Voter ID terrifies Democrats

[g5000]

Since the democrat assholes make us pass a test, background check & have photo ID to carry a gun. Then perhaps we should do the same for voters.

Another vote from the two-wrongs-must-make-me-Right demographic.

 

[g5000]

Come on man.. every time there's a Dem loss there's voter fraud and we have to count them until we get it right! Just ask Al Franken.

Or Joe Miller of Alaska.

Or Al Gore.

Joe Miller was not a Dem and had won the Rep primary fair and square.
It was the other Rep (can't remember her name) that lost the primary but chose to run a write in campaign.

Lisa Murkowski.

 

[merrill]

When the RINO dominated repub party wants to present the facade that they are concerned about a matter beware.

Remember the voting fraud is in computerized voting by machines such as Diebold. Diebold is a major investor in the RINO dominated repub party. Why should the USA be using Diebold machines? Computers can be directed to vote wrong and you would not know the difference.

This same party wants to give Wall Street trillions of Social Security Insurance tax dollars
so they proceed to paint Social Security Insurance as this evil object that grows the deficit which is a complete lie. Social Security adds nothing to the deficit. Wall Street is a tax dollar moocher.

Medicare Insurance is the most efficient insurance program on the planet and is not free no way jose'. The medical insurance industry sees trillions of tax dollars in the Medicare Insurance program and they want it. Yes the medical insurance industry is a tax dollar moocher.

The Iraq war is based on lies which makes war profiteers and their investors plenty of money. The Bush family are investors in weapons systems and set up deals. Iraq is painted as the evil empire over and over and over again. Trillions of dollars go into war aka one big money hole.

Americans should learn to ask questions and a lot of them when politicians begin selling the taxpayers a line of crap which could be most of the time. Politicians need to be looked upon as uninformed used car sales people until some hard evidence is presented
to substantiate their positions. Talk show hosts do not represent hard evidence across the board.

The fraud is in Diebold voting machines. BS ID cards cannot stop that which the RINO dominated party is well aware. There is no voting fraud of any significance anywhere in the USA except in computers.

Dump the computers!!!

 

[daveman]

Fail, Uncensored. Fail.

Next time.....just stop yourself.

ROFL

You were an idiot, you got smacked down - it happens.

It happens.....and it has happened to me. But.........not this time. Try harder.

I smacked you down. You ignoring the post doesn't mean it's not there.

Because illegals vote for the party who wants to give them citizenship, bypassing the law -- Democrats.

That is ridiculous. Name the politicians who have run on such a platform or have introduced legislation to give anyone citizenship.

New Haven Asks State to Allow Non-Citizens to Vote | NBC Connecticut

In fact, please argue that Democrats have been more generous toward illegal immigrants than Republicans have. Thanks.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty9romTl-KU]Texas Democrat Wants To Extend ObamaCare To Illegal Immigrants - YouTube[/ame]

Democrats to protest immigration crackdowns

Democrats join DOJ suit against Alabama immigration law

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Harry Reid Proposes Bill That Could Stop States From Enforcing Immigration Laws…

Obama Won’t Enforce Existing Immigration Laws - HUMAN EVENTS

Democrats Visit Alabama To Push For End Of Immigration Law

Sanctuary Cities and States Protecting Illegal Aliens in the United States - Undocumented Workers

Hillary Clinton Puts American Families in Danger: 'I will not enforce laws against... -- re> WASHINGTON, May 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Washington, DC: Sanctuary City


Any more stupid requests?

​

 

[g5000]

Voter IDs as a requirement in order to vote are NOT unconstitutional. Eric Holder's opinion is not relivent to the decision. Complain as he might over a box of tissues, the US Justice Department can not overrule a previously made U.S. Supreme Court Decision.

You did not provide a link in your post to the article you quoted about the 6 to 3 decision. Perhaps because the full context actually supports what I have been saying?

I never said voter ID requirements, per se, were unconstitutional. I said that some states have requirements which are overly burdensome and disenfranchise voters. Just because you provided an example of a state that does not have an overly burdensome requirement does not take anythiing away from that. In that same decision, the Supreme Court upheld the overturning of Missouri's voter ID law. That's why I suppose you didn't provide a link.

I also asked for evidence of voter fraud which proves the necessity of voter ID. In the very Supreme Court decision you cited, Justice Stevens said the evidence such fraud was occurring was flimsy at best.

St. Louis Beacon - Supreme Court upholds voter-ID; Missouri's voter-ID still out

Stevens noted that the lower court judge who denied the challenge to the law had cited examples of voter fraud from around the nation, including examples from Missouri and St. Louis. Stevens acknowledged that there was no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana and that the examples from around the country often were overstated. Still, he wrote, "there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters."

So that supports the point I have been making over and over.

I also mentioned earlier in the topic that those who claim all voter ID laws have been upheld are making a false claim. I specifically mentioned Missouri.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. It does not affect the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution in the 2006 decision striking down Missouri's law. In that decision, the state court said Missouri's voter ID law violated the state promise of equal protection and the state constitution's guarantee of the right to vote.

Again, supports my point I have made over and over. Disenfranchisement is actually happening with some voter ID laws, and Missouri's was found to be unconstitutional.

 

[daveman]

Bullshit... you care nothing for the Democratic Process. In fact, the mere word Democracy has you running scared and screaming Commies. What your party WANTS is to have poor people who cannot get to a DMV office easily to give up and not vote.... that's the bottom line.

Go be stupid somewhere else. If you truly supported democracy, you'd believe in "one person, one vote".

I do... why don't you?

I do indeed. What I don't support is "one person, many votes" and "one dead person, one vote" and "one illegal alien, one vote".

 

[daveman]

Voter IDs as a requirement in order to vote are NOT unconstitutional. Eric Holder's opinion is not relivent to the decision. Complain as he might over a box of tissues, the US Justice Department can not overrule a previously made U.S. Supreme Court Decision.

You did not provide a link in your post to the article you quoted about the 6 to 3 decision. Perhaps because the full context actually supports what I have been saying?

I never said voter ID requirements, per se, were unconstitutional. I said that some states have requirements which are overly burdensome and disenfranchise voters. Just because you provided an example of a state that does not have an overly burdensome requirement does not take anythiing away from that.

I also asked for evidence of voter fraud which proves the necessity of voter ID. In the very Supreme Court decision you cited, Justice Stevens said the evidence such fraud was occurring was flimsy at best.

St. Louis Beacon - Supreme Court upholds voter-ID; Missouri's voter-ID still out

Stevens noted that the lower court judge who denied the challenge to the law had cited examples of voter fraud from around the nation, including examples from Missouri and St. Louis. Stevens acknowledged that there was no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana and that the examples from around the country often were overstated. Still, he wrote, "there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters."

So that supports the point I have been making over and over.

I also mentioned earlier in the topic that those who claim all voter ID laws have been upheld are making a false claim. I specifically mentioned Missouri.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. It does not affect the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution in the 2006 decision striking down Missouri's law. In that decision, the state court said Missouri's voter ID law violated the state promise of equal protection and the state constitution's guarantee of the right to vote.

Again, supports my point I have made over and over. Disenfranchisement is actually happening with some voter ID laws.

Minnesota Leads the Nation in Voter Fraud Convictions -- ST. PAUL, Minn., Oct. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

 

[g5000]

Minnesota Leads the Nation in Voter Fraud Convictions -- ST. PAUL, Minn., Oct. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Do you read your own links?

"The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system," said Davis. "Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes.

Geez. That's twice now you have accidentally supported my position.

 

[Steelplate]

Go be stupid somewhere else. If you truly supported democracy, you'd believe in "one person, one vote".

I do... why don't you?

I do indeed. What I don't support is "one person, many votes" and "one dead person, one vote" and "one illegal alien, one vote".

Show me where it's happening to the point where it's a problem... or is 1% too much for you... enough to **** over a certain group of citizens... that just HAPPEN to be people you know will never vote your way? I find that dubious as hell.

It's kind of like the "tort reform" thing in the health care law.... that was one thing that Republipukes kept harping on... but the truth was... frivolous lawsuits aren't even a nuisance in the big picture.

The truth is... you think that only what you call the MSM plays political games... when in fact, your boys do it too...and they do it better and more often, because people like you are too ******* stupid to question it... you just nod your head, drool and probably masturbate to AM radiio.

 

[daveman]

Minnesota Leads the Nation in Voter Fraud Convictions -- ST. PAUL, Minn., Oct. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Do you read your own links?

"The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system," said Davis. "Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes.

Geez. That's twice now you have accidentally supported my position.

And at least twice now you've failed to understand the point.

You can have 100% clean voter rolls all day long...but without showing ID at the poll, you don't know if the person casting the vote is the person registered.

 

[Lakhota]

you just nod your head, drool and probably masturbate to AM radiio.

I'll never get that image out of my mind. You've added an entirely new dimension to Hate Radio. Thank you.

 

[g5000]

So let's recap.

1) In the real world, real citizens who are registered voters have been disenfranchised by some overly burdensome voter ID laws. Both the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court have supported this fact.

2) No one, anywhere, has provided evidence of fraud which is so prevalent as to affect the outcome of elections which cannot be prevented by fixing the existing voter registration process. Again, the Supreme Court admits this.

3) Therefore, no one is able to provide evidence that the disenfranchising of eligible voters is necessary.

 

[daveman]

I do... why don't you?

I do indeed. What I don't support is "one person, many votes" and "one dead person, one vote" and "one illegal alien, one vote".

Show me where it's happening to the point where it's a problem... or is 1% too much for you... enough to **** over a certain group of citizens... that just HAPPEN to be people you know will never vote your way? I find that dubious as hell.

It's kind of like the "tort reform" thing in the health care law.... that was one thing that Republipukes kept harping on... but the truth was... frivolous lawsuits aren't even a nuisance in the big picture.

The truth is... you think that only what you call the MSM plays political games... when in fact, your boys do it too...and they do it better and more often, because people like you are too ******* stupid to question it... you just nod your head, drool and probably masturbate to AM radiio.

Go suck Soros' ass some more.

What you and your fellow retards are incapable of understanding is that one fraudulent vote cancels out one legal vote. And regardless of for whom the vote is cast, I oppose it.

You excuse it, because the fraudulent vote goes for Democrats and disenfranchises a GOP voter.

You don't give a **** about democracy. Party before country. Every time.

 

[daveman]

you just nod your head, drool and probably masturbate to AM radiio.

I'll never get that image out of my mind. You've added an entirely new dimension to Hate Radio. Thank you.

You just nod your head, drool and probably masturbate to MediaMatters.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Voter IDs as a requirement in order to vote are NOT unconstitutional. Eric Holder's opinion is not relivent to the decision. Complain as he might over a box of tissues, the US Justice Department can not overrule a previously made U.S. Supreme Court Decision.

You did not provide a link in your post to the article you quoted about the 6 to 3 decision. Perhaps because the full context actually supports what I have been saying?

I never said voter ID requirements, per se, were unconstitutional. I said that some states have requirements which are overly burdensome and disenfranchise voters. Just because you provided an example of a state that does not have an overly burdensome requirement does not take anythiing away from that.

I also asked for evidence of voter fraud which proves the necessity of voter ID. In the very Supreme Court decision you cited, Justice Stevens said the evidence such fraud was occurring was flimsy at best.

St. Louis Beacon - Supreme Court upholds voter-ID; Missouri's voter-ID still out


So that supports the point I have been making over and over.

I also mentioned earlier in the topic that those who claim all voter ID laws have been upheld are making a false claim. I specifically mentioned Missouri.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. It does not affect the Missouri Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution in the 2006 decision striking down Missouri's law. In that decision, the state court said Missouri's voter ID law violated the state promise of equal protection and the state constitution's guarantee of the right to vote.

Again, supports my point I have made over and over. Disenfranchisement is actually happening with some voter ID laws.

Minnesota Leads the Nation in Voter Fraud Convictions -- ST. PAUL, Minn., Oct. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

ROTFLMFAO, the link to Voter Fraud!!!!!!

Election Integrity Watch » Home

 

[Steelplate]

So let's recap.

1) In the real world, real citizens who are registered voters have been disenfranchised by some overly burdensome voter ID laws. Both the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court have supported this fact.

2) No one, anywhere, has provided evidence of fraud which is so prevalent as to affect the outcome of elections which cannot be prevented by fixing the existing voter registration process. Again, the Supreme Court admits this.

3) Therefore, no one is able to provide evidence that the disenfranchising of eligible voters is necessary.

C'mon man... Slimebeckibaugh Savage told them so..... with their criticisms.... who needs proof?

 

[g5000]

Minnesota Leads the Nation in Voter Fraud Convictions -- ST. PAUL, Minn., Oct. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Do you read your own links?

"The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system," said Davis. "Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes.

Geez. That's twice now you have accidentally supported my position.

And at least twice now you've failed to understand the point.

I understand you are providing links which don't prove a thing except that our voter registration process is broken.

So why you are posting them when they have nothing to do with needing a voter ID requirement is beyond me.

 

[daveman]

So let's recap.

1) In the real world, real citizens who are registered voters have been disenfranchised by some overly burdensome voter ID laws. Both the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court have supported this fact.

2) No one, anywhere, has provided evidence of fraud which is so prevalent as to affect the outcome of elections which cannot be prevented by fixing the existing voter registration process. Again, the Supreme Court admits this.

3) Therefore, no one is able to provide evidence that the disenfranchising of eligible voters is necessary.

I repeat: You can have 100% clean voter rolls, but without presenting ID at the polls, you can't know that the person who's voting is the person who registered.

You leftists are so transparent.

 

[saveliberty]

So let's recap.

1) In the real world, real citizens who are registered voters have been disenfranchised by some overly burdensome voter ID laws. Both the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court have supported this fact.

2) No one, anywhere, has provided evidence of fraud which is so prevalent as to affect the outcome of elections which cannot be prevented by fixing the existing voter registration process. Again, the Supreme Court admits this.

3) Therefore, no one is able to provide evidence that the disenfranchising of eligible voters is necessary.

ST. PAUL, Minn., Oct. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Minnesota Majority today released a report on voter fraud convictions to date stemming from Minnesota's 2008 general election. The report finds that 113 individuals who voted illegally in the 2008 election have been convicted of the crime, "ineligible voter knowingly votes" under Minnesota Statute 201.014.

Minnesota Leads the Nation in Voter Fraud Convictions - Yahoo! News

Since you asked...

That is just ONE state genius.

 

[g5000]

If a person is able to get over the registration hurdle, getting over some stupid voter ID hurdle will be cake.

You guys are focusing on the wrong solution to the problem!