Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
About Us
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
a bunch of political hacks
minnesota majority did this "study" they are a hack right woing group.
This study means nothing
Ah yes, page XXX of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Attack the source, not the content.
So, if a source is partisan, but they have the facts to prove their argument, then their partisanship excludes the factual findings?
I have asked you these questions twice before yet you simply attack me rather than answer the question.
Why do you have problems with removing invalid names from the voters roles?
personally I don't have a problem with removing INVALID names but the problem you end up running into is that sometimes VALID names are removed by accident and for that people are denied their right to vote all because their name was SIMILAR to that of a felons name.
So who is going to pay for all of these millions of photo IDs and what about those living from paycheck to paycheck who may not be able to afford such an expense? Furthermore, it seems as though Section 1 of the 14th amendment might apply
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
NOPE they aren't.
Good answer and thank you. I believe you are in line with most Americans with that reply. However, TDM is not.
She refuses to answer.
So who is going to pay for all of these millions of photo IDs and what about those living from paycheck to paycheck who may not be able to afford such an expense? Furthermore, it seems as though Section 1 of the 14th amendment might apply
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Another good answer and for the most part, I would agree with you, however, not completely.
Most people even the poor have to have some id. They have either a driver's license or a state id or some kind of id to prove who they are.
I do not believe that it would be all that expensive to provide id for the few that don't have them.
We throw away hundreds of billions of dollars every year on the war, the Stimulus Plan, and so many other plans, hell, if someone is on Welfare, if they don't already require it, then make that part of Welfare.
NOPE they aren't.
These three questions were written specifically for TM who seems to have a different perspective on things than you and I do in this regard. If... and that is a very big if, she were honest, I think she would say yes they are.
Immie
personally I don't have a problem with removing INVALID names but the problem you end up running into is that sometimes VALID names are removed by accident and for that people are denied their right to vote all because their name was SIMILAR to that of a felons name.
So who is going to pay for all of these millions of photo IDs and what about those living from paycheck to paycheck who may not be able to afford such an expense? Furthermore, it seems as though Section 1 of the 14th amendment might apply
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
NOPE they aren't.
Good answer and thank you. I believe you are in line with most Americans with that reply. However, TDM is not.
She refuses to answer.
Another good answer and for the most part, I would agree with you, however, not completely.
Most people even the poor have to have some id. They have either a driver's license or a state id or some kind of id to prove who they are.
I do not believe that it would be all that expensive to provide id for the few that don't have them.
We throw away hundreds of billions of dollars every year on the war, the Stimulus Plan, and so many other plans, hell, if someone is on Welfare, if they don't already require it, then make that part of Welfare.
NOPE they aren't.
These three questions were written specifically for TM who seems to have a different perspective on things than you and I do in this regard. If... and that is a very big if, she were honest, I think she would say yes they are.
Immie
Fair enough, however, I still believe that you run into 14th amendment issues by requiring an ID. I don't know if that has been challenged or even brought up in court but personally I believe you would have issues if someone was denied their legal right to vote because they didn't have one.
Good answer and thank you. I believe you are in line with most Americans with that reply. However, TDM is not.
She refuses to answer.
Another good answer and for the most part, I would agree with you, however, not completely.
Most people even the poor have to have some id. They have either a driver's license or a state id or some kind of id to prove who they are.
I do not believe that it would be all that expensive to provide id for the few that don't have them.
We throw away hundreds of billions of dollars every year on the war, the Stimulus Plan, and so many other plans, hell, if someone is on Welfare, if they don't already require it, then make that part of Welfare.
These three questions were written specifically for TM who seems to have a different perspective on things than you and I do in this regard. If... and that is a very big if, she were honest, I think she would say yes they are.
Immie
Fair enough, however, I still believe that you run into 14th amendment issues by requiring an ID. I don't know if that has been challenged or even brought up in court but personally I believe you would have issues if someone was denied their legal right to vote because they didn't have one.
I, personally, would not want to see anyone denied their right to vote due to a requirement for an id and if there were significant numbers of people without them, and for all I know there may be, then I would either support providing them or finding another manner of verifying votes.
However, the idea of fingerprints, which I believe was brought up earlier in this thread bothers me. I could see that being abused or even driving people away.
Immie
Fair enough, however, I still believe that you run into 14th amendment issues by requiring an ID. I don't know if that has been challenged or even brought up in court but personally I believe you would have issues if someone was denied their legal right to vote because they didn't have one.
I, personally, would not want to see anyone denied their right to vote due to a requirement for an id and if there were significant numbers of people without them, and for all I know there may be, then I would either support providing them or finding another manner of verifying votes.
However, the idea of fingerprints, which I believe was brought up earlier in this thread bothers me. I could see that being abused or even driving people away.
Immie
Me either which is why I see problems with it and don't know how it can be resolved.
Yeah, requiring finger prints would be troublesome and fall under a similar category IMO.
Like I said, I don't know how it can be resolved and I am sure that no response will satisfy everyone and the arguing will continue. LOL
My question is where was this "report" when there were all sorts of challenges (including a court challenge, as I recall) which put the seat on hold for so long? Good grief, some of these new conservative "groups" are becoming laughing stocks, they're just so fucking frantic over loss of control.
The report was presented to the Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, and it was ignored on November 17, 2008.
Can't get any more obvious than that.
Minnesota Majority has experienced the DOJ’s refusal to investigate these kind of cases first-hand. On November 17th of 2008 (immediately following the 2008 General Election and while the Coleman-Franken recount battle was getting underway), Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis sent a certified letter to then Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, requesting an investigation into apparent failures to comply with HAVA by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. No response was forthcoming.
Since the DOJ in Washington DC failed to follow up on Davis’ complaint, Minnesota Majority contacted the local FBI office and lodged the same complaint. Special Agent Brian Kinney responded and visited the Minnesota Majority office to examine Minnesota Majority’s findings. At that time, he said, “based on what I see here there is more than enough evidence to initiate an internal complaint.” He gave his assurances that he would bring the matter to the attention of his supervisors. There was no further follow-up. .....
Hot Air Audio: How the DoJ allowed voter fraud in Minnesota
Rick
So in other words and based on how it occured on W's watch then your problem is with W's DOJ and not obama's?
The report was presented to the Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, and it was ignored on November 17, 2008.
Can't get any more obvious than that.
Hot Air Audio: How the DoJ allowed voter fraud in Minnesota
Rick
So in other words and based on how it occured on W's watch then your problem is with W's DOJ and not obama's?
It was first brought to the State's attorney's office. They ignored the complaint.
It was brought to them in November. Shortly after the election. It was then brought to the DOJ after the State's attorney ignored it.
Rick
The report was presented to the Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, and it was ignored on November 17, 2008.
Can't get any more obvious than that.
I, personally, would not want to see anyone denied their right to vote due to a requirement for an id and if there were significant numbers of people without them, and for all I know there may be, then I would either support providing them or finding another manner of verifying votes.
However, the idea of fingerprints, which I believe was brought up earlier in this thread bothers me. I could see that being abused or even driving people away.
Immie
Me either which is why I see problems with it and don't know how it can be resolved.
Yeah, requiring finger prints would be troublesome and fall under a similar category IMO.
Like I said, I don't know how it can be resolved and I am sure that no response will satisfy everyone and the arguing will continue. LOL
As far as I am concerned, the best way to solve it is for all sides to sit down together. Put the issue on the table, list the arguments for and against and then coming to reasonable solutions as to how the issue can be solved.
In the long run, no one who wants to vote and has the legal right to vote can be denied the opportunity to vote.
Immie
No when the case is done then we can have teh evidence.
Now if they are convicted that would mean something , if they are found innocent will at least get to see the evidence huh?
What I gave you were court documents from a trial that never took place because the Rs decided to let their hands be tied during an election so tehy could avoid being tried.
Now if they thought like you that the evidence meant nothing I would think they would not have let the court tie their hands for years to come.
Why did the RNC not just clear their name if it was all bullshit?
This has already been answered by more than one poster in the other thread where you were proven to be a liar and you ran away to this thread because you don't want to face FACTS.
Why did the Democrats let the Republicans off the hook if the evidence was do "damning" as you've said over and over and over and spammed this board with repeatedly?
There are nothing but ALLEGATIONS in your "court documents." There is NO FINDING OF GUILT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But, you know this, and choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda.
Rick
How is the DNC (plaintiff) winning a settlement from the RNC (defendant) which ties the RNC hands and that the RNC has continually tried to get out of an example of the DNC letting the republicans off the hook?? Based on what I have read the DNC got what they wanted where as the RNC is still fighting the decree that was a result of the settlement.
No the court did not find in the plaintiff's favor because the defendant settled the case and gave the DNC what they wanted. Yes, the plaintiff could have refused the settlement however, since it was in their favor why would they??
It still doesn't explain why the RNC would have settled IF they weren't guilty of what they were accused of? Why wouldn't they have fought to clear their name?
so, to wrap this all up...what will happen here will be the same result as what happened with bush in Florida.
Me either which is why I see problems with it and don't know how it can be resolved.
Yeah, requiring finger prints would be troublesome and fall under a similar category IMO.
Like I said, I don't know how it can be resolved and I am sure that no response will satisfy everyone and the arguing will continue. LOL
As far as I am concerned, the best way to solve it is for all sides to sit down together. Put the issue on the table, list the arguments for and against and then coming to reasonable solutions as to how the issue can be solved.
In the long run, no one who wants to vote and has the legal right to vote can be denied the opportunity to vote.
Immie
I really wish you were that reasonable.
But instead you refuse to accept facts so what good would discussing anything with you be.
This has already been answered by more than one poster in the other thread where you were proven to be a liar and you ran away to this thread because you don't want to face FACTS.
Why did the Democrats let the Republicans off the hook if the evidence was do "damning" as you've said over and over and over and spammed this board with repeatedly?
There are nothing but ALLEGATIONS in your "court documents." There is NO FINDING OF GUILT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But, you know this, and choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda.
Rick
How is the DNC (plaintiff) winning a settlement from the RNC (defendant) which ties the RNC hands and that the RNC has continually tried to get out of an example of the DNC letting the republicans off the hook?? Based on what I have read the DNC got what they wanted where as the RNC is still fighting the decree that was a result of the settlement.
No the court did not find in the plaintiff's favor because the defendant settled the case and gave the DNC what they wanted. Yes, the plaintiff could have refused the settlement however, since it was in their favor why would they??
It still doesn't explain why the RNC would have settled IF they weren't guilty of what they were accused of? Why wouldn't they have fought to clear their name?
I tried and tried they refuse the facts even when they are put right in their faces
So in other words and based on how it occured on W's watch then your problem is with W's DOJ and not obama's?
It was first brought to the State's attorney's office. They ignored the complaint.
It was brought to them in November. Shortly after the election. It was then brought to the DOJ after the State's attorney ignored it.
Rick
So whose DOJ ignored it?? Your own link and excerpt says that the complaints filed by MM on Nov 17 2008 was not responded to by THEN DOJ so he then sent the same complaint to the FBI. Even your own words from your own post admit that MM was ignored at that time.
The report was presented to the Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, and it was ignored on November 17, 2008.
Can't get any more obvious than that.
Who was in charge of the DOJ back in Nov 17, 2008 and why is your story changing??
And how can you blame obama for something that you admit happened on W's watch?
rnc in violation of consent decree
"The District Court then proceded to summerize its findings, stating:
I conclude the RNC has violated the consent decree"
Page four last paragraph
Please prove you are a reasonable person and accept the facts that are evident in this court document.
rnc in violation of consent decree
"The District Court then proceded to summerize its findings, stating:
I conclude the RNC has violated the consent decree"
Page four last paragraph
Geeez,
I wonder what it means that this case was later... DISMISSED!
law.com Law Dictionary
dismissal
n. 1) the act of voluntarily terminating a criminal prosecution or a lawsuit or one of its causes of action by one of the parties. 2) a judge's ruling that a lawsuit or criminal charge is terminated. 3) an appeals court's act of dismissing an appeal, letting the lower court decision stand. 4) the act of a plaintiff dismissing a lawsuit upon settling the case. Such a dismissal may be dismissal with prejudice, meaning it can never be filed again, or dismissal without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of bringing the suit again if the defendant does not follow through on the terms of the settlement.
See also: dismiss
law.com Law Dictionary
dismiss
v. the ruling by a judge that all or a portion (one or more of the causes of action) of the plaintiff's lawsuit is terminated (thrown out) at that point without further evidence or testimony. This judgment may be made before, during or at the end of a trial, when the judge becomes convinced that the plaintiff has not and cannot prove his/her/its case. This can be based on the complaint failing to allege a cause of action, on a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's opening statement of what will be proved, or on some development in the evidence by either side which bars judgment for the plaintiff. The judge may dismiss on his own or upon motion by the defendant. The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim. A defendant may be "dismissed" from a lawsuit, meaning the suit is dropped against that party.
See also: dismissal
Immie
so, to wrap this all up...what will happen here will be the same result as what happened with bush in Florida.
It was first brought to the State's attorney's office. They ignored the complaint.
It was brought to them in November. Shortly after the election. It was then brought to the DOJ after the State's attorney ignored it.
Rick
So whose DOJ ignored it?? Your own link and excerpt says that the complaints filed by MM on Nov 17 2008 was not responded to by THEN DOJ so he then sent the same complaint to the FBI. Even your own words from your own post admit that MM was ignored at that time.
The report was presented to the Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, and it was ignored on November 17, 2008.
Can't get any more obvious than that.
Who was in charge of the DOJ back in Nov 17, 2008 and why is your story changing??
And how can you blame obama for something that you admit happened on W's watch?
What do I care whose DOJ was in charge? Please point out to me where I blamed Obama. What I posted was that even though Truthdoesn'tmatter keeps lying and saying that voter fraud isn't a problem, this proves that it indeed does happen.
I never once said that it was Obama's problem. I said it was a problem PERIOD.
It just so happens that it's the Democrats who block any attempt to clean up voter registrations.
Don't get me wrong, voter fraud is a problem for both sides, but Truthdoesn'tmatter wants to make it be only a Republican thing. This proves her wrong. Yet she doesn't want to see it.
Rick
Former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams has blown the whistle on politicization within Justice in enforcing election laws, specifically the laws requiring cleaning voter rolls of the deceased and convicted felons. While the main focus of the media (such as it is) has been on the politics of the issue, Adams wants to get more of a focus on the consequences of politicization. He talks with Twin Cities talk-show host Chris Baker about the impact of this politicization in Minnesota, a subject that Minnesota Majority knows all too well. The conservative organization has spent the past 20 months attempting to get the attention of the DoJ on this very subject, to no avail
Minnesota Majority has been calling for an investigation into violations of federal election law in Minnesota for nearly two years. That call has gone unanswered by the US Department of Justice. Now we are finding out why.
Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the US Commission on Civil Rights that the current administration of the United States Department of Justice has a policy of not enforcing anti-fraud provisions of federal election law.
Minnesota Majority - Standing Together for Traditional Values
so, to wrap this all up...what will happen here will be the same result as what happened with bush in Florida.
Actually, no. In this case, the result was that the party who actually lost the election was put in the Senate. In Florida 2000, the candidate with the most votes won.
