ID law found discriminatory

[Spoonman]

how do your personal insults for me erase what the SCOTUS record on your partys cheating says?

Ah scotus, corporations are people too. the right to own a un is an individual right and not tied to a militia.

its not a personal attack. its just an inquiry about your addictions

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the ID laws stop no kind of cheating that effects elections

Any kind of cheating effects elections... if an ID law stops even one attempt at casting an invalid vote, any fraudulent vote, or any multi-vote.. it has an effect, by definition and statistical fact, on the election

In your opinion, not as a matter of fact.

You need to provide a specific example of an election held in the United States where candidate A was declared the winner, and after an ID fraud investigation and recount conducted it was determined that candidate B actually garnered more votes. Absent such evidence there is no justification for voter ‘ID.’

 

[Spoonman]

the ID laws stop no kind of cheating that effects elections

Any kind of cheating effects elections... if an ID law stops even one attempt at casting an invalid vote, any fraudulent vote, or any multi-vote.. it has an effect, by definition and statistical fact, on the election

In your opinion, not as a matter of fact.

You need to provide a specific example of an election held in the United States where candidate A was declared the winner, and after an ID fraud investigation and recount conducted it was determined that candidate B actually garnered more votes. Absent such evidence there is no justification for voter ‘ID.’

how about you provide us a specific example where a gun ID has prevented a homicide mr double standard

 

[Truthmatters]

tderpm is wading through her greatest shits collection to come up with this necromancered thread, I see.

And then the mutt posts off topic in its own thread.

So you deny these FACTS on what basis?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So if an ID is not necessary because voting is a right why do I have to show an ID when I buy a gun?

Because there’s no ‘evidence’ the outcome of any election changed as a result of ‘fraud’ by identity, there is no justification to restrict the right to vote by requiring a citizen already registered to vote to present a state-issued photo ID – requiring such an ID is a ‘solution’ in search of non-existent problem, and is a violation of the right to vote accordingly.

Unlike voting, however, there is evidence in support of requiring an ID when purchasing a firearm, as the state has demonstrated a legitimate and compelling interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, and minors:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Such as requiring an ID to purchase a firearm pursuant to determining whether one is a felon, mentally ill, or a minor.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

Republicans against racism /sarcasm

 

[Spoonman]

how do your personal insults for me erase what the SCOTUS record on your partys cheating says?

Ah scotus, corporations are people too. the right to own a un is an individual right and not tied to a militia.

its not a personal attack. its just an inquiry about your addictions

election security is NOT an addiction.

Its the life blood of any Democracy.

the scotus is always wrong?

so is owning a gun. which is why our founder took the initiative to give us the right in our governing document. you know, the one you libs are always trying to change

 

[IlarMeilyr]

IF SCOTUS said something with which tderpm agrees, then SCOTUS is a wonderful, fair and omniscient institution.

But when SCOTUS says things with which tderpm disagrees, then SCOTUS is a right wing cabal and should be ignored because "facts" and "because Obama!"

Hey, tderpm, you evaded the prior point. Spoonman raises a good one. ARE you of the opinion that CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, too? And if so, then is the money a corporation spends on purely political advertising the equivalent of freedom of speech? And wouldn't it then be wrong to deny a corporation the Constitutional right of free speech?

And as for the SECOND Amendment, the SCOTUS certainly got it RIGHT when they opined that the Constitutional right to bear arms IS a personal right not tied to or dependent upon the existence of a militia? I mean, they DID get that call RIGHT, didn't they?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So if an ID is not necessary because voting is a right why do I have to show an ID when I buy a gun?

Doesn't fit the meme.....

Incorrect.

Compelling the state to justify its restriction of a fundamental right such as voting is not a ‘meme.’

The issue concerns what you can prove in a court of law in support of the state; absent that proof, the state is not allowed to curtail a fundamental right, and appropriately so.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So if an ID is not necessary because voting is a right why do I have to show an ID when I buy a gun?

Doesn't fit the meme.....

Incorrect.

Compelling the state to justify its restriction of a fundamental right such as voting is not a ‘meme.’

The issue concerns what you can prove in a court of law in support of the state; absent that proof, the state is not allowed to curtail a fundamental right, and appropriately so.

If one is not required to show that one is a citizen and a resident of the voting district where he or she casts his or her vote, then what you morons are TRULY "demanding" is the "right" to vote twice or more times.

Fuck yourselves.

Voter ID laws are common sense and absolutely right and morally justified in every way.

 

[Truthmatters]

there is NO fraud in elections that prove we need ID laws to vote.

all they do is keep Americans from voting to solve NO problem

 

[Truthmatters]

what you like is they keep Americans from voting so your party can win elections

 

[IlarMeilyr]

tderpm and other ASSorted lolberal hack idiots think they are clamoring for a "right" to vote when in fact they are yammering for a right to vote as often as they can get away with it.

They are not satisfied with "one man; one vote." They prefer "one lolberal; MANY votes."

 

[Truthmatters]

you NEVER seem to produce any facts to back you hackery



why would anyone listen to someone who cant produce one fact?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

you NEVER seem to produce any facts to back you hackery



why would anyone listen to someone who cant produce one fact?

^ tderpm's posts are RICH in irony.

but like some vitamins, too much is not necessarily a good thing.

Listen, tderpm, you don't produce ANY facts relevant to your rants.

The courts, upon a consent decree, may have sanctioned the Republicans for SOME voting curtailment efforts. Good. I agree that efforts to either curtail voting rights or to commit any other form of voting fraud is wrong.

You cite "facts" that are un-related to your claims. Your arguments, upon any kind of logical evaluation, come down to fallacy after fallacy.

No human foot has ever trod upon the surface of Mars.
Therefore Republicans hate minorities!​

That is the boiled down essence of the nonsense you constantly spew, you joke.

This is why nobody ever does listen to you except to make fun of what a joke you are here.

 

[Truthmatters]

How is a SCOTUS case which refuses to give the republican party relief from being watched for cheating voters out of their vote NOT evidence your party cheats?



you don't seem very honest

 

[LeftofLeft]

many people still alive were born at home and don't have a regular birth certificate


this has NEVER been something that threatened elections


Yet you want people kicked off the voting roles for nothing


that is how your party cheats in elections

Many people dead and lying 6 feet under are voting. Producing a state issued photo ID will help mitigate that likelihood.

 

[The T]

How is a SCOTUS case which refuses to give the republican party relief from being watched for cheating voters out of their vote NOT evidence your party cheats?



you don't seem very honest

Zoomed right over your head, didn't it? Typical. Common sense you possess NOT. LOGIC is alien to you.

 

[Truthmatters]

many people still alive were born at home and don't have a regular birth certificate


this has NEVER been something that threatened elections


Yet you want people kicked off the voting roles for nothing


that is how your party cheats in elections

Many people dead and lying 6 feet under are voting. Producing a state issued photo ID will help mitigate that likelihood.

prove this claim with FACTS

 

[Truthmatters]

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year