Is there any...

Ye
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.


The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.


I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live


Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.



"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

Yes, you rich republicans who like the cheap labor will always point to the far left of our party and say we will call you racist if you go after illegal employers.

So what? Have some balls. And who cares what they say? You’re going after illegal employers not immigrants. You’re going after criminals who are ruining the middle class. And you didn’t care what we said when you went after illegal employees. Yes it was racist and pointless. Going after illegal employers is not racist and it will solve the problem.

Dont worry about the flaming liberals. Stop using them as an excuse. You dont care what they think and in this case, neither do I.

The truth is you can’t get yourselves to go after corporations. Not for taxes, not for global warming, not for them paying low wages, not when they hurt people and not when they hire illegals.

First, I'm not rich, so, don't confuse me as being so.

I'm not opposed to going after companies who hire illegals, but, I also recognize its a two fold problem. If the left would allow for the tightening up of the border, you wouldn't have the flood of illegals to fill those jobs. You want to place the blame on these corporations solely because they hire illegals, but don't want to address, and take responsibility for the complicity by the left of allowing....and encouraging more and more illegals to come.

How about we do both? How about we seal up the border, clamp down on illegal immigration, and then work to keep these corporations from hiring illegals.

And again, its very odd that you are making this argument, because if a republican president were to have a nationwide ice raid on these companies hiring illegals, and rounded them up and deported them, the left would have a fit, and the very argument the left was posing previously, you are now arguing against.

So, I'm willing to state that we should stop all companies from hiring illegals, and, we should seal the border and stop all illegal immigration, and allow those who want to come to this country by legal means the opportunity to do so.

Are you willing to make the same statement?
 
Ye
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.


The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.


I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live


Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.



"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.


No, we're not saying the Democrats don't hire illegals. But given their record of prosecuting those who employ illegal immigrants, I would be very surprised that any large employer of illegals would ever vote anything but Republican. As long as Republicans are in the White House, they are in no danger of being prosecuted or fined, and well, tax breaks.

We're saying that Republicans don't prosecute employers who hire illegals. With a Republican in the White House, employers don't have worry about I-95 audits or charges. They can hire all the illegals they want, without fear of prosecution. They might have to endure the odd ICE, and replace their employees after it's over, but they'll come flooding across the border, once they hear you're hiring.

Illegal immigation surges when Republicans are in the White House, and Republicans respond by hiring more Border Patrol guards, building facilities, and locking up border crossers. This shovels still more taxpayer dollars to border enforcement costs, private prison companies, legal aid lawyers, judges and court clerks.

Private prison companies donated heavily to Trump's Inauguration fund, and were rewarded with $200 million no-bid contracts to build internment camps on the southern border and hired 6000 border patrol and ICE enforcement officers.

Democratic enforcement shifts the costs illegal immigration to the employers via fines and levies reduces the costs of detaining and prosecuting illegals. Obama's policy of returning border jumpers to Mexico within 24 hours, before Constitutional rights kick in, was vilified by Republicans but - no arrest, no paperwork, incarceration costs, legal aid lawyer, immigration judge or trial:


Republicans do ICE raids, round up the illegals, which makes it look like their serious about illegal immigration, but it's all a dog and pony show to fool American voters and reward their "for profit prison" donors. The Republican outrage over "open borders" and illegal immigrants is just bullshit to fool those who are willing to take their word for anything.

Democratic policies reduce the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border at no expense to the taxpayers. The don't have to catch them, lock them up, feed or house them, go to court with them, or deport them. As we say in poker, money you don't lose to bad bets spends just the same as money you win.

Going after the big employers with deep pockets, serves a number of purposes:
  • Abercrombie & Fitch were fined $1 million. Fines, levies and assessments reduce the costs to the taxpayers and shift the cost of immigration enforcement to those who are creating the problem - employers who ire illegal
  • Big fines and assessments help pay for the costs of enforcement. Rounding up illegals and deporting them costs a lot of money. Go after the guys who are using the resources of the American people to avoid paying decent wages to the American people.
  • Word of mouth that they're checking ID's and it's hard to find work has a cooling effect on family and friends making a run for the border.
  • The lowest rates of illegal immigration always follow the highest rates of prosecution of employers.

The right says employers hire illegals to do the work Americans won't do. Republicans have consistently voted against harsher penalties and have refused to prosecute employers, when in the White House, focusing instead on enforcement at the Southern Border. They also refuse to raise the minimum wage, instead using the social safety net to transfer money from middle class taxpayers, to the working poor.

No wonder big business votes Republican, and against the American people.

Democrats have NEVER been in favour of open borders, and they have been far more successful in stopping illegal immigration by enforcing the laws against employers, and they have relentlessly gone after employers when in office.

Republicans refuse to prosecute employers, but instead want to focus on the far less effective and more expensive route of increasing enforcement along the border.

So, Republicans are tough on border security but lax on going after employers, whereas democrats are lax on border security but tough on employers....so, which one is worse?

Because border security isn’t going to solve the problem. They can come here as visitor or students.

We agree we need a high tech way of securing our border. Technology, drones, border patrol agents. But building a 2000 mile wall is a joke.

Especially when you won’t do anything about the lure. Illegal employers.

We all know the war on drugs is a joke. If they really want to fight that war it’s in Colombia. Are they afraid to take on the cartels? Same way they are afraid of the illegal employers.

Clearly over the past few decades corporations have taken over our government. Just look at how private companies control our elections with their electronic voting machines.

Wake up Americans

Because border security isn’t going to solve the problem. They can come here as visitor or students.

I have no problem with them coming as a visitor or a student. That would be a legal means of entering the country, as long as they don't overstay their authority to be here.

We agree we need a high tech way of securing our border. Technology, drones, border patrol agents. But building a 2000 mile wall is a joke.

We should use all of those methods, including walls. Walls are not a joke, people have been using walls for thousands of years. We still use them today to keel people out of places we don't want them to go. Sure, a wall across the southern border, by itself, may not be effective, but, a wall with electronic surveillance, drones, and border station outposts, would be effective.

Clearly over the past few decades corporations have taken over our government. Just look at how private companies control our elections with their electronic voting machines.

I agree with you, we need to get corporate money out of politics. Lobbying should be illegal, and yes, there should never, ever, be a private company allowed to make voting software and hardware for elections, either national, state, or local. On these things, we agree.
 
Ye
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.


The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.


I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live


Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.



"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

Yes, you rich republicans who like the cheap labor will always point to the far left of our party and say we will call you racist if you go after illegal employers.

So what? Have some balls. And who cares what they say? You’re going after illegal employers not immigrants. You’re going after criminals who are ruining the middle class. And you didn’t care what we said when you went after illegal employees. Yes it was racist and pointless. Going after illegal employers is not racist and it will solve the problem.

Dont worry about the flaming liberals. Stop using them as an excuse. You dont care what they think and in this case, neither do I.

The truth is you can’t get yourselves to go after corporations. Not for taxes, not for global warming, not for them paying low wages, not when they hurt people and not when they hire illegals.

First, I'm not rich, so, don't confuse me as being so.

I'm not opposed to going after companies who hire illegals, but, I also recognize its a two fold problem. If the left would allow for the tightening up of the border, you wouldn't have the flood of illegals to fill those jobs. You want to place the blame on these corporations solely because they hire illegals, but don't want to address, and take responsibility for the complicity by the left of allowing....and encouraging more and more illegals to come.

How about we do both? How about we seal up the border, clamp down on illegal immigration, and then work to keep these corporations from hiring illegals.

And again, its very odd that you are making this argument, because if a republican president were to have a nationwide ice raid on these companies hiring illegals, and rounded them up and deported them, the left would have a fit, and the very argument the left was posing previously, you are now arguing against.

So, I'm willing to state that we should stop all companies from hiring illegals, and, we should seal the border and stop all illegal immigration, and allow those who want to come to this country by legal means the opportunity to do so.

Are you willing to make the same statement?


Actually not true. Before Reagan we had an open border but didn't have an illegal employer problem. Please stop assuming we can't solve this problem without building a great wall on the southern border.

Yes, I want to seal up the border with border patrol agents and drones and dogs and walls when it makes sense. Not a great wall that isn't going to work.

You made a mistake. You said: "if a republican president were to have a nationwide ice raid on these companies hiring illegals, and rounded them up and deported them" These companies are owned by Americans. You can't deport them. You can fine them, close their business' and/or lock them up.
 
All of the ICE raids in the world will do nothing to stem illegal immigration if the employers re-open their doors the next morning and replace the illegals ICE took away, with another fresh batch of illegals that just crossed the border.

With Democrats in office, the accountants go in an audit HR records, ICE goes in surgically and cleans out the illegals and deports them. The employer is charged, fined, ordered not to hire illegals, and subjected to routine audits to ensure compliance.

Republicans don’t want their big donors facing criminal charges, fines, and court supervision. The employers don’t want to pay minimum wage and mandated benefits to employees. Trump wanted the for-profit prisons to benefit from holding illegals prisoners for years at a cost of $700 per day per prisoner.

Republican border enforcement is both expensive and ineffective in controlling illegal immigration. 300,000 Mexican self deported after the economic crash of 2008, and Obama’s crack down on employers in 2009.

Republicans can’t be seen to be in favour of illegal immigration, so they try to paint Democrats unwillingness to fortify the border as an “open border policy”, while ignoring the surges in border crossings that their failure to hold employers accountable create.
 
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.


How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?



On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on anything yet. The story you linked is about an upcoming case to be presented to scotus.

As far as the new laws. I find it fascinating how two groups of people can take one set of information, and come to completely opposite conclusions. It's the very definition of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter how many times someone in support of the new laws states that their only goal is to prevent voter fraud, the other side will always say its intent is to disenfranchise someone.

How is it that we all can read the same text, and come to completely different conclusions? I blame the media, but, my point here, is, there is only one real truth, but we argue for the truth we desire based on where our political ideology lines up.

You'll always believe the goal of the right is to suppress and harm people of color, and the right will always say they just want fair and honest elections. The right will always believe the left wants to import illegals for the purpose of votes.
 
Ye
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.


The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.


I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live


Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.



"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

Yes, you rich republicans who like the cheap labor will always point to the far left of our party and say we will call you racist if you go after illegal employers.

So what? Have some balls. And who cares what they say? You’re going after illegal employers not immigrants. You’re going after criminals who are ruining the middle class. And you didn’t care what we said when you went after illegal employees. Yes it was racist and pointless. Going after illegal employers is not racist and it will solve the problem.

Dont worry about the flaming liberals. Stop using them as an excuse. You dont care what they think and in this case, neither do I.

The truth is you can’t get yourselves to go after corporations. Not for taxes, not for global warming, not for them paying low wages, not when they hurt people and not when they hire illegals.

First, I'm not rich, so, don't confuse me as being so.

I'm not opposed to going after companies who hire illegals, but, I also recognize its a two fold problem. If the left would allow for the tightening up of the border, you wouldn't have the flood of illegals to fill those jobs. You want to place the blame on these corporations solely because they hire illegals, but don't want to address, and take responsibility for the complicity by the left of allowing....and encouraging more and more illegals to come.

How about we do both? How about we seal up the border, clamp down on illegal immigration, and then work to keep these corporations from hiring illegals.

And again, its very odd that you are making this argument, because if a republican president were to have a nationwide ice raid on these companies hiring illegals, and rounded them up and deported them, the left would have a fit, and the very argument the left was posing previously, you are now arguing against.

So, I'm willing to state that we should stop all companies from hiring illegals, and, we should seal the border and stop all illegal immigration, and allow those who want to come to this country by legal means the opportunity to do so.

Are you willing to make the same statement?


Actually not true. Before Reagan we had an open border but didn't have an illegal employer problem. Please stop assuming we can't solve this problem without building a great wall on the southern border.

Yes, I want to seal up the border with border patrol agents and drones and dogs and walls when it makes sense. Not a great wall that isn't going to work.

You made a mistake. You said: "if a republican president were to have a nationwide ice raid on these companies hiring illegals, and rounded them up and deported them" These companies are owned by Americans. You can't deport them. You can fine them, close their business' and/or lock them up.

No, I meant rounding up and deporting the illegals working there.
 
rule, regulation, or law that might simply confirm a voter's identity that those of you on the left wouldn't scream "racism!" over? Can those of you crowding to the left imagine any manner whatsoever that performed and/or was intended ONLY to ensure that a voter - any voter, every voter, regardless of race - is who he or she says he or she is that would not evoke cries of "racism!!!!!" from you?
Clearly you don’t understand the issue.

The ‘left’ has no problem with citizens providing ID when registering to vote.

Voter ‘fraud’ by identity theft is so exceedingly rare that requiring an ID to vote is not warranted and manifests as an undue burden to the right to vote.

And it is in fact racist when Republican lawmakers enact measures that make it difficult for many older citizens of color to obtain the required ID, make it more difficult for citizens in urban communities to vote, and use bad faith gerrymandering tactics to disadvantage minority voters.

If Republicans insist on requiring a citizen to provide an ID each time he votes, then allow the voter to provide a paycheck stub or utility bill.

‘Problem’ solved.

Why not just have the state assist them in acquiring an ID? If they don't have an ID, how are they going to prove that utility statement or pay stub belongs to them?


Because they want people to be able to vote without ID's
as they should be able to, if they have already registered to vote, and the State has vet them for name, address, age, citizenship, felonies etc and approved and issued them a voter's registration card and added them to the precinct roster...as we have voted the past century....

In person identity theft at the polling place is non-existent... in person Voter fraud via identity theft is extremely risky, with likelihood of being caught... And it is a felony!!!! Who is going to risk getting themselves a few years behind bars and ruin their life forever, by casting one extra vote for their candidate????

The last state I voted in person that had no id required, the precinct attendants asked you, your party affiliation, then name, then address, then you signed the roster, and they let you in to vote...

As an imposter, I would risk being caught it I didn't know your party affiliation, or registered name and address, and risk being caught if the person I was trying to impersonate had voted already, and risk being caught if the people right behind me knew the person I was impersonating, and risk being caught if the poll attendant knew the person I was trying to impersonate....
Etc etc etc

Can't you honestly see how voter fraud occurring in person at the voting precinct is not something anyone sane would consider?

So, one would have to ask, what other purpose is there for legislators to want a govt issued photo id, to vote??
 
rule, regulation, or law that might simply confirm a voter's identity that those of you on the left wouldn't scream "racism!" over? Can those of you crowding to the left imagine any manner whatsoever that performed and/or was intended ONLY to ensure that a voter - any voter, every voter, regardless of race - is who he or she says he or she is that would not evoke cries of "racism!!!!!" from you?
Clearly you don’t understand the issue.

The ‘left’ has no problem with citizens providing ID when registering to vote.

Voter ‘fraud’ by identity theft is so exceedingly rare that requiring an ID to vote is not warranted and manifests as an undue burden to the right to vote.

And it is in fact racist when Republican lawmakers enact measures that make it difficult for many older citizens of color to obtain the required ID, make it more difficult for citizens in urban communities to vote, and use bad faith gerrymandering tactics to disadvantage minority voters.

If Republicans insist on requiring a citizen to provide an ID each time he votes, then allow the voter to provide a paycheck stub or utility bill.

‘Problem’ solved.

Why not just have the state assist them in acquiring an ID? If they don't have an ID, how are they going to prove that utility statement or pay stub belongs to them?


Because they want people to be able to vote without ID's
as they should be able to, if they have already registered to vote, and the State has vet them for name, address, age, citizenship, felonies etc and approved and issued them a voter's registration card and added them to the precinct roster...as we have voted the past century....

In person identity theft at the polling place is non-existent... in person Voter fraud via identity theft is extremely risky, with likelihood of being caught... And it is a felony!!!! Who is going to risk getting themselves a few years behind bars and ruin their life forever, by casting one extra vote for their candidate????

The last state I voted in person that had no id required, the precinct attendants asked you, your party affiliation, then name, then address, then you signed the roster, and they let you in to vote...

As an imposter, I would risk being caught it I didn't know your party affiliation, or registered name and address, and risk being caught if the person I was trying to impersonate had voted already, and risk being caught if the people right behind me knew the person I was impersonating, and risk being caught if the poll attendant knew the person I was trying to impersonate....
Etc etc etc

Can't you honestly see how voter fraud occurring in person at the voting precinct is not something anyone sane would consider?

So, one would have to ask, what other purpose is there for legislators to want a govt issued photo id, to vote??
Why do you need a photo ID to withdraw money from a bank? Perhaps we should just be able to show up with a utility bill?

I mean, the odds of someone trying to steal money from your account at the bank is rare, but we still have to provide ID.
 
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.


How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?



On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on anything yet. The story you linked is about an upcoming case to be presented to scotus.

As far as the new laws. I find it fascinating how two groups of people can take one set of information, and come to completely opposite conclusions. It's the very definition of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter how many times someone in support of the new laws states that their only goal is to prevent voter fraud, the other side will always say its intent is to disenfranchise someone.

How is it that we all can read the same text, and come to completely different conclusions? I blame the media, but, my point here, is, there is only one real truth, but we argue for the truth we desire based on where our political ideology lines up.

You'll always believe the goal of the right is to suppress and harm people of color, and the right will always say they just want fair and honest elections. The right will always believe the left wants to import illegals for the purpose of votes.

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

We have a problem. Republicans rioting when they don’t like the results of elections. They did it in 2000, it worked. They tried it again but it was too big of a loss to steal this one. Trump lost five states. Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

How can you not see it?
 
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.


How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?



On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on anything yet. The story you linked is about an upcoming case to be presented to scotus.

As far as the new laws. I find it fascinating how two groups of people can take one set of information, and come to completely opposite conclusions. It's the very definition of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter how many times someone in support of the new laws states that their only goal is to prevent voter fraud, the other side will always say its intent is to disenfranchise someone.

How is it that we all can read the same text, and come to completely different conclusions? I blame the media, but, my point here, is, there is only one real truth, but we argue for the truth we desire based on where our political ideology lines up.

You'll always believe the goal of the right is to suppress and harm people of color, and the right will always say they just want fair and honest elections. The right will always believe the left wants to import illegals for the purpose of votes.

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

We have a problem. Republicans rioting when they don’t like the results of elections. They did it in 2000, it worked. They tried it again but it was too big of a loss to steal this one. Trump lost five states. Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

How can you not see it?

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

Who are these people who have no ID? How do they do anything in society? These days, you need an ID for everything. To drive, bank, sign up for utilities, rent or buy a place to live. Who are these people that have no means of identification?

If there are people out there who can't get an ID, then there should be people who can help them obtain one.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

You are saying that voter fraud is not a problem. How many fraudulent votes are needed for it to become a problem? Would it be a problem if the general consensus was that all illegals would vote republican? I bet it would be a problem then.

Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

No, voter ID is the reaction to what the right sees as a left wing plot to import millions of voters, supposedly who will vote mostly Democrat.

No republican is trying to make absentee voting harder. They are trying to make mass mail balloting non existent.
 
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.


How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?



On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on anything yet. The story you linked is about an upcoming case to be presented to scotus.

As far as the new laws. I find it fascinating how two groups of people can take one set of information, and come to completely opposite conclusions. It's the very definition of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter how many times someone in support of the new laws states that their only goal is to prevent voter fraud, the other side will always say its intent is to disenfranchise someone.

How is it that we all can read the same text, and come to completely different conclusions? I blame the media, but, my point here, is, there is only one real truth, but we argue for the truth we desire based on where our political ideology lines up.

You'll always believe the goal of the right is to suppress and harm people of color, and the right will always say they just want fair and honest elections. The right will always believe the left wants to import illegals for the purpose of votes.

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

We have a problem. Republicans rioting when they don’t like the results of elections. They did it in 2000, it worked. They tried it again but it was too big of a loss to steal this one. Trump lost five states. Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

How can you not see it?

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

Who are these people who have no ID? How do they do anything in society? These days, you need an ID for everything. To drive, bank, sign up for utilities, rent or buy a place to live. Who are these people that have no means of identification?

If there are people out there who can't get an ID, then there should be people who can help them obtain one.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

You are saying that voter fraud is not a problem. How many fraudulent votes are needed for it to become a problem? Would it be a problem if the general consensus was that all illegals would vote republican? I bet it would be a problem then.

Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

No, voter ID is the reaction to what the right sees as a left wing plot to import millions of voters, supposedly who will vote mostly Democrat.

No republican is trying to make absentee voting harder. They are trying to make mass mail balloting non existent.


I'll raise my hand on that one. I went for many years without ID because I lost my wallet and had no birth certificate, as I believed my birth had never been registered, and I needed a birth certificate to replace government issued ID. When I lost my wallet, I had a SIN card, a driver's license, and a wallet full of ID, that I was able to acquire before 9/11, without a birth certificate, but I couldn't replace any of it, post 9/11

Now I did have a bank account when I lost my ID, so I was able to replace my debit and credit cards, and things weren't too bad up until 9/11. Plus I was married to a man who had ID at the time, so he could open bank accounts, and credit cards, and then add me as a secondary card holder.

9/11 was like hitting a wall without photo ID. I couldn't get on a plane, travel, or even get hired. Today, I need photo ID to get on a TRAIN!!! The lawyer I worked for helped me get my birth certificate, and now I have a birth certificate, photo ID, and a passport - something I had never had in my life.

In poor rural communities, getting a birth certificate was neither the practice nor a requirement when I was growing up. Births were recorded in the family bibles, or through baptisms at your local church. I was registered in school using my baptismal certificate, and that's how I got my original driver's license. Plus I grew up in a small town so of course the principal knew my family. I'm the youngest of 6 children - the adopted one.

Today, such things don't happen, but if you were born before 9/11, getting ID is not guaranteed.
 
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.


How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?



On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on anything yet. The story you linked is about an upcoming case to be presented to scotus.

As far as the new laws. I find it fascinating how two groups of people can take one set of information, and come to completely opposite conclusions. It's the very definition of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter how many times someone in support of the new laws states that their only goal is to prevent voter fraud, the other side will always say its intent is to disenfranchise someone.

How is it that we all can read the same text, and come to completely different conclusions? I blame the media, but, my point here, is, there is only one real truth, but we argue for the truth we desire based on where our political ideology lines up.

You'll always believe the goal of the right is to suppress and harm people of color, and the right will always say they just want fair and honest elections. The right will always believe the left wants to import illegals for the purpose of votes.

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

We have a problem. Republicans rioting when they don’t like the results of elections. They did it in 2000, it worked. They tried it again but it was too big of a loss to steal this one. Trump lost five states. Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

How can you not see it?

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

Who are these people who have no ID? How do they do anything in society? These days, you need an ID for everything. To drive, bank, sign up for utilities, rent or buy a place to live. Who are these people that have no means of identification?

If there are people out there who can't get an ID, then there should be people who can help them obtain one.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

You are saying that voter fraud is not a problem. How many fraudulent votes are needed for it to become a problem? Would it be a problem if the general consensus was that all illegals would vote republican? I bet it would be a problem then.

Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

No, voter ID is the reaction to what the right sees as a left wing plot to import millions of voters, supposedly who will vote mostly Democrat.

No republican is trying to make absentee voting harder. They are trying to make mass mail balloting non existent.

That’s exactly it. They don’t drive, don’t bank and no they do not need I’d to rent a room in a house.

This is as much of an issue as trannies in bathrooms.

It just doesn’t happen enough to make any difference. It probably never happens. Did you find one illegal vote?
 
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.


How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?



On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on anything yet. The story you linked is about an upcoming case to be presented to scotus.

As far as the new laws. I find it fascinating how two groups of people can take one set of information, and come to completely opposite conclusions. It's the very definition of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter how many times someone in support of the new laws states that their only goal is to prevent voter fraud, the other side will always say its intent is to disenfranchise someone.

How is it that we all can read the same text, and come to completely different conclusions? I blame the media, but, my point here, is, there is only one real truth, but we argue for the truth we desire based on where our political ideology lines up.

You'll always believe the goal of the right is to suppress and harm people of color, and the right will always say they just want fair and honest elections. The right will always believe the left wants to import illegals for the purpose of votes.

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

We have a problem. Republicans rioting when they don’t like the results of elections. They did it in 2000, it worked. They tried it again but it was too big of a loss to steal this one. Trump lost five states. Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

How can you not see it?

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

Who are these people who have no ID? How do they do anything in society? These days, you need an ID for everything. To drive, bank, sign up for utilities, rent or buy a place to live. Who are these people that have no means of identification?

If there are people out there who can't get an ID, then there should be people who can help them obtain one.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

You are saying that voter fraud is not a problem. How many fraudulent votes are needed for it to become a problem? Would it be a problem if the general consensus was that all illegals would vote republican? I bet it would be a problem then.

Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

No, voter ID is the reaction to what the right sees as a left wing plot to import millions of voters, supposedly who will vote mostly Democrat.

No republican is trying to make absentee voting harder. They are trying to make mass mail balloting non existent.


I'll raise my hand on that one. I went for many years without ID because I lost my wallet and had no birth certificate, as I believed my birth had never been registered, and I needed a birth certificate to replace government issued ID. When I lost my wallet, I had a SIN card, a driver's license, and a wallet full of ID, that I was able to acquire before 9/11, without a birth certificate, but I couldn't replace any of it, post 9/11

Now I did have a bank account when I lost my ID, so I was able to replace my debit and credit cards, and things weren't too bad up until 9/11. Plus I was married to a man who had ID at the time, so he could open bank accounts, and credit cards, and then add me as a secondary card holder.

9/11 was like hitting a wall without photo ID. I couldn't get on a plane, travel, or even get hired. Today, I need photo ID to get on a TRAIN!!! The lawyer I worked for helped me get my birth certificate, and now I have a birth certificate, photo ID, and a passport - something I had never had in my life.

In poor rural communities, getting a birth certificate was neither the practice nor a requirement when I was growing up. Births were recorded in the family bibles, or through baptisms at your local church. I was registered in school using my baptismal certificate, and that's how I got my original driver's license. Plus I grew up in a small town so of course the principal knew my family. I'm the youngest of 6 children - the adopted one.

Today, such things don't happen, but if you were born before 9/11, getting ID is not guaranteed.

Today, such things don't happen, but if you were born before 9/11, getting ID is not guaranteed.
I've no doubt that in the past, one could function without an ID, but, in the last 20 years, an ID is nearly mandatory for everything, especially since 9/11.

You were fortunate to have a husband who could cover for you while you didn't have an ID, but, I just don't see how, in these times, anyone can get around in society without any form of identification.
 
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.


How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?



On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on anything yet. The story you linked is about an upcoming case to be presented to scotus.

As far as the new laws. I find it fascinating how two groups of people can take one set of information, and come to completely opposite conclusions. It's the very definition of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter how many times someone in support of the new laws states that their only goal is to prevent voter fraud, the other side will always say its intent is to disenfranchise someone.

How is it that we all can read the same text, and come to completely different conclusions? I blame the media, but, my point here, is, there is only one real truth, but we argue for the truth we desire based on where our political ideology lines up.

You'll always believe the goal of the right is to suppress and harm people of color, and the right will always say they just want fair and honest elections. The right will always believe the left wants to import illegals for the purpose of votes.

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

We have a problem. Republicans rioting when they don’t like the results of elections. They did it in 2000, it worked. They tried it again but it was too big of a loss to steal this one. Trump lost five states. Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

How can you not see it?

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

Who are these people who have no ID? How do they do anything in society? These days, you need an ID for everything. To drive, bank, sign up for utilities, rent or buy a place to live. Who are these people that have no means of identification?

If there are people out there who can't get an ID, then there should be people who can help them obtain one.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

You are saying that voter fraud is not a problem. How many fraudulent votes are needed for it to become a problem? Would it be a problem if the general consensus was that all illegals would vote republican? I bet it would be a problem then.

Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

No, voter ID is the reaction to what the right sees as a left wing plot to import millions of voters, supposedly who will vote mostly Democrat.

No republican is trying to make absentee voting harder. They are trying to make mass mail balloting non existent.

That’s exactly it. They don’t drive, don’t bank and no they do not need I’d to rent a room in a house.

This is as much of an issue as trannies in bathrooms.

It just doesn’t happen enough to make any difference. It probably never happens. Did you find one illegal vote?

Ok, so, you say they don't have an ID, they don't drive, they don't bank, and they don't need an ID to rent a room in a house? Rent a room with what money? If they have an income, then they either have a job, or they are receiving a check from the government, in both cases, an ID would be needed.

But, let's say, for the sake of argument, they were working for cash under the table and paying for a room that way. Fine, then this would be one of the cases where the state could help them obtain the necessary ID.

Again, the goal here is not to suppress votes, but to make sure only citizens are able to vote, and to protect against fraud.

It just doesn’t happen enough to make any difference

How many fraudulent votes does it take to make it worthwhile?
 
In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.
John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"
Is that happening?
Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.
I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.
No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.
Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.
Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.
What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.


How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?



On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on anything yet. The story you linked is about an upcoming case to be presented to scotus.

As far as the new laws. I find it fascinating how two groups of people can take one set of information, and come to completely opposite conclusions. It's the very definition of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter how many times someone in support of the new laws states that their only goal is to prevent voter fraud, the other side will always say its intent is to disenfranchise someone.

How is it that we all can read the same text, and come to completely different conclusions? I blame the media, but, my point here, is, there is only one real truth, but we argue for the truth we desire based on where our political ideology lines up.

You'll always believe the goal of the right is to suppress and harm people of color, and the right will always say they just want fair and honest elections. The right will always believe the left wants to import illegals for the purpose of votes.

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

We have a problem. Republicans rioting when they don’t like the results of elections. They did it in 2000, it worked. They tried it again but it was too big of a loss to steal this one. Trump lost five states. Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

How can you not see it?

There are some old people who don’t have an id. Or poor people. That shouldn’t exclude them from voting. They can sign an affidavi5 they are who they say they are.

Who are these people who have no ID? How do they do anything in society? These days, you need an ID for everything. To drive, bank, sign up for utilities, rent or buy a place to live. Who are these people that have no means of identification?

If there are people out there who can't get an ID, then there should be people who can help them obtain one.

This is not a problem. Voter fraud is not an issue. But republicans are making it an issue because they know they laws will suppress votes of black people and other poor people, but mostly black people.

You are saying that voter fraud is not a problem. How many fraudulent votes are needed for it to become a problem? Would it be a problem if the general consensus was that all illegals would vote republican? I bet it would be a problem then.

Voter ir laws are your reaction to losing this election because everyone voted. Most absentee voted. How do you show I’d when you absentee vote? Republicans are also trying to make that harder. Don’t pretend to be naive what they are doing.

No, voter ID is the reaction to what the right sees as a left wing plot to import millions of voters, supposedly who will vote mostly Democrat.

No republican is trying to make absentee voting harder. They are trying to make mass mail balloting non existent.


I'll raise my hand on that one. I went for many years without ID because I lost my wallet and had no birth certificate, as I believed my birth had never been registered, and I needed a birth certificate to replace government issued ID. When I lost my wallet, I had a SIN card, a driver's license, and a wallet full of ID, that I was able to acquire before 9/11, without a birth certificate, but I couldn't replace any of it, post 9/11

Now I did have a bank account when I lost my ID, so I was able to replace my debit and credit cards, and things weren't too bad up until 9/11. Plus I was married to a man who had ID at the time, so he could open bank accounts, and credit cards, and then add me as a secondary card holder.

9/11 was like hitting a wall without photo ID. I couldn't get on a plane, travel, or even get hired. Today, I need photo ID to get on a TRAIN!!! The lawyer I worked for helped me get my birth certificate, and now I have a birth certificate, photo ID, and a passport - something I had never had in my life.

In poor rural communities, getting a birth certificate was neither the practice nor a requirement when I was growing up. Births were recorded in the family bibles, or through baptisms at your local church. I was registered in school using my baptismal certificate, and that's how I got my original driver's license. Plus I grew up in a small town so of course the principal knew my family. I'm the youngest of 6 children - the adopted one.

Today, such things don't happen, but if you were born before 9/11, getting ID is not guaranteed.

Today, such things don't happen, but if you were born before 9/11, getting ID is not guaranteed.
I've no doubt that in the past, one could function without an ID, but, in the last 20 years, an ID is nearly mandatory for everything, especially since 9/11.

You were fortunate to have a husband who could cover for you while you didn't have an ID, but, I just don't see how, in these times, anyone can get around in society without any form of identification.


It wasn't all that easy before 9/11 either. You can't do ANYTHING here without a social insurance number. It's the big reason why we don't have an illegal immigration problem. I had a number, which I've had since I was 14, and know by heart so I could provide it as required and the number checked out. But employers are required to see your card, and make a copy from the original.
 
rule, regulation, or law that might simply confirm a voter's identity that those of you on the left wouldn't scream "racism!" over? Can those of you crowding to the left imagine any manner whatsoever that performed and/or was intended ONLY to ensure that a voter - any voter, every voter, regardless of race - is who he or she says he or she is that would not evoke cries of "racism!!!!!" from you?
Dear Unkotare
Imagine how rightwing react when mentioning gun regulations.

Even though there are ALREADY regulations on guns and regulations on voting,
the Left and Right still get defensive
with any proposal involving govt regulating
Gun rights or Voting rights.

These are sacred political rights that symbolize a person's rights that Govt cannot take away, or regulate without that person's consent.

I guess it is like Beef to Hindus,
or Pork to Muslims.

You cannot touch these things!
 

Forum List

Back
Top