- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It is not all about you, grow up.
The question is stupid, voter id's do not suppress anyone that wants to vote than someone needing a license to drive.
Some of them actually admitted it! Not that you would know or want to hear, since it's "only Libs" that do dishonest things in your version of reality.
Convicted felon voted, and there's no turning back | StarTribune.com
That's one guy. So let's say 50 more in Minnesota out of "thousands" who didn't admit it and your talking points fall apart pretty quickly.
I love it when liberals and progressives quote the Huffington Post, New York Times, and Media Matters as gospel.
Thank you for admitting there's a need to do something to curtail fraud in our elections.
Your support for strict Voter ID laws is noted.
A non- answer. Where are all of the court cases from defeated, supposedly cheated, candidates?
Answer - they don't happen because in court you actually have to produce 'evidence'.
You made it about me. You made a bull**** accusation. I'm calling on you to back it up.
LOL.........
You need to provide a picture ID to obtain Government benefits......
You know, folks living in poverty, the elderly, college students.
Just another excuse to retain rampant fraud in our voting process.
I don't pay attention to the huffington post or media matters. But the New York Times has far more credibility as a source of news then some unknown author at the daily caller, or some fantasy espoused by the drudge report
NO........they don't.
Ah. More lies and/or ignorance. Lovely. Let's ask someone who's actually researched this, shall we?
"Critics of [voter ID] laws (myself included) have doubted both their necessity and their ability to keep elections honest. The only type of fraud that a strict photo ID rule would actually prevent is voter impersonation fraud (I go to the polls pretending to be you), and, in fact, voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. In Indiana, where the Republican-dominated legislature passed one of the first new ID laws in 2005 (on a straight party-line vote), there had been no known instances of voter impersonation in the state’s history. In Texas, a strict ID law was enacted last year, although the 2008 and 2010 elections gave rise to only five formal complaints about voter impersonation (out of 13 million votes cast). “There are more UFO and Bigfoot sightings than documented cases of voter impersonation,” quipped one Texas Democrat. Close inspection of the RNLA’s inventory of election fraud, moreover, has found it to be flawed and misleading; most election experts believe that the greatest threat to election integrity comes from absentee ballots—a threat that would not be addressed by the current laws.
As importantly, the burdens placed on prospective voters by these ID requirements are not trivial. Men and women who already possess driver’s licenses or passports, of course, will be unaffected. (So too will those in Texas who have permits to carry concealed weapons—since those permits meet the ID requirement.) But citizens who lack such documents will now be obliged to assemble various other pieces of paper (birth certificates, naturalization forms, proof of residence, etc.) and make their way (presumably without a car) to a government office that can issue an official photo ID. Who are these men and women? Studies indicate that they are disproportionately young or elderly, poor, black, and Hispanic; demographically, they are more likely than not to vote Democratic. (In states covered by the Voting Rights Act, such as Texas and South Carolina, the photo ID laws are being challenged by the Department of Justice on the grounds that they disproportionately affect minorities.) The number of people potentially affected is considerable: the Texas secretary of state, for example, estimates that at least 600,000 already registered voters do not possess the documents to cast ballots in November. New York University’s respected Brennan Center for Justice has estimated that a total of more than five million people may lack the requisite identification documents in states that have passed new ID laws." -http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/voter-suppression-returns
So, in a nutshell - Voter ID laws only impact the least likely possible type of voter fraud (voter impersonation), do nothing to address the more likely (but still extremely rare) problem of absentee ballot fraud (the type specifically mentioned in the article in the OP), and disproportionately impact Democratic voters.
Yeah. Clearly justice in action.
Translation: "I only trust sources that confirm my pre-existing biases."
Translation: "I only trust sources that confirm my pre-existing biases."
I don't pay attention to the huffington post or media matters. But the New York Times has far more credibility as a source of news then some unknown author at the daily caller, or some fantasy espoused by the drudge report
NO........they don't.
More bull from the liberal programmers, thank you for that constructive reply. Voter ID's would restrict what we saw in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I fly enough to know this I have seen many fliers rejected because of ID's sometimes arrested.
I don't pay attention to the huffington post or media matters. But the New York Times has far more credibility as a source of news then some unknown author at the daily caller, or some fantasy espoused by the drudge report
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above from the guy that used the term 'fox snooze' in a previous post in this thread?
Irony meters are spiking.
What is wrong with using a social security check as proof in order to vote? Or using student I.ds as proof? Or court documents or birth certificates?
What is wrong with using a social security check as proof in order to vote? Or using student I.ds as proof? Or court documents or birth certificates?
The NY Times is biased, as anyone taking an objective look at them can easily tell...
The Justice Department Embarrassed In The Texas Voter ID Case | The Moderate Voice
How many years has the drudge report or the daily caller been in the business. The New York time has been in the buissness long before drudge took his first baby steps as a toddler
More bull from the liberal programmers, thank you for that constructive reply. Voter ID's would restrict what we saw in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I fly enough to know this I have seen many fliers rejected because of ID's sometimes arrested.
I'm fine with all of them, except college ID's and Court Documents.
The Education establishment is in the hip pocket of the Democrat Party.
So are the Trial Lawyers.
Both groups rank #1 and #2 as contributors to the Democrats, and both professions don't have the greatest reputation for integrity.
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?