Cal the Dems are very good at getting out the vote. Often in some Philladelphia districts it exceeds 100% of the registration rolls . That is what they are really objecting to.. the fact that any qualifications would be enforced.
|
Cal the Dems are very good at getting out the vote. Often in some Philladelphia districts it exceeds 100% of the registration rolls . That is what they are really objecting to.. the fact that any qualifications would be enforced.
I would love to see evidence of the fraud you keep talking about, but do question the methods and process employed by your putting qualifications in place. Maybe you don't intend hardship on those that are affected, but you don't address those hardships effectively either.
I mean ID cards even though they are supposed to be free in some areas have been anything but, and there has been enough evidence to support the fact that its been more a hardship than the problem it addresses, voter fraud!
Lack of follow through may be at the heart of this, as improper support of enacting such a law as requiring an ID without addressing underlying conditions of access which defeats the very purpose of the law.
Everyone should have an ID in today's world, with today's technology, I agree with that part, but to address the individual issues that has manifested itself requires the state to do more than just pass legislation.
This isn't left/right! But its easy to say its idealogical, and agenda driven, and undermines the importance of such a transition. I mean to throw out the baby with the bath water, is not an effective means of cleaning the tub.
Tom addressed the hardships and we've both showed the fraud. You have no more excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Its no excuse to point out that hardshipping almost a million people to stop a very few criminals is a good idea. And its no excuse to point out that your flaws need to be corrected, or adjusted.
Its no excuse right wing fears ruin your common sense and prevent you from seeing reality. Its sad really because the solutions and adjustments are fairly simple.
Fallacy. Deal with facts. You like facts don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again,
Let me ask you this.. Let's say, like Florida in 2000, the entire presidential election winds up being in Pennsylvania's hands...
Pennsylvania has one of the strictest voter ID laws recently enacted. The problem in Pennsylvania, is that MANY of the recently disenfranchised voters don't know it. They'll show up at the polls on election day, only to be turned away. They're MOSTLY black.. There'll be LOTS of cameras...
Let's say Romney wins Pennsylvania by 1,000 votes... What do you think will happen?
excon
I expect you have some sort of court of disputed returns where a class action might be brought, but highly unlikely to change the result since it is only supposition as to how the voters might have voted perhaps we could expect rioting in the streets and organised protests but then maybe not
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I believe, that if the African American population watched the election being stolen from them right under their noses, they'll do more than take to the streets...
excon
FACTS
The attorney for the state arguing in court in support of the ID laws in PA. just submitted in a court submitted stipulation that they have NEVER investigated, prosecuted or know of any cases in the state of voter fraud. It should be noted that the GOVENOR, who was a former state prosecuter, never brought any voter fraud charges in his term as top attorney.
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Trial Set To Begin As State Concedes It Has No Proof Of In-Person Voter Fraud
We await the courts decision.Quote:
Pennsylvania officials released a study finding that more than 758,000 registered voters in the state -- many of them in its urban center of Philadelphia -- lacked driver's licenses. While the law allows for a variety of other forms of identification to be used at polling places, the figure suggested that a large number of Pennsylvanians still didn't meet the criteria needed to cast ballots in the fall.
Looks like right wing BS to me!! Wonder what the rush is all about.
It is obviously a difficult case to prove in court. There is an active investigation in Philly about districts that voted over 100% of registered voters . Of course that investigation is being conducted by the Phily Democrat machine ;so you know where that's going .
That is a falorn hope, it took them a centiury to get off their butts and take what was theirs so another century later. I don't see any big deal on civil rights, and what does more than riots in the streets man, revolution, in your dreams! They can't do anything for themselves now. When you are down you are down, what part of that don't you understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Couple things..
I'm not HOPING for this event. I'm ANTICIPATING it.
So, even though they're down, you don't think they know how to light a match?? Dude!
excon
Get your riot shields out...
Courts just keep upholding these common sense voter ID laws. I guess the New Black Panthers will have to station more club-wielding intimidators at the polls this time around.Quote:
Pennsylvania Judge Upholds Voter ID Law
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday refused to grant an injunction on a new voter identification law that Democrats say could harm President Obama’s re-election chances by unfairly targeting minorities, college students and others in a key swing state.
The decision by Robert Simpson, a commonwealth court judge, clears the way for Pennsylvania to require voters in the Nov. 6 general election to produce photo identification before they are allowed to cast ballots.
Opponents, who had challenged the law’s constitutionality, had asked Judge Simpson to delay the law’s imposition until after the election. Supporters say the law, variations of which have been passed in other states in recent years, is necessary to prevent voting fraud.
The Pennsylvania law was approved earlier this year by the State Legislature along party lines and signed into law in March by Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican.
The American Civil Liberties Union is expected to appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court, which is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. A tie would affirm the law.
Maybe instead of doing the court thingy they should instead concentrate their efforts on getting everyone properly registered and id'ed
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I wouldn't be gloating just yet... There are higher courts than this one.
excon
But that would make sense and take away an avenue for expressing outrage. Libs can't cope without being outraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah I know, maybe we'll hear from them in say, December.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You really don't know how that works, do you? There will be a decision LONG before the election. As a matter of fact, if the state supreme court upholds the decision, then it goes to a federal appeals court, and if it fails there, it'll go to the Supreme Court..
Yes, that'll ALL happen before the election... In fact, the Supreme Court can decide to hear the case anytime it wants to, WITHOUT having to go through the appeals process.. Why would you think it wouldn't happen? Where the hell do you think we live?
excon
SCOTUS is out of session until October. That is the earliest they could hear the case. SCOTUS is on record upholding voter ID laws so I doubt they would hear the case unless it got over-turned in Fed Court. The most recent decision was 6-3 with Stevens writing the majority opinion in the Indiana case 2008. The Pa. law if anything is less imposing than other laws already upheld.
And then again, maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I just did a quick read of Stevens' opinion.
[E]ven rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications... [H]owever, we [have] confirmed the general rule that "evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself" are not invidious... Rather than applying any "litmus test" that would neatly separate valid from invalid restrictions,. a court must identify and evaluate the interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, and then make the "hard judgment" that our adversary system demands.
While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified.
The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud. The State has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures that have been criticized as antiquated and inefficient. [See National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process 18 (2002) (with Honorary Co-chairs former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter).]
It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor - though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud - demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...8/04/07-21.pdf
My only objection to voter IDS is how it was rolled out to the public. I doubt if DEMS will depend mostly on the courts in this matter. And the process is not over, not even here in Texas.
And how was that?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again,
Enough spin... The legal issue ISN'T voter ID's. As you guys noted, SCOTUS already gave it their OK... The issue is the PROCESS in which the law is being implemented... For example, even though an ID is required, if the PROCESS of obtaining one impinges on the rights of the voter, the law can be struck down. As we've discussed here, ad infinitum, the judges might find that the PROCESS equals voter suppression, OR they could think, like you, that it's just hunky dorey...
We'll see.
excon
PS> 2 outs in the 9th. Felix is pitching a PERFECT game... I'm very excited.
Ex I don't understand this preoccupation with making people pay for things, where I come from when you register or change your registration you are sent a card verifying your registration, used in conjunction with another form of photo id your identify can be verified should this be necessary, as I understand this there is a very small incidence of voter fraud after all very few dogs and cats actually vote and even fewer run for office
http://www.news.com.au/world/hank-th...-1226451392013
I wonder if anyone asked for his birth certificate or photo id?
Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I have NO problem with the ID's. The problem is the requirement the state dumps on the VOTERS to obtain them... I agree that the state has an interest in the integrity of the elections.. But, it CAN'T stop there... It ALSO has an interest in seeing that ALL eligible voters cast their votes..
If the state wants everybody to HAVE an ID, it's incumbent on the state to make SURE that everybody has an ID, even if it has to HAND DELIVER every one.
But, as long as the state puts even ONE obstacle in front of ONE voter, it's voter suppression.. It's not the governments JOB to put up obstacles.
excon
Ex I can only agree with you howeverQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
... It ALSO has an interest in seeing that ALL eligible voters cast their votes..
This objective would seem at odds with allowing voters the choice of whether they vote or not
Yeah ;maybe the government should round up the voters and frog march them to the polling place
I already documented on this thred the very reasonable options that the voters of PA have to obtain a voter id.
Don't be ridiculous Tom, you simply make it mandatory and give them a small fine for non compliance, they very quickly get the idea, after all contrary to popular opinion they are not stupid, just lazyQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And I have a problem with the left thinking Americans are a bunch of helpless imbeciles, while whining about the decline of American exceptionalism they created.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Everyone has an 'obstacle' to vote, be it filling out the registration, getting to the polling place, mailing in your ballot, pushing the buttons on the screen, pulling the lever or whatever... it takes some effort on your part. Your protests are LAME. There are requirements to vote, this one is no more a burden than any other.
So spend the money and make the ID's free like you said, open up more places that aren't 20/30 miles away and no bus service. That's what the did in Indiana, closed the urban DMV's, and moved them to rural areas, with NO bus service.
How does the great granny 93 years old, get a birth certificate in time to vote? Oh she will with a lot of help to overcome the obstacles you guys throw in front of her. Compassion dictates you deliver one, but that's not in the republican make up is it?
Voter fraud is an excuse to shave votes. At least the way you guys do it. Good ideas but lousy execution,as usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
All she needs to do is get on the bus, stop whining, and BE exceptional. Piece of cake, no?
excon
You guys have never heard of mail? And seriously, how does a 93 year old get by for 93 years with no ID? She never left the house?
Many have no need for a state ID. Of course you can't see that, but fact is its true. Maybe you just don't care about other people grannies. Shame you haven't a shred of empathy, or understanding, or the WILLINGNESS to try.
Easier for some than others, but don't tell a winger that. All they see are the benefits they get from it. Shaving Obama votes. Won't work like they think it will. But it was easy for them, and cheap!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
In Pa. case provisions were made as I documented earlier . There are NO reasons an eligible voter cannot easily obtain an id.
Define easily.
Cry me a freakin' river. You're still going to tell me that those who you see as most likely to be disenfranchised get by without an ID... even though that demographic probably gets government benefits of some sort and had to prove who they were and why they were eligible to get them?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
As if both sides don't have to furnish ID to vote. You guys are unbelievable.Quote:
Easier for some than others, but don't tell a winger that. All they see are the benefits they get from it. Shaving Obama votes. Won't work like they think it will. But it was easy for them, and cheap!
Let me introduce you to all the fixed-income homebound and bedbound people I took library books to since 1993.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No crying on my part, I fully understand your desperation to get a right wing puppet in the Oval office. I leave the crying, and hollering to you guys, and go help granny vote, like she has for YEARS.
That have no ID?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 PM. |