not understanding the voter ID issue...

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm confused as to what your question is.

Are you asking how anyone can physically survive without driving?


or are you asking how many eligible voters likely will not be able to vote if voter id laws are passed?



I can answer both:

Unfortunately, you can't be truthful .

1) Believe it or not, the automobile is not a vital part of the human biology. Although millions of people would appear to be inseparable from their ever growing automobiles, in fact, the human being is quite capable of surviving without aid of the automobile. Examples can be found worldwide. In the United States, the most noteworthy examples would be in large metropolitan areas. In a place such as New York City, millions of people get around using something called "public transportation". In fact, its downright inconvenient for most people of moderate and low income to even own cars in such areas.

So you oppose cars casting a vote for Obama?

2) Hundreds of thousands or even millions, many many orders of magnitude greater than the number of illegal votes that would be prevented by such laws.

ROFL

The lies you frauds float are funny.

One of the standard lying points that frauds like to float is "old people will be unable to vote because they don't drive."

Uh sparky, how do they cash their social security check?

Direct deposit.

That requires ID, as does filling a medicare prescription.

Next standard lie from the voter fraud squad; "da po will be disenfranchazized."

So how do they cash the welfare check? How do they get the food stamp card? The WIC vouchers?

THERE IS ONE, and only one reason to oppose voter ID, because you promote election fraud.

I'm a bit confused here. Are we talking about people getting their prescriptions filled or are we talking about voter ID laws? Because the state of South Carolina's own election Commission says that 217,000 of its residents lack the proper ID to vote.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&es...tYDbCg&usg=AFQjCNGOOv_HxJh0MZC0VGvlEBLTDhBmOg


Its interesting how right wing nutbaggers think simply saying 'how can anyone live without an ID' somehow alters the objective reality that 217,000 South Carolinians will be denied the right to vote under the new law. Its a FACT that hundreds of thousands of eligible voters nationwide lack the ID required to vote under such laws, and its a FACT that far few numbers of people have been caught fraudulently casting ballots by means of lying about their identity. Its also a fact that most of the potentially disenfranchised fall into tradiotionally Democratic demographics. Its frankly, unreasonable to dnny the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of people to prevent a few dozen fraudulent ballots from being cast - UNLESS you DON'T WANT those hundreds of thousands of eligible voters to vote.

So its hard to reach any conclusion other than that the right wing wants to do whatever it can to keep the old, the poor, the young, and the black from showing up in the voting booth.

 

[gallantwarrior]

We understand perfectly..............The folks unable to obtain identification are the perfect candidates to understand and help decide whats best for their fellow citizens and the country

Maybe we can lower the voting age to five, to be fair.....................

The best thing we can do for the 'poor and disadvantaged' is to start treating them like everybody else. As long as they are treated like a group of cattle to keep a certain group of politicians in power, there is every incentive to promise them a brighter future while keeping them poor.

Let everybody pay at least some taxes on what they earn.
Let everybody be expected to get themselves to the county clerk's office to register to vote.
Let everybody be expected to go to their assigned precinct voting place to vote.
Let everybody be expected to show that they are who they say they are before they vote.
And let everybody be expected to take responsibility for and be accountable for the choices they make.

Do that and we will see this country begin to be restored to the greatness it once was.

The ONLY reason to not have a photo ID when you vote is to make fraud easier to commit and to make it easier to keep opportunists instead of public servants in office.

Personal responsibility rears its un-progressive head. I still wonder why it is that libs/progressives are so firmly convinced that only certain groups of people, i.e. minorities (who also appear to be the only "poor" people, too), are too stupid, lazy, or otherwise absolutely incapable of complying with this very simple requirement.

 

[geauxtohell]

First - please try to avoid partisan tripe when replying, I am looking for honest answers here..

So with the voter ID issue, its being claimed that poor/miniorities will be "disenfranchised" and prevented from voting since they some how get through life without an ID...

First off, how do you get through life without a driver's license --- driving, getting services many places, buying alcohol, etc all require it.

Also, people are comparing it to a poll tax as you have to pay for the ID, but honestly the IDs are under $10 and if you are so poor you cant afford $10 every 4 years to renew a license then you likely are on government subsidised living, which requires ID to get the associated service.

I honestly just don't understand the oppisition.

Why is it relevant if a person chooses to have a driver's license or not, and since when was having a diver's license a requirement to be able to exercise the right to vote?

Finally, what you deem to be a financial burden in regards to a poll tax is further irrelevant. Just because the amount is trifling to you, doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, a poll tax.

My opposition is simply this:

There has been no demonstrated "harm". That is, there has been no demonstrated statistically relevant voter ID fraud. The best the cons can do is send their goon O'Keefe in to try and produce a fraud.

More importantly, the very people who would be disenfranchised are those that tend to vote democrat. This is an attempt to pass law to help secure election results.

If you support that, regardless of affiliation, you are fucked in the head.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm confused as to what your question is.

Are you asking how anyone can physically survive without driving?


or are you asking how many eligible voters likely will not be able to vote if voter id laws are passed?



I can answer both:

Unfortunately, you can't be truthful .



So you oppose cars casting a vote for Obama?



ROFL

The lies you frauds float are funny.

One of the standard lying points that frauds like to float is "old people will be unable to vote because they don't drive."

Uh sparky, how do they cash their social security check?

Direct deposit.

That requires ID, as does filling a medicare prescription.

Next standard lie from the voter fraud squad; "da po will be disenfranchazized."

So how do they cash the welfare check? How do they get the food stamp card? The WIC vouchers?

THERE IS ONE, and only one reason to oppose voter ID, because you promote election fraud.

I'm a bit confused here. Are we talking about people getting their prescriptions filled or are we talking about voter ID laws? Because the state of South Carolina's own election Commission says that 217,000 of its residents lack the proper ID to vote.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&es...tYDbCg&usg=AFQjCNGOOv_HxJh0MZC0VGvlEBLTDhBmOg


Its interesting how right wing nutbaggers think simply saying 'how can anyone live without an ID' somehow alters the objective reality that 217,000 South Carolinians will be denied the right to vote under the new law. Its a FACT that hundreds of thousands of eligible voters nationwide lack the ID required to vote under such laws, and its a FACT that far few numbers of people have been caught fraudulently casting ballots by means of lying about their identity. Its also a fact that most of the potentially disenfranchised fall into tradiotionally Democratic demographics. Its frankly, unreasonable to dnny the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of people to prevent a few dozen fraudulent ballots from being cast - UNLESS you DON'T WANT those hundreds of thousands of eligible voters to vote.

So its hard to reach any conclusion other than that the right wing wants to do whatever it can to keep the old, the poor, the young, and the black from showing up in the voting booth.

Given the low percentage of residents who actually do vote, the might...just might, be chance that none of these 217,000 people really gives a rat,s patootie about voting in the first place. There does seem to be some kind of false assumption that every single person eligible to vote does so.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You pro-fraud types are a hoot. Why would illegals care about law enforcement contact?

Because they don't want to get deported SHIT FOR BRAINS.

We don't enforce our immigration laws, illegals don't fear our LEO's, why would they?

Deportations Of Immigrants Hits Record Number Under Obama Administration

The idea that the deportable are not afraid of deportation is frankly, STUPID. It reveals either how dumn you are - or how dumb you think we are and the extent to which you are willing to lie.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Given the low percentage of residents who actually do vote, the might...just might, be chance that none of these 217,000 people really gives a rat,s patootie about voting in the first place.

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.

There does seem to be some kind of false assumption that every single person eligible to vote does so.

I've not made such an assumption.

 

[Foxfyre]

Given the low percentage of residents who actually do vote, the might...just might, be chance that none of these 217,000 people really gives a rat,s patootie about voting in the first place.

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.

There does seem to be some kind of false assumption that every single person eligible to vote does so.

I've not made such an assumption.

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Given the low percentage of residents who actually do vote, the might...just might, be chance that none of these 217,000 people really gives a rat,s patootie about voting in the first place.

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.

There does seem to be some kind of false assumption that every single person eligible to vote does so.

I've not made such an assumption.

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

If they don't have that ID and the governent requires it - yes, they would be.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.



I've not made such an assumption.

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

If they don't have that ID and the governent requires it - yes, they would be.

Sorry but that won't fly.
It hasn't been that long ago that
1. You had to get yourself to the city clerk's office to register to vote. And yes, you did have to show ID that included some proof that you lived where you lived in order to register. Conscientious citizens did that.

2. You had to register at least six weeks prior to the election in order to vote. This was so that the list of registered voters who had established residency and citizenship could be assembled and printed and sent out to the various precincts. Conscientious citizens did that.

3. You had to get yourself to your assigned precinct voting place on election day in order to vote. And in elections with heavy voter turnout, it was not unusual to stand in line for a long time to have the privilege to cast your ballot. Conscientious citizens did that.

And in those days we were electing a far site higher caliber of politicians than we have been seeing lately with voting requirements relaxed and, in some cases, being practically eliminated.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anybody who doesn't have that ID who shows up to vote is probably mostly likley voting illegally and dishonestly. We should not be making it easier for people to vote. People who should be voting will make the effort to do so and it should be seen as a duty and responsibility of citizenship to make that effort. We should be making it more dificult for those who would vote illegally.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Direct deposit.

Nope.

Picture ID is required to open a bank account AND to set up direct deposite.

I'm a bit confused here. Are we talking about people getting their prescriptions filled or are we talking about voter ID laws?

We're talking about the FACT that the same people the pro-fraud advocates claim will be "disenfranchised" already have ID and need it for the basic functions of life.

I'm demonstrating that your position is utter bullshit and that the only real objection you have is showing ID when voting.

The reason is obvious/

Because the state of South Carolina's own election Commission says that 217,000 of its residents lack the proper ID to vote.

Wonder how they get their foodstamp vouchers, then?

Its interesting how right wing nutbaggers think simply saying 'how can anyone live without an ID' somehow alters the objective reality that 217,000 South Carolinians will be denied the right to vote under the new law.

Problem is, no one believe you.

Its a FACT that hundreds of thousands of eligible voters nationwide lack the ID required to vote under such laws, and its a FACT that far few numbers of people have been caught fraudulently casting ballots by means of lying about their identity. Its also a fact that most of the potentially disenfranchised fall into tradiotionally Democratic demographics. Its frankly, unreasonable to dnny the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of people to prevent a few dozen fraudulent ballots from being cast - UNLESS you DON'T WANT those hundreds of thousands of eligible voters to vote.

So its hard to reach any conclusion other than that the right wing wants to do whatever it can to keep the old, the poor, the young, and the black from showing up in the voting booth.

The FACT is that picture ID is an element of life. No one can lead an adult life without it, not the elderly, not the poor.

The ONLY reason to oppose voter ID is to promote fraud, which you do.

However, like the fundamentalist opposing gay marriage, you have no chance. The groundswell to stop the rampant fraud by your party is too big. Scream all you like, voter fraud is on it's way out.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1. You had to get yourself to the city clerk's office to register to vote. And yes, you did have to show ID that included some proof that you lived where you lived in order to register. Conscientious citizens did that.

Sorry but you don't need to show voter ID to register in most states. I can't imagine they'd make me show an ID just because I happened to show up in person. I think you're mostly full of shit on this one. If you want to talk about the old days, even fewer people had photo IDs.

2. You had to register at least six weeks prior to the election in order to vote. This was so that the list of registered voters who had established residency and citizenship could be assembled and printed and sent out to the various precincts. Conscientious citizens did that.

You still have to do that as far as I know.

3. You had to get yourself to your assigned precinct voting place on election day in order to vote. And in elections with heavy voter turnout, it was not unusual to stand in line for a long time to have the privilege to cast your ballot. Conscientious citizens did that.

Then you'll be happy to know that in many poor, minority precincts you still have to wait for hours in line. At the Xavier University of Louisiana precint, the line was 8 hours long in 2004.

And in those days we were electing a far site higher caliber of politicians than we have been seeing lately with voting requirements relaxed and, in some cases, being practically eliminated.

I already know you support denying suffrage to more people than already have it, no need to remphasize.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anybody who doesn't have that ID who shows up to vote is probably mostly likley voting illegally and dishonestly.

Oh, Well if you say so, it must be true. Objective reality is irrelevant. Nevermind there's absolutely no evidence to support your claim. We'll go ahead and deny suffrage to hundreds of thousands or millions because FOX News says there's massive voter fraud in this country.


I have yet to see anyone elabortate on how this will actually prevent fradulent voting. Sorry but no one has ever shown up to vote in my place - or if they did, it must not have been before I got there!

Has ANYONE here shown up to vote and been told they've already voted? What fradulent votes will an ID law actually prevent?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because they don't want to get deported SHIT FOR BRAINS.

LEO's don't deport anyone, stupidfuck.

{Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry).[3]}

Special Order 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that the deportable are not afraid of deportation is frankly, STUPID. It reveals either how dumn you are - or how dumb you think we are and the extent to which you are willing to lie.

Where do you live, Iceland?

ICE is the ONLY agency that enforces immigration law. No illegal fears the police unless they have a warrant, even then, being illegal lessens the chance of prosecution.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Direct deposit.

Nope.

Picture ID is required to open a bank account AND to set up direct deposite.

Picture ID requirements to open a bank account are a relatively new thing. If you've already got one opened you don't need an ID. Most old folks have had the same bank account for decades.

And I've never been asked for photo ID to set up a direct deposit.

We're talking about the FACT that the same people the pro-fraud advocates claim will be "disenfranchised" already have ID and need it for the basic functions of life.

You need to have an ID to breathe, eat, and defacate? Who would have known.

Its interesting how right wing nutbaggers think simply saying 'how can anyone live without an ID' somehow alters the objective reality that 217,000 South Carolinians will be denied the right to vote under the new law.

Problem is, no one believe you.

It may come as a surprise to you that you don't have to believe something for it to be true.

The FACT is that picture ID is an element of life. No one can lead an adult life without it, not the elderly, not the poor.

According to you, but in reality 217,000 people in South Carolina are doing just that.
Not everyone drives or needs ID to buy alcohol. I'm hardly ever asked for ID when I buy alcohol. In fact other than driving and flying I can't think of the last time I needed my ID.

The ONLY reason to oppose voter ID is to promote fraud, which you do.

There's another reason to oppose voter ID laws. To prevent eligible voters from being denied the ability to vote.

But you don't want to argue against that reason, because you're incapable of it, so instead you decide for me what my reasoning is, and argue based on that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

{Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry).[3]}

Special Order 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had no idead we were only talking about Los Angeles PD.

No illegal fears the police unless they have a warrant, even then, being illegal lessens the chance of prosecution.

How do you know? Because you say so?



How many illegals voted last election?

 

[Claudette]

I have no idea why anyone would think Voter ID is a bad thing.

Everyone should have ID to prove that they are who they are. A picture ID proves that you are who you say you are. Good idea in my book.

When voting we are fullfilling the greatest right that we have and it should be done legally in all States.

Anyone who thinks there is no voter fraud out there is living in la la land.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have no idea why anyone would think Voter ID is a bad thing.

Because hundreds of thousands of eligible voters won't get to vote if it happens. Why do you think that's a good thing?

Everyone should have ID to prove that they are who they are. A picture ID proves that you are who you say you are. Good idea in my book.

Because its impossible to make a fake ID - and if you did - part time poll workers are very well trained in the art of spotting fakes.

Anyone who thinks there is no voter fraud out there is living in la la land.

There is. We just haven't been shown any evidence that indicates any significant voter fraud would be prevented by voter ID laws. How many times has someone else voted in YOUR name? Is happened to me precisely zero times.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. You had to get yourself to the city clerk's office to register to vote. And yes, you did have to show ID that included some proof that you lived where you lived in order to register. Conscientious citizens did that.

Sorry but you don't need to show voter ID to register in most states. I can't imagine they'd make me show an ID just because I happened to show up in person. I think you're mostly full of shit on this one. If you want to talk about the old days, even fewer people had photo IDs.

2. You had to register at least six weeks prior to the election in order to vote. This was so that the list of registered voters who had established residency and citizenship could be assembled and printed and sent out to the various precincts. Conscientious citizens did that.

You still have to do that as far as I know.

Then you'll be happy to know that in many poor, minority precincts you still have to wait for hours in line. At the Xavier University of Louisiana precint, the line was 8 hours long in 2004.

And in those days we were electing a far site higher caliber of politicians than we have been seeing lately with voting requirements relaxed and, in some cases, being practically eliminated.

I already know you support denying suffrage to more people than already have it, no need to remphasize.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anybody who doesn't have that ID who shows up to vote is probably mostly likley voting illegally and dishonestly.

Oh, Well if you say so, it must be true. Objective reality is irrelevant. Nevermind there's absolutely no evidence to support your claim. We'll go ahead and deny suffrage to hundreds of thousands or millions because FOX News says there's massive voter fraud in this country.


I have yet to see anyone elabortate on how this will actually prevent fradulent voting. Sorry but no one has ever shown up to vote in my place - or if they did, it must not have been before I got there!

Has ANYONE here shown up to vote and been told they've already voted? What fradulent votes will an ID law actually prevent?

Just because you don't want to believe something is not a good argument for something not being so.

As a precinct worker twice, and as a voter once, I have witnessed people coming in to vote who saw the name of a deceased person signed in. One was the wife of a man who had died 30 days before, and she almost fainted when she saw that her husband was signed in. It was really cruel. For years when the margin was very close, and was in favor of the Republican, a missing ballot box was magically found with just enough votes to swing the election the other way. Were the votes in the ballot box legitimate? There was no way to know.

Since we went to a voter ID system and tightened up other procedures, there have been almost no incidents of voter fraud.

You are straining at gnats and going to the absurd in your determination to promote voter fraud. And I can think of NO REASON whatsoever that anybody would want it to be made easier to commit voter fraud except that one wants it to be easy to commit voter fraud.

 

[Clementine]

Given the low percentage of residents who actually do vote, the might...just might, be chance that none of these 217,000 people really gives a rat,s patootie about voting in the first place.

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.

There does seem to be some kind of false assumption that every single person eligible to vote does so.

I've not made such an assumption.

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

If, for whatever stupid reason, a person hasn't bothered to get an ID, why would we think they'd go out of their way to register and vote?

The left seems to think that the way to deny people something is by expecting them to do something on their own. Encouraging initiative and independence is not the liberal way.

We are supposed to go to people's houses and register them to vote, then help them fill out the ballot or we are denying them.

Just like we are supposed to hand over birth control to women, like Fluke, or we are denying them contraceptives.

The ones who buy into the hype about voter ID disenfranchising voters are those who can't imagine doing anything on their own without the aid of big brother.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Given the low percentage of residents who actually do vote, the might...just might, be chance that none of these 217,000 people really gives a rat,s patootie about voting in the first place.

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.

There does seem to be some kind of false assumption that every single person eligible to vote does so.

I've not made such an assumption.

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

When they dont have the ID they are denied their right to vote its not an assumption its a fact that happened to 5 million poeople in 2008 alone

 

[starcraftzzz]

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.

I've not made such an assumption.

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

If, for whatever stupid reason, a person hasn't bothered to get an ID, why would we think they'd go out of their way to register and vote?

Tell that tot he 100 year old laddies whove voted for the past 50 years but cant any more

The left seems to think that the way to deny people something is by expecting them to do something on their own. Encouraging initiative and independence is not the liberal way.

So according to you making it so millions cannot take vote is bringing them independence and initiative
perhape if you actually took some time to think isntead of reguirtate talking poitns you wouldnt say such retarded shit

Just like we are supposed to hand over birth control to women, like Fluke, or we are denying them contraceptives.

Yes you refusing to allow fluke to have birth control is deny her birth control.

The ones who buy into the hype about voter ID disenfranchising voters are those who can't imagine doing anything on their own without the aid of big brother.

Who knew that not wanting to deny millions their right to vote is big brother.
god you need help because you are dumber then bricks