• 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!

Photo ID to vote?

Photo ID to vote?

  • Total voters
    92
If the states want to provide "free" photo ID to everyone that doesn't have a DL or State ID to vote AND the state is willing to drive to crippled granny's house to take the photo so she has proper ID on voting day I may feel different about this, BUT the states will never do this so I have to say NO and feel that vouching for granny on election day is fine.
 
Last edited:
barbarian_style said:
If the states want to provide "free" photo ID to everyone that doesn't have a DL or State ID to vote AND the state is willing to drive to crippled granny's house to take the photo so she has proper ID on voting day I may feel different about this, BUT the states will never do this so I have to say NO and feel that vouching for granny on election day is fine.
Click to expand...
So anyone should be allowed to vote. Gotcha.
 
American said:
So anyone should be allowed to vote. Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Ok I will respond....

ok, aww, hmmmmm.....

Alright I will need to remove your spin to answer, wow.

You will need to check with the registers office at your polling place to see if you have your civil rights, but that pretty damn simple **** to do.
 
barbarian_style said:
I don't see where they drive to their residents to be certain that they receive it so ya "never" unless I am missing that part somewhere...
Click to expand...

Sorry, never mind. You're right...never means never.
 
VanceMack said:
Slackers. They arent in trouble because they voted twice...they are in trouble because they ONLY voted twice.
Click to expand...
See? Requiring voters to prove they are eligible will disenfranchise some people multiple times.
 
barbarian_style said:
Ok I will respond....

ok, aww, hmmmmm.....

Alright I will need to remove your spin to answer, wow.

You will need to check with the registers office at your polling place to see if you have your civil rights, but that pretty damn simple **** to do.
Click to expand...
Then let's cut the bull**** about how grandma in her wheelchair won't be allowed to vote because she can't afford an ID. Voters should ID themselves period, no ifs ands or buts.
 
American said:
Then let's cut the bull**** about how grandma in her wheelchair won't be allowed to vote because she can't afford an ID. Voters should ID themselves period, no ifs ands or buts.
Click to expand...

Exactly, lets get them ID's in their hands free if you're saying that someone is DICTATING that they have to have one. Besides I never said granny even had a wheelchair, medicare wouldn't pony up for that she's going through her appeal. It states right in the medicare & you 2012 coverage manual that durable goods are covered but had a walker issued to her a month ago and they are saying one durable ambulatory device a year the walker wasn't what she needed in the first place. It is a big mess and now you are denying her the right to vote?

PS:she can't afford an ID right now, she is saving for a wheelchair and paying rent on one in the mean time. Hopefully medicare will reimburse her, poor & old lady.
 
Last edited:
barbarian_style said:
Exactly, lets get them ID's in their hands free if you're saying that someone is DICTATING that they have to have one. Besides I never said granny even had a wheelchair, medicare wouldn't pony up for that she's going through her appeal. It states right in the medicare & you 2012 coverage manual that durable goods are covered but had a walker issued to her a month ago and they are saying one durable ambulatory device a year the walker wasn't what she needed in the first place. It is a big mess and now you are denying her the right to vote?

PS:she can't afford an ID right now, she is saving for a wheelchair and paying rent on one in the mean time. Hopefully medicare will reimburse her, poor & old lady.
Click to expand...

Indiana's photo ID law was recently found to be constitutional according to the Supreme Court of the US. It does not require the state to provide transportation for those who need a free ID.

At some point you have to be responsible for yourself no matter what age. If you are not able, than you need to make arrangements ahead of time etc. This is not rocket science.

15 states are already doing it with no issues. More will after the state legislatures get back in session.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Indiana's photo ID law was recently found to be constitutional according to the Supreme Court of the US. It does not require the state to provide transportation for those who need a free ID.

At some point you have to be responsible for yourself no matter what age. If you are not able, than you need to make arrangements ahead of time etc. This is not rocket science.

15 states are already doing it with no issues. More will after the state legislatures get back in session.
Click to expand...

Ya I know I am just the devils advocate, I just don't agree with it. I would have never started to vote unless someone would have vouched for me when I was younger. Now a days almost everyone should have obtained some type of Id throughout their life time that most likely could have been renewed over the years and the fees just keep getting bigger. I like the fact that the state puts an expiration date on my ID so I can pay more flat charges, surcharges, tax, surtax, surtax fee, surcharge fees for a new ID that I really didn't need yet. Just more big nosy big government yet again.
 
Last edited:
barbarian_style said:
Ya I know I am just the devils advocate, I just don't agree with it. I would have never started to vote unless someone would have vouched for me when I was younger. Now a days almost everyone should have obtained some type of Id throughout their life time that most likely could have been renewed over the years and the fees just keep getting bigger. I like the fact that the state puts an expiration date on my ID so I can pay more flat charges, surcharges, tax, surtax, surtax fee, surcharge fees for a new ID that I really didn't need yet. Just more big nosy big government yet again.
Click to expand...

I feel for ya, but I don't think (money aside) asking for a legitimate photo ID is all that big a deal to be honest.
 
Just another timely illustration by the GOP of their class war in their efforts to limit voting by low income voters.
 
It is just another form of verification that the voter is indeed the voter... so, yes.

Where I live the people don't know me and I don't know them (the ones running the booths) and all I have to do is tell them my address and then I can vote. What if I don't vote and another takes my vote somehow?
 
Catawba said:
Just another timely illustration by the GOP of their class war in their efforts to limit voting by low income voters.
Click to expand...

Just another timely illustration by the Dem's of their class war in their efforts to continue to stuff the ballot box with illegal votes.

You see? Anyone can make stupid partisan statements. It's not that hard.

PS: I am not a Republican, nor do I support the GOP. I am a Constitutionalist, for lack of a better term.
 
Catawba said:
Just another timely illustration by the GOP of their class war in their efforts to limit voting by low income voters.
Click to expand...
Prove it!!!!
 
Blackdog said:
Just another timely illustration by the Dem's of their class war in their efforts to continue to stuff the ballot box with illegal votes.

You see? Anyone can make stupid partisan statements. It's not that hard.

PS: I am not a Republican, nor do I support the GOP. I am a Constitutionalist, for lack of a better term.
Click to expand...
Dems are engaging in class warfare against the top earners with taxes.
 
American said:
Dems are engaging in class warfare against the top earners with taxes.
Click to expand...

That is most interesting. One of the nations absolute TOP EARNERS has stated that it is his own upper class which has been engaging class warfare upon working class people. And he states clearly that it is his side which has been winning.

Perhaps you heard of him? Warren Buffett.
 
barbarian_style said:
Ya I know I am just the devils advocate, I just don't agree with it. I would have never started to vote unless someone would have vouched for me when I was younger. Now a days almost everyone should have obtained some type of Id throughout their life time that most likely could have been renewed over the years and the fees just keep getting bigger. I like the fact that the state puts an expiration date on my ID so I can pay more flat charges, surcharges, tax, surtax, surtax fee, surcharge fees for a new ID that I really didn't need yet. Just more big nosy big government yet again.
Click to expand...
I too enjoy playing devil's advocate. First off, I have no idea what you mean by someone had to "vouch" for you in order for you to vote. I'm unaware of any state that requires such a process to vote, either for the first time or any time afterwards. So that anecdotal relation really has no bearing on this issue. The fact of the matter is that most states already *require* all citizens in the state to have a valid photo identification, as in if you live in a state you are already required to have at the least a state ID. Not a drivers license but an state issued ID. So the idea that poor granny in her wheelchair would not already have one or can't afford one is not a persuasive argument against requiring more of the same to exercise one of our most important rights as citizens; voting. The idea that renewal fees are so abhorrently expensive and full of flat charges, surcharges, taxes, surtaxes, surtax fees and surcharge fees is a new one and an anecdotal relation that you will have to supply some proof of. In the five states I've lived in there was simply one fee for renewal and it was never very expensive, so you'll have to show proof of this exorbitant fee filled with flat charges, surcharges, taxes, surtax, surtax fees and surcharge fees before I'll bite.

I too am concerned about the growth of government under the last few administrations. That is an issue separate and aside from the matter of voter ID and really has nothing to do with this topic. Just saying. While I might find your concern for the "poor" admirable there just simply are certain responsibilities we as citizens have to own up to. In short, your argument is not a very good one for not requiring ID to vote. I'm sure it has been brought up before in states that have passed this kind of law and I for one am pleased that such vacant appeals to emotion have not overcome common sense and the need to reform our election system by making sure crooked politicians can not rely upon illegal ineligible votes to secure their place in office.
 
Gie said:
I too enjoy playing devil's advocate. First off, I have no idea what you mean by someone had to "vouch" for you in order for you to vote. I'm unaware of any state that requires such a process to vote, either for the first time or any time afterwards. So that anecdotal relation really has no bearing on this issue. The fact of the matter is that most states already *require* all citizens in the state to have a valid photo identification, as in if you live in a state you are already required to have at the least a state ID. Not a drivers license but an state issued ID. So the idea that poor granny in her wheelchair would not already have one or can't afford one is not a persuasive argument against requiring more of the same to exercise one of our most important rights as citizens; voting. The idea that renewal fees are so abhorrently expensive and full of flat charges, surcharges, taxes, surtaxes, surtax fees and surcharge fees is a new one and an anecdotal relation that you will have to supply some proof of. In the five states I've lived in there was simply one fee for renewal and it was never very expensive, so you'll have to show proof of this exorbitant fee filled with flat charges, surcharges, taxes, surtax, surtax fees and surcharge fees before I'll bite.

I too am concerned about the growth of government under the last few administrations. That is an issue separate and aside from the matter of voter ID and really has nothing to do with this topic. Just saying. While I might find your concern for the "poor" admirable there just simply are certain responsibilities we as citizens have to own up to. In short, your argument is not a very good one for not requiring ID to vote. I'm sure it has been brought up before in states that have passed this kind of law and I for one am pleased that such vacant appeals to emotion have not overcome common sense and the need to reform our election system by making sure crooked politicians can not rely upon illegal ineligible votes to secure their place in office.
Click to expand...

If granny can't wait in line to get a valid ID, how is she going to wait in line to vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom