[speechlesstx]

The inconvenience is to voters who have voted before to meet new requirements that a partisan legislature deems necessary, without proper procedures to in place to address them having access to government.

As in getting to a DMV 50 miles away or even being aware that they have to acquire new or different documentation. making it necessary for the looming election instead of taking TIME to make insure the news is both wide spread, and proactive where to go and what to bring.

This and eliminating early voting sure looks like the FIX is in for this election, coupled with admission that it IS a partisan fix for political advantage and gain.

Obvious suppression and obstruction is NOT fair to voters, and indeed a manufactured straw man argument based on not FAIRNESS but willful desperation to control a process and ensure an outcome.

The fact you guys dress up and support such blatant suppression and obstruction in the name of a fair election with integrity frankly boggles the mind as you holler about the right of YOUR church, and YOUR rights as you SUBVERT the rights of others as guaranteed by the constitution.

You cannot hide behind the insulting claim that any dissent of your positions is a "straw man argument". Thats a cop out in light of FACTS!!!!

And around and around we go, when y'all will stop nobody knows. Al of your objections have been satisfied which just goes to show you'll never be satisfied... or come up with something new.

[NeedKarma]

And around and around we go, when y'all will stop nobody knows. Al of your objections have been satisfied which just goes to show you'll never be satisfied...or come up with something new.

That pretty defines politics on the Current Events board doesn't it? :D

[speechlesstx]

"I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

Your problem with that is what? He acknowledged all the aspects you apparently care about, making sure the poor have their safety net, not worrying about the rich, but shoring up the middle back. Obama just thinks "the private sector is doing fine."

[NeedKarma]

Wait a minute... now context matters??

YOU said it doesn't matter:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3242846

Context or not that was a stupid and insulting line. Deal with it.

[speechlesstx]

Wait a minute...now context matters?????

I have never said context didn't matter. Obama and Biden's context doesn't alleviate the sting of their lines, Romney's does.

[talaniman]

And around and around we go, when y'all will stop nobody knows. Al of your objections have been satisfied which just goes to show you'll never be satisfied...or come up with something new.

Then go to our other great debate, and explain why your new VP candidate supported the Bush stimulus 3 times and opposes them now while taking the money and calling them a failure!

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...an-692749.html

I mean since this one is over and there is nothing new going on.

Or start a new one about the lies Romney tells of the president not requiring work for welfare recipients.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...mq9X_blog.html

Or the behavior of republican house members.

http://www.newsy.com/videos/fbi-prob...lilee-politico

Let see how fast you condemn them, or ignore the facts, or call it more left wing straw arguments.

[speechlesstx]

Then go to our other great debate, and explain why your new VP candidate supported the Bush stimulus 3 times and opposes them now while taking the money and calling them a failure!

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...an-692749.html

Again, acknowledged, what else do you want?

Or start a new one about the lies Romney tells of the president not requiring work for welfare recipients.

Why Romney keeps lying about Obama and welfare - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Answered. And it's an opinion piece, that doesn't make it gospel.

Or the behavior of republican house members.

Newsy | Multisource Video News

Let see how fast you condemn them, or ignore the facts, or call it more left wing straw arguments.

Why is the FBI investigating congressmen taking a swim? Is there some crime involved here? Plus, this was dealt with a year ago.

But Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who was the senior most GOP lawmaker in Israel on the trip, was so upset about the antics that he rebuked the 30 lawmakers the morning after the Aug. 18, 2011, incident, saying they were distracting from the mission of the trip.

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was also on the privately funded excursion, which means two of the three top House Republicans were a part of this trip. Neither Cantor nor McCarthy went swimming that night, the sources said. Some of their staff did.

The account of that August 2011 night in Israel was pieced together for the first time by POLITICO based on interviews with more than a dozen sources, including eyewitnesses, as well as public records of the trip.

A Cantor spokesman confirmed that the majority leader dressed down his Republican colleagues and that a staffer was later interviewed by FBI agents.

“Twelve months ago, [Cantor] dealt with this immediately and effectively to ensure such activities would not take place in the future,” said Doug Heye, Cantor’s deputy chief of staff.

Like I've said over and over, we police our own. When will your side do the same?

Well that was easy, next?

[tomder55]

Yeah I recall all the Dem outrage over the antics of Anthony Weiner .As I recall ,the vitriol went after Andrew Breitbart ,who broke the story.

[talaniman]

Weiner is no longer in congress, seems the FBI has found no wrong doing, with the rollicking congressmen who took a swim, so that leaves what you are acknowledging about Ryan and his flip flop on stimulus spending when Bush was the prez, and his lies about it didn't work, except like all the repubs who said it worked for their constituents, and took credit for bringing home the bacon.

And we can add to that hypocrisy by debating the attempts to redefine rape. Police him too while you are policing your own.

[NeedKarma]

I see the repubs on this board are taking a 'wide stance' on this.

[paraclete]

Now karma what could that possibly mean

[NeedKarma]

I'll let you research it. :D

[talaniman]

That's not all NK as I am researching more hypocrisy with the Ohio voter suppression efforts as they rollback early voting in densely populated urban areas, in an effort to seem fair,while there is a lot less need for early voting in rural much less populated areas of the state.

My premise, why do less populated areas have the same number of voting machines as the urban areas? Still working!

A note for the Canadians- In the US, not only is Jim Crow* alive and well, but separate but equal** is too.

*Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Edited premise- early voting the same for both counties with 13,000 residents as for 1.4 million.

Where are the longest lines going to be?

[TUT317]

As far as "all people should have equal right and access to vote " .... there are already restrictions on voting based on age and other factors not regulated by the Constitution. As long as there is no denial of the franchise for those covered under the Constitution ,and the requirements are the same for all eligible voters in the states ,then there is equal rights and access.

From the information I have gleaned here I would say you have equal rights, but not equal access.

Equal access would only apply if all states subscribed to a universal eligibility criterion; or, all states happen to exercise the same eligibility criterion.

From the information gathered here it would seem that equal rights do apply, but equal access doesn't.

Tut

[paraclete]

From the information I have gleaned here I would say you have equal rights, but not equal access.

Equal access would only apply if all states subscribed to a universal eligibility criterion; or, all states happen to exercise the same eligibility criterion.

From the information gathered here it would seem that equal rights do apply, but equal access doesn't.

Tut

In a federal system all states subscribe to a universal eligibility criterion, they align their legislation with federal legislation or they adopt federal legislation. What we have here as has been pointed out is not a federal system but some sort of loose confederation where the only universal eligibility criterion is you can't susceed

[tomder55]

BS... the criteria has been established in the various amendments I've already documented. Everything else is subject to the 10th amendment .

There is only one national election... and in that election , the electorate is NOT electing a President... they are selecting electors . EVERY other election in the country is a state matter subject to Constitutional standards that are equal .

So long as access is uniform within the state ;and state laws comply with the Constitutional criteria ,then it is just not a fact to make the claim that rights are being violated .

[TUT317]

BS ...the criteria has been established in the various amendments I've already documented. Everything else is subject to the 10th amendment .

There is only one national election ....and in that election , the electorate is NOT electing a President ...they are selecting electors . EVERY other election in the country is a state matter subject to Constitutional standards that are equal .

So long as access is uniform within the state ;and state laws comply with the Constitutional criteria ,then it is just not a fact to make the claim that rights are being violated .

Hi Tom,

You are firming up what I have already pointed out. Namely: equal rights.

Just because state electoral laws fall in line with Constitutional criterion doesn't guarantee equal access. Equal access is only guaranteed if all state laws fall under a universal criterion of eligibility.

So you can tell me that all states have exactly the same eligibility criterion?

If you can't then there is no equal access.

Tut

[paraclete]

Tut , Tom is caught in an eighteenth century time warp and he and his ilk have trapped the county there for over two hundred years. In that time no one has been allowed to have an original idea because dissent must be suppressed. Tom thinks his constitution is sacrosanct and must not be interferred with. He tells us there is an amendment process but you can be sure he would violently oppose it. The last time some one had an original idea they had a civil war which cost hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of lives. I can understand his caution but it is time to move on

[tomder55]

All State laws must be Constutitutional . So long as there is equal access within a state there is equal access . Period . If a State decides to have voter id and the law within the state applies equally then there is no issue. If a state determines that it doesn't need voter id then that is their business (although I think it compromises the integrity of the franchise... which is as important in my opinion as equal access) .

[paraclete]

Equal access is not part of the original concept, it is an unfamiliar concept to the writers of the constitution who formed a gentleman's club to run the country and keep all those poor people in line, and it seems it is an unfamiliar concept today. Civil rights was an unfamiliar concept until people took to the streets and forced those states to change, perhaps it will take that again