lets take the same ridiculous arguments liberals try to make about photo id requirements to vote and apply them to the affordable care act. is obama trying to make healthcare unavailable to minorities? isnt that racist? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/us/id-verification-lagging-on-health-care-website.html?_r=0 https://www.google.com/search?q=aff...quired&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1 coppies of your photo id and or social security card required or no aca
You are 100% correct. Liberals oppose Voter IDs because it supposedly disenfranchises women and minorities, yet they completely ignore the fact that you must have a photo ID to get into the Democratic National Convention and have to have a Photo ID to sign up for Obamacare. What, do they not want Women or Minorities to get into the DNC or get "quality" healthcare?
I think if you have to provide ID to vote in person you should have to have all absentee ballots notarized, why should you only have to prove who you are if you go in person? if republicans agree to that, then I will agree to requiring voters in person to require id... so how about it republicans? .
Sounds good to me. I think it's hilarious that Obamacare is requiring ID cards and disenfranchising those poor minorities who couldn't possibly be able to get ID to produce for their healthcare.
then republicans need to start pushing for that on all bills for ID, then they would get support from both sides
Voter fraud isn't a big deal, therefore the push to make it mandatory to have an ID to vote was purely politically. Insurance fraud, as you might expect is a bigger deal, therefore it makes sense that someone signing up for health insurance show ID.
photo ID is not required to get insurance through the exchanges its only if your ID can't be verified with normal info.
obamacare racism - photo id required You said a photo ID was required, now you are saying only an SS card is required. Which is it? - - - Updated - - - He trying to say you need photo ID, and apparently, even according to him, you don't.
It is only racist and suppressing minorities when it is a republican idea. IMO if you do not have an ID how do we know who you really are? Everya rticle involving voting states you have to be a citizen to vote, not simply present in the country, or even simply living here. Only way we can prove citizenship is through a valid ID to prove you have a valid SS card and are a valid citizen. Otherwise why do we have IDs at all? I can just claim I'm someone else vote, then claim I'm someone else and vote again, then claim I'm myself and vote again.
Hmm, how about if you show up to vote we know you are an American!!! Do you think settlers needed an ID card to vote? Isn't that legal precedence? How about we place a death penalty on anyone who tampers, defrauds, votes more than once. Think that would solve the problem? Just roll the cameras.
If you show up to vote we don't know who you are. You are comparing the 1800's to today? That is legal nothing. Settlers also slaughtered native Americans, should we allow that too today? They also took what they wanted. Guess that should be legal too, you know legal precedence and all
Yes, I am comparing yesterday to today, that is what legal precedence means, a legal act of the past applied today. It is a legal foundation. Thousands of people voted for a hundred years without an ID, and shouldn't need one today to cast a vote.
1. Official Voter ID's need to be PROVIDED for voters where required. 2. A signature on-record, really should be enough.
Diversions aside, the main election-day business was to vote. A few colonies, including Pennsylvania, Delaware, and North Carolina, employed some form of ballot. Others, like Virginia, relied on public voice votes, an English tradition. Voice voting made ballot counts harder to rig and, cast in the presence of friends, neighbors, local officials, and candidates, left no doubt about a voter's intention. In Virginia, voice voting was a spectator event, every voter occupying center stage for a few moments. In his book Gentlemen Freeholders: Political Practices in Washington's Virginia, Charles S. Sydnor wrote: As each freeholder came before the sheriff, his name was called out in a loud voice, and the sheriff inquired how he would vote. The freeholder replied by giving the name of his preference. The appropriate clerk then wrote down the voter's name, the sheriff announced it as enrolled, and often the candidate for whom he had voted arose, bowed, and publicly thanked him. http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm AND this ties in nicely, the first registrations of birth did not occur to identify a person until 1867, and even then, it wasn't mandatory. The US was (and is) a mess to understand. Some states started VOLUNTARY civil registrations in 1867. Not many people were willing to pay the 20 cents to register a child if they didn't have to. Again, it was only entry into a large book, not paper certificates. Some states started keeping the records in the early 1900s. In the Southwest and Deep South, you'll be lucky to find birth records kept before 1935. Mandatory registration in the US didn't happen until WWII. It was about that time that paper certificates were issued to doctors and midwives to fill out, sign and return to the Count. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070602165413AAuG9tg
