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.
the irony...
The left claims it is asking too much for proper photo ID be required to vote and not necessary to preserve the sanctity and inegrity of the vote...
Who made the claim that providing a photo ID is not necessary? I said I disagree with what the right is doing because it reeks of partisan politics. I said it can have hidden costs which if the right wants this to be on the up and up then they must find a way to cover the hidden const to ensure it isn't a modern day polltax. So who said it's not necessary?
soooo Republican scam artists are going in to the polls and saying they are Democratic dead people, while being videoed...............
hmmmmm, very interesting.....
I will await for the true info to come out on how this was a republican scam just like the video of the fake pimp and his ho with Acorn....
so, the fact that someone went in, got a ballot under the name of a dead person showing that if a valid picture ID had been required it wouldn't have worked... means nothing because it was a Republican that did it?
really. I thought more of you than that.
WOW you read all of that into what she said. Since she didn;t actually say that do you think it actually applies?? Apparently you have pattern of trying to put words into other posters mouths.
So the people who committed fraud in your video? Are they in jail??
BTW how is what happened in NH proof of something happening in SC??[/QUOTE]
good point.
I think the TSA should ONLY screen those that are flying into NYC, DC or Pa......since there is no reason to assume planes can be used as weapons in other states seeing as it only happened in 3 states.
Uh are you mental. If a guy robs a bank in NH and another guy murders someone in SC proving the guy in NH robbed the bank does nothing to prove that the guy in SC murdered anyone. They are both crimes but one has no bearing on the other.
Your federally regulated TSA analogy does not apply since we are talking about two independent events in two different states.
The only way to do what you want is to have big government step in a define election laws and rules for all states but I am certain that small government republicans wouldn't go for that.
So the people who committed fraud in your video? Are they in jail??
BTW how is what happened in NH proof of something happening in SC??[/QUOTE]
good point.
I think the TSA should ONLY screen those that are flying into NYC, DC or Pa......since there is no reason to assume planes can be used as weapons in other states seeing as it only happened in 3 states.
Uh are you mental. If a guy robs a bank in NH and another guy murders someone in SC proving the guy in NH robbed the bank does nothing to prove that the guy in SC murdered anyone. They are both crimes but one has no bearing on the other.
Your federally regulated TSA analogy does not apply since we are talking about two independent events in two different states.
The only way to do what you want is to have big government step in a define election laws and rules for all states but I am certain that small government republicans wouldn't go for that.
I read the first part...where you said..
"are you mental"..
And I recalled why I stopped interacting with you on here...
So I decided it not worth my while reading the rest of your post....and used the time to let you know I have no interest in reading your posts..
It is more fun to say that to you than to waste my time reading them.
the irony...
The left claims it is asking too much for proper photo ID be required to vote and not necessary to preserve the sanctity and inegrity of the vote...
Who made the claim that providing a photo ID is not necessary? I said I disagree with what the right is doing because it reeks of partisan politics. I said it can have hidden costs which if the right wants this to be on the up and up then they must find a way to cover the hidden const to ensure it isn't a modern day polltax. So who said it's not necessary?
You apparently do not realize that EVERY voter ID law being discussed on this board includes the provision for a free ID upon request. Also, that provisional ballots may be cast if no ID is presented, and even if the person wanting to vote is not listed on the voter rolls.
Who made the claim that providing a photo ID is not necessary? I said I disagree with what the right is doing because it reeks of partisan politics. I said it can have hidden costs which if the right wants this to be on the up and up then they must find a way to cover the hidden const to ensure it isn't a modern day polltax. So who said it's not necessary?
You apparently do not realize that EVERY voter ID law being discussed on this board includes the provision for a free ID upon request. Also, that provisional ballots may be cast if no ID is presented, and even if the person wanting to vote is not listed on the voter rolls.
You apparently don't realize the possible hidden costs and I posted on them in a previous post and if you had read you wouldn't have made such a lame assumption and presumed to claim to know what I do or do not realize.
Yes SOME are (offering free IDs) but what do you have to show in order to get the new IDs? Birth certificate?? If you don't have one on hand you have to go BUY a copy. Or how about a marriage certificate or a divorce decree to show a name change? If you don't have one of those you have to go BUY one. What if your wallet or purse is stolen and you lose your new voter ID? Do you get the repleacement for free or do you have to purchase a new one? (saw an artilce on WI where replacement had to be purchased and only the first one is free)
There can be hidden costs besides the cost of the IDs. If it were actually free then that would be one thing but the possible hidden costs show that they are not completely without cost.
In some states provisional ballots are allowable but are they available in ALL states?
Uh are you mental. If a guy robs a bank in NH and another guy murders someone in SC proving the guy in NH robbed the bank does nothing to prove that the guy in SC murdered anyone. They are both crimes but one has no bearing on the other.
Your federally regulated TSA analogy does not apply since we are talking about two independent events in two different states.
The only way to do what you want is to have big government step in a define election laws and rules for all states but I am certain that small government republicans wouldn't go for that.
I read the first part...where you said..
"are you mental"..
And I recalled why I stopped interacting with you on here...
So I decided it not worth my while reading the rest of your post....and used the time to let you know I have no interest in reading your posts..
It is more fun to say that to you than to waste my time reading them.
You apparently do not realize that EVERY voter ID law being discussed on this board includes the provision for a free ID upon request. Also, that provisional ballots may be cast if no ID is presented, and even if the person wanting to vote is not listed on the voter rolls.
You apparently don't realize the possible hidden costs and I posted on them in a previous post and if you had read you wouldn't have made such a lame assumption and presumed to claim to know what I do or do not realize.
Yes SOME are (offering free IDs) but what do you have to show in order to get the new IDs? Birth certificate?? If you don't have one on hand you have to go BUY a copy. Or how about a marriage certificate or a divorce decree to show a name change? If you don't have one of those you have to go BUY one. What if your wallet or purse is stolen and you lose your new voter ID? Do you get the repleacement for free or do you have to purchase a new one? (saw an artilce on WI where replacement had to be purchased and only the first one is free)
There can be hidden costs besides the cost of the IDs. If it were actually free then that would be one thing but the possible hidden costs show that they are not completely without cost.
In some states provisional ballots are allowable but are they available in ALL states?
All, not some.
If you don't have one of those, you should, so calling the cost of obtaining something you should have anyway a 'poll tax' is at the very least, disingenuous.
In the states with voter ID laws being discussed on this board, they ALL allow provisional ballots.
Of course, the Democrats always have the dead voting. Hold it, was this not the REPUBLICAN primary?
You apparently don't realize the possible hidden costs and I posted on them in a previous post and if you had read you wouldn't have made such a lame assumption and presumed to claim to know what I do or do not realize.
Yes SOME are (offering free IDs) but what do you have to show in order to get the new IDs? Birth certificate?? If you don't have one on hand you have to go BUY a copy. Or how about a marriage certificate or a divorce decree to show a name change? If you don't have one of those you have to go BUY one. What if your wallet or purse is stolen and you lose your new voter ID? Do you get the repleacement for free or do you have to purchase a new one? (saw an artilce on WI where replacement had to be purchased and only the first one is free)
There can be hidden costs besides the cost of the IDs. If it were actually free then that would be one thing but the possible hidden costs show that they are not completely without cost.
In some states provisional ballots are allowable but are they available in ALL states?
All, not some.
all what?? What are you responding to?
If you don't have one of those, you should, so calling the cost of obtaining something you should have anyway a 'poll tax' is at the very least, disingenuous.
It is still a hidden cost that needs to be addressed. To pretend that nothing ever goes wrong and the poorest of the poor have perfect records of everything is disengenuous. It all depends on what they have to show in order to get the new IDs.
In the states with voter ID laws being discussed on this board, they ALL allow provisional ballots.
Are you sure? I don't see a source.
All, not some.
all what?? What are you responding to?
It is still a hidden cost that needs to be addressed. To pretend that nothing ever goes wrong and the poorest of the poor have perfect records of everything is disingenuous. It all depends on what they have to show in order to get the new IDs.
In the states with voter ID laws being discussed on this board, they ALL allow provisional ballots.
Are you sure? I don't see a source.
Point 1: you said 'some' offer free ID's. Go research the multiple threads on the various states implementing or trying to implement voter ID laws. You'll find that they all offer a free ID if you request one.
The States are issuing free ID's now. Just a thought.
Point 2: you are seriously stretching it. And the word is spelled disingenuous.
Point 3: refer to point 1.
I made the claim that other threads on the board show the information. I am not required to do your research for you, dip-shit. If you can't be bothered to go look at any of the dozens of other threads on this subject, it's not really my problem.all what?? What are you responding to?
It is still a hidden cost that needs to be addressed. To pretend that nothing ever goes wrong and the poorest of the poor have perfect records of everything is disingenuous. It all depends on what they have to show in order to get the new IDs.
Are you sure? I don't see a source.
Point 1: you said 'some' offer free ID's. Go research the multiple threads on the various states implementing or trying to implement voter ID laws. You'll find that they all offer a free ID if you request one.
Really?? all states? This is what intense posted
and I originally responded by saying that some are.
So how was I wrong?
Point 2: you are seriously stretching it. And the word is spelled disingenuous.
ooh you got me with a typo the last ditch effort of someone who has nothing valid to offer as a counter point.
Point 3: refer to point 1.
You made the claim the burden is on you to prove it. I am not required to do your work for you.
In a letter dated Thursday, Wilson says the analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead. In 71 percent of those cases, ballots were cast between two months and 76 months after the people died. That means they "voted" up to 6 1/3 years after their death.
Can someone please explain how a Voter ID would prevent a dead person from still being on the registered voter rolls more than 6 years after they died?
Oh, yeah. It wouldn't.
Once again, you have provided nothing more than evidence that the voter registration process is screwed up.
Voter ID: State Requirements
Introduction
Thirty-one states require all voters to show ID before voting at the polls. In 15 of these, the ID must include a photo of the voter; in the remaining 16, non-photo forms of ID are acceptable. Voter ID laws can be broken down into the three following categories:
- Strict Photo ID (8 states): Voters must show a photo ID in order to vote. Voters who are unable to show photo ID at the polls are permitted to vote a provisional ballot, which is counted only if the voter returns to election officials within several days after the election to show a photo ID. At the beginning of 2011, there were just two states--Georgia and Indiana--with strict photo ID laws. Two states--Kansas and Wisconsin--passed new strict photo ID laws in 2011, and three states with non-photo ID laws--South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas--amended them to make them strict photo ID laws. None of these new laws is in effect yet, although they likely will be before the 2012 elections. Also in 2011, Mississippi voters approved via the citizen initiative process a strict photo ID requirement. The legislature will have to pass implementing legislation before the requirement can take effect. See the notes below Table 1 for more information regarding effective dates for new legislation.
- Photo ID (7 states): Voters are asked to show a photo ID in order to vote. Voters who are unable to show photo ID are still allowed to vote if they can meet certain other critieria. In some states, a voter with ID can vouch for a voter without. Other states ask a voter without ID to provide personal information such as a birth date, or sign an affidavit swearing to his or her identity. Voters without ID are not required to return to election officials after the election and show a photo ID in order to have their ballots counted in the manner that voters without ID in the strict photo ID states are. The seven states with photo ID laws are Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota.
- Non-Photo ID (16 states): All voters must show ID at the polls. The list of acceptable IDs is varied and includes options that do not have a photo, such as a utility bill or bank statement with the voter's name and address. Rhode Island passed a new voter ID law in 2011. It takes effect in stages -- beginning in 2012, voters will be required to show an ID (although not necessarily a photo ID) at the polls, and in 2014 a photo ID requirement will take effect.
I made the claim that other threads on the board show the information. I am not required to do your research for you, dip-shit. If you can't be bothered to go look at any of the dozens of other threads on this subject, it's not really my problem.Point 1: you said 'some' offer free ID's. Go research the multiple threads on the various states implementing or trying to implement voter ID laws. You'll find that they all offer a free ID if you request one.
Really?? all states? This is what intense posted
and I originally responded by saying that some are.
So how was I wrong?
ooh you got me with a typo the last ditch effort of someone who has nothing valid to offer as a counter point.
Point 3: refer to point 1.
You made the claim the burden is on you to prove it. I am not required to do your work for you.
In the states with voter ID laws being discussed on this board, they ALL allow provisional ballots.
In a letter dated Thursday, Wilson says the analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead. In 71 percent of those cases, ballots were cast between two months and 76 months after the people died. That means they "voted" up to 6 1/3 years after their death.
Can someone please explain how a Voter ID would prevent a dead person from still being on the registered voter rolls more than 6 years after they died?
Oh, yeah. It wouldn't.
Once again, you have provided nothing more than evidence that the voter registration process is screwed up.
It may not prevent them from being on the rolls, but it'll sure as heck prevent them from voting.
I made the claim that other threads on the board show the information. I am not required to do your research for you, dip-shit. If you can't be bothered to go look at any of the dozens of other threads on this subject, it's not really my problem.Really?? all states? This is what intense posted
and I originally responded by saying that some are.
So how was I wrong?
ooh you got me with a typo the last ditch effort of someone who has nothing valid to offer as a counter point.
You made the claim the burden is on you to prove it. I am not required to do your work for you.
Actually you made the claim.
In the states with voter ID laws being discussed on this board, they ALL allow provisional ballots.
So I asked you to prove it and you told me to go look it up. So prove which states are being discussed on this board and prove that they ALL allow provisional ballots. You made the claim the burden to prove it is on you.
However, NH was brought up earlier in this thread and they have NO voter ID requirements. My guess is that they don't offer provisional ballots. LOL
