requirement is their desire to allow those who are in the country illegally an opportunity to vote.
Whether it will "devastate" the system or just screw it a little so some politicians can get votes from "voters" that are not legal is not really the issue. A little fraud never hurt anyone. Right? Wrong. You present a poor and unpersuasive argument for allowing those without a state required ID to vote in our country.On average, less than 17.2 out of 190 million voters..... omg, it will devastate our voting system!!!! Totally worth disenfranchising 5 million eligible voters. :roll:
If reasonable requirements equals disenfranchising then perhaps we should be happy they are not voting.On average, less than 17.2 out of 190 million voters..... omg, it will devastate our voting system!!!! Totally worth disenfranchising 5 million eligible voters. :roll:
If reasonable requirements equals disenfranchising then perhaps we should be happy they are not voting.
They are not being disenfranchised. You are lying. If they are unwilling to meet reasonable requirements to prove they are eligible to vote then they should not vote.Why would any American be happy that large numbers of their fellow citizens are disenfranchised from voting?
They are not being disenfranchised. You are lying. If they are unwilling to meet reasonable requirements to prove they are eligible to vote then they should not vote.
If reasonable requirements equals disenfranchising then perhaps we should be happy they are not voting.
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of ineligible non citizens are allowed to vote when they have no right to do so?Why would any American be happy that large numbers of their fellow citizens are disenfranchised from voting?
Whether it will "devastate" the system or just screw it a little so some politicians can get votes from "voters" that are not legal is not really the issue. A little fraud never hurt anyone. Right? Wrong. You present a poor and unpersuasive argument for allowing those without a state required ID to vote in our country.
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of their fellow citizens are disenfranchised from voting?
To limit people that would not vote for conservatives. It could hardly be more clear. Just another reason to vote out the conservatives in the next two elections.
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of ineligible non citizens are allowed to vote when they have no right to do so?
When you demonstrate that you actually read and understood my first post to you and reply to it, I'll be glad to reply to questions and comments that come up organically from the exchange. I'm not going to be in the 30 posts a day club with you, time is money and you won't be wasting mine with that approach.What evidence can you provide that makes you think
1- the situation exists in the first place
2- any American is happy about such a problem
The a little fraud never hurt anyone slant was yours not mine. Same thing for the "devastate" argument nobody made. If I thought your argument was poor and unpersuasive before.......................Tell me what other criminal fraud we do as good of job preventing as we currently do with voter fraud?
When you demonstrate that you actually read and understood my first post to you and reply to it, I'll be glad to reply to questions and comments that come up organically from the exchange. I'm not going to be in the 30 posts a day club with you, time is money and you won't be wasting mine with that approach.
If you refuse to engage my actual post I don't know what to say. Except oh well. Good bye.It looks like that is your way of saying the situation does not exist in the first place thus no American needs to worry about it.
If you refuse to engage my actual post I don't know what to say. Except oh well. Good bye.
EDIT: OR you could answer the original question I asked you.
Also, please share how requiring voters to show ID, proving they are whom they say they are and have the right to vote, disfranchises "voters". Ahead of time you can label me as quite happy that those being "disenfranchised" are those who have no right to be participating in the voting process in the first place. Requiring an ID from a citizen to vote only disenfranchises non citizens from voting, a necessary and long overdue part of election reform. Since the various ID requirements across the states enjoy bi partisan support, trying to pin this on one party of the other would be foolish.
How you got that is my way of saying the situation does not exist in the first place so America does not need to worry about, says something about your so called argument. Does it not?
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of ineligible non citizens are allowed to vote when they have no right to do so?
Now you really are choosing to be obtuse IMO. Even ignoring that you have tried to place me both as saying there is a problem and saying there is not a problem, added to the fact you won't answer my twice repeated question, I can see where this is going. Goodbye.I most certainly did speak to your original post #638. The very first lines of your post 638 were as follows
I spoke right to that in asking you the following
What evidence can you provide that makes you think
1- the situation exists in the first place
2- any American is happy about such a problem
That is 100% speaking directly to the very first thought you made in your post. I engaged your post right from the first sentence. And you have yet to reply to that, instead engaging in smoke and mirrors and attempting to ask me questions why you yourself refuse to even defend what you wrote in your first sentence.
Perhaps you are familiar with the expression FIRST THINGS FIRST?
Now you really are choosing to be obtuse IMO. Even ignoring that you have tried to place me both as saying there is a problem and saying there is not a problem, added to the fact you won't answer my twice repeated question, I can see where this is going. Goodbye.
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of ineligible non citizens are allowed to vote when they have no right to do so?
The a little fraud never hurt anyone slant was yours not mine. Same thing for the "devastate" argument nobody made. If I thought your argument was poor and unpersuasive before.......................
Just another example of why your so called argument is poor and unpersuasive. It consist of asking silly questions that have nothing to do with my comments. I'm sure you would love to sit back, pose a thousand questions you think are very thoughtful and then at the end of the day pat your own back for such a well stated "argument". Still a poor and unpersuasive argument and it is that simple. As I said, if you decide you are up to addressing what I did say rather than the way I turned your own words back on you (guess it was over your head despite how obvious it was) and explaining how voters will be disenfranchised, please do so. At this point you clearly can't do that, despite how much your trumpet your so called "thought".That's what I thought, you can't come with any other criminal fraud that we do as good a job of preventing than we currently do with voter fraud.
Thanks for playing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?