IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent

[Liability]

Yet more words right out of republican leaders mouths that keeping democrats from voting is there goal

While, in the meanwhile, you are more than completely ok with Democrat voter fraud provided it works to your political preference advantage.

And noting that voter fraud is designed to help Democrats is a perfectly RATIONAL and LEGITIMATE basis for anybody with a brain to object to that fraud.

(Oh, and you mangled the ******* quote in your OP, stupid. Why not do things properly for once?)
That Brennan Center "study" you cited, is, as long as it's worth discussing, a biased preconceived conclusion surrounded by faux scientific jargon. What a crock. You do have a direct pipeline to bogus bullshit though truthdoesn'tmatter. Direct from a sewer pipe to your submit button.

 

[Father Time]

So let me get this right.

Republicans want a system where ONE voter has to show ONE valid ID card so that they get their ONE vote in our system that allows a person to count as ONE vote.

Not doing this may allow ONE person to cast MANY votes, although the idea is that ONE person equals ONE vote.

So........why are Dem's opposed to this? Is there a problem with verifying ONE person counts as ONE vote????????????????

Not just Republicans. Independents and Greens and Democrats and everybody who wants the process to be honest and have integrity are in favor of one person, one vote. And I am guessing the vast majority of registered voters are in favor of showing ID at the polling place.

I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason why anybody would object to that unless they did want to be able to circumvent the process and get other than legitimate votes into the ballot box.

I am open to be persuaded otherwise though.

Some companies have gone to a computer thumb scanning system to have their workers "clock in/clock out". It makes payroll more efficient.

I wish we could have a system similar to that where a person would scan their thumb to activate the machine to vote.

Then, the computer would filter all the thumbprints, and each print would only count once. Each duplicate thumbprint after the first would be discarded along with the votes under those secondary scans.

That way no one can whine about not having an ID, and no one can vote twice.

Only problem is that thumb print identification systems such as those aren't exactly fast.

 

[Father Time]

Apologies if I'm repeating what somebody else has said as I didn't take time to read the whole thread.

A great deal of ID is required to get a U.S. passport. Valid ID is required to get a driver's license, rent a car, buy a house, take out a loan, get into any public or private school or any university, cash a check, even to use a credit card in some places, sign up for social security and/or medicare or public assistance, pick up theater tickets, board an airplane, get into numerous high security public or private places, or when the police stop you for some infraction of the law or at a check point.

So what citizens would be disadvantaged to have to show a valid ID in order to register to vote and in order to vote?

For what purpose would anybody object to that?

How many of the poor have ID?

No seriously I have no idea how many do but I think they would be the most likely to be screwed over by this.

 

[Immanuel]

Apologies if I'm repeating what somebody else has said as I didn't take time to read the whole thread.

A great deal of ID is required to get a U.S. passport. Valid ID is required to get a driver's license, rent a car, buy a house, take out a loan, get into any public or private school or any university, cash a check, even to use a credit card in some places, sign up for social security and/or medicare or public assistance, pick up theater tickets, board an airplane, get into numerous high security public or private places, or when the police stop you for some infraction of the law or at a check point.

So what citizens would be disadvantaged to have to show a valid ID in order to register to vote and in order to vote?

For what purpose would anybody object to that?

How many of the poor have ID?

No seriously I have no idea how many do but I think they would be the most likely to be screwed over by this.

There was an earlier link by TM that gave the percentage of people (not necessarily poor) that did not have driver's licenses. Now, that in itself should not matter because there are other acceptable forms of ID and I simply cannot imagine that very many people of voting age do not have a valid form of ID. And those who don't, I would say many if not a vast majority could afford to get one.

My oldest daughter doesn't drive. She did not go get a state id until she was 23 I think but she could have at anytime she needed one.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

The case was dismissed.

A dismissal is exactly that a dismissal.



Check the date, Care. The dismissal came after this decision. End of story unless one of the attorneys on site tells me that the dismissal does not negate the appellate decision.

Immie

just asking you to be honest with yourself immie....you obviously can read, and you know what the decision was that the appellate court justice came to....and you also know it was NOT dismissed because of the lack of evidence.....

it was dismissed, more than likely, because the election had occurred already....

but that does not in any way diminish what the court found as FACTS.

you owe TM an apology for that....imho....but of course, that's up to the honest man in you.

Care

Edit: I see no guilt established in the order... those are the FACTS that she has been lying about for a long time. THE FACTS are that the court simply said "NO" like your mom telling you, no, you cannot go to Johnny's house today. "But, Why, Mom". "Because I said so, now don't ask again."

No guilt established. No wrongdoing defined. Just a plain old... NO

That has been what I have been saying all along and maybe I got off on the Dismissed, part a little too much, but the facts are evident that this was not a finding of guilt. Just the court saying NO.

Bullshit, if I owe her an apology. She has been lying about this case and the Consent Decree for a month and she has been calling me a liar for several months regarding other things.

As I have said before, there was no guilt found in that case or in the Consent Decree, but she has been lying about both of those items for months.

You don't want to know where I want to tell her to go.

Immie

the ruling of the lower court was not overturned by the appellate court, was it?

 

[DiveCon]

Tll me TM, if you knew someone was illegally voting for a Democrat, would you stop them? Or would you believe the fact that a Republican loses will justify an illegal vote?

Im not ignoring fraud for political purposes YOU ARE.

I dont want anyone to cheat in an election no matter who gets the vote.

You on the ohter hand keep defending what the republicans have done accourding to the courts themselves and PRETEND that there are Americans out there who are doing massive cheating by voting for dead aunt freda.


Our own government study undder Bush said it threatens no elections.

LIAR, if you didnt want ANYONE cheating, you would support photo ID to vote laws

 

[Immanuel]

just asking you to be honest with yourself immie....you obviously can read, and you know what the decision was that the appellate court justice came to....and you also know it was NOT dismissed because of the lack of evidence.....

it was dismissed, more than likely, because the election had occurred already....

but that does not in any way diminish what the court found as FACTS.

you owe TM an apology for that....imho....but of course, that's up to the honest man in you.

Care

Edit: I see no guilt established in the order... those are the FACTS that she has been lying about for a long time. THE FACTS are that the court simply said "NO" like your mom telling you, no, you cannot go to Johnny's house today. "But, Why, Mom". "Because I said so, now don't ask again."

No guilt established. No wrongdoing defined. Just a plain old... NO

That has been what I have been saying all along and maybe I got off on the Dismissed, part a little too much, but the facts are evident that this was not a finding of guilt. Just the court saying NO.

Bullshit, if I owe her an apology. She has been lying about this case and the Consent Decree for a month and she has been calling me a liar for several months regarding other things.

As I have said before, there was no guilt found in that case or in the Consent Decree, but she has been lying about both of those items for months.

You don't want to know where I want to tell her to go.

Immie

the ruling of the lower court was not overturned by the appellate court, was it?

Once again, the lies she was telling was that this was a finding of guilt.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

Edit: I see no guilt established in the order... those are the FACTS that she has been lying about for a long time. THE FACTS are that the court simply said "NO" like your mom telling you, no, you cannot go to Johnny's house today. "But, Why, Mom". "Because I said so, now don't ask again."

No guilt established. No wrongdoing defined. Just a plain old... NO

That has been what I have been saying all along and maybe I got off on the Dismissed, part a little too much, but the facts are evident that this was not a finding of guilt. Just the court saying NO.

Bullshit, if I owe her an apology. She has been lying about this case and the Consent Decree for a month and she has been calling me a liar for several months regarding other things.

As I have said before, there was no guilt found in that case or in the Consent Decree, but she has been lying about both of those items for months.

You don't want to know where I want to tell her to go.

Immie

the ruling of the lower court was not overturned by the appellate court, was it?

Once again, the lies she was telling was that this was a finding of guilt.

Immie

did the lower court find them not guilty?

the appellate court just dismissed the appeal, months after their own decision/judgment, no? and the appellate court's decision was against these actions of the rnc, before request by plaintiff, no? and i was wrong, it was the rnc, that requested it be dismissed on rule 41 because it was the rnc that was appealing the lower court decision , right?

does the APPEAL being dismissed, change the lower court's decision? I don't think so immie....???

I am not trying to get in the middle of you 2 arguing, i just think it should be clear what decision the appellate court came to....which it is on RECORD as saying the rnc WAS at fault.....and clear on the lower court's decision which still stands as well, and was not dropped or dismissed.

 

[Immanuel]

the ruling of the lower court was not overturned by the appellate court, was it?

Once again, the lies she was telling was that this was a finding of guilt.

Immie

did the lower court find them not guilty?

the appellate court just dismissed the appeal, months after their own decision/judgment, no? and the appellate court's decision was against these actions of the rnc, before request by plaintiff, no? and i was wrong, it was the rnc, that requested it be dismissed on rule 41 because it was the rnc that was appealing the lower court decision , right?

does the APPEAL being dismissed, change the lower court's decision? I don't think so immie....???

I am not trying to get in the middle of you 2 arguing, i just think it should be clear what decision the appellate court came to....which it is on RECORD as saying the rnc WAS at fault.....and clear on the lower court's decision which still stands as well, and was not dropped or dismissed.

No, they did not find them guilty or not guilty. That was the whole point! Period!!!

There was not even a ruling on guilt.

The court said NO!

Did you even read the order?

You need to read the order. The court order stated that the RNC could not use the list. That is all that oder said.

One judge (An appellate judge) Correction: it was the District Courts "opinion", no finding of guilt was established.) gave an opinion, but that is all it was... an opinion. The district court simply said that the RNC cannot use the list.

The order simply said "Thou shalt not"

End of story... TM has been lying her ass off throughout this entire discussion.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

Once again, the lies she was telling was that this was a finding of guilt.

Immie

did the lower court find them not guilty?

the appellate court just dismissed the appeal, months after their own decision/judgment, no? and the appellate court's decision was against these actions of the rnc, before request by plaintiff, no? and i was wrong, it was the rnc, that requested it be dismissed on rule 41 because it was the rnc that was appealing the lower court decision , right?

does the APPEAL being dismissed, change the lower court's decision? I don't think so immie....???

I am not trying to get in the middle of you 2 arguing, i just think it should be clear what decision the appellate court came to....which it is on RECORD as saying the rnc WAS at fault.....and clear on the lower court's decision which still stands as well, and was not dropped or dismissed.

No, they did not find them guilty or not guilty. That was the whole point! Period!!!

There was not even a ruling on guilt.

The court said NO!

Did you even read the order?

You need to read the order. The court order stated that the RNC could not use the list. That is all that oder said.

One judge (An appellate judge) Correction: it was the District Courts "opinion", no finding of guilt was established.) gave an opinion, but that is all it was... an opinion. The district court simply said that the RNC cannot use the list.

The order simply said "Thou shalt not"

End of story... TM has been lying her ass off throughout this entire discussion.

Immie

appellate courts do not find you guilty or not guilty immie....the lower court has already done that....the appellate court hears an appeal to such lower court decision....

the appeal was dropped, after the appellate court agreed with the lower court....that's all that happened.....they did not reverse the lower court decision? that's all I gotta say....

I am not going to get in to the middle of your he said she said, you're a liar, she's a liar crapola..... I think it is silly, to say the least.....

 

[Immanuel]

did the lower court find them not guilty?

the appellate court just dismissed the appeal, months after their own decision/judgment, no? and the appellate court's decision was against these actions of the rnc, before request by plaintiff, no? and i was wrong, it was the rnc, that requested it be dismissed on rule 41 because it was the rnc that was appealing the lower court decision , right?

does the APPEAL being dismissed, change the lower court's decision? I don't think so immie....???

I am not trying to get in the middle of you 2 arguing, i just think it should be clear what decision the appellate court came to....which it is on RECORD as saying the rnc WAS at fault.....and clear on the lower court's decision which still stands as well, and was not dropped or dismissed.

No, they did not find them guilty or not guilty. That was the whole point! Period!!!

There was not even a ruling on guilt.

The court said NO!

Did you even read the order?

You need to read the order. The court order stated that the RNC could not use the list. That is all that oder said.

One judge (An appellate judge) Correction: it was the District Courts "opinion", no finding of guilt was established.) gave an opinion, but that is all it was... an opinion. The district court simply said that the RNC cannot use the list.

The order simply said "Thou shalt not"

End of story... TM has been lying her ass off throughout this entire discussion.

Immie

appellate courts do not find you guilty or not guilty immie....the lower court has already done that....the appellate court hears an appeal to such lower court decision....

the appeal was dropped, after the appellate court agreed with the lower court....that's all that happened.....they did not reverse the lower court decision? that's all I gotta say....

I am not going to get in to the middle of your he said she said, you're a liar, she's a liar crapola..... I think it is silly, to say the least.....

You do not appear to have read the order.

The order from the District Court, did not find guilt or innocence. It simply said, "Thou Shalt Not". That is all. What is so hard to understand about that?

TM has been lying every time she states that this is proof that the RNC cheated. It is not! There is nothing illegal about sending out letters and making lists. What would be illegal would be to remove those names from the list without permission from the courts. It is not the responsibility of the RNC to remove names, but they do have the RIGHT to challenge voters. The court simply said you will not use that list to challenge voters.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Immie

 

[Yurt]

Anyway, how does a "dropoff" "add" 3%?

Read the full quote, it adds 3% to the rebuplican totals.

That was a republican leader who said that.

lmao

thanks for proving that voter fraud will result in fewer votes for dems, thus proving that dems only get more by FRAUD

why are you allowed to breathe? you're stealing oxygen from trees....

 

[keee keee]

Some companies have gone to a computer thumb scanning system to have their workers "clock in/clock out". It makes payroll more efficient.

I wish we could have a system similar to that where a person would scan their thumb to activate the machine to vote.

Then, the computer would filter all the thumbprints, and each print would only count once. Each duplicate thumbprint after the first would be discarded along with the votes under those secondary scans.

That way no one can whine about not having an ID, and no one can vote twice.

Naw, then they'll claim that it intimidates criminals from voting.

Criminals (felons) don't get to vote.

besides wanting to give illegal 's the right to vote this is another group they want to give the right to vote. It is now the only way they can win

 

[Liability]

86 people in a period of five years coutnry wide is next to non exsistant.

Is that threatening elections in this country Immie?

Thank you... you have actually just admitted that you are a damned hypocrite as well as a liar.

How many hours have you spent screaming about unproven vote fraud in the RNC and excused a very evident case of attempted voter intimidation and now when you see that there have been convictions you say that it doesn't matter? Hypocrite!

Whether or not it actually changed the outcome of a single election is immaterial. There is the potential that it may someday. That is why this is significant and why this nation should do everything in its power to fight against vote fraud no matter which party is involved.

Immie

If you had a National ID card you could log in and vote from home

It would increase the number of voters and reduce fraud

Hey leftwinger. You are getting confused. You uber libs are supposed to be offended by the concept of a national ID card. Hell, even conservatives tend not to want a national ID card.

Thankfully, it isn't needed. What is needed is some requirement of law that absent valid voter identification, one will be denied the vote.

The reality is that such a requirement imposes no unreasonable burden on anyone. ******* bring a valid set of IDs to the polling stations the one or two times a year you vote. If you have no valid ID or if your intent is to commit voter fraud, then you will be hindered. Too ******* bad. Get some valid ID or shut the **** up.

But a "national ID Card" is simply not needed.

The notion is put out there for other reasons, but I decline to play.

I live where I live and I can prove it and I can prove I am who I claim to be. It just isn't difficult at all.

Denying liberal Democratics the right to vote numerous times using the ID of those poor souls who have already passed-away should offend nobody. Those ***** should be denied the opportunity to vote more than once.

 

[DiveCon]

86 people in a period of five years coutnry wide is next to non exsistant.

Is that threatening elections in this country Immie?

Thank you... you have actually just admitted that you are a damned hypocrite as well as a liar.

How many hours have you spent screaming about unproven vote fraud in the RNC and excused a very evident case of attempted voter intimidation and now when you see that there have been convictions you say that it doesn't matter? Hypocrite!

Whether or not it actually changed the outcome of a single election is immaterial. There is the potential that it may someday. That is why this is significant and why this nation should do everything in its power to fight against vote fraud no matter which party is involved.

Immie

If you had a National ID card you could log in and vote from home

It would increase the number of voters and reduce fraud

Hey leftwinger. You are getting confused. You uber libs are supposed to be offended by the concept of a national ID card. Hell, even conservatives tend not to want a national ID card.

Thankfully, it isn't needed. What is needed is some requirement of law that absent valid voter identification, one will be denied the vote.

The reality is that such a requirement imposes no unreasonable burden on anyone. ******* bring a valid set of IDs to the polling stations the one or two times a year you vote. If you have no valid ID or if your intent is to commit voter fraud, then you will be hindered. Too ******* bad. Get some valid ID or shut the **** up.

But a "national ID Card" is simply not needed.

The notion is put out there for other reasons, but I decline to play.

I live where I live and I can prove it and I can prove I am who I claim to be. It just isn't difficult at all.

Denying liberal Democratics the right to vote numerous times using the ID of those poor souls who have already passed-away should offend nobody. Those ***** should be denied the opportunity to vote more than once.

exactly, some standardization by the states in the state issued ID's will suffice

 

[Truthmatters]

Anyone who wants Americans to vote should be against ID requirements

 

[DiveCon]

Anyone who wants Americans to vote should be against ID requirements

anyone who wants clean and fair elections should be for ID's to vote
if you oppose them you could only be doing it to allow voter fraud

 

[Jeremy]

Anyone who wants Americans to vote should be against ID requirements

anyone who wants clean and fair elections should be for ID's to vote
if you oppose them you could only be doing it to allow voter fraud

Anyone who wants clean and fair elections should move to Antarctica.

 

[Truthmatters]

the studies say no voter fraud is a danger to any election.

The studies also show IDs would cause legal voters not to vote.

 

[Yurt]

Anyone who wants Americans to vote should be against ID requirements

anyone who wants clean and fair elections should be for ID's to vote
if you oppose them you could only be doing it to allow voter fraud

exactly