• 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!

Voter Laws

But they won't Paul. But I'll resist saying you know that and just point out what the Ohio Sec'y of state did. Their dream is to impeach the POTUS. Close Senate elections in Red/red-ruled states are the key. WV, SD, MT are gone. KY, SC and GA must hold. LA, AR, AK, NC will all be federal elections held with different state laws. I don't believe that is why Madison convened the Constitutional Convention

As I posted earlier, there is a national voting DAY, not month. The Constitutional Convention was convened to establish a republican form of government not an oppressive federal government...
 
I really don't understand the so-called "issue" of poor people not being able to acquire IDs.

Hear in Ontario, a photo ID card can be acquired by anyone who wants one for $35. People who don't drive or no longer drive, like seniors, like these cards. And there's nobody who can convince me that any government that wants to can't set up such a system of their own. And, likewise, nobody can convince me that anyone with the inclination to vote in an election can't be bothered or can't afford $35.

It's a phony issue driven by those who wish to propogate political discord rather than promote sound government policy.

In PA, the voter ID cards are free and they even accept nursing home IDs to vote.
 
I really don't understand the so-called "issue" of poor people not being able to acquire IDs.

Hear in Ontario, a photo ID card can be acquired by anyone who wants one for $35. People who don't drive or no longer drive, like seniors, like these cards. And there's nobody who can convince me that any government that wants to can't set up such a system of their own. And, likewise, nobody can convince me that anyone with the inclination to vote in an election can't be bothered or can't afford $35.

It's a phony issue driven by those who wish to propogate political discord rather than promote sound government policy.
Your post speaks for itself, and how wrong you are on this issue. Voting is free among other things. And it precedes ID issued by the government that such voting forms.
 
Your post speaks for itself, and how wrong you are on this issue. Voting is free among other things. And it precedes ID issued by the government that such voting forms.

Of course voting is free - that statement is idiotic as a rebuttal to my comments. It's free, but it's only free to those eligible. To be eligible, you have to prove it.
 
Of course voting is free - that statement is idiotic as a rebuttal to my comments. It's free, but it's only free to those eligible. To be eligible, you have to prove it.
No, you don't. You don't have to prove your rights here, they come from being born or naturalized here. If the government thinks you weren't, it is on them not you to prove you wrong. That's how our system works.
 
No, you don't. You don't have to prove your rights here, they come from being born or naturalized here. If the government thinks you weren't, it is on them not you to prove you wrong. That's how our system works.

Wrong. A person needs to establish their ability to vote. Otherwise, anyone can vote...
 
No, you don't. You don't have to prove your rights here, they come from being born or naturalized here. If the government thinks you weren't, it is on them not you to prove you wrong. That's how our system works.

Nonsense
 
Terrific argument, but I have the Founders and the Supreme Court on my side. What you got?

So, you're claiming that I, as a Canadian, can walk into a polling booth in an American state, claim I'm an American with no ID, and the state has to accept and register my vote unless they can prove on the spot that I'm lying? Is that the load of crap your trying to attribute to the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court?
 
Wasn't the reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Arizona voter ID provision because that it went above and beyond the federal voting registration requirements?

No it was because they did not get federal approval to add to the requirements before they imposed them. It is a murky subject--the interplay. States are not required to have elections under the Constitution, but to the extent that they do, federal law tramples back and forth. The striking down of the relevant provisions of the Voting Rights Act makes it worse. I believe in the AZ case, the federal law required them to accept the mail in uniform federal voter registration form but they were not allowed to add additional requirements without government approval.
 
Your Governor Sandoval will never sign a drakkkonian law like this. Neither will Martinez in New Mexico. If repubs had any brains, they would have waited until Holder could not have sued them in time next year. What does it say that the VRA adopted by a 97-0 vote last time is now being filibustered? Each different Repub law is aimed at specific constituencies. Alito and Thomas taught these guys well in 2009 at the Koch conferences.

What draconian law are you referring to? I'm just discussing this in a general way, not referring to any particular legislation. It seems to be important to the democrats to preclude any kind of VID and since the guys in charge now are indeed those very Democrats, I suppose we won't be seeing any successful legislation in this regard.

Its just that to me not having ID pretty much speaks to being a total loser, but hell, we're a nation of losers so I won't lose any sleep over it.
 
Wrong. A person needs to establish their ability to vote. Otherwise, anyone can vote...

They need to show that they are Eligible to vote, which means they need to be a US citizen, over 18, and depending on the state, not a felon. In order to do that they need to Register. That's it. The rest, if there are concerns, is on the state because the US has no national ID, not formal birth certificate process, no method of formal ID. It's a local issue that for 200 years never required a photo anything. Voting here is sacred, photo ID is just a good idea, and I'm all for it, if you issue everyone a photo ID. Until you do so, don't ask for one because many in this country eligible to vote don't even have a birth certificate, we didn't require one so don't ask for their ID.
 
So, you're claiming that I, as a Canadian, can walk into a polling booth in an American state, claim I'm an American with no ID, and the state has to accept and register my vote unless they can prove on the spot that I'm lying?
Nope.
 
Not to be a contrarian ... but where is the actual, you know, poll?
 
I am all for a "national" voter ID, not 50 different laws. Democrats are NOT in charge of these states like VA, PA, MI, OH, WI, AZ, TX, FL, SC, NC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, and so on. Since affecting our Nation's time-line in 2000, the SCOTUS Corruptus has done it again.
What draconian law are you referring to? I'm just discussing this in a general way, not referring to any particular legislation. It seems to be important to the democrats to preclude any kind of VID and since the guys in charge now are indeed those very Democrats, I suppose we won't be seeing any successful legislation in this regard.

Its just that to me not having ID pretty much speaks to being a total loser, but hell, we're a nation of losers so I won't lose any sleep over it.
 
No, it's a statement of fact. What you said was wrong.

You can call your statements "fact" all you want, as many times as you want - doesn't make it so.

You can't name a single jursidiction in the US where you are not required to identify yourself before you're allowed to vote - not one. The level of identification may very, and that's what some jurisdictions are trying to tighten, but to suggest you can simply register and then walk into a polling both with no identifcation and it's up to the polling officials to prove a negative as opposed to you proving a positive is asinine.
 
You can call your statements "fact" all you want, as many times as you want - doesn't make it so.

You can't name a single jursidiction in the US where you are not required to identify yourself before you're allowed to vote - not one. The level of identification may very, and that's what some jurisdictions are trying to tighten, but to suggest you can simply register and then walk into a polling both with no identifcation and it's up to the polling officials to prove a negative as opposed to you proving a positive is asinine.
Go back to your original statement and stop trying to words in my mouth. You aren't any good at it.
 
Back
Top Bottom