Rand Paul;Disgusting jellyfish SLAMS voter ID law as "OFFENSIVE"

[Jughead]

Actually, no. They are just one of the loudest groups. They are the primary reason our current president is a democrat and will probably be the reason our next president will be as well. In fact, the folks who call themselves conservatives are not even vaguely conservative. What they are is just a remake of the old Dixie democrats.

Actually, yes.

Americans continue to be more likely to identify as conservatives (38%) than as liberals (23%)

Conservatives Largest Ideological Group in US - Gallup

You're math needs work. Even accepting your numbers that only comes to 61%, which puts 39% identifying with neither. The largest voting block of the group. If you push a candidate too far in either direction, that block goes the other way. Which is why despite a mediocre showing on the part of Obama for the first term, he still won.

But the numbers aren't really showing the picture. While I identify myself as conservative I do not identify with that portion of conservatives I think of as "bat-shit crazy". So a candidate trying to maintain their "bat-shit crazy" base is likely to push someone like me to the other candidate. While I may not agree with that candidate's positions on most things, at least he isn't either insane or toadying to the insane.

Neither the conservatives nor the liberals are monolithic. Thinking of them as such is how you lose elections.

Gallup is reliable. The figures don't lie.

 

[g5000]

Do you need to show ID to get Obamacare? How about a welfare check? SNAP? Section 8?

You establish your eligibility to vote at the time you REGISTER TO VOTE.

 

[Jughead]

Ted Cruz isn't eligible to run. He isn't a natural born citizen.

See link ...

Cruz is Natural Born Citizen

He was a Canadian until a few months ago

He needs to listen to some Springsteen "Born in the USA"

Even if he were still a dual citizen, which he is not, there is no law preventing a President from having dual citizenship. In fact several Presidents had dual citizenship during their Presidency. James Buchanan was one.

I personally would have nothing against a sitting President having American/British or American/German citizenship for instance.

 

[Boss]

After a voter registration card is filled out, it is the responsibility of the county registrar to confirm the eligibility of that voter. They also keep a signature on file. Been working for over 200 years

You making NO sense. How can ANYTHING be confirmed if there is no ID required? The county registrar cannot examine thousands of signatures and determine who is and isn't legitimate.

I doubt there is a single state where ID is not required and has not been required for many, many years. Where the problems have been arising is in the picking and choosing process. Things like removing a student ID from the list and adding a CCW permit to it. A lot of these changes are specifically directed at classes of people, to make it easier for some and harder for others.

Huh? Perhaps you are so dysfunctional that you're not actually following the debate, but we are discussing the issue of voter ID. The stated argument from the left seem to be... don't worry about it, the county registrar makes sure the identities are confirmed to your revelation that we needn't worry about voter ID because most all states require IDs.

No one... and I mean NO ONE... has ever suggested that we eliminate student IDs and require CCW permits to vote. This is the most insane thing I've read in a while here. All that I have suggested is that it should be the law of the land that voters need to show some form of identification to confirm their identity before voting. We don't put names on ballots, there is no way to determine who a ballot belongs to after it has been cast. We currently have a situation where someone can literally walk into a voting precinct and demand a ballot without ANY identification, and if they are not permitted to vote, they can complain of being disenfranchised. This has got to stop!

 

[PratchettFan]

You making NO sense. How can ANYTHING be confirmed if there is no ID required? The county registrar cannot examine thousands of signatures and determine who is and isn't legitimate.

I doubt there is a single state where ID is not required and has not been required for many, many years. Where the problems have been arising is in the picking and choosing process. Things like removing a student ID from the list and adding a CCW permit to it. A lot of these changes are specifically directed at classes of people, to make it easier for some and harder for others.

Huh? Perhaps you are so dysfunctional that you're not actually following the debate, but we are discussing the issue of voter ID. The stated argument from the left seem to be... don't worry about it, the county registrar makes sure the identities are confirmed to your revelation that we needn't worry about voter ID because most all states require IDs.

No one... and I mean NO ONE... has ever suggested that we eliminate student IDs and require CCW permits to vote. This is the most insane thing I've read in a while here. All that I have suggested is that it should be the law of the land that voters need to show some form of identification to confirm their identity before voting. We don't put names on ballots, there is no way to determine who a ballot belongs to after it has been cast. We currently have a situation where someone can literally walk into a voting precinct and demand a ballot without ANY identification, and if they are not permitted to vote, they can complain of being disenfranchised. This has got to stop!

Uh huh. Perhaps you should take a second to research something before responding.

North Carolina Voter ID Law Targets College Students

Texans Allowed To Show Gun Permits But Not Student IDs At Voting Booth

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

After a voter registration card is filled out, it is the responsibility of the county registrar to confirm the eligibility of that voter. They also keep a signature on file. Been working for over 200 years

You making NO sense. How can ANYTHING be confirmed if there is no ID required? The county registrar cannot examine thousands of signatures and determine who is and isn't legitimate.

You could not be any more wrong. They cannot examine thousands of signatures? How widespread do you honestly believe voter fraud to be?



The Truth About Voter Fraud
Justin Levitt
November 9, 2007

Allegations of election-related fraud make for enticing press. Many Americans remember vivid stories of voting improprieties in Chicagoland, or the suspiciously sudden appearance of LBJ's alphabetized ballot box in Texas, or Governor Earl Long's quip: "When I die, I want to be buried in Louisiana, so I can stay active in politics." Voter fraud, in particular, has the feel of a bank heist caper: roundly condemned but technically fascinating, and sufficiently lurid to grab and hold headlines. Perhaps because these stories are dramatic, voter fraud makes a popular scapegoat. In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up - when any exists - is not usually deemed newsworthy....

The Truth About Voter Fraud | Brennan Center for Justice


Most voters who support voter ID laws, are ignorant to the fact they are actually helping to suppress votes potential democrats.

They firmly believe that the problem is wide spread and that millions of dollars need to be spent in order to combat this scourge.

The truth of the matter is that almost every piece of legislation is passed by the GOP in an effort to curb the trend of more and more new voters registering as democrats!

How does making them show ID suppress democrat votes?


State photo ID restrictions disproportionately affect African Americans, Latinos, young voters, people over 65 and people with disabilities. Advancement Project studies show that 11 percent of eligible voters, or about 21 million people, don’t have updated, state-issued photo IDs: 25 percent of African Americans, 15 percent of those earning less than $35,000, 18 percent of citizens age 65 or older and 20 percent of voters age 18 to 29.

The push for photo ID laws and other restrictions is largely championed by the GOP and conservative groups. Record rates of voter registration and turnout among young and minority voters in 2008 affected federal races across the nation, as about two-thirds of new voters registered as Democrats in the 29 states that record party affiliation. The 2010 midterms put more conservatives in office who want to combat this trend. The right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council, for example, drafted and promoted photo ID legislation that was introduced in more than 30 states.

Five myths about voter fraud - The Washington Post

According to George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton, a former member of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, “a photo ID requirement would prevent over 1,000 legitimate votes (perhaps over 10,000 legitimate votes) for every single improper vote prevented.”

Good idea, GOP! If you cannot honestly win an election, rig the rules to favor your party!

Nice.

 

[S.J.]

Liberals like to use the argument "Voter ID won't stop voter fraud". They make arguments about how it can't stop absentee ballot fraud or some other angle people find to cheat a little and vote 2 or 3 times. So, because there isn't ONE law that will GUARANTEE the end of voter fraud, we shouldn't pass ANY laws. If this law or that law can't stop 100% of the fraud, it's useless, even though it might stop 30% of it.

The fact is that Democrats don't want ANY voter fraud prevention laws passed because THEY are the ones who benefit from voter fraud. THEY are the ones committing it. There could be no other reason.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Liberals like to use the argument "Voter ID won't stop voter fraud". They make arguments about how it can't stop absentee ballot fraud or some other angle people find to cheat a little and vote 2 or 3 times. So, because there isn't ONE law that will GUARANTEE the end of voter fraud, we shouldn't pass ANY laws. If this law or that law can't stop 100% of the fraud, it's useless, even though it might stop 30% of it.

The fact is that Democrats don't want ANY voter fraud prevention laws passed because THEY are the ones who benefit from voter fraud. THEY are the ones committing it. There could be no other reason.

No one has ever benefited from "voter fraud." It's too rare to actually sway an election.

When you are talking about less than one hundred votes in any national election, you cannot say with a straight face that "democrats benefit" when most of the time, it's not people casting a false vote, but the main culprit being felons who are ineligible who already have ID in the first place.

The cost of supplying voters in every state with free ID would run into hundreds of millions of dollars! For what? A few dozen fake votes???

That's not smart or cost effective. We should spend money on issues where our money will actually make a difference.

Not to help the GOP win elections.


Quit being a lackey.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals like to use the argument "Voter ID won't stop voter fraud". They make arguments about how it can't stop absentee ballot fraud or some other angle people find to cheat a little and vote 2 or 3 times. So, because there isn't ONE law that will GUARANTEE the end of voter fraud, we shouldn't pass ANY laws. If this law or that law can't stop 100% of the fraud, it's useless, even though it might stop 30% of it.

The fact is that Democrats don't want ANY voter fraud prevention laws passed because THEY are the ones who benefit from voter fraud. THEY are the ones committing it. There could be no other reason.

No.

'Liberals' correctly understand that voter ID laws are un-Constitutional, that 'fraud' is virtually nonexistent, and consequently such laws manifest an undue burden to the fundamental right to vote, as the courts have affirmed, Pennsylvania being an example:

“[The Voter ID Law is] invalid and unconstitutional on its face as the provision and issuance of compliant identification does not comport with liberal access and unreasonably burdens the right to vote.”

Commonwealth Court Rules PA Voter ID Law Unconstitutional

 

[Boss]

After a voter registration card is filled out, it is the responsibility of the county registrar to confirm the eligibility of that voter. They also keep a signature on file. Been working for over 200 years

You making NO sense. How can ANYTHING be confirmed if there is no ID required? The county registrar cannot examine thousands of signatures and determine who is and isn't legitimate.

You could not be any more wrong. They cannot examine thousands of signatures? How widespread do you honestly believe voter fraud to be?

County registrars are not trained in handwriting analysis and don't have a crime lab. Besides, even if they did examine a signature and determine a mismatch, what then? The ballots have no association with who cast them, so how do they eliminate the illegitimate ballot? You are simply spewing a bunch of silly nonsense, as if none of us know how the voting process works.

I believe voter fraud is VERY widespread! I think there are MILLIONS of fraudulent votes cast and counted in every national election. I think there are illegal aliens voting. I think people are voting for dead relatives. I think there are people who pride themselves on how many times they managed to vote on election day.

 

[PratchettFan]

You making NO sense. How can ANYTHING be confirmed if there is no ID required? The county registrar cannot examine thousands of signatures and determine who is and isn't legitimate.

You could not be any more wrong. They cannot examine thousands of signatures? How widespread do you honestly believe voter fraud to be?

County registrars are not trained in handwriting analysis and don't have a crime lab. Besides, even if they did examine a signature and determine a mismatch, what then? The ballots have no association with who cast them, so how do they eliminate the illegitimate ballot? You are simply spewing a bunch of silly nonsense, as if none of us know how the voting process works.

I believe voter fraud is VERY widespread! I think there are MILLIONS of fraudulent votes cast and counted in every national election. I think there are illegal aliens voting. I think people are voting for dead relatives. I think there are people who pride themselves on how many times they managed to vote on election day.

You are free to think anything you like. However, if we are going to place hurdles to the voting process it should be based on more than just what you think. Do you have any evidence to support what you think?

 

[S.J.]

Liberals like to use the argument "Voter ID won't stop voter fraud". They make arguments about how it can't stop absentee ballot fraud or some other angle people find to cheat a little and vote 2 or 3 times. So, because there isn't ONE law that will GUARANTEE the end of voter fraud, we shouldn't pass ANY laws. If this law or that law can't stop 100% of the fraud, it's useless, even though it might stop 30% of it.

The fact is that Democrats don't want ANY voter fraud prevention laws passed because THEY are the ones who benefit from voter fraud. THEY are the ones committing it. There could be no other reason.

No one has ever benefited from "voter fraud." It's too rare to actually sway an election.

When you are talking about less than one hundred votes in any national election, you cannot say with a straight face that "democrats benefit" when most of the time, it's not people casting a false vote, but the main culprit being felons who are ineligible who already have ID in the first place.

The cost of supplying voters in every state with free ID would run into hundreds of millions of dollars! For what? A few dozen fake votes???

That's not smart or cost effective. We should spend money on issues where our money will actually make a difference.

Not to help the GOP win elections.


Quit being a lackey.

Thanks for confirming what I just said, hack.

 

[S.J.]

Liberals like to use the argument "Voter ID won't stop voter fraud". They make arguments about how it can't stop absentee ballot fraud or some other angle people find to cheat a little and vote 2 or 3 times. So, because there isn't ONE law that will GUARANTEE the end of voter fraud, we shouldn't pass ANY laws. If this law or that law can't stop 100% of the fraud, it's useless, even though it might stop 30% of it.

The fact is that Democrats don't want ANY voter fraud prevention laws passed because THEY are the ones who benefit from voter fraud. THEY are the ones committing it. There could be no other reason.

No.

'Liberals' correctly understand that voter ID laws are un-Constitutional, that 'fraud' is virtually nonexistent, and consequently such laws manifest an undue burden to the fundamental right to vote, as the courts have affirmed, Pennsylvania being an example:

“[The Voter ID Law is] invalid and unconstitutional on its face as the provision and issuance of compliant identification does not comport with liberal access and unreasonably burdens the right to vote.”

Commonwealth Court Rules PA Voter ID Law Unconstitutional

Keep spewing the talking points, hack.