• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds to Florida: halt non-citizen voter purge

Did you read it? 1,100 people were wrongly purged. You don't think that's a problem? Maybe even 11-20 times higher doesn't strike you as wrong?

It says that people in this purge shouldn't be purged. Which is what us "libs" have been saying is the problem. You don't seem to have a problem with American citizens being wrongly disenfranchised, why is that?

Especially when the election in question was decided by some 500+ votes.

So the margin of victory was within the purges margin of error.
 
So the numbers are all over the map, and for a reason if you ask me....Look at team's number of 100K....My Goodness. How can any of you libs/progressives/socialists be taken seriously when the lies are so easy to see?

Dude. Seriously? You still are going to pretend that politifact said something different than I did. No way you're that stupid. I said that they removed around 100,000 names total. Your source said "more than 50,000" names were removed. 1,100 is the number of people that the counties did in fact agree to remove who subsequently came in and proved that they were not felons. Get the difference?
 
So then no one was disenfranchised.

Whats the uproar about again?
 
So then no one was disenfranchised.

Whats the uproar about again?

Depends on how you define "disenfranchise". If you define it strictly, as in, someone who was qualified to vote was flat-out denied the ability to vote, then no, it doesn't happen often. But if you condider the chilling effect these sorts of measures have on ACTUAL voting, then yes, it's a real problem. The more difficult you make something to do, the less participation you will get.
 
Depends on how you define "disenfranchise". If you define it strictly, as in, someone who was qualified to vote was flat-out denied the ability to vote, then no, it doesn't happen often. But if you condider the chilling effect these sorts of measures have on ACTUAL voting, then yes, it's a real problem. The more difficult you make something to do, the less participation you will get.

I am not really too concerned about what people can make of it, like this nefarious chilling effects.

I have to go in and register my car every year. It doesn't have a chilling effect on me driving.
 
I am not really too concerned about what people can make of it, like this nefarious chilling effects.

I have to go in and register my car every year. It doesn't have a chilling effect on me driving.

Sure, because driving is essential in your day to day life. Apples and oranges.
 
Depends on how you define "disenfranchise". If you define it strictly, as in, someone who was qualified to vote was flat-out denied the ability to vote, then no, it doesn't happen often. But if you condider the chilling effect these sorts of measures have on ACTUAL voting, then yes, it's a real problem. The more difficult you make something to do, the less participation you will get.

That is not a bad thing. To limit voting to those that are citizens, of legal voting age, are CURRENT residents of the state/district and to allow any citizen to vote only once and only as themselves in a given election is a good thing. The SAME valid, state issued, photo ID is NOW required to buy alcohol, tobacco, firearms, ammo, fishing/hunting permits, cash lotto tickets/checks and to access many public assistance benefits. Is it not AMAZING that no such outcry exists against these other, very common, logical requirements for use of that same level of personal identification?
 
Last edited:
That is not a bad thing. To limit voting to those that are citizens, of legal voting age, are CURRENT residents of the state/district and to allow any citizen to vote only once and only as themselves in a given election is a good thing. The SAME valid, state issued, photo ID is NOW used to buy alcohol, tobacco, firearms, ammo, fishing/hunting permits, cash lotto tickets/checks and to access many public assistance benefits. Is it not AMAZING that no such outcry exists against these other, very common, logical requirements for use of that same level of personal identification?

Those are all essential for day to day life though. :roll:
 
Did you read it? 1,100 people were wrongly purged. You don't think that's a problem? Maybe even 11-20 times higher doesn't strike you as wrong?

It says that people in this purge shouldn't be purged. Which is what us "libs" have been saying is the problem. You don't seem to have a problem with American citizens being wrongly disenfranchised, why is that?


Not my position at all...If you are eligible to vote in the US, then you should be allowed to cast a ballot. However, before anyone can get down to a serious discussion on the problem, then we have to dispense with the misinformation like what team was putting out there.

Trouble is, that if the liberals can deflect the issue by turning it into a name calling, side issue, then they take the focus off what they want to protect, and that is clearly people not able to vote here, voting.

j-mac
 
But it is not essential to my day to day life.

It's certainly more essential, as a practical matter, than voting.

And you're saying you can't renew your registration by mail?
 
Unbelievable, there are actually people who have no problem with this.
 
Unbelievable, there are actually people who have no problem with this.


Like I said earlier, lets get to the bottom of the numbers, and have accurate numbers first, then we can address how the purge of ineligible people voting. But surely, you don't want people that shouldn't be voting to vote do you?

j-mac
 
Like I said earlier, lets get to the bottom of the numbers, and have accurate numbers first, then we can address how the purge of ineligible people voting. But surely, you don't want people that shouldn't be voting to vote do you?

j-mac

Problem is this -- getting the right people purged is going to take more than 5 months, because anything with the government involved is going to take at least that long. Surely, even the GOP realizes this. So by starting the process now, you guarantee that some people who have every right to vote will be disenfranchised. When you're talking about Florida, that's likely to be a sizable number in a state that could decide the whole Presidential election.

Now you see the problem. In a state with that many Republican officials, damn straight they're going to do their damnedest to make sure that the people who are disenfranchised are the ones who are likely to vote for Obama. Now do you see why the Democrats might have a problem with this? 1100 people who could decide the entire election suddenly can't vote. Is that right?

Basically it comes down to this: would you rather disenfranchise some people who can vote to make sure that nobody else can, or have some illegal votes slip through the cracks to ensure that everyone who has the right to vote is able to?
 
Problem is this -- getting the right people purged is going to take more than 5 months, because anything with the government involved is going to take at least that long. Surely, even the GOP realizes this. So by starting the process now, you guarantee that some people who have every right to vote will be disenfranchised. When you're talking about Florida, that's likely to be a sizable number in a state that could decide the whole Presidential election.

Now you see the problem. In a state with that many Republican officials, damn straight they're going to do their damnedest to make sure that the people who are disenfranchised are the ones who are likely to vote for Obama. Now do you see why the Democrats might have a problem with this? 1100 people who could decide the entire election suddenly can't vote. Is that right?

Basically it comes down to this: would you rather disenfranchise some people who can vote to make sure that nobody else can, or have some illegal votes slip through the cracks to ensure that everyone who has the right to vote is able to?

Neither. I'd rather have the integrity of the system restored and the funny business stopped period.

j-mac
 
Neither. I'd rather have the integrity of the system restored and the funny business stopped period.

j-mac

Well the integrity of the system ain't gonna be restored in 3 months by Democrats and Republicans. So thinking realistically, you've got one of two options. I mean I'd rather not have to choose either, but...we're talking about Republocrats here.
 
Well the integrity of the system ain't gonna be restored in 3 months by Democrats and Republicans. So thinking realistically, you've got one of two options. I mean I'd rather not have to choose either, but...we're talking about Republocrats here.

Voter ID would help


j-mac
 
Unbelievable, there are actually people who have no problem with this.

Liberal Democrats will always have a problem purging their voter base of illegals aliens and dead people
 
The thing where the right accuses the left of wanting slack immigration policies just to get new voters is idiotic. It just doesn't line up with the actual timeline at all. Just a few years ago both the Republicans and the Democrats had essentially the same immigration policy. And, the Republicans got decent support from Hispanics. Since then the Republicans launched a massive series of totally unprovoked attacks on Hispanics in general that were unrelated to immigration. The bans on cultural studies courses, racist attacks on Sotomayor by Republican senators, English as a national language, embracing racial profiling, etc. By doing all that, the Republicans moved the Hispanic voters into the Democrats' column, not some change in the Democrats' position on immigration. The Democrats didn't change their position on immigration.

We've always known that Democrats don't mind having criminals vote for them, because who cares as long as they get voted into office. Whether it be felons or illegals, who cares?

Sent from my blasted phone.
 
We've always known that Democrats don't mind having criminals vote for them, because who cares as long as they get voted into office. Whether it be felons or illegals, who cares?

Again- The thing where the right accuses the left of wanting slack immigration policies just to get new voters is idiotic. It just doesn't line up with the actual timeline at all. Just a few years ago both the Republicans and the Democrats had essentially the same immigration policy. And, the Republicans got decent support from Hispanics. Since then the Republicans launched a massive series of totally unprovoked attacks on Hispanics in general that were unrelated to immigration. The bans on cultural studies courses, racist attacks on Sotomayor by Republican senators, English as a national language, embracing racial profiling, etc. By doing all that, the Republicans moved the Hispanic voters into the Democrats' column, not some change in the Democrats' position on immigration. The Democrats didn't change their position on immigration.
 
Again- The thing where the right accuses the left of wanting slack immigration policies just to get new voters is idiotic. It just doesn't line up with the actual timeline at all. Just a few years ago both the Republicans and the Democrats had essentially the same immigration policy. And, the Republicans got decent support from Hispanics. Since then the Republicans launched a massive series of totally unprovoked attacks on Hispanics in general that were unrelated to immigration. The bans on cultural studies courses, racist attacks on Sotomayor by Republican senators, English as a national language, embracing racial profiling, etc. By doing all that, the Republicans moved the Hispanic voters into the Democrats' column, not some change in the Democrats' position on immigration. The Democrats didn't change their position on immigration.

If all you say is true, and it most certainly is mostly spin, but even if true, it only illuminates how absolutely desperate Obama is to squeeze every last vote out of his Hispanic base.

He's going down hard.
 
Back
Top Bottom