Photo ID's?

haymarket · Mar 12, 2012

beerftw said:
you are the ones arguing that changing the law disefranchises voters not me,im pretty sure you need to present data,im arguing to prevent possible fraud,which needs no data,you are advocating keeping it the same on the idea it prevents voters,yet no logical proof has been presented????????????????????????

NO. I am arguing that; you have not presented any actual data to warrant the acceptance of your solution.

Do you have any to present on actual voter fraud?

AdamT · Mar 12, 2012

muciti said:
Please show me where I said perish.

If someone has no idea how are they surviving? They can't get a job, or even cash welfare checks. Where are they getting money to eat? Crime? If you are not responsible enough to take care of yourself, then you probably shouldnt be voting. I know that sounds harsh but it is true. Getting an ID card is so insanely simple. It is not a hard requirement. You want to vote, you show that you are eligible. Why is that a problem? What is wrong with someone showing that they are eligible to vote in order to vote. Furthermore, in order to be eligible to vote you have to register to vote. And when you register to vote you have to show ID. So obviously these people have one! What is the problem with showing it? The only reason i can think of that people want to allow voter fraud is because it benefits them.

It isn't a question of having NO ID -- it's a question of not having the specific type of ID that these states are requiring.

Read through the fact section of the NAACP complaint if you think it's always so simple to get the required ID. It isn't always so simple. And if you're going to make peple jump through hoops to exercise their right to vote, you better have a damned good reason for doing so. And I'm still waiting for even one example that suggests there's any reason, let alone a good one.

AdamT · Mar 12, 2012

Jack Webb said:
View attachment 67123955

"At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote."

Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights

Voting rights in the United States

The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the US Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots [2]

A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[3]

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that the franchise cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications.

This quote is taken from the book, Somebody's Gotta Say It by Neal Boortz.

View attachment 67123957

You may not like it, but it's true. The Constitution only protects you from being wrongly discriminated against during the process. It does NOT give anyone the "RIGHT" to vote.

States may deny the "right to vote." It's totally up to them.

"The fact that the state in which you reside even permits you to vote for electors is purely a matter of legislative grace."

I hate to break it to you, bub, but the Supreme Court has held NUMEROUS times that there is a constitutional right to vote. There is some confusion as to whether it is a fundemental right, but there is no question that it is a right.

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

haymarket said:
NO. I am arguing that; you have not presented any actual data to warrant the acceptance of your solution.

Do you have any to present on actual voter fraud?

i never once said voter fraud was evident,but liberals said it doesnt exist therefore you liberals are responsible,i swear your like someone who wrecks into a wrecked car then argues for six hours how it moved infront of you,man up and shoow your evidence and quit running around my questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MKULTRABOY · Mar 12, 2012

beerftw said:
i never once said voter fraud was evident,but liberals said it doesnt exist therefore you liberals are responsible,i swear your like someone who wrecks into a wrecked car then argues for six hours how it moved infront of you,man up and shoow your evidence and quit running around my questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are liberals responsible to prove that something doesn't exist when it is the Right stating falsely that it does from the beginning.

NAKED N00B · Mar 12, 2012

beerftw said:
you are the ones arguing that changing the law disefranchises voters not me,im pretty sure you need to present data,im arguing to prevent possible fraud,which needs no data,you are advocating keeping it the same on the idea it prevents voters,yet no logical proof has been presented????????????????????????

There are two things you could possibly saying in this post.

1. You think that regulation should be imposed as long as the intention is good unless the opposing side can empirically and unequivocally prove it is wrong. In this case, you support just about all regulation, including things like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.

2. You're the typical hypocritical conservative who makes up facts to go with regulation you support and against regulation you opposed. You base your ideas not on fact, reason, or logic, but on emotional responses.

You choose.

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

MKULTRABOY said:
Why are liberals responsible to prove that something doesn't exist when it is the Right stating falsely that it does from the beginning.

because the left states that id infringe on the poor with no proof,so your statement basically says only the right needs to prove themself and the left is automatically correct?????

Kreton · Mar 12, 2012

AdamT said:
It isn't a question of having NO ID -- it's a question of not having the specific type of ID that these states are requiring.

Read through the fact section of the NAACP complaint if you think it's always so simple to get the required ID. It isn't always so simple. And if you're going to make peple jump through hoops to exercise their right to vote, you better have a damned good reason for doing so. And I'm still waiting for even one example that suggests there's any reason, let alone a good one.

2 separate things here.

The first part of your statement I think we may be in agreeance on. I think that any form of government ID is sufficient. I may have missed something stating the different type of ID. I'd like to hear more about that.

The 2nd part, No matter what the NAACP says it is not under any circumstances hard to get a state issued ID. I have had them in many states and it is always the same. You show two forms of ID and they give you a long list of acceptable documents and you get your ID. This is not a matter of making people jump through hoops. The vast majority of people have ID. Of those who dont, which again is a very small group of people, the majority of them could get one at the same time they are going down to register to vote. The requirements for getting an ID and registering are one in the same. The only thing I am saying people do is show that you are who you say you are when you vote to prevent fraud. You want reasons why? Voter fraud. How is that not good enough. Dead people and people who have never voted have somehow cast votes. Or the fact that the the opportunity is there and it is relatively easy. Simply have 200 people walk into the voting location claiming to be some people that you registered and there you have it. 200 free votes from people who have no idea that "they" are voting. And those same poeple arent going to complain since they werent voting anyhow. This keeps things balanced.

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

NAKED N00B said:
There are two things you could possibly saying in this post.

1. You think that regulation should be imposed as long as the intention is good unless the opposing side can empirically and unequivocally prove it is wrong. In this case, you support just about all regulation, including things like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.

2. You're the typical hypocritical conservative who makes up facts to go with regulation you support and against regulation you opposed. You base your ideas not on fact, reason, or logic, but on emotional responses.

You choose.

id be fine changing my view if proper evidence was presented but so far everyone against id cards has presented every excuse under the sun!!!!!

Kreton · Mar 12, 2012

as far as does fraud exist or has it ever happened.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voter+fraud+convictions

NAKED N00B · Mar 12, 2012

beerftw said:
id be fine changing my view if proper evidence was presented but so far everyone against id cards has presented every excuse under the sun!!!!!

I provided you with a link to a piece stating the state's election commission found that 178,000 voters are currently without photo id.

What evidence of fraud do you provide which justifies the disenfranchisement of 178,000 citizens?

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

ouch an other for political lean presented facts,i guess its true,liberals dont find facts,bevause they arent looking for them,or maybe i can be proven wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

NAKED N00B said:
I provided you with a link to a piece stating the state's election commission found that 178,000 voters are currently without photo id.

Whati didnt see a post of your may you lease repost it. evidence of fraud do you provide which justifies the disenfranchisement of 178,000 citizens?

i didnt see a link of yuors maybe i missed it could you plase repost it.

NAKED N00B · Mar 12, 2012

muciti said:
as far as does fraud exist or has it ever happened.

Let me google that for you

Thank you. Let's look at one of the links that comes up.

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.
"As far as we can tell, this is the largest number of voter fraud convictions arising from a single election in the past 75 years," said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis, "Prosecutions are still underway and so there will likely be even more convictions."
The highest number of convictions ever recorded in the United States came from the 1936 Jackson County, Missouri elections in which 259 individuals were convicted of voter fraud. A more recent five-year probe by the United States Department of Justice identified just 53 convictions for voter fraud nationwide.
"It's mind-boggling to me that as a tiny non-profit corporation, we netted more than double the number of convictions in one year than the US Department of Justice was able to find in five," said Davis.
Minnesota's recent charges and convictions stem from research initiated by Minnesota Majority. The research identified upwards of 2,800 ineligible felons believed to have unlawfully voted in Minnesota's 2008 general election.
"These convictions are just the tip of the iceberg," said Davis. "The actual number of illegal votes cast was in the thousands. Most unlawful voters were never charged with a crime because they simply pled ignorance. We have evidence of these people casting illegal ballots, but in Minnesota, ignorance of election law is considered to be an acceptable defense."
At the time of this report, nearly 200 additional cases are still pending trial. But time is running out for any additional cases to be prosecuted. The statute of limitations on election crimes is three years, and will expire for the 2008 election this November. Anyone who county attorneys have not charged by then will go free.

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

So we've established, through muciti's use of a juvenile Google function, that voter fraud is existent but nowhere near the levels necessary to disenfranchise such a large number of US citizens.

Joni · Mar 12, 2012

Why not have more stringent ID? I personally see no reason to make voting easy. People have died face down with their guts spilled into the mud for our freedoms. We can't register and provide proof of our identity to exercise the freedoms they bought?

NAKED N00B · Mar 12, 2012

beerftw said:
i didnt see a link of yuors maybe i missed it could you plase repost it.

The Economist

Think Progress

Local South Carolina news

MKULTRABOY · Mar 12, 2012

Joni said:
I personally see no reason to make voting easy.

What? Firstly Ive voted several times, you have to register, then match an ID to your name on a list at the polling station.

What is the damned issue?

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

NAKED N00B said:
Thank you. Let's look at one of the links that comes up.

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

So we've established, through muciti's use of a juvenile Google function, that voter fraud is existent but nowhere near the levels necessary to disenfranchise such a large number of US citizens.

your quote states that minnesota checkes 20 days before voting,so they need an id to register anyways?it also says they cant examine any voter fraud past 3 years because of statute of limitations,didnt prove anything at all

Jack Webb · Mar 12, 2012

Jack Webb said:
View attachment 67123953

"In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden*tial vote margin in Florida in 2000."

The Cutting Edge News

Let me explain this for everyone:

The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals had committed voter fraud.

These 3% jjust happened to get called for jury duty. The actual percentage of illegals who are "registered voters" is much higher. These 3% just got exposed because they were lucky enough to get called for jury duty.

There are 8-12 million illegals. "IF" the percentage of illegals who are registered to vote were only 3%, the number of fraudulent votes would be 3,600,000.

But, that number, 3%, is not correct. The REAL percentage is MUCH higher.

THIS is why the Democrats are against requiring voters to show their ID's.

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

well after looking at the sources provided,none of them provide adequate argument,im pretty sure if every state mandated free photo id cards the liberals would still argue against it,with no other reason than the democratic party opposes it.

Kreton · Mar 12, 2012

NAKED N00B said:
Thank you. Let's look at one of the links that comes up.

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

So we've established, through muciti's use of a juvenile Google function, that voter fraud is existent but nowhere near the levels necessary to disenfranchise such a large number of US citizens.

So we have gone from it doesnt exist, to it exists just not on a big enough scale? Its progress. And the 113 you found, are just the convictions. Surely far more get away with it.

In the same article you are quoting it states

Minnesota's recent charges and convictions stem from research initiated by Minnesota Majority. The research identified upwards of 2,800 ineligible felons believed to have unlawfully voted in Minnesota's 2008 general election.
"These convictions are just the tip of the iceberg," said Davis. "The actual number of illegal votes cast was in the thousands. Most unlawful voters were never charged with a crime because they simply pled ignorance. We have evidence of these people casting illegal ballots, but in Minnesota, ignorance of election law is considered to be an acceptable defense."

Multiply those 3,000 x 50 states and suddenly we are up to 150,000

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

Jack Webb said:
View attachment 67123958

Let me explain this for everyone:

The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals had committed voter fraud.

These 3%[/COLOR ]just happened to get called for jury duty. The actual percentage of illegals who are "registered voters" is much higher. These 3% just got exposed because they were lucky enough to get called for jury duty.

There are 8-12 million illegals. "IF" the percentage of illegals who are registered to vote were only3%, the number of fraudulent votes would be 3,600,000.

But, that number, 3%, is not correct. The REAL percentage is MUCH higher.

THIS is why the Democrats are against requiring voters to show their ID's.

love someone showing data to support their cause,the libs have just shown lib studies to suport their cause with no real data,maybe they could break down their own data instead of spending 20 posts on why they shouldnt have to present it.

beerftw · Mar 12, 2012

i dont agree with naked noob but atleast he present something!gotta give him credit for that!!!!!!!

AdamT · Mar 12, 2012

Jack Webb said:
View attachment 67123958

Let me explain this for everyone:

The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals had committed voter fraud.

These 3% jjust happened to get called for jury duty. The actual percentage of illegals who are "registered voters" is much higher. These 3% just got exposed because they were lucky enough to get called for jury duty.

There are 8-12 million illegals. "IF" the percentage of illegals who are registered to vote were only 3%, the number of fraudulent votes would be 3,600,000.

But, that number, 3%, is not correct. The REAL percentage is MUCH higher.

THIS is why the Democrats are against requiring voters to show their ID's.

Soooo ... since voter IDs are simply used to match voters to the registration roles ... and these illegals are supposedly registered to vote ... tell me again how voter ID laws will prevent voter impersonation? Or keep illegals from voting?

opcorn2:

Did you notice that none of the suggested solutions to the problem in the article involved voter ID?

JasonI · Mar 12, 2012

pass the popcorn...

Photo ID's?

proud ammosexual

Active member

proud ammosexual

Doesn't know

proud ammosexual

Doesn't know

Active member

proud ammosexual

proud ammosexual

Active member

Member

Active member

proud ammosexual

Member

proud ammosexual

Doesn't know

proud ammosexual

proud ammosexual