- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Liberals are so intent on blocking voter ID requirements because they know that their fellow-liberals are some of the biggest voter-cheats. They wouldn’t cash a check given to them by someone claiming to be the person the check is made out to, but they’re willing to look the other way for the potential of voter fraud in order put people in office who write checks to keep the wealth distributors in office.
Read more: You
Liberals are so intent on blocking voter ID requirements because they know that their fellow-liberals are some of the biggest voter-cheats. They wouldn’t cash a check given to them by someone claiming to be the person the check is made out to, but they’re willing to look the other way for the potential of voter fraud in order put people in office who write checks to keep the wealth distributors in office.
And not just any ID...a photo ID. But what about the poor? And the minorities? And the elderly? How many will miss the convention because of their inability to acquire an ID?
And yet...still no evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country. Come on, show some statistics that prove your case that we need voter IDs. If voter fraud is truly this widespread problem, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to produce some EVIDENCE of it instead of just bitching about "the liberals."
At least as much "evidence" as there is of political convention attendance fraud.
However, it may be the secret service requiring the IDs.
This source... Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net ... says there is no explicit right to vote, as there is an explicit right to free speech, etc. Could you please provide these five instances that you found?I just looked in my handy dandy copy of the official US Constitution. It mentions the right to vote five times in five different places. Sadly, it never mentions the right to attend a political convention.
You, and everybody else, need to quit being a bunch of buzzkills. It's just humorous and ironic. Nothing more, nothing less.Equating opposition to an effort to diminsh and supress the Constitutional right to vote in pubic elections with an effort to maintain security at a private function is ludicrous and outright ridiculous.
How does it involve hypocrisy to object to supressing the right of a citizen to vote in an election - something listed five separate times in the US Constitution - with admittance to a private function involving great security because of the people who attend such events?No matter how you spin it, it is a pretty big case of hypocrisy.
How does it involve hypocrisy to object to supressing the right of a citizen to vote in an election - something listed five separate times in the US Constitution - with admittance to a private function involving great security because of the people who attend such events?
It wouldn't, if it wasn't for the major Dem contention that photo ID = suppression of vote (which is nonsense)
in which case it is perfectly reasonable to argue that requiring photo ID in this case = suppression of ability to attend DNC, which is itself a component in the election process, obviously.
The difference is that you have a constitutional right to vote. You do not have the right to attend the DNC.
True. It still comes across as laughably hypocritical though. It smacks of "do as I say, not as I DO".
Hypocrisy? Who'da thunk it.
Except there is none here. The official US Constitution mentions the right to vote five times in five different places. Sadly, it never mentions the right to attend a political convention.
Equating opposition to an effort to diminsh and supress the Constitutional right to vote in pubic elections with an effort to maintain security at a private function is ludicrous and outright ridiculous.
It is not nonsense. The Brennan Center for Justice has studied the issue and found that as many as 10% of voters in some states lack the requisite forms of ID.
Spin however you'd like. You cover for them continually, this is no surprise.
I point reality out to you that there is a difference between a protected Constitutional right and entry to a high security zone at a private function and you label that as spin.
Amazing!!!! :roll::shock:
And what's not mentioned is the assistance offered to these people to get one.
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?