Dems losing mind over new Voter ID laws...

[MattCary]

... doesn't this show they are deeply invested in voting without ID?

Frankly I don't understand. You can't cash a check, buy alcohol or tobacco without an ID, why should you be able to vote without it?

[hipower]

Because if you have to prove who you are, you might have to prove citizenship, maybe not get to vote more than once, or heaven forbid, not be able to vote for the dead.

[Guest lostpass]

voter fraud is very rare. The dems are afraid that this will disenfranchise poor folks. The republicans think that his will keep minorities from voting.

The rub is the the people both parties are worried about vote in such low numbers that it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

[Guest pfries]

[MattCary]

voter fraud is very rare. The dems are afraid that this will disenfranchise poor folks. The republicans think that his will keep minorities from voting.

The rub is the the people both parties are worried about vote in such low numbers that it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

I'm so tired of this pathetic rhetoric. Dems are for the poor, blah blah blah; Repubs are EVIL. Give me a break. A Republican abolished slavery and gave them the vote, I guess Abraham didn't get the memo?

If you lean left and wish to participate, try really, REALLY hard to limit your typical rhetoric and give a fact or two a chance.

How does having to prove who you are keep anyone from legally voting?

[Guest pfries]

I actually look forward to showing my HCP as ID for this

[MattCary]

To follow up on the Republicans try to keep minorities from voting: Jesse Jackson filed a lawsuit in Florida following the 2000 election fiasco alleging voter disenfranchisement, three people testified.

They all voted.

No one testified who was prevented from voting. Couldn't find one. Jesse was so embarrassed, he had himself arrested in Oklahoma so he didn't have to be there.

[analog_kidd]

I like the proceedure they have in the MIddle East, where you dip a finger in ink after voting. If you have ink on your finger, you don't get to vote again.

[QuietDan]

voter fraud is very rare.

Unfortunately, voter fraud is NOT very rare.

There are any number of cases available on the web that describe just how prevalent voter fraud is, and it's scary.

A recent story involving the county including Houston, Texas: A nonprofit group was given access to the voter database, and was just searching for those addresses that had . . . ten or more registered voters at one address. In the county, they found THOUSANDS. Statistically, this is very odd. VERY VERY ODD. Then, the nonprofit folks went to the various addresses that had ten or more voters, and found in many cases, one- and two-bedroom homes that couldn't possibly have that many people living at them, even allowing for poverty or other reasons. It all turned into a big scandal with a lot of recriminations tossed back and forth.

To top it all off, prior to a major primary election, the Houston-area warehouse that stored all the voting machines for the county and multiple city jurisdictions BURNED TO THE GROUND in a general alarm fire. It turned into a huge scamble just to get enough voting machines to hold the election, and there wasn't enough time to properly investigate the fraud allegations and a lot of the evidence BURNED UP IN THE FIRE.

This describes ONLY ONE of the MULTIPLE instances of voter fraud across the country, available for all to see who choose to look.

Just for starters:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Harris-County-officials-scramble-after-voting-1695734.php

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2010/08/30/suspicious-fire-ignites-houston-voting-fraud-scandal/

And there's more on this in Houston. And, there's more across the country.

It is beyond ridiculous to suggest anything other than VOTER FRAUD IS VERY VERY REAL.

Cry for our Nation.

Edited December 15, 2011 by QuietDan

[DWARREN123]

ID is required for so many less important things, I think it should required for voting. Getting a ID is not hard and would put some type of hardship on so few folks that it is not a viable excuse.

[lowbud]

I don't understand how requireing a valid state photo ID is a hardship. You shouldn't be able to collect, cash, register, apply,

for anything without one, PERIOD!. It's just more smoke and mirror bull**** and yet another reason why this country is falling apart and going broke.

[Spook]

I'm so tired of this pathetic rhetoric. Dems are for the poor, blah blah blah; Repubs are EVIL. Give me a break. A Republican abolished slavery and gave them the vote, I guess Abraham didn't get the memo?

If you lean left and wish to participate, try really, REALLY hard to limit your typical rhetoric and give a fact or two a chance.

How does having to prove who you are keep anyone from legally voting?

+1 .... also, anyone remember ACORN? Getting an ID is as easy as visiting your DMV in most states. That doesn't seem too onerous to me.

[Guest bkelm18]

I'm so tired of this pathetic rhetoric. Dems are for the poor, blah blah blah; Repubs are EVIL. Give me a break. A Republican abolished slavery and gave them the vote, I guess Abraham didn't get the memo?

If you lean left and wish to participate, try really, REALLY hard to limit your typical rhetoric and give a fact or two a chance.

How does having to prove who you are keep anyone from legally voting?

Pretty sure you completely misinterpreted what he was saying. Either way, Lincoln was attempting to preserve the union when he "abolished" slavery. He didn't exactly do it out of compassion for minorities. I believe he said so himself that if he could preserve slavery and the union, he would do so. So really, trying to use a factoid from a century and a half ago (from a man who was considered a liberal in his time) that's been warped by history to somehow justify the Republican party of today is the savior of liberty and freedom, is just a little skewed.

Edited December 15, 2011 by bkelm18

[JayC]

voter fraud is very rare. The dems are afraid that this will disenfranchise poor folks. The republicans think that his will keep minorities from voting.

The rub is the the people both parties are worried about vote in such low numbers that it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

Says who?

Math would seem to argue with you... there are some VERY strange anomaly's in the voting records in a number of states... enough to push the state towards one Senator or Presidential candidate or another.

Is it voter fraud? I'm not sure... but to sure looks funny... And there are cases of voter fraud all the time which are proven, the head of the IN Democratic Party just resigned this week over a voter fraud case in my home town of South Bend, IN involving the election of President Obama delegates in 2008.

[JayC]

Pretty sure you completely misinterpreted what he was saying. Either way, Lincoln was attempting to preserve the union when he abolished slavery. He didn't exactly do it out of compassion for minorities. I believe he said so himself that if he could preserve slavery and the union, he would do so. So really, trying to use a factoid from a century and a half ago (from a man who was considered a liberal in his time) that's been warped by history to somehow justify the Republican party of today is the savior of liberty and freedom, is just a little skewed.

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery, he allowed slaves freedom in occupied territory (ie the south), there were slaves legally in the north when he died. It was an attempt to get slaves to rise up in the south, and nothing to do with Freedom.

Lincoln was just about the worse President this nation has ever seen, a tyrant and a despot... We'd do well to try and distance ourselves from Lincoln as a party.

[Guest bkelm18]

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery, he allowed slaves freedom in occupied territory (ie the south), there were slaves legally in the north when he died. It was an attempt to get slaves to rise up in the south, and nothing to do with Freedom.

Yes I know. I shoulda put abolished in quotes since that's what we're taught in schools nowadays anyway.

[QuietDan]

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery, he allowed slaves freedom in occupied territory (ie the south), there were slaves legally in the north when he died. It was an attempt to get slaves to rise up in the south, and nothing to do with Freedom.

Lincoln was just about the worse President this nation has ever seen, a tyrant and a despot... We'd do well to try and distance ourselves from Lincoln as a party.

Wrong. Just . . . Wrong. And Revisionist.

President Lincoln didn't have the executive power in the North to free the slaves; it couldn't be done by the executive, i.e. the President. It had to be accomplished by the legislature, i.e. the Congress.

However, the South was in Rebellion, and as Commander in Chief, Lincoln, under military rules, with an Executive Order, could Emancipate the slaves.

The main point being, Lincoln, for the times, was the best President for the North . . . and the South. John Wilkes Booth did an incredible disservice for the South when he assassinated President Lincoln. The Union administration of the South after President Lincoln's death was much harsher than President Lincoln had planned.

REGARDLESS, to this day, and across this nation, there are unbelievable levels of voter fraud in this country. To deny it is to be naive, or complicit.

[RobertNashville]

Requiring a person to have a government issued photo ID to prove "who" they are when they go to cast their vote is a "hardship" only in the fevered minds of liberals who are frantically searching for plauasible (sounding) reasons to strike down such laws. The reasons they've presented are so feeble that they are ridiculous on their face - I have a couple of good Democrat friends who have been spouting this stuff at me and I'm having a difficult time believing that even they believe what they are saying.

The one thing that Democrats/liberals can't allow themselves to admit is that they WANT people to vote who can't legally vote (felons, illegal aliens, etc) because they know that for the most part, these people vote Democrat.

Personally, it's my belief that if a person is on ANY type of government assistance (Welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) and/or anyone who doesn't actually PAY federal income taxes shouldn't be able to vote...anybody getting government largess shouldn't be able to influence, by virtue of their vote, how much they get! If you "pay into" the system then you should have a right to vote, if you don't then you shouldn't have the right to vote.

[Steelharp]

Back to the topic: "Losing minds?" How can one lose something that one doesn't have?

Regardless of aisle side, I think anyone that sees a problem with having a proper ID for things like voting only has a problem because it might help eliminate an improper activity that they must support.

[TMF]

Back to the topic: "Losing minds?" How can one lose something that one doesn't have?

Regardless of aisle side, I think anyone that sees a problem with having a proper ID for things like voting only has a problem because it might help eliminate an improper activity that they must support.

Bringing logic to an illogical argument is like trying to teach a 3 year old quantum physics.

[Steelharp]

Bringing logic to an illogical argument is like trying to teach a 3 year old quantum physics.

Thanks! (I think... )

[Guest pfries]

Personally, it's my belief that if a person is on ANY type of government assistance (Welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) and/or anyone who doesn't actually PAY federal income taxes shouldn't be able to vote...anybody getting government largess shouldn't be able to influence, by virtue of their vote, how much they get! If you "pay into" the system then you should have a right to vote, if you don't then you shouldn't have the right to vote.

Wow

So what about me, the plant I worked at closed, I was a Production Manager so during my job hunting I am collecting unemployment and receiving food stamps, I will still have paid taxes I will not get back at the end of the year? I have only collected Unemployment one other time in my life and that was a seasonal lay off. Therefore, do I need to lose my right to vote? I have worked and paid taxes my entire life; I have had very few years that I got back any large amount, yes when I was just starting my family and purchased my first home I hit zero a few times and qualified for “extra child tax credits” and such but this has not been the norm.

[RobertNashville]

Wow

So what about me, the plant I worked at closed, I was a Production Manager so during my job hunting I am collecting unemployment and receiving food stamps, I will still have paid taxes I will not get back at the end of the year? I have only collected Unemployment one other time in my life and that was a seasonal lay off. Therefore, do I need to lose my right to vote? I have worked and paid taxes my entire life; I have had very few years that I got back any large amount, yes when I was just starting my family and purchased my first home I hit zero a few times and qualified for “extra child tax credits†and such but this has not been the norm.

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you - I know that a lot of folks are on public assistance (of some kind) through no fault of their own. I freely admit that my suggestion many seem harsh; even will be harsh on some. I'll also freely admit that I haven't thought through all the finer points of how, exactly, such restrictions would be put into place.

That said, I do believe in the concept that if you are getting some sort of direct aid from the government and/or if, when the dust settles, you aren't actually paying federal income taxes (i.e. you are getting welfare through tax "refunds" of taxes you never paid in the first place) then you shouldn't be able to vote while getting that assistance.

It's pretty simple in my mind (which is necessary for me)...if you aren't helping to pay the bills (i.e. paying income taxes) then you shouldn't get a say in who the bills are paid to or how much. While times were different, I think that's at least somewhat in line with how our founders looked at things as well.

[Guest pfries]

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you - I know that a lot of folks are on public assistance (of some kind) through no fault of their own. I freely admit that my suggestion many seem harsh; even will be harsh on some. I'll also freely admit that I haven't thought through all the finer points of how, exactly, such restrictions would be put into place.

That said, I do believe in the concept that if you are getting some sort of direct aid from the government and/or if, when the dust settles, you aren't actually paying federal income taxes (i.e. you are getting welfare through tax "refunds" of taxes you never paid in the first place) then you shouldn't be able to vote while getting that assistance.

It's pretty simple in my mind (which is necessary for me)...if you aren't helping to pay the bills (i.e. paying income taxes) then you shouldn't get a say in who the bills are paid to or how much. While times were different, I think that's at least somewhat in line with how our founders looked at things as well.

I can fully agree there, the programs are supposed to be in place to help you get back on your feet when SHTF, not to live and mooch off. I for one would love to see drug testing as a requirement for assistance, I do not believe extensions are needed; I am even starting to apply for jobs that would put me as under employed but family first in my book. I learned a long time ago how destructive and how much a hindrance pride can be.

[MattCary]

I think the concept Robert is referring to, and what I "liked" his post about is that if you are a perpetual drag on the country, when you are perfectly capable of providing for yourself, you shouldn't be able to vote for folks that increase your take from the government teat.

The problem is 47% of the country pays no Federal Income tax. When that number hits 51% our country is finished as we know it.

Someone on TGO has the signature that sums it up: "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." - Alexis de Tocqueville

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." - Unknown