Food for thought.

Why is it that whenever anyone talks of preventing illegal voters from casting votes, or monitoring voters for voter fraud, that it's only the Democrats that get upset?

I think we all know the answer to that question don't we?

Because democrats understand the Constitution, its case law, and the facts of the issue. They understand that to restrict a fundamental right such as voting the state must have a compelling reason supported by evidence. Since there is no evidence ‘voter fraud’ has altered the outcome of any election, there is no justification for such restrictions as ID requirements.

Citizens establish their identity at registration, to compel them to do so subsequently at every election constitutes an undue burden.
 
Why is it that whenever anyone talks of preventing illegal voters from casting votes, or monitoring voters for voter fraud, that it's only the Democrats that get upset?

I think we all know the answer to that question don't we?

Because democrats understand the Constitution, its case law, and the facts of the issue. They understand that to restrict a fundamental right such as voting the state must have a compelling reason supported by evidence. Since there is no evidence ‘voter fraud’ has altered the outcome of any election, there is no justification for such restrictions as ID requirements.

Citizens establish their identity at registration, to compel them to do so subsequently at every election constitutes an undue burden.

You try floating that BS every time you try to buy a beer or fly on a plane?

:wtf:

How dare that police officer ask me to prove I am who I say I am :eusa_hand:
 
Why is it that whenever anyone talks of preventing illegal voters from casting votes, or monitoring voters for voter fraud, that it's only the Democrats that get upset?

I think we all know the answer to that question don't we?

Because democrats understand the Constitution, its case law, and the facts of the issue. They understand that to restrict a fundamental right such as voting the state must have a compelling reason supported by evidence. Since there is no evidence ‘voter fraud’ has altered the outcome of any election, there is no justification for such restrictions as ID requirements.

Citizens establish their identity at registration, to compel them to do so subsequently at every election constitutes an undue burden.
How strange is it, then, that Indiana now requires IDs, and their voter turnout actually increased.

Now, who are the valid voters that are not able to exercise their voting rights?

And, I will pose the same question to you as I did to another poster: Which is worse - having a valid voter not be able to vote because s/he forgot his ID (highly unlikely in this day and age) or having any foreign national vote?
 
There has not ever been a confirmed case of voter fraud in this country that would have been prevented by voter id laws.

I seriously doubt it has ever "really" been look into...
jack-1.gif
 
There has not ever been a confirmed case of voter fraud in this country that would have been prevented by voter id laws.

I seriously doubt it has ever "really" been look into...
jack-1.gif

Do you really think a new law is needed to fix a "problem" that has never conclusively happened?

Should we pass a law forcing alien spaceships to obey the speed limit?

Just think of all those lives we could save preventing flying saucer hit-and-runs.
 
Why is it that whenever anyone talks of preventing illegal voters from casting votes, or monitoring voters for voter fraud, that it's only the Democrats that get upset?

I think we all know the answer to that question don't we?

I'm a Republican and I believe Voter ID is a solution looking for a problem. So much for your premise.

We don't really care what YOU believe.
 
Since this subject comes up about every 48 hours, I am going to be brief and will speak only once, which I am sure is a relief to all the butts I have hurt on this matter. The necessity of Voter ID has been so thoroughly debunked that only a willful idiot continues to bring the matter up.

You've dished out butt hurt on this matter? Who have you been arguing with? Public school 2nd graders?

1. Voter fraud exists. Some people need to have that spelled out that simply for them because what they hear when someone opposed to Voter ID saying is, "Thar's no sucha thing a-goin' on as voter fraud!" But no one opposed to Voter ID believes no fraud exists. Got it? Pound that into your thick skull.

Nice strawman you've built there,hope the rest of your post has something to it.

2. There is no case of voter fraud in over 200 years of voting which could only have been caught or prevented by Voter ID. No supporter of Voter ID has ever provided such a case.

Ok, here's where I school you with one simple statement: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Ready for more schooling? Let's proceed then.

3. If you think evidence that a person was able to get a ballot for a dead person's name is evidence of Voter ID, you have serious critical thinking problems. If a dead person is on the voter registration rolls, it is because the voter registration rolls are not being properly maintained, and no Voter ID is going to fix that.

Ok, well this is no challenge at all. It might work on the 2nd graders but it won't work here.
If the person has an ID, then they cannot claim to be said dead person now can they?

4. Everything starts with voter registration. If an illegal alien is able to register to vote, then how is Voter ID going to stop that? It won't. Duh. Once again, the problem is with the registration process, and THAT is what needs to be fixed.

Agreed that there is a problem with voter registration, you finally got something right. Fixing voter registration will not cure all of the ills. Both voter ID and a reform of voter registration are needed. It isn't either/or.

5. Real American citizens have been disenfranchised because of purges and Voter ID.

Bull shit. Give one example.

I have established this countless times and will not do it again.

Of course you won't, you can't.

I find it incredible that when a WWII veteran was disenfranchised, not one of God's "conservatives" got pissed off about it, nor did they start 18 topics in 7 days about it, nor did one "conservative" pundit make a stink about it.

That's because he will be able to vote, so what is the problem? There is plenty of time, it's established that he is legal so all he has to do is go inform the elections office and then he can vote. We are talking about the government here, of course they will screw things up. They screw up medicaid, SS, welfare, and everything else they do. We haven't thrown out all of those other things have we? It's a pretty lame argument.

So don't give me any of that fucking shit about defending the Constitution, mm-kay? We know what this is REALLY all about. You might not know, dear bongwater drinker, but it is patently obvious to anyone with a brain.

How do you live in a brain that small?

6. If Fox News goes out into the street and finds some negroes who have had no problems voting (which they have actually done), that is NOT evidence NO negroes have had any problems voting. How fricking retarded to you have to be to accept that as such? About as retarded as Fox News, I guess.

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Congratulations Jethro! You do know what that's about. No apply it to your other illogical statement and you will begin your journey to enlightenment.

7. Several state supreme courts have ruled their states' Voter ID laws unconstitutional. And in states where Voter ID laws were found to be constitutional, the judges have stated that while they are legal, they are completely unnecessary. I have proven this countless times as well, and will not again.

Have you? I seriously doubt it.

8. If, in the face of all this, you still feel compelled to demonstrate your willingness to remain deaf, DUMB, and blind, go right ahead.

In the face of all this, I have found that while you may not be deaf, dumb, and blind, but you lack critical thinking skills, really haven't studied your subject, and are lying about dealing out butt hurt to anyone.

Carry on!

P.S.: I lied about being brief, but sometimes moles need the hammer pounded on their heads repeatedly.

P.S.: You are also pretty bad with metephors.
 
Why is it that whenever anyone talks of preventing illegal voters from casting votes, or monitoring voters for voter fraud, that it's only the Democrats that get upset?

I think we all know the answer to that question don't we?


You will not find one person here.....Democrat, Republican or other who has a problem with ( or gets upset by ) preventing voter fraud. You have fallen victim to nutter talking points yet again.

I am registered independent and I am very liberal. I am 100% in favor of preventing voter fraud. I am 100% in favor of prosecuting cases of voter fraud. Can I be any more clear?

What I oppose is policies that could ( and do ) result in EVEN A SINGLE eligible voter being denied his or her right to vote. If you think that such an idea is just acceptable collateral damage in your quest for voter purity.....................you are a fucked up nutter.

just libtard liberal bullshit. means we must let illegals vote lest a single eligible voter gets denied.. (which we all know can easily be rectified.) go blow smoke up someone else's ass whydonchya?
 
You will not find one person here.....Democrat, Republican or other who has a problem with ( or gets upset by ) preventing voter fraud. You have fallen victim to nutter talking points yet again.

I am registered independent and I am very liberal. I am 100% in favor of preventing voter fraud. I am 100% in favor of prosecuting cases of voter fraud. Can I be any more clear?

What I oppose is policies that could ( and do ) result in EVEN A SINGLE eligible voter being denied his or her right to vote. If you think that such an idea is just acceptable collateral damage in your quest for voter purity.....................you are a fucked up nutter.
Which is better?

Have one viable voter not voting because they forgot a picture ID (highly unlikely in this day and age), or having any foreign nationals voting?

But we're not talking about one vote here.

Many more people will not be able to vote than "foriegn nationals" will cast votes.

Oh yeah? Where are your proof? So far all the MSM and the left can come up with is one old veteran who will be able to vote by November. Unless he's too lazy to fix the problem.
 
Which is better?

Have one viable voter not voting because they forgot a picture ID (highly unlikely in this day and age), or having any foreign nationals voting?

But we're not talking about one vote here.

Many more people will not be able to vote than "foreign nationals" will cast votes.

Oh yeah? Where are your proof? So far all the MSM and the left can come up with is one old veteran who will be able to vote by November. Unless he's too lazy to fix the problem.

That's more than the right can come up with in terms of cases of voter fraud that would have been stopped by voter id laws.
 
But we're not talking about one vote here.

Many more people will not be able to vote than "foreign nationals" will cast votes.

Oh yeah? Where are your proof? So far all the MSM and the left can come up with is one old veteran who will be able to vote by November. Unless he's too lazy to fix the problem.

That's more than the right can come up with in terms of cases of voter fraud that would have been stopped by voter id laws.

Absence of proof is proof of absence to you eh?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top