• 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!

You’ll Need an ID to Prove You’re a Democrat but Not to Vote

And not just any ID...a photo ID. But what about the poor? And the minorities? And the elderly? How many will miss the convention because of their inability to acquire an ID?
 
Remarkable. This should be broadcast over every major network until election. The old dem NIMBY behavior reasserts itself yet again.
 
I had to borrow this. Spreading your wealth in the name of civil rights :notlook:

Liberals are so intent on blocking voter ID requirements because they know that their fellow-liberals are some of the biggest voter-cheats. They wouldn’t cash a check given to them by someone claiming to be the person the check is made out to, but they’re willing to look the other way for the potential of voter fraud in order put people in office who write checks to keep the wealth distributors in office.

Read more: You
 
Liberals are so intent on blocking voter ID requirements because they know that their fellow-liberals are some of the biggest voter-cheats. They wouldn’t cash a check given to them by someone claiming to be the person the check is made out to, but they’re willing to look the other way for the potential of voter fraud in order put people in office who write checks to keep the wealth distributors in office.

And yet...still no evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country. Come on, show some statistics that prove your case that we need voter IDs. If voter fraud is truly this widespread problem, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to produce some EVIDENCE of it instead of just bitching about "the liberals."
 
And not just any ID...a photo ID. But what about the poor? And the minorities? And the elderly? How many will miss the convention because of their inability to acquire an ID?

I just looked in my handy dandy copy of the official US Constitution. It mentions the right to vote five times in five different places. Sadly, it never mentions the right to attend a political convention.

Equating opposition to an effort to diminsh and supress the Constitutional right to vote in pubic elections with an effort to maintain security at a private function is ludicrous and outright ridiculous.
 
In Pennsylvania there are procedures for getting and using a non-photo voter ID.
 
And yet...still no evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country. Come on, show some statistics that prove your case that we need voter IDs. If voter fraud is truly this widespread problem, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to produce some EVIDENCE of it instead of just bitching about "the liberals."


At least as much "evidence" as there is of political convention attendance fraud. However, it may be the secret service requiring the IDs.
 
At least as much "evidence" as there is of political convention attendance fraud.

The difference is that they shouldn't NEED any evidence of "political convention attendance fraud" in order to keep people out of their private event. That's very different than alleged voter fraud and voter IDs, which are a matter of public policy and civil rights.

However, it may be the secret service requiring the IDs.

I was under the impression that you had to be *invited* to get into the convention, which would explain the ID requirement. As far as I know, you can't just wander in from the street just because you happened to be a registered Democrat with an ID.
 
I just looked in my handy dandy copy of the official US Constitution. It mentions the right to vote five times in five different places. Sadly, it never mentions the right to attend a political convention.
This source... Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net ... says there is no explicit right to vote, as there is an explicit right to free speech, etc. Could you please provide these five instances that you found?

No dodging. No "they're there for you to look up". No faux indignant dismissal of this source. Just list the places where they can be found.

Thank you.


Equating opposition to an effort to diminsh and supress the Constitutional right to vote in pubic elections with an effort to maintain security at a private function is ludicrous and outright ridiculous.
You, and everybody else, need to quit being a bunch of buzzkills. It's just humorous and ironic. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
No matter how you spin it, it is a pretty big case of hypocrisy.
 
Your "source" seems to be using a far different copy of the Constitution that I have. Mine has no less than FIVE different mentions of the RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation of those exact words.

Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26.
 
No matter how you spin it, it is a pretty big case of hypocrisy.
How does it involve hypocrisy to object to supressing the right of a citizen to vote in an election - something listed five separate times in the US Constitution - with admittance to a private function involving great security because of the people who attend such events?
 
How does it involve hypocrisy to object to supressing the right of a citizen to vote in an election - something listed five separate times in the US Constitution - with admittance to a private function involving great security because of the people who attend such events?


It wouldn't, if it wasn't for the major Dem contention that photo ID = suppression of vote (which is nonsense).... in which case it is perfectly reasonable to argue that requiring photo ID in this case = suppression of ability to attend DNC, which is itself a component in the election process, obviously.

Don't feel lonely though, the Repubs are huge hypocrits too. :)
 
It wouldn't, if it wasn't for the major Dem contention that photo ID = suppression of vote (which is nonsense)

It is not nonsense. The Brennan Center for Justice has studied the issue and found that as many as 10% of voters in some states lack the requisite forms of ID. Furthermore, the so-called "problem" that voter ID purports to solve does not actually exist, and even supporters of these laws have been unable to produce any examples (let alone actual statistics) to support their claims.

in which case it is perfectly reasonable to argue that requiring photo ID in this case = suppression of ability to attend DNC, which is itself a component in the election process, obviously.

The difference is that you have a constitutional right to vote. You do not have the right to attend the DNC.
 
The difference is that you have a constitutional right to vote. You do not have the right to attend the DNC.


True. It still comes across as laughably hypocritical though. It smacks of "do as I say, not as I DO".
 
True. It still comes across as laughably hypocritical though. It smacks of "do as I say, not as I DO".

No it doesn't, as the two are completely different situations. The Democrats are not arguing that you shouldn't need an ID to do *anything*, just that you shouldn't need one to vote. Would it be hypocritical of the GOP to want to require women to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion, but not to require women to have an ultrasound before attending the RNC?
 
Hypocrisy? Who'da thunk it.

Except there is none here. The official US Constitution mentions the right to vote five times in five different places. Sadly, it never mentions the right to attend a political convention.

Equating opposition to an effort to diminsh and supress the Constitutional right to vote in pubic elections with an effort to maintain security at a private function is ludicrous and outright ridiculous.
 
Except there is none here. The official US Constitution mentions the right to vote five times in five different places. Sadly, it never mentions the right to attend a political convention.

Equating opposition to an effort to diminsh and supress the Constitutional right to vote in pubic elections with an effort to maintain security at a private function is ludicrous and outright ridiculous.

Spin however you'd like. You cover for them continually, this is no surprise.
 
It is not nonsense. The Brennan Center for Justice has studied the issue and found that as many as 10% of voters in some states lack the requisite forms of ID.

And what's not mentioned is the assistance offered to these people to get one.
 
Spin however you'd like. You cover for them continually, this is no surprise.

I point reality out to you that there is a difference between a protected Constitutional right and entry to a high security zone at a private function and you label that as spin.

Amazing!!!! :roll::shock:
 
I point reality out to you that there is a difference between a protected Constitutional right and entry to a high security zone at a private function and you label that as spin.

Amazing!!!! :roll::shock:

Constitutional rights are granted to US citizens. How would one prove citizenship or identity without an ID?


duh-duh.jpg
 
And what's not mentioned is the assistance offered to these people to get one.

I would be very happy to offer more than whatever my fair share is in my state to pay for the required IDs because I am for every citizen who wishes to vote having the opportunity. I've helped people in my community to register for many years and will cheerfully donate if this is what it takes for everybody to have the opportunity to vote...and also for no dead people, etc. to vote.
:mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom