I don't buy it one bit.

Me neither since in the 1st 60+ response the argument was against the need for one

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3183557-post66.html

Me neither since in the 1st 60+ response the argument was against the need for one

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Voter ID/Suppression (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3183557-post66.html)
That was not a vote against it.

Why would someone argue there is no need for one while supporting it anyway? Doesn't make sense. At all.

Hello again, Steve:

Have you ever heard of the word, process? I think not.

excon

Why would someone argue there is no need for one while supporting it anyway? Doesn't make sense. At all.
There is "no need for it" two months before an election.

Have either of you ever heard of the word "dodge."

Have either of you ever heard of the word "dodge."
Dodge what? You don't do something so complicated just before an election. You do it a year or more ahead of time so everyone who is eligible to vote can do so in the future.

Well that answered my question.

No your answer is the one the courts have been telling you, go back to the drawing board and get a better process going.

Obama and the democrats are not the ones rejecting your new law, the COURTS did. They just pointed out the flaws and inefficiencies and the court obviously agreed!

What is a resonable time frame ? The PA law was passed in the spring. I suspect the time frame would've been fine any other year . Your guys played prevent defense and delay... and then complain there isn't enough time .

Hello again, tom:


I suspect the time frame would've been fine any other year .I suspect you're right.

Excon

Until the next election then you'll whine and moan all over again.

What is a resonable time frame ? The PA law was passed in the spring. I suspect the time frame would've been fine any other year . Your guys played prevent defense and delay ... and then complain there isn't enough time .

There you go, blaming US for YOUR screw UP!! Had you done it right in the first place, we wouldn't be able to delay, or play prevent defense. NOOOO, you guys where in such a hurry to get it in place to defeat Obama, you screwed it up!

Its like the debt ceiling crisis last summer that cost us a credit ratings drop, and led to a stop gap deal, and this coming sequester. Your zeal to push your agenda has screwed up everything, and its come back to bite you in the butt.

When do you guys take responsibility for YOUR own actions, starting with GWB?

When do you guys take responsibility for YOUR own actions, starting with GWB?


That's funny coming from the side who still blames Bush for everything and won't take responsibility for anything except what anyone would do, kill bin Laden.

Back to that voter fraud thing... Rep Jim Moran's son was caught (http://www.theprojectveritas.org/node/149):


Project Veritas has released a new investigation that exposes Representative Jim Moran’s Field Director, Patrick Moran, conspiring to commit election fraud.

When approached by an undercover investigator for advice on how to steal the votes of more than 100 people, Moran advised falsifying documents to satisfy Virginia’s new voter ID law. He said, “Bank statement obviously would be tough, but they can fake a utility bill with ease.”

Moran went on to clarify that, “You’d have to forge it.”

Announcing the release, James O’Keefe said, “This is the most damning evidence to date of the scope of voter fraud in this country. Patrick Moran is not only the son of an 11-term Congressman, but is also the Field Director on his father’s re-election campaign.

“If anyone should be opposed to voter fraud it’s him. Yet he actively encouraged our investigator to forge documents and pose as a pollster to disenfranchise registered voters in Virginia, Washington, D.C. and Maryland.”

gT77qP2Nai8

Rep Jim Moran's son was caught"Caught" at what exactly?

No one can correct an 8 year mistake in 4 especially when you guys won't help, and are part of the problem.

"Caught" at what exactly?

Can't you read? "Conspiring to commit election fraud" is what.


No one can correct an 8 year mistake in 4 especially when you guys won't help, and are part of the problem.

Tal, keep fooling yourself but America doesn't buy that tired, old line

"Conspiring to commit election fraud" is what.Has he been charged? It sounds like a nasty offence.

Tal, keep fooling yourself but America doesn't buy that tired, old line

YOU guys don't buy the truth, or the facts.

But you buy the Romney lies! Before he agreed with the president of course!

Has he been charged? It sounds like a nasty offence.

As usual you ignore the issue in trying to make a puerile point.

As usual you ignore the issue in trying to make a puerile point.Why are you dodging a valid question?

Why are you dodging a valid question?

I gave you all the information needed from the start, look it up yourself.

Hello again,

Thank goodness I'm watching FOX. I've been wondering what the reason is that the Secretary of State in Ohio wanted to eliminate 3 days of early voting... I've even asked here several times. Steve says he TOLD me, but I couldn't find it...

Anyway, FOX told me this morning that the very reasonable Secretary of State wanted to eliminate those voting days simply to give the poor, over worked poll workers TIME to count the votes.

Well, now.. Who could complain about THAT?

Floridians USED to be able to vote TODAY, but Republican governor Rick Scott ended it. I STILL don't know why. Is HE looking out for the poll workers too? Or, is he suppressing the vote?

excon

"Caught" at what exactly?


Good question.

"Project Veritas has released a new investigation that exposes Representative Jim Moran's Field Directing, Patric Moran conspiring to commit election fraud"

This statement is false and misleading. It will be a determination of the courts at a later date to decide if a crime of conspiracy has been committed.

What Veritas should have said is they have evidence of an alleged conspiracy.

Steve, can't you find any decent standards of journalism to post? This one was pathetic in its entirety.

Tut

Just so there is no confusion regarding my above post.

I realize that my quote was a question from N.K. to Speechless. I used NK's quote in my above post. However, my question to Speechless( Steve) at the end of my post is in relation to the original video and transcript posted by Steve.

I am not referencing Steve as NK

Tut

Hello again,

Everybody SAW the lines to vote. There were waits of 5, 6, and even 8 hours to vote.. What is the problem??

Ahhha... The problem is REPUBLICANS... If THIS is the best they can do, they shouldn't even be allowed to pick up the trash... It IS on purpose, isn't it? They think they WIN when voter turnout is SMALL.

MY state?? We have NO wait. NONE. We LOVE it when people vote. Of course, MY state is run by Democrats.

excon

Steve, can't you find any decent standards of journalism to post? This one was pathetic in its entirety.

Tut, if we had any decent standards of journalism left Obama would lose in a landslide. With a few exceptions they have failed to do their job and hold this administration accountable.

Project Veritas' is not a media outlet so I'm not expecting them to be any more objective than say, Media Matters (http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/).

Everybody SAW the lines to vote.

The lines are long because people want Obama out.

The lines are long because people want Obama out.
Received in email this morning from a friend, "Kathy's son Jimmy stuck with it in Florida. The Republicans were trying to add steps and make people leave. He was there well over 2 hours and this was early voting. Wonder what other tricks are up the conservative sleeve."

Got anything more than an email? Not impressed.

Got anything more than an email? Not impressed.
One example from a reliable person I know, and I am guessing there will be many more similar stories.

Hello again, Steve:


Got anything more than an email? Not impressed.Well then these facts (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/early-voting-lines-in-florida-ohio-are-long.html) won't impress you either. Reality isn't one of your strong suits.

Excon

The reality is there wasn't supposed to be any early voting yesterday.

One example from a reliable person I know, and I am guessing there will be many more similar stories.

I've never voted where election workers could be identified as Republican or Democrat so I can only conclude this reliable person is making assumptions.

Its reasonable to assume shenanigans are republican tactics. All the documented shenanigans this year have been from the right because that's what they do! I know a shameless partisan view. I am to lazy to post all those links this morning.

The Republicans were trying to add steps and make people leave.

Just waiting for documentation and not rumors.


All the documented shenanigans this year have been from the right

Except this guy (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-77.html#post3306863), this lady (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-44.html#post3265709), whoever this (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-10-23/news/os-voter-fraud-letter-20121023_1_purge-voter-rolls-florida-voters-state-ken-detzner) is, all these old Dems in NC (http://www.examiner.com/article/number-of-112-year-old-registered-democrat-voters-now-at-3-020-north-carolina)...

Just waiting for documentation and not rumors.

Not a rumor... have an email out to her for details. I know polling places have been shut down in certain areas and long lines caused some polling places to close and lock doors.

Just waiting for documentation and not rumors.



Except this guy (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-77.html#post3306863), this lady (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-44.html#post3265709), whoever this (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-10-23/news/os-voter-fraud-letter-20121023_1_purge-voter-rolls-florida-voters-state-ken-detzner) is, all these old Dems in NC (http://www.examiner.com/article/number-of-112-year-old-registered-democrat-voters-now-at-3-020-north-carolina)...

None of these example rise to the level of republicans creating long lines for voters like in Florida, and Ohio. Seems 10 democratic shenanigans doesn't equal one of yours. You guys are really good at shenanigans.

I mean really good and still one day left for more shenanigans and I am sure you fellows will not dissapoint.

I know polling places have been shut down in certain areas and long lines caused some polling places to close and lock doors.

That was addressed, there was not supposed to be any early voting yesterday.

That was addressed, there was not supposed to be any early voting yesterday.
This was while polling places were open, but then shut down midstream.

That was addressed, there was not supposed to be any early voting yesterday.
From my friend -- "Long lines and then they had to move to stations to verify signature and registration. He is in Miami."

By Florida law the polls weren't supposed to be open, which is one of the reasons for all the outrage in this thread... the left can't seem to agree to any rules when it comes to voting. Vote early, vote often, no matter who you are and if you don't get your way then throw a fit or threaten to blow the mfer up.

Me, I follow the rules. Rules are good.

Me, I follow the rules. Rules are good.
Florida opened the polls (so much for rules), then closed them, then reopened them because of the outcry. So much for rules.

By Florida law the polls weren't supposed to be open, which is one of the reasons for all the outrage in this thread...the left can't seem to agree to any rules when it comes to voting. Vote early, vote often, no matter who you are and if you don't get your way then throw a fit or threaten to blow the mfer up.

Me, I follow the rules. Rules are good.

Only a NUT would wait 4 hours to vote, and then wait another 4 hours to vote again for a grand total of one fraudulent vote.

Florida opened the polls (so much for rules), then closed them, then reopened them because of the outcry. So much for rules.

And that's why we have rules, so sh*t like this doesn't happen.

And that's why we have rules, so sh*t like this doesn't happen.
Jimmy is a college student and was in line with many other college students, so profiling may be taking place.

Hello, again:

Republican voter suppression is in full view these days. I don't know. Maybe the Republicans are telling us the truth.. Maybe it's a logistics problem and NOT a voter suppression problem... Maybe there's just TOO many voters for the state to handle...

Bwa, ha ha ha..

In MY state, there's no wait.. Let me say that again.. We have NO wait. Voting is EASY. Of course, MY state is run by Democrats. We LOVE it when people vote... Republicans don't...

Why do they have to cheat?

excon

Jimmy is a college student and was in line with many other college students, so profiling may be taking place.

LOL, you're a riot.

Conspicuously absent from the States that allow early voting beyond absentee is the very populous and very blue state of NY . Also Mass. Is not on the list . Why are the Dems suppressing the vote in those states ?

Answer ,they are not . There is no compelling reason to have early voting ,even in very populous states like New York. I haven't even heard any call to extend voting hours tomorrow despite the ravages of Sandy.

Answer ,they are not . There is no compelling reason to have early voting

Exactly, their outrage is manufactured BS. As long as everyone in the state has to play by the same rules then they have nothing to stand on but faux outrage.

Illinois is a Dem state, and we have early voting. And we don't profile Repubs.

I'm sure there's no corruption in Illinois.

I'm sure there's no corruption in Illinois.
We give equal corruption rights to both Dems and Repubs.

As opposed to those of us who want to stop the corruption regardless of political affiliation.

As opposed to those of us who want to stop the corruption regardless of political affiliation.
At least Illinois makes corruption fair. Now you want to get rid of ALL of it?

What's telling is you apparently don't.

What's telling is you apparently don't.
Heck, as long as each gets equal opportunity...

Tut, if we had any decent standards of journalism left Obama would lose in a landslide. With a few exceptions they have failed to do their job and hold this administration accountable.


I can't argue with that.





Project Veritas' is not a media outlet so I'm not expecting them to be any more objective than say, Media Matters (http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/).

Interesting perspective portrayed in that article. Are you suggesting that people who head these so-called media outlets are suffering from some type of psychosis? If you are saying this then it would explain a few things.

Tut

Heck, as long as each gets equal opportunity....

Hi Wondergirl,

I think this is the crux of the problem.

Basically it is the point I have been making all along.

Opportunity is worth next to nothing unless there is equal access when it comes to Federal elections.

It is not the opportunity that is the problem- it is equal access that is creating these arguments. The outrage should be centred on equal access. Once you have solved that problem you will go a long way to creating equal opportunity.

To do it any other way is to try and put the cart before the horse.


Tut

Neigh

Hello again, Steve:


I'm sure there's no corruption in Illinois. I'm sure there IS corruption in Texas. What? You guys think you're pure?

Bwa, ha ha ha..

Besides, I'd rather be accused of corruption than to have elected a STUPID, STUPID, STUPID Governor. Yup, I remembered the THIRD stupid.

Excon

Opportunity is worth next to nothing unless there is equal access when it comes to Federal elections.

I'm all for equal access, I don't see how requiring an ID when people have to have IDs to function anyway denies equal access. The rules apply to all equally.

I must note however that Wondergirl was referring to equal opportunities at corrupting the process...


At least Illinois makes corruption fair. Now you want to get rid of ALL of it?

Yes, yes I do.

I'm sure there IS corruption in Texas. What? You guys think you're pure?

I have never given any such indication, hence the need for voter ID.


Besides, I'd rather be accused of corruption than to have elected a STUPID, STUPID, STUPID Governor. Yup, I remembered the THIRD stupid.

I've made no secret that I've never been a fan of Gov. Goodhair, who did you want us to elect, Kinky Friedman? Yeah, you probably did.

Nothing fishy here...


Are the Democrats Trying to Steal Pennsylvania? [Updated] (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/are-the-democrats-trying-to-steal-pennsylvania.php)

It is being reported that Democratic Party operatives are evicting court-appointed Republican poll watchers from polling places in Philadelphia. Specifically, this reportedly has happened in Ward 32, Div 13; Ward 43, Div 14; Ward 56, Div 1; Ward 56, Div 22; Ward 32, Div 28; Ward 32, Div 28; Ward 12, Div 17; Ward 39, Div 1; Ward 24, Div 9; Ward 18, Div 25; Ward 43, Div 14; Ward 29, Div 18; Ward 65, Div 19; Ward 20, Div 1; and Ward 6, Div 11. The idea is to kick out the Republicans, then stuff the box with ballots marked for Obama. This is how some of these precincts have achieved 99 to 100% turnout in past elections.

The story is, as they say, developing…

UPDATE: The New Black Panthers are out, too, “guarding” the same voting location where they were criminally prosecuted for voter intimidation in 2008.

The moral is that Republicans don’t just have to win elections, they have to win by an amount that exceeds the margin of fraud.

UPDATE: The Romney campaign is reporting that 75 Republican poll watchers have been barred from precinct polling places in Philadelphia, in some cases by Democrats saying, “No Republicans will be allowed in the polling place.” The GOP has gone to court and obtained an order from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas requiring the Republicans to be admitted to the polls and seated per their legal authority. However, there is no telling what mischief, in the form of voter fraud, the Democrats have committed in the meantime

Hello again, Steve:

Even though YOUR poll watchers, True the Vote, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_the_Vote) are dressed up in nice clothes with shiny cheeks, they're NO LESS an INTIMIDATION factor than the Black Panthers.

If you're trying to make it appear that Democrats are the only ones doing the dirty tricks, let me smoke some of that same stuff.

excon

I must note however that Wondergirl was referring to equal opportunities at corrupting the process...
And you don't recognize sarcasm? Will have to put it in the sarcasm font next time.

And you don't recognize sarcasm? Will have to put it in the sarcasm font next time.

The sarcastically challenged one is under another name. I was just letting Tut know you weren't referring to voting access.

Hello again, Steve:

Even though YOUR poll watchers, True the Vote, are dressed up in nice clothes with shiny cheeks, they're NO LESS an INTIMIDATION factor than the Black Panthers.

If you're trying to make it appear that Democrats are the only ones doing the dirty tricks, let me smoke some of that same stuff.

Excon

Yes, we all know how intimidating those Tea Party grandmas are (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2tKIBlTC6c).

The sarcastically challenged one is under another name. I was just letting Tut know you weren't referring to voting access.
Election day hugs to you!

And this (https://twitter.com/Timodc/status/265845658798419969/photo/1) is what passes for a neutral polling place in Philly?

It's part of that reeducation that Clete thinks we need

Barack Hussein Obama Mmm Mmm Mmm - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ty7WU872Lk)

Ah, I'm guessing it's at a school, too.

Ah, I'm guessing it's at a school, too.
It's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.

A judge ordered it covered at least.

Well you don't need voter suppression when you have machines that will do it for you

Mine voted correctly... and yes I actually voted for a Democrat again.

Mine voted correctly...and yes I actually voted for a Democrat again.
Is that a typo?

Well maybe that machine didn't make a typo but who knows

Is that a typo?

It's not even news here. In fact, SHE is a Hispanic Democrat.

Foreign election observers wonder, why no voter ID (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/06/foreign_election_officials_amazed_by_trust_based_u s_voting_system)?

Hello again, Steve:

When we decide to STOP being a banana republic, we won't need Voter ID.. Here in Washington, we vote by mail. The SIGNATURE on my ballot is checked against the SIGNATURE on my registration...

It works good. Of course, my state IS run by Democrats.

excon

2012 Voting Machines Altering Votes - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=2012+Voting+Machines+Altering +Votes&oq=2012+Voting+Machines+Altering+Votes&gs_l=youtube-reduced.12..0i3.122841.122841.0.124260.1.1.0.0.0.0 .131.131.0j1.1.0...0.0...1ac.2.sLM0RrZew9w)

Soon you won't need people to vote you can let the machines do it; skynet is self aware

When we decide to STOP being a banana republic, we won't need Voter ID.. Here in Washington, we vote by mail. The SIGNATURE on my ballot is checked against the SIGNATURE on my registration

So in other words, Washington checks to make sure you are you. Um, what's the difference?

Hello again, Steve:


Um, what's the difference?The process in which it was implemented.

Excon

And I'm still waiting for what process would make you happy.

And I'm still waiting for what process would make you happy.
He (and I) have told you. A process that is fair gives ALL people adequate time to respond and participate and be comfortable in their compliance.

Define fair and adequate, and most of all "comfortable."

A limo will do .

Define fair and adequate, and most of all "comfortable."
fair = no one is preferred above another
adequate = reasonable parameters that get the job done, accomplish the purpose, fill the requirement
comfortable = knowing the requirements have been met

LOL, now define "reasonable parameters"

P.S. a law that applies equally is fair, and comfort is not a right.

LOL, now define "reasonable parameters"

P.S. a law that applies equally is fair, and comfort is not a right.
Comfort is for the individual to feel that he has complied with the law.

You're quibbling.

Hello again, Steve:

You're asking lay people discuss the nuances of the law.. Instead of wondering what WE think about the law, you should be reading the cases wherein LOTS and LOTS of judges have RULED that these laws constitute VOTER SUPPRESSION..

Now, if it was just ONE judge, you could say he was an outlier. But, in case after case, the voter ID laws have been STRUCK down - not BECAUSE of voter ID, but because of the PROCESS in which it was implemented...

Look... I don't know HOW any of the judges defined the words you want us to define... All I know is they DID define them, and found the process to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

excon

Comfort is for the individual to feel that he has complied with the law.

It's not that complicated. Nearly everyone has ID and if they don't they're going to need it anyway. Proving you're eligible to vote is reasonable.


You're quibbling.

No, this idea that government needs to make sure people are "comfortable" is lunacy. I'm not "comfortable" at all with Obamacare, make me "comfortable."

It's not that complicated. Nearly everyone has ID and if they don't they're going to need it anyway. Proving you're eligible to vote is reasonable.
I don't have a valid ID and it would be very difficult for me to obtain it.

Cry me a river.

Cry me a river.
Just sayin'. And I'm a well-educated, well-read white woman in a metropolitan area.

That means you probably have enough proof of residency and citizenship to obtain a valid ID .
What you mean is that it would inconvenience .

that means you probably have enough proof of residency and citizenship to obtain a valid ID .
What you mean is that it would inconvenience .
Yes, but getting it would be virtually impossible.

Getting a picture id is impossible ? Maybe in Chi-town ,not in NY .

getting a picture id is impossible ? Maybe in Chi-town ,not in NY .
In my situation, yes, nearly impossible. Has nothing to do with where I live.

And there are many like me who would need lots of time to work out the logistics.

I don't buy it. Nope, not one bit.

In my situation, yes, nearly impossible. Has nothing to do with where I live.

And there are many like me who would need lots of time to work out the logistics.

So in everyday situations when your asked for ID you just simply say you don't have any. Like police officers or doctors or if you want to open an account somewhere.

Why nearly impossible?

So in everyday situations when your asked for ID you just simply say you dont have any. Like police officers or doctors or if you want to open an account somewhere.
Like too many other people I know, I'm homebound.

Hello again,

As a footnote to the discussion, I believe my fears were unfounded.

Ok, that's not true.. I was very afraid that the suppression efforts would WORK, but it appears to have done the exact opposite. It GALVANIZED the community instead, and they came out in droves REFUSING to be stopped.

I think it's what pushed Obama over the top.

excon

Hello again,

As a footnote to the discussion, I believe my fears were unfounded.

Ok, that's not true.. I was very afraid that the suppression efforts would WORK, but it appears to have done the exact opposite. It GALVANIZED the community instead, and they came out in droves REFUSING to be stopped.

I think it's what pushed Obama over the top.

excon

Yeah yeah, those darn states with voter ID laws sure do know how to turn them away don't they??

http://wreg.com/2012/11/02/second-highest-voter-turnout-in-tennessee-history/

What pushed Obama over the top was a hurricane, a governor, a complicit media and new voters fresh off their liberal indoctrination. And blacks refusing to vote for the white guy.

What pushed Obama over the top was a hurricane, a governor, a complicit media and new voters fresh off their liberal indoctrination. And blacks refusing to vote for the white guy.

I don't find that true at all. Romney could have won. The numbers were there. But the hard fact is that many republicans sat on their hands on election day. Its not about who voted but more about who didn't vote because they didn't like the choice that was made for them. Its really something that needs to be debated in the party as a whole.

Hello again, Steve:

I understand why everybody is to blame but YOU - the CONSERVATIVE. That's because if you admitted the truth, you'd realize that the country REPUDIATED conservatism. It REPUDIATED tax cuts for the rich. It REPUDIATED self deportation.. It REPUDIATED sending a surrogate out to say that Obama is lazy, and not very bright. It REPUDIATED lying about saving the auto industry. It REPUDIATED vaginal probes. It REPUDIATED ANY thoughts that old white men should decide what happens to a women's body.. It REPUDIATED the final and biggest lie of all, that Jeep was sending jobs to China...

But, more importantly, it VALIDATED Obama, our first and NOW second black president.. It VALIDATED Obamacare. It VALIDATED taxing the rich. It VALIDATED Obama's efforts on the economy. I could go on, and on...

As we've discussed, you want to go FURTHER right, and I hope you do.

excon

Sure, but based on actual turnout I think I'm largely correct. Republicans have work to do.

Dude, as long as you keep lying about us I predict more of the same. Obama had no second term agenda, he won by demonizing Romney wagung mythical wars. If you want an un-serious country you've succeeded.

Hello again, Steve:

I know you love Mexicans.. You live amongst them and some of them are your best friends... But your PARTY wants to send their grandmother back to Mexico. Now, they might share a beer with you now and then, but they're voting for Obama.

excon

Dude, when Obama was elected we had America. Now we have Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine." -Jeff Spiccoli

All the people of color rejected the lying white guys that called them names. Even the white women.

Why did they believe the black guy?

You have two years to get with the program.

Called them what names exactly?

Hey if you didn't hear them, you didn't hear them. I suppose you would either have to be the insulter or the insulted to understand. Trust me, the insulted heard them loud and clear. And voting accordingly. Especially the women.

You didn't hear Romney say irrelevant?

Hey if you didn't hear them, you didn't hear them. I suppose you would either have to be the insulter or the insulted to understand. Trust me, the insulted heard them loud and clear. And voting accordingly. Especially the women.

So you can't cite when we called them names

Vote was astronomical for Obama in some Philadelphia wards - Philly.com (http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-09/news/34995157_1_voter-turnout-president-obama-gop-voters)

Nope ;no fraud happening here .

Hey if you didn't hear them, you didn't hear them. I suppose you would either have to be the insulter or the insulted to understand. Trust me, the insulted heard them loud and clear. And voting accordingly. Especially the women.

In other words, you got nothing.

Hello tom:

So, when ALL the black people go out to vote, it OBVIOUSLY means they're cheating...

Look.. I know people cheat. I knew this guy who waited in line for 4 hours to cast his own vote, and then he waiting in live for ANOTHER 4 hours to cast the fraudulent vote... He was supposed to cast yet a SECOND fraudulent vote but, he got tired of waiting in line...

excon

Hello tom:

So, when ALL the black people go out to vote, it OBVIOUSLY means they're cheating....

Look.. I know people cheat. I knew this guy who waited in line for 4 hours to cast his own vote, and then he waiting in live for ANOTHER 4 hours to cast the fraudulent vote... He was supposed to cast yet a SECOND fraudulent vote but, he got tired of waiting in line...

excon

Here is something that is from the link posted earlier.

(House Speaker Sam Smith, musing over "staggering" turnout in some city precincts and reacting to wrong information that "90 percent of the precincts in Philadelphia County turned out over 90 percent of voters," called the ability to get such numbers "questionable."

Smith's math does not add up. Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures.)



With electronic voting we no longer can verify votes in this country. So every election is going to be a crapshoot. If you do see higher rates then historical averge then you have the right to question it. But you need the facts first.

Philadephia wards often have historically high turnouts ;sometimes over 100% of registered voters.

so you can't cite when we called them names

You have already called them straw arguments, and taken out of context, and even agreed with the speaker, so what's the point when we have already argued that point.

The election is over and my guy won despite the obstacles. That's the undisputed FACT! The rest is Monday morning speculation. Well its undisputed by most of us.

Allen West is pressing on in challenging the results of his election. No wonder why (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333628/west-fights-amid-vote-recount-mayhem-john-fund#)...


Democrat Patrick Murphy, who leads West by some 2,000 votes, is trying to stop a full recount of controversial early ballots cast in St. Lucie County. His current victory margin is just large enough to avoid triggering an automatic recall of all precincts and all votes.

Then there is Gertrude Walker, the 32-year-veteran election supervisor of St. Lucie County, who has spent much of the last two weeks explaining why her office completely botched the count. She admitted that her office had acted in “haste” in issuing election results, and that “mistakes were made.” Among her mistakes was failing to count 40 of the 94 precincts under her jurisdiction on Election Night — and then counting the other 54 twice. Indeed. On Friday, her office announced it had “discovered” 304 additional early votes left in a box. None had been counted

Nope, there's never any election fraud to worry about. But then again it is Florida.

Allen West is pressing on in challenging the results of his election. No wonder why (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333628/west-fights-amid-vote-recount-mayhem-john-fund#)...



Nope, there's never any election fraud to worry about. But then again it is Florida.


So we have turned up another scam have we? Why am I not surprised? No amount of voter I.D. is going to stop this type of thing. I am not saying that voter I.D. is not going to solve some aspect aspects of voter fraud, but it is not going to stop this type of scamming.

Isn't the election of, The President of the United States important enough to get it right? In the end, how do you know Romney really lost? In four years time you will probably have most states with voter I.D. This will only result in more sophisticated scamming. One thing this thread has shown me. Both sides can keep complaining, but in the end nothing will ever get done. Implement some meaningful change or its just a waste of words.


Tut

It will get much worse because electronic voting can be hacked. I once thought like Ex that internet voting would be a good idea. But now I'm in favor of paper ballots and hand counts only . I also thing we should dip our index finger into indelible ink and we should be rounded by up by DHS for a mandatory vote .
But short of draconian measures ,I think verifiable voter ID is a good start.

It will get much worse because electronic voting can be hacked. I once thought like Ex that internet voting would be a good idea. But now I'm in favor of paper ballots and hand counts only . I also thing we should dip our index finger into indelible ink and we should be rounded by up by DHS for a mandatory vote .
But short of draconian measures ,I think verifiable voter ID is a good start.


So it's an ideological objection rather than any real objection.In light of this I'll change my response from "...nothing will ever get done" to"...very little will ever get done".

Tut

Ideological in that I think the fundamental foundations of our system is sound ?

ideological in that I think the fundamental foundations of our system is sound ?

Absolutely right. And making an effort to reduce fraud via things as voter ID is better than doing nothing and in my view entirely reasonable.

Absolutely right. And making an effort to reduce fraud via things as voter ID is better than doing nothing and in my view entirely reasonable.

Of course it's right. After all you don't have to test it against what is actually happening in reality.

Tut

Of course it's right. After all you don't have to test it against what is actually happening in reality.

Tut

We're not the ones throwing a fit over any attempt to tighten standards.

We're not the ones throwing a fit over any attempt to tighten standards.
Nor are the liberals. It's your PROCESS that is at fault.

You can't vote anywhere in Europe or most of the world without providing proof of who you are... the only reason to defend no ID at the polls is to fight to permit votor fraud to continue like it has... THis year there was so much rampant fraud it makes Elections in Banana republics look honest.

http://www.slcelections.com/Pdf%20Docs/2012%20General/GEMS%20SOVC%20REPORT.pdf
http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/

No one here is against voter ID. It's the PROCESS that matters.

No one here is against voter ID. It's the PROCESS that matters.

Everyone is capable of getting an ID that is allowed to have one... you need an ID to do almost everything... there is no excuse for NOT having an ID.

People argue its not fair to the poor... we you can't go into the SSI office... the Welfare office or the Unemployment office without an ID...

You can't get into a courthouse without an ID...

THere is nothing wrong with the process... unless the problem with the process is that Illegals and other people not entitled to that ID somehow are getting one.

Everyone is capible of getting an ID that is allowed to have one....you need an ID to do almost everything....there is no excuse for NOT having an ID.
Yes, everyone is capable, but for some it would take time. I know of many nursing home residents who don't have an official, acceptable picture ID and would have to figure out how to get one. The same goes for homebound, disabled, and people living in places without adequate transportation. Not everyone is young and limber and can hop into a car and drive to a DMV.

The process would give adequate time to get the ID.

Nor are the liberals. It's your PROCESS that is at fault.

Oh come on, enough of that argument. We're past the election so everyone has more than enough time to get an ID before the next one.

Oh come on, enough of that argument. We're past the election so everyone has more than enough time to get an ID before the next one.
Yes, two years NOW. But that wasn't why this ID discussion was started. And allowing that much time.

Actually this discussion started on the premise that requiring voter id suppresses minority vote . I'm glad we are past that canard.

actually this discussion started on the premise that requiring voter id suppresses minority vote . I'm glad we are past that canard.
If the ID is required without giving people enough time to get it, that suppresses minority vote. Minorities are the ones who often use public transportation and have to make the extra effort to get the ID.

Oy ! Someone close this circular argument thred already !

oy ! someone close this circular argument thred already !
So everyone who needs ID will happily hop into his car and drive the two miles to the local DMV and get it this afternoon?

(You really want this thread closed?)

If the ID is required without giving people enough time to get it, that suppresses minority vote. Minorities are the ones who often use public transportation and have to make the extra effort to get the ID.

How freaking long to those idiots NEED to get an id... how old are they? Are they really that mentally challenged?

THey could have one WITHIN a month of them turning 18... and they don't need renewed every year...
Its not rocket science... it DOESN'T take nearly as long as it takes to get a passport...

They had to have one to collect welfare... they can't get government freebies without one... you can't open a bank account without one. You can't use a credit card or write a check without one.

But I bet they could find their way to collect whatever free handouts were available at any given time no matter where it was or when it was..

Most of these people don't have jobs... something else you need an ID to get... what are they wasting all their time on then?

If they aren't smart enough to get an ID then they aren't smart enough to vote... or is it just difficult for all the dead votors to get an ID... or the old people in nursing homes that can't even remember their own names... or all the Illegals casting votes that can't get them?

According to what is being discovered in that last link I provided across the country its all three of those groups that are the primary concern to the liberals when none of those people are legally or physically capable of casting legal votes.

After all presneting an ID violates the Democrats self perceived right to vote early and vote often. You only get to vote once if you have to present an ID.

http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/ Lots and lots of sublinks to the multitude of fraud that happened recently.

So everyone who needs ID will happily hop into his car and drive the two miles to the local DMV and get it this afternoon?

(You really want this thread closed?)

If they don't have it by 2014 it's their own fault, but I'm sure libs will still obstruct until then.

If they don't have it by 2014 it's their own fault, but I'm sure libs will still obstruct until then.
No, libs won't. At least they have two years now instead of two months.

No, libs won't. At least they have two years now instead of two months.

It takes 2 hours to get one... WITH travel time.

You can have a Passport in a Month... and that's because it has to be Mailed both ways...

A simple state ID is extremely simple to get if you are qualified to have one... its only difficult for those who aren't entitled to have one... and those not entitled to have one also aren't entitled to vote for that matter.

a simple state ID is extremely simple to get if you are qualified to have one....its only difficult for those who aren't entitled to have one...and those not entitled to have one also aren't entitled to vote for that matter.
You apparently have never been homebound.

You apparently have never been homebound.then how to they collect benefits without a legal ID... How do they bank.. how do they shop... how do they do anything without ANY legal form of ID? How do they get medical care? How do they get food to eat?

I bet if they were giving out free stuff they could find a way to get there.


And people in persistent vegitative states don't get to vote.

then how to they collect benifits without a legal ID.....How do they bank..how do they shop...how do they do anything without ANY legal form of ID? How do they get medical care? How do they get food to eat?

I bet if they were giving out free stuff they could find a way to get there.


And people in persistant vegitative states don't get to vote.
They depend on family members to bank and shop for food. They have legal forms of ID (library card, birth certificate, etc.), but not photo ID because they don't drive.

Maybe homebound and bedbound people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

They depend on family members to bank and shop for food. They have legal forms of ID (library card, birth certificate, etc.), but not photo ID because they don't drive.

Maybe homebound and bedbound people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Photo IDs don't HAVE to be drivers licenses. In fact EVERY state issues Photo ID's to non-drivers and always have. I bet if they needed to see a Doctor they would get out of that house fast enough...

Photo IDs don't HAVE to be drivers liscenses. In fact EVERY state issues Photo ID's to non-drivers and always have. I bet if they needed to see a Doctor they would get out of that house fast enough.....
My mil's doctor and various home health care workers made housecalls. She had been a non-driver for years and had no photo ID. The state one has to be obtained at the DMV which she couldn't get to easily.

Hello again, Carol:

I appreciate your efforts.. But, smoothy will NEVER understand the community that you're talking about. He's no different than the other right wingers here, though. There's NO empathy there - NONE.

OR, they know very well what community it is and they don't WANT them to vote. What do you think?

excon

Hello again, Carol:

I appreciate your efforts.. But, smoothy will NEVER understand the community that you're talking about. He's no different than the other right wingers here, though. There's NO empathy there - NONE.

OR, they know very well what community it is and they don't WANT them to vote. What do you think?

excon

Carol used to drive, did she have a license? If she did, why didn't she keep up with an ID?

I know its hard but it helps to read what's already been discussed before bringing it up again. And how much fraud can you prove? I say none on our side, but loads on yours, and your side still lost.

I know its hard but it helps to read whats already been discussed before bringing it up again. And how much fraud can you prove? I say none on our side, but loads on yours, and your side still lost.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

Just for the record, the boys smacked the pack. After your snooze of course.

Just for the record, the boys smacked the pack. After your snooze of course.

You smacked the Futbalasaurs, or are you fishing for a trophy for last week?

I mean't Week 10.

We're all just fighting for second anyway.

Practising for the playoffs.

Hello again, Carol:

I appreciate your efforts.. But, smoothy will NEVER understand the community that you're talking about. He's no different than the other right wingers here, though. There's NO empathy there - NONE.

OR, they know very well what community it is and they don't WANT them to vote. What do you think?

excon

You mean the community of illegals, Felons, Dead people and those that feel they are entitled to vote as many times as they can get away with?


Because you can't do much of anything without a legal ID... there is NO reason someone too lazy to get one should be allowed to vote until they can prove they are who they claim.

We're all just fighting for second anyway.

I'll whup little sis this week... although it would've been easier if Gronk didn't get lost for the season on a meaningless extra point play.

I'll whup lil sis this week...although it would've been easier if Gronk didn't get lost for the season on a meaningless extra point play.

Good luck with that, she seems to have the touch. Opposing teams just inexplicably fail to show up.

She's due for a a$$ kicking... she mocks me for getting a trophy for beating her by 1 pt last time.

She's due for a a$$ kicking ... she mocks me for getting a trophy for beating her by 1 pt last time.

Take her down.

We're not the ones throwing a fit over any attempt to tighten standards.

Tightening standards is only going to solve one problem. As Tom is right when he points out that things are only going to get worse with the advent of electronic voting. Voter I.D. will be irrelevant when it comes to electronic fraud.

Anyway. I get the message. If your system is ideologically sound but dysfunctional when it comes to delivering a proper result then there is nothing that can be done. There other option that seems popular is to talk around the problem.


Tut

What they need is a good ole about of proportional representation

what they need is a good ole bout of proportional representation

That would be our House of Representatives.

what they need is a good ole bout of proportional representation


Perhaps a good dose of what is happening at the moment, or more importantly, what is going to happen in the future.

Tut

That would be our House of Representatives.

Well the outcome might be like that or it might not, with 52% of the vote, under proportional representation, Democrates would take 52% of the seats so it might be more like your Senate, on the other hand there might be a number of independents

What you are talking about is proportional representation under your Parliamentary system. So if we became more like you or Europe then we would have a better system ? Lolololololol ! No thanks ! I like the separation of powers even if it means a divided government . Actually ,I prefer a divided government with no one party having absolute control over the government .

We have separation of powers Tom and our High Court is reasonably non partisan although we do get the odd old queer appointed now and again, you may be surprised to learn that the balance of power in our parliament resembles yours on most occasions, the governing party being unable to legislate without the goodwill of the opposition, when the right wing has had it too good they do stupid things like Work Choices, and when the left wing has had it too good they do stupid things like the Carbon Tax, but we have mechanism, not often used that can unlock the dead lock and clear the dead wood

The founders designed our system for the Congress to be the most important branch of equal branches. That is why the Articles of the Constitution were arranged the way they are with Article One covereing the limited powers of the Legislature. And Article Two covering the Executive. I completely oppose a proportional representation based on a national popular vote . You want to know the difference here... The Dems are a regional party having the vast majority of their representatives in a handfull of highly populated urban states. If a party could gain a majority of representatives from those few states ,then they would have no incentives to represent the interests of the rest of the country . Both parties would concentrate all their efforts where the majority of the votes are .

What you are talking about is proportional representation under your Parliamentary system. So if we became more like you or Europe then we would have a better system ? lolololololol ! No thanks ! I like the separation of powers even if it means a divided government . Actually ,I prefer a divided government with no one party having absolute control over the government .


Tom, I think you forgot to mention SCOTUS


Tut

SCOTUS is the 3rd and theoretically least important under the founders system. Much of it's powers were seized because no one challenged the legitimacy of the 'Marbury v Madison' decision.

SCOTUS is the 3rd and theoretically least important under the founders system. Much of it's powers were seized because no one challenged the legitimacy of the 'Marbury v Madison' decision.


Well, then the theory has proved to be incorrect.

Tut

The theory was sound . SCOTUS has done a lot of good ,but in my judgement more harm in reshaping the powers of government beyond what was intended .

the theory was sound .


Many things are sound in theory but don't work out in practice.



SCOTUS has done a lot of good ,but in my judgement more harm in reshaping the powers of government beyond what was intended .

Are you talking about the same," black robed oligarchs" you keep telling us about?

Tut

Yup ;and in my view the error was in giving them lifetime appts . But also Congress and /or the President should've challenged the legitimacy of Marbury. The founders NEVER intended the Court's constitutional hegemony .

Both parties would concentrate all their efforts where the majority of the votes are .

You know, Tom, you could almost be describing our system where the support for the right is concentrated in the country and the support fot the left is concentrated in cities and the industrial heartland. We are so sparsely populated in parts that some of our representatives have constituencies bigger than some of your states. Like you our legislature is the senior of the various branches of government, the other branches offering support and review. The force of democracy is not diminished here even if the voting system is a little different. I observed that in your last election it came down to concentrating your efforts to a very small geographical area. I have seen the map overlayed by electorial results of your country. The real difference between us is the leadership is directly answerable to the parliament

yup ;and in my view the error was in giving them lifetime appts . But also Congress and /or the President should've challenged the legitimacy of Marbury. The founders NEVER intended the Court’s constitutional hegemony .

The founders are gone and for whatever reason its today conditions and people who have shaped the government to meet today issues.


You know, Tom, you could almost be describing our system where the support for the right is concentrated in the country and the support fot the left is concentrated in cities and the industrial heartland. We are so sparsely populated in parts that some of our representatives have constituencies bigger than some of your states. Like you our legislature is the senior of the various branches of government, the other branches offering support and review. The force of democracy is not diminished here even if the voting system is a little different. I observed that in your last election it came down to concentrating your efforts to a very small geographical area. I have seen the map overlayed by electorial results of your country. The real difference between us is the leadership is directly answerable to the parliament

Our leaders in theory are accountable to the voters, and we have an election every two years on some level or another, so in effect we have an ever changing(?) parlimentary coalition, but we callour democracy federalist which in my opinion I purely semantic.

Also in theory our 3 branches of government are equal, as a check and balance to each other. Scotus is an appointment by the president that has to be confirmed by the senate. We have no review and support as you say since depending on who is in power, it a heated debate.

The president is the only one affected by the electoral college, as any other office is filled by popular vote, and its easy to predict the leaning of states, so that's why we know in advance where those swing states that can be swayed one way or another are located.

It a science. No government on earth is better or worse, but the people are the ones that make it effective or not.

The more people you have, the more complicated it gets. Size matters.

The founders are gone and for whatever reason its today conditions and people who have shaped the government to meet today issues.


So scrap the Constitution and be done with it . It would be better than this charade of pretending to be a Constitutional Republic when we are in fact post-Constitutional.

We don't have to scrap it, just continue to build on it no matter what we call our democracy. What's wrong with that?

so scrap the Constitution and be done with it . It would be better than this charade of pretending to be a Constitutional Republic when we are in fact post-Constitutional.

Yes, time for a rewrite Tom, put it in plain language and spell out the rights, duties and responsibilities so you don't have constant wranglings over meaning and intent

so you don't have constant wranglings over meaning and intent

That's the job of SCOTUS, all you have to do is bring the case.

Seems the job they do just creates more wranglings

Americans love to wrangle and hold onto what they believe in and that's why we move so slowly as we are large and diverse, but that doesn't mean we all have to believe in the same things.

Wrangling is not a bad thing. It's the American way.

Really, has that information filtered down to your school system yet, so like Superman you are fighting a never ending fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Once we might have believed you, but it rings a little hollow today. From what we have seen truth is optional, justice is of course as always blind and only for those who can afford it , and the american way, well, how's that working out for you?

We don't have to scrap it, just continue to build on it no matter what we call our democracy. Whats wrong with that?

Why bother when our government makes the rules as it goes along and judges find powers for the government in the penumbras and emanations of the plain language of the Constitution ?

So its not the Constitution you don't like, it's the people who interpret and implement the laws? You think those old white gentlemen would have imagined 50 states and a civil war in between?

You must want your America back and don't want to share it with other Americans.

Obviously the founding fathers couldn't envisage much beyond, well, the Ohio and the Mississippi, after all most of it was in French and Spanish hands. Their concerns were much closer to home, staying out from under the British thumb, and they were fortunate, the British had bigger fish to fry, for which they would prove the beneficiaries. The British made a fatal mistake in 1814, they should have ended it then

It wasn't fatal and it ended up okay in the long run. We are best friends now. What's a war among friends?

So its not the Constitution you don't like, it's the people who interpret and implement the laws? You think those old white gentlemen would have imagined 50 states and a civil war in between?


You know I think the Constitution is timeless .It is not me who favors expanding the powers of the national government beyond the scope of the Constitution. All I've ever asked is that if changes are needed ,that it gets amended properly.
Yes I do think the founders imagined an expanded nation ;and expansion in knowledge of the sciences. Are you kidding ? By the time the founders passed away they had engineered the expansion of the nation in territorial size well beyond the Mississippi River.Many of the founders were the foremost scientist and philosophical minds of the enlightenment . Few of them limited themselves to being professional politicians as today's group of leaders do.

A civil war ? It was avoidable They set up a system that would've solved the slave issue without civil war . I blame SCOTUS and the Dredd Scott decision for the civil war. That decision by the appointed for life oligarchs wiped out a generation of compromise . Had the legislations been allowed to stand ,eventually the slave trade would've been abolished without bloodshed .

Obviously the founding fathers couldn't envisage much beyond, well, the Ohio and the Mississippi, after all most of it was in French and Spanish hands. Their concerns were much closer to home, staying out from under the British thumb, and they were fortunate, the British had bigger fish to fry, for which they would prove the beneficiaries. The British made a fatal mistake in 1814, they should have ended it then

The Brits mistake was in thinking they could stomp on the rights of free men.

No Tom the Brits decided to free men long before it became fashionable in the United States, you want to talk about stomping on the rights of free men, why did it take until the later half of the twentieth century for your nation to stop stomping on the rights of free men, if in fact that is what they have actually done. You claim to be founded by members of the enlightenment, but they were only enlightened in their own direction, in enriching and entrenching themselves behind some flowery language

That is a complete falsehood. Most of the founders sacrificed personal wealth in public service.

that is a complete falsehood. most of the founders sacrificed personal wealth in public service.

You mean to say they got nothing out of it. Didn't someone tell them politics costs money or is that a twenty-first century phenominom. Your defense of these people is slavish and laughable, they may have had some good motives but behind it was defense of their own interests. I think they got into more than they could chew

Even back then public service had its perks. Politicians never go broke or lose any power or influence and that's for a lifetime just like those judges. We have always seen where there is a will, or interest, there are was to stretch the boundaries of any law.

All men being created equal is a nice idea, but we all know that some are worth a lot more than others is the reality, and has been forever.

Capitalism says its okay to be greedy and know how to make/take as much as you can. Why bribe a politician to make favorable laws for you when you can just lease/rent/or own them? And its LEGAL if not questionable. So its not the Constitution that's flawed Tom, it's the money that can manipulate it that's the problem.

Wouldn't matter if it's a SCOTUS for life, or a month.

maybe you should read up on it instead of speculation based on 21st century values. Save your cynicism for your leaders today . The founders don't deserve it .

Samuel Adams had to borrow clothing to go to Philadelphia for the 2nd Continental Congress.
Jefferson began his public life at 26 .He ended it at 66 years and in all that time added nothing to his personal wealth .

Here is a letter he wrote after returning home from a decade of service .

On returning home after an absence of ten years, I found my farms so much deranged that I saw evidently they would be a burden to me instead of a support till I could regenerate them; and, consequently, that it was necessary for me to find some other resource in the meantime. I thought for a while of taking up the manufacture of potash, which requires but small advances of money. I concluded at length, however, to begin a manufacture of nails, which needs little or no capital, and I now employ a dozen little boys from ten to sixteen years of age, overlooking all the details of their business myself, and drawing from it a profit on which I can get along till I can put my farms into a course of yielding profit. My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility or the ensigns of a new order are in Europe.

To Jean Nicolas Demeunier Monticello, Virginia, Apr. 29, 1795 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl112.php)

Jefferson was technically bankrupt at the time of his death.

Patrick Henry had to leave public service to tend to his personal finances and had to be coaxed back into public service. Washington often kept the army together out of his own pockets . He was wealthy ,but did not increase in wealth in his times of public service.

That is just a few examples . They all took greater risks than our pols today ;and in the case of the wealthy ones ,risked all on something that was hardly a sure thing .

Okay I don't mind being corrected with facts. Since the founders are gone and we only have today as an example, I will stick to how Today's politician gets richer than when he/she started their public services. Whether it's a cush lobby job, or hired by former donors.

Fair enough?

Politicians getting richer, isn't that why they went into politics? Do you really think their intention wasn't to advantage themselves in the process? We had one senior politician who was known as the ten thousand dollar man, that was a while ago, we now have one former politician who is likely to be called the hundred million dollar man

Consider that in some places, the US for example its not in the best interests of politicians to do the right thing by the whole country. 100% election participation would be a nightmare for those seeking to exploit the flaws in the system for personal gain.

You lost me Tal

The bigger the electorial participation, the more chance that hidden self interest can gain a foothole. The more that can be done for the whole, NOT just the few.

An informed, engaged electorate is the solution in my opinion to corruption, and exploitation. That was the intent of our founding fathers for a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The bigger the electorial participation, the more chance that hidden self interest can gain a foothole. The more that can be done for the whole, NOT just the few.

An informed, engaged electorate is the solution in my opinion to corruption, and exploitation. That was the intent of our founding fathers for a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

I don't quite follow how the electorate can be informed when the media totes Obama's water and all he'd tell us was that the other guy is a greedy, evil, dog abuser instead of any actual second term agenda.

It is possible the electorate is better informed than it has been in the past, this has led to a polarisation, but it has not led to the electorate being more engaged or the politicians less corrupt. The bigger the electoral participation the more likely that you can "keep the b@stards honest" as the leader of one of our minor parties put it, but you mean electoral participation as number of voters and I mean electoral participation as number of candidates

I don't quite follow how the electorate can be informed when the media totes Obama's water and all he'd tell us was that the other guy is a greedy, evil, dog abuser instead of any actual second term agenda.

I gather my own facts and do the math according to what the candidate says or WRITES himself.

Its not always as cut and dried as the media says so check the sources before you believe them.

What is a second term agenda other than reinforcing the policies of the first term. There seems to be an idea that new ideas just spring up because an election campaign exists. The reality is the pressing issues of years have not been successfully dealt with, and concluded, so how can there realistically be new initiatives. The idea that you can fish and cut bait doesn't apply. There will be no moving on until the deficit is under control

Tal, I couldn't agree more. But if you think the electorate isn't swayed by the media and a negative campaign that's awfully naïve.

Of course the undecided might be swayed, but there is media on both sides of the debate. You can't have a negative campaign unless you have some negatives to work with

SCOTUS just decided that States cannot require voters to be citizens
SCOTUS Strikes Down AZ Voter-ID Law - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/06/17/scotus-strikes-down-az-voter-id-law.html)

No one has to prove they are citizens to register and vote. Scalia ,writing for the majority said that Arizona's law was preempted by the federal National Voter Registration Act.
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993)
Evidently that law doesn't require citizenship to be eligible to vote.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

Hello again, tom:

I'll have to read it.. It sounds like the RIGHT decision based on the WRONG reasoning. Kind of like Obamacare, huh? Those Supremes... Got to love 'em.

excon

I can see where the right would want to eliminate minorities and poor people from voting. Loss of total social, and economic domination is a humbling experience.

I can see where the right would want to eliminate minorities and poor people from voting. Loss of total social, and economic domination is a humbling experience.

Don't be ridiculous . All we ever asked was for someone voting to prove they were eligible .

Well do it constitutionally. Ain't you guys tired of losing in court over this?

So in other words, states can set requirements but can't determine if they're satisfied.

Yeah that makes sense.

Hello Steve:

If you don't have to be a citizen to vote, what possible requirement could you come up with?

excon

I'm waiting to download and find the time to read his majority opinion. But if the Motor voter law does not require proof of citizenship then there is something REALLY wrong with it .

So in other words, states can set requirements but can't determine if they're satisfied.

Yeah that makes sense.

Makes sense that your requirements meet constitutional ones right?



Hello Steve:

If you don't have to be a citizen to vote, what possible requirement could you come up with?

excon

Has to be something that requires something a minority doesn't have... like a house in the burbs or something.

Has to be something that requires something a minority doesn't have... like a house in the burbs or something.

Or something a liberal doesn't have... like brains .

Well do it constitutionally. Ain't you guys tired of losing in court over this?

Arizona has had this requirement since 1912, it took 101 years to say it wasn't constitutional?

or something a liberal doesn't have... like brains .This is the level of discourse here?

This is the level of discourse here?

Apparently so (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-men-751505-4.html#post3482876).

This is the level of discourse here?

It's as legit a comment as Tal's barb about us not wanting minorities to vote.

Even the respondents in the case acknowledged the requirements to be eligible to vote, you just can't enforce it. As long as you pinkie swear you're a citizen that's good enough for the left, although if you're a Republican born to American parents in Canada you should be disqualified to run for president.

if you're a Republican born to American parents in Canada you should be disqualified to run for president.
You'd be an American, maybe with dual citizenship.

Hello again, Steve:


if you're a Republican born to American parents in Canada you should be disqualified to run for president.Not me. I WANT Ted Cruz to run.

Excon

You don't and the ruling that struck down the Arizona law was 7-2. Okay I know you guys here may not be the ones my "barbs" are aimed at, but you have to admit republican activities haven't done that well in the courts. This one though if you read the 93 federal law is pretty explicit about registration without citizenship papers, because citizenship is required for most federal programs and benefits already.

Arizona can and has challenged registrations 88% of whom failed to be thrown out and only 19 cases of fraud out of two million were found.

Justices strike down citizenship provision in Arizona voter law - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/17/justice/scotus-voter-registration-ruling)


But in a nod to state authority, Scalia said the federal law "does not prevent states from denying registration based on any information in their possession establishing the applicant's eligibility."

The burden of proof lies with the state to prove a person is not a citizen, and not on the citizen to prove he IS.

You don't and the ruling that struck down the Arizona law was 7-2. Okay I know you guys here may not be the ones my "barbs" are aimed at, but you have to admit republican activities haven't done that well in the courts. This one though if you read the 93 federal law is pretty explicit about registration without citizenship papers, because citizenship is required for most federal programs and benefits already.

Arizona can and has challenged registrations 88% of whom failed to be thrown out and only 19 cases of fraud out of two million were found.

Justices strike down citizenship provision in Arizona voter law - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/17/justice/scotus-voter-registration-ruling)



The burden of proof lies with the state to prove a person is not a citizen, and not on the citizen to prove he IS.

As I said, Arizona has had that requirement for 101 years. Can you please explain to me the logic in having requirements while banning any mechanism to ensure those requirements are satisfied?

And some states have outdated laws banning interracial marriages still, so what? The issue is now that it was challenged in court after the feds made a law for all the states to abide by in 1993.

And some states have outdated laws banning interracial marriages still, so what? The issue is now that it was challenged in court after the feds made a law for all the states to abide by in 1993.

A form which can be changed, but I'm sure your side would not tolerate that. The question was, can you please explain to me the logic in having requirements while banning any mechanism to ensure those requirements are satisfied?

The state can question the registration and have it disqualified. What else do you need?

The state can question the registration and have it disqualified. What else do you need?

I get it, your side isn't much for making sure anyone is qualified for anything. Just look at their approach to home loans and electing presidents.

There is nothing that says the state can't make the requirement for state and local elections... right ? I bet if Arizona rewrote their law so that it only applies to state and local elections ,the constitutionality of that would be challenged too.
You see... the left wants all types of proof for gun ownership ;which is at least as much a constitutional right as voting . But for voting ;all that's needed is swearing that you are a citizen... no id of any kind except perhaps a utility bill or a Costco club card.

there is nothing that says the state can't make the requirement for state and local elections.....right ? I bet if Arizona rewrote their law so that it only applies to state and local elections ,the constitutionality of that would be challenged too.
You see ... the left wants all types of proof for gun ownership ;which is at least as much a constitutional right as voting . But for voting ;all that's needed is swearing that you are a citizen.... no id of any kind except perhaps a utility bill or a Costco club card.
So if there is national voter ID requirement, then a national gun registry is okay?

In Illinois, we have to prove who we are and our signature has to match what is on file when we vote.

I did not say I was in favor ,or opposed to a national voter id. The real point is that the Constitution provides for the States creating voting standards . Although I sort of agree with Scalia's logic in the 'primacy clause' ;at the same token ,I could dispute the constitutionality of the motor voter law of which this decision was based .
The left wants it both ways in Arizona . Here they say Federal Law is primary regarding a law that has at best slight differences to Federal Law... but when it came to immigration enforcement ;and Arizona re-wrote its laws to comply and enforce Federal Immigration law ,it was the same fickle SCOTUS that ruled Arizona's law was unconstitutional because enforcing immigration law undermined federal law.

Don't holler about what the left wants Tom, not with a 7-2 ruling.

Scalia and Kennedy are wrong. Scalia in particular knows d@mn well that the constitution would not have been ratified if there were provisions that took vote eligibility powers away from the states. But it is clear to me that if you support this decision then you don't care if a voter is a citizen.

It seems to me, Tom, that you are far from being the United States your title suggests. Why is there no uniformity in legislation and approach if, as you suggest, you are united. The rugged individualist approach gets you only so far. Have you forgotten that in unity there is strength

We have a great country ! You can vote without proving eligibility ! Even a conservative like Scalia thinks that's a good idea ! You see ,it's such an unreasonable burden to have to show proof of citizenship . Works great with the Democrat "vote early ,vote often " scheme to turn this into a single party nation. I'm going to advise all my legal green card employees to apply for a motor voter registration and "swear " they are eligible . They are here legally . Why shouldn't they have the same rights as the illegals ? It's the honor system . Proof is not required .

And yes ,the OBOTS do approve of voter ids... in Kenya (you can't make it up )



FACT SHEET: U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa
In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of Kenya's March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can's “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration, and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants.
FACT SHEET: U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa | The White House (http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/27/fact-sheet-us-support-strengthening-democratic-institutions-rule-law-and)

Yes Youth Can??

I would look closely at there implementation process, and compare it to the republicans process. How much were you guys willing to spend in the last election cycle on programs and policies to make sure people got registered and had ID"s.

Wonder how long we have to wait in line with those ID's after repubs cancel early voting?

Lines will be shorter... all the illegals won't have ID's to vote.

You don't get it... there was long lines BECAUSE there was early voting .

Who wants to cancel early voting? Vote early, vote often.

You have to get smarter about this, in an electronic age why are there queues? Why can't you have dedicated web sites or even twitter voting? #votefor?? ; Voting could become all the rage among the young on Facebook everyone has a cell phone so send them a free ap, one that can only be used once

You have to get smarter about this, in an electronic age why are there queues? why can't you have dedicated web sites or even twitter voting? #votefor????????????; Voting could become all the rage among the young on Facebook everyone has a cell phone so send them a free ap, one that can only be used once

There is nothing smart about using the internet to vote unless you want to invite massive fraud. This generation that is coming forward only can pay attention to the last minute of tweets anyway.

There is nothing smart about using the internet to vote unless you want to invite massive fraud. This generation that is coming forward only can pay attention to the last minute of tweets anyway.

Yes , Perhaps clete can link to the online voting system that the Aussies employ so he can demonstrate it's efficacy. There is already enough voter fraud with the motor votor application process.

yes , Perhaps clete can link to the online voting system that the Aussies employ so he can demonstrate it's efficacy. There is already enough voter fraud with the motor votor application process.

Out voting system is efficient. However, no system is free of fraud. Are you taking fraud in comparative terms?