Pa voter id law struck down

[bripat9643]

Republicans don't want to do the things that will actually stop fraud...because they cost money.

What would that be?

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans don't want to do the things that will actually stop fraud...because they cost money.

And besides, the people they are targeting would still be able to vote.

You mean dead people and illegal aliens would be able to get a valid ID?

 

[Zander]

In case you haven't noticed, we live in a surveillance state.

We will see Voter ID, ostensibly to "protect" against voter fraud.

Then we'll be required to have a national ID Card, again "for our own protection".

Eventually we'll move to a completely "cashless" society, again to "protect" against tax fraud.

It's all for your own good. You exist to serve the STATE!

 

[Seawytch]

Republicans don't want to do the things that will actually stop fraud...because they cost money.

What would that be?

Statewide databases, signature checking software and electronic poll books to start.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You need a photo I.D. to do anything in the modern world including cashing a check, renting a home and entering a federal building but a judge thinks it's unlawful to show one to vote. At least they didn't insult Black people by claiming they would be impacted the most. Or did they?

There is no Constitutional right to cash a check or rent a home, and accommodations can be made to allow someone with no ID to enter a Federal building – there is a Constitutional right to vote, however, and your analogy fails accordingly.

The issue concerns only what the state can prove in court justifying the restricting of a fundamental right; and when it come to requiring a photo ID to vote, the state has failed to justify this restriction.

Voting is not a Constitutional right it's a privilege, leading to your incorrect point of view regarding requiring an ID.

 

[NLT]

FOX NEWS: "This just in. 99 percent of the negroes in an all-negro Philly voting precinct voted for Obama. Now that just can't be right!"

The rubes scratch their heads quizzically. "Yeah, buddy! Sumfin' fishy dere!"

Well who are the racists now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You need a photo I.D. to do anything in the modern world including cashing a check, renting a home and entering a federal building but a judge thinks it's unlawful to show one to vote. At least they didn't insult Black people by claiming they would be impacted the most. Or did they?

because requiring an ID to vote doesnt stop voter fraud.

Essentially your logic is: You need ID for other stuff, why not voting.

But that doesnt address stopping or preventing any voter fraud. You can apply that false logic to anything. You need IDs for cashing checks why not for Surfing? Why not for riding a bike? Why not for freedom of speech?

True.

Mostly because there is no voter ‘fraud.’

Voter ID laws are a ‘solution’ in search of a non-existent problem.

And it’s yet another example of conservative hypocrisy: more government, greater government authority, and more regulation at the expense of the citizen.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You need a photo I.D. to do anything in the modern world including cashing a check, renting a home and entering a federal building but a judge thinks it's unlawful to show one to vote. At least they didn't insult Black people by claiming they would be impacted the most. Or did they?

because requiring an ID to vote doesnt stop voter fraud.

Essentially your logic is: You need ID for other stuff, why not voting.

But that doesnt address stopping or preventing any voter fraud. You can apply that false logic to anything. You need IDs for cashing checks why not for Surfing? Why not for riding a bike? Why not for freedom of speech?

Don't know too many surfboard forgeries, unlike checks or identify theft of a voter, but nice try at your poor excuse.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You need a photo I.D. to do anything in the modern world including cashing a check, renting a home and entering a federal building but a judge thinks it's unlawful to show one to vote. At least they didn't insult Black people by claiming they would be impacted the most. Or did they?

because requiring an ID to vote doesnt stop voter fraud.

Essentially your logic is: You need ID for other stuff, why not voting.

But that doesnt address stopping or preventing any voter fraud. You can apply that false logic to anything. You need IDs for cashing checks why not for Surfing? Why not for riding a bike? Why not for freedom of speech?

Don't know too many surfboard forgeries, unlike checks or identify theft of a voter, but nice try at your poor excuse.

And you dont know too many voter fraud cases that could be prevented by an ID also.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

because requiring an ID to vote doesnt stop voter fraud.

Essentially your logic is: You need ID for other stuff, why not voting.

But that doesnt address stopping or preventing any voter fraud. You can apply that false logic to anything. You need IDs for cashing checks why not for Surfing? Why not for riding a bike? Why not for freedom of speech?

Don't know too many surfboard forgeries, unlike checks or identify theft of a voter, but nice try at your poor excuse.

And you dont know too many voter fraud cases that could be prevented by an ID also.

Like the Wendy Rosen case perhaps?

State law prohibits a Maryland voter from maintaining a registration in a second state if it allows the voter to participate in state or federal elections there.

Wendy Rosen, former Maryland congressional candidate, charged with illegal voting - Baltimore Sun

A simple background check through the individual's social security number could have confirmed her place of residence. Once the data confirms more than one location exists, the system could block her from participating until she makes the determination of which preferred place of residence is to be attached to her social security. If we can allow an even MORE extensive background check of those decide to purchase a firearm (protected under the second amendment), what's to prevent the need of voter authentication with this computer age of identity theft? I don't believe that you have a viable excuse that can stand up to that.

What makes it even more interesting are those who claim to be so certain that a voter ID would somehow infringe on an individual's "rights", yet have the audacity to believe a government mandate should dictate that everyone have some form of health insurance. Here's the left's logic. We can't have an ID that confirms who you are when you vote because it can somehow (unproven) Disenfranchises poor and minority voters, yet at the same time we want everyone to carry health insurance. We will spend billions setting up exchanges through a faulty computer system that can't do the job, millions more in advertising to get young people to agree to this fiasco, yet we can't take the time to set up voter ID in order to authenticate who it is that's voting.


QUESTION:
If a simple ID disenfranchises the poor and those among the minority, how are these same groups able to retrieve their personal medical information? Ever try to pull up someone's medical records without proper ID?

I guess you dug yourself in a bit of a hole with that bit of reasoning, have fun trying to find your way back out.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Don't know too many surfboard forgeries, unlike checks or identify theft of a voter, but nice try at your poor excuse.

And you dont know too many voter fraud cases that could be prevented by an ID also.

Like the Wendy Rosen case perhaps?

State law prohibits a Maryland voter from maintaining a registration in a second state if it allows the voter to participate in state or federal elections there.

Wendy Rosen, former Maryland congressional candidate, charged with illegal voting - Baltimore Sun

A simple background check through the individual's social security number could have confirmed her place of residence. Once the data confirms more than one location exists, the system could block her from participating until she makes the determination of which preferred place of residence is to be attached to her social security. If we can allow an even MORE extensive background check of those decide to purchase a firearm (protected under the second amendment), what's to prevent the need of voter authentication with this computer age of identity theft? I don't believe that you have a viable excuse that can stand up to that.

What makes it even more interesting are those who claim to be so certain that a voter ID would somehow infringe on an individual's "rights", yet have the audacity to believe a government mandate should dictate that everyone have some form of health insurance. Here's the left's logic. We can't have an ID that confirms who you are when you vote because it can somehow (unproven) Disenfranchises poor and minority voters, yet at the same time we want everyone to carry health insurance. We will spend billions setting up exchanges through a faulty computer system that can't do the job, millions more in advertising to get young people to agree to this fiasco, yet we can't take the time to set up voter ID in order to authenticate who it is that's voting.


QUESTION:
If a simple ID disenfranchises the poor and those among the minority, how are these same groups able to retrieve their personal medical information? Ever try to pull up someone's medical records without proper ID?

I guess you dug yourself in a bit of a hole with that bit of reasoning, have fun trying to find your way back out.

Wow, she was registered in 2 places? How would an ID have stopped that?

To address your question. You seem to believe that because you cant fathom a situation then it cannot exist. Simply because you lack information its impossible.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are the EBT identification requirements identical to Voter ID requirements? You have no idea.

Oh no, identification for use of and EBT is dozens and dozens of times more stringent. You can't use a utility bill in your name as ID like you can with voting.

Your assumption is also based on the very flawed premise that every low income person is using these government benefits.

There is no "assumption," these are facts.

You and your shameful party oppose ID for one reason, it cuts down on the fraud that you view as your sacred right.

For example, there are millions of low income people who are eligible for Medicaid who are unaware of it, and who are not using it. These people are also eligible to vote.

Utter ******* bullshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not a Democrat, moron.

ROFL

Right, you campaign for virtually everything on the DNC agenda because, uh, well..

I am just a person who debunks bullshit and seeks the truth of things.

Is that why you keep lying about ID? You lie to find the truth?

And the truth is that Voter ID is ineffective, and you are an idiot.

I understand, you're scared - without massive fraud, how will your shameful party continue to gain power?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And you dont know too many voter fraud cases that could be prevented by an ID also.

Like the Wendy Rosen case perhaps?

State law prohibits a Maryland voter from maintaining a registration in a second state if it allows the voter to participate in state or federal elections there.

Wendy Rosen, former Maryland congressional candidate, charged with illegal voting - Baltimore Sun

A simple background check through the individual's social security number could have confirmed her place of residence. Once the data confirms more than one location exists, the system could block her from participating until she makes the determination of which preferred place of residence is to be attached to her social security. If we can allow an even MORE extensive background check of those decide to purchase a firearm (protected under the second amendment), what's to prevent the need of voter authentication with this computer age of identity theft? I don't believe that you have a viable excuse that can stand up to that.

What makes it even more interesting are those who claim to be so certain that a voter ID would somehow infringe on an individual's "rights", yet have the audacity to believe a government mandate should dictate that everyone have some form of health insurance. Here's the left's logic. We can't have an ID that confirms who you are when you vote because it can somehow (unproven) Disenfranchises poor and minority voters, yet at the same time we want everyone to carry health insurance. We will spend billions setting up exchanges through a faulty computer system that can't do the job, millions more in advertising to get young people to agree to this fiasco, yet we can't take the time to set up voter ID in order to authenticate who it is that's voting.


QUESTION:
If a simple ID disenfranchises the poor and those among the minority, how are these same groups able to retrieve their personal medical information? Ever try to pull up someone's medical records without proper ID?

I guess you dug yourself in a bit of a hole with that bit of reasoning, have fun trying to find your way back out.

Wow, she was registered in 2 places? How would an ID have stopped that?

To address your question. You seem to believe that because you cant fathom a situation then it cannot exist. Simply because you lack information its impossible.

I believe your question was already addressed in the response, obviously you are too blindsided with your predetermined list of excuses to take notice.

With regard to your response to the addressed question. Your failure to find an educated response speaks volumes. That's really all I needed to know.

 

[kaz]

The need for voter id laws are based more illusion than fact.

Yes, IDs can't be checked until it can be proven that Democrats are losing votes because they aren't checked.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In your post it says that if the SSN was checked they wouldve found two addresses. An ID doesnt check SSN only someone at the polling station can do that. Again, an ID wouldnt make the poll workers check anything and I believe you can possess a SSN without an ID.

So again, ID wouldnt have prevented that. See since this is about Voting your question about accessing medical records have nothing to do with voting. So while thats an interesting question (and you can let me know the answer when you find out) it has nothing to do with voting.

Your concession is duely noted tho. Thanks.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And you have the evidence, I'm sure. Let's see it.

Again? You democrats are ridiculous...

{More than 6,000 dead people are registered to vote in Nassau County and records show about 270 of them actually voted after their deaths, according to a Newsday analysis of voter registration and federal death records.}

More Than 200 Dead People Shown to Have Voted in NY County Elections: Report | NBC New York

The beauty of Zombie votes is that is nearly impossible to detect; only a line by line comparison with death certificates and voter rolls, most of which remain manual signature based. reveals this widespread fraud.

And of course this is WHY you democrats fight basic, common sense measures such as ID.

You believe fraud is your sacred right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So when you said, "I've given YOU PERSONALLY links on a dozen occasions. We all, including you, know this is the case", you were lying.

Hardly;

I meant that I know the little game you KOS Kiddies play.

Rule of Law » 53,000 Dead Voters Found in Florida

Links are easy. And you'll trot out leftist claims that "only" a few hundred can be verified (and oddly, of those verified - not ONE will be prosecuted..)

We've played this game before. You DEMAND voter fraud.

You have no evidence. Just a mental fantasy we are all supposed to accept from a liar.

I have tons of evidence. You have no rational reason to oppose something as simple as ID - except that you support fraud - pure fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So this is your defense for not having any proof?

Ok then, Whats your defense for believing in something that you cannot prove?

Do you have proof that someone has gone into your mobile home while you are at the bar or the park? If not, then you cannot have locks on your doors...

One reason to oppose voter ID - and ONLY one, you support fraud.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I oppose Voter ID for a simple reason. I know this reason won't get through to the retards, because they have invented a lie that I "DEMAND fraud".

You oppose ID like a burglar opposes locks. There is no rational reason to oppose it - unless you plan a crime and they will hamper you - which IS the case, as we all know.

The real reason is that I really resent someone ******* with our electoral process for evil purposes. Too many people have shed blood for voting rights. And when some assholes try to disenfranchise eligible citizens, that pisses me off. Even if those voters were going to vote for the opposition.

Too many have "shed blood so that illegal aliens can vote for democrats using the names of dead people."

Yeah, I don't think that's what they shed blood for,

You want power for your scummy party? Earn it. Enough of the stealing of elections.

That's what integrity looks like, assholes. The stability of our voting process is way more important than getting power into the hands of the very creeps destroying that process. You sicken me in your defense of this destruction.

So, honest elections will give power to "creeps," thus your advocating for election fraud is really noble?

I would LOVE to stop all the fraud which happens.

Well. you're in luck. Voter ID is a simple, completely non-intrusive means to stop the most common type of fraud...

But as we have seen here, you are all completely STUMPED on how to actually stop the actual fraud which actually occurs. Because you have been parroting the Voter ID talking points for so long, you have pissed out your brains.

ID does nothing other than stop fraud.

You oppose it for one reason, because you support fraud. There is NO other reason.