- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 1,565
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It’s odd how the left is so opposed to wanting our electoral process to be legit and secure.
Given that you've never once been able to demonstrate that voter fraud influenced the results of even a local election, then I'm going to say yes, your motivation is most likely racism, and being a sore loser.Again, the goal of the left is to allow everyone currently in the US for whatever reason the right to vote. They don’t cate if they are a citizen of the country or not.
They want no regulations or voting laws. Just open it up to anyone and everyone. They want ballots to be sent to every mail box in America and stacks of ballots to be placed on every street corner so anyone can fill one out and drop it in a mail box as many times as they want.
After all, laws and regulations are based on racism. Anyone who wants to secure our electoral process and restrict it to legally registered US citizens is a racist.
Part of being a legal, legitimate" voter is the ability to show the required ID.And yet you have no problem restricting "legal, legitimate" voters, simply because they have no ID. You have no moral high ground.
Who doesn’t have some form of valid ID? Maybe we should create a new government agency which travels from door to door in every region of the country to provide everyone with a new approved ID card and a ballot.So what you are saying is that legal, legitimate voters should be prevented from voting if they don't meet the new restrictions and ID requirements. But don't worry guys, he doesn't want to make voting harder XD
Reading in what you wish were there, but isn't.So what you are saying is that legal, legitimate voters should be prevented from voting if they don't meet the new restrictions and ID requirements. But don't worry guys, he doesn't want to make voting harder XD
No, being a legitimate voter does not require you to have an ID. Not unless a state legislature artificially creates such a requirement in order to make voting more difficult.Part of being a legal, legitimate" voter is the ability to show the required ID.
It's not a moral question. It's a question of validation / verification of being eligible to vote.
Some news outlets say that. DoJ disagrees.?? How so. White supremicists, by the numbers, are pretty uncommon in general. They aren't even in the same league as antifa/blm/anti-government unrest that we've seen in portland, seattle, wisconsin, etc.
State legislatures are the sole government organization which determine the laws and rules that surround elections in their states.No, being a legitimate voter does not require you to have an ID. Not unless a state legislature artificially creates such a requirement in order to make voting more difficult.
In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, soldiers went door to door on Election Day making people vote. Hussein’s last election he got 100% of the vote. Evidently that’s the system the left wants.Reading in what you wish were there, but isn't.
Voters who don't meet the voting requirements, as stated by the State law, aren't legal, legitimate voters. This includes the ID requirement if so stated by law.
All legal, legitimate voters should be permitted to vote if they want to. No one should force them to, if they don't want to.
Not actually true, because the supreme court can overturn voting restrictions if it finds them to be unconstitutional.State legislatures are the sole government organization which determine the laws and rules that surround elections in their states.
If the state law has an ID requirement, said ID requirement is required to be considered a legal and legitimate voter in that state.
You just discarding that requirement, if in the state's law, just because you don't like it, doesn't carry much weight or credibility. Where as the State law does carry much weight and credibility.
You do realize that the US constitution places the responsibility to create voting laws in the hands of each state’s legislature, right?Not actually true, because the supreme court can overturn voting restrictions if it finds them to be unconstitutional.
Extremism like BLM and antifa? Or imaginary extremism?
Why do you oppose a system which ensures the person voting is the person they claim to be?No, being a legitimate voter does not require you to have an ID. Not unless a state legislature artificially creates such a requirement in order to make voting more difficult.
Yes, and it also permits the Supreme Court to overturn those laws if it finds them unconstitutional.You do realize that the US constitution places the responsibility to create voting laws in the hands of each state’s legislature, right?
Hence H.R. 1 contains the nationalization of ballot harvesting, which by all reasonable measures should be illegal in all states.In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, soldiers went door to door on Election Day making people vote. Hussein’s last election he got 100% of the vote. Evidently that’s the system the left wants.
Your cherry picking fail..."In August, a supporter of President Donald Trump was shot dead in Portland, Ore., by a suspected gunman who was a self-described antifa supporter. That killing was the only death last year attributed to far-left violence, the data shows. There were two deaths attributed to far-right attacks."
Wow, that really is a huge problem, indeed.
Because voter fraud has never once been proven to affect the outcome of even a local election, let alone a national one.Why do you oppose a system which ensures the person voting is the person they claim to be?
True, but that's a big IF, in the case of voter ID.Not actually true, because the supreme court can overturn voting restrictions if it finds them to be unconstitutional.
What a ****ing lie.No one stormed the capital. The police allowed them entry into the building through open doors.
More right wing minimization of their actions.The threat of white supremacy is a myth used to justify or excuse the true threat we are experiencing in every Democrat run big city in America.
I'm sure we could convince them to consider the question again, perhaps under more favorable circumstances.True, but that's a big IF, in the case of voter ID.
Seems SCOTUS has already ruled that State law requiring voter ID is not unconstitutional.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.[1]
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
'more favorable circumstances.'I'm sure we could convince them to consider the question again, perhaps under more favorable circumstances.
Not lightly or easily, but it can be overturned. FDR tried to pack the court to get his way. He failed, but then eight justices died. So he got what he wanted anyway.'more favorable circumstances.'
Like a SCOTUS packed with leftist activist jurists?
Let's hope not. SCOTUS precedent, once set, isn't easily, or lightly, overturned, thank goodness.
FDR was in office like 3 terms. That's a long time.Not lightly or easily, but it can be overturned. FDR tried to pack the court to get his way. He failed, but then eight justices died. So he got what he wanted anyway.
Fine speech coming from the party passing new voting restrictions because they're mad they lost the last election.FDR was in office like 3 terms. That's a long time.
'Getting what you want' - what the left is all about all the time ('never let a crisis go to waste' - to gain more power, 'By any means necessary')
Never mind the negative consequences to others or the nation. Just as long as they get what they want.
Isn't that a prime example of 'party before nation'? That which they accuse other of all the time?
Just goes to demonstrate the truism: 'The left accuses other exactly of what they themselves are guilty of'.