I'm sorry, but that's a false argument. There is no logical reason to have voter ID when there already is ID that voters have held for years and years. There is no logical reason to force the public to obtain some other form of ID when they've been using the very same ID their whole adult lives. You're simply attempting to make voting; which is a right, more difficult for citizens and those most vulnerable to this are elderly and minorities. And your phony argument that this somehow promotes a non-existent voter fraud is just that....phony. Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas. 40 voters were indicted for fraud. Only 26 were convicted out of 197 million votes. That's not going to swing an election. But...by forcing this stupidly obvious attempt to suppress the vote for the sake of 26 out of 197 million is ridiculous, which is why the courts are ruling against it. When you can demonstrate voter fraud, I'm sure we'll all be interested in hearing about it.
For one thing it's Rand Paul, not Paul Rand, and it's not about what he "things" but what he thinks. The K is under your second finger of your right hand when typing. The G is next to your left index finger. Got it? But to the point of what he was saying, "Actually, it was mostly by Democrats back then. But for some reason, [many Americans] think Republicans are a part of this historical suppression of the African-American vote.", Rand Paul is playing to the ignorance and stupidity of the right wingers. He knows that they all see this as a Democratic issue, when the fact is that it was always a Conservative issue. The Democrats especially those in the South back in those days were Conservatives. It never had anything to do with party, but with the ideology that prevailed at the time. It isn't that Americans think that Republicans had anything to do with voter suppression or any of the other tactics that were used to suppress the vote in promote Jim Crow. After all...Lincoln was the first Republican. People aren't as stupid, or ignorant of our history as Rand Paul would try to suggest, with the added implication that blacks must be too stupid to figure that out. Maybe this will clear it up for you...and Rand Paul: In Chapter 23 of his autobiography, Martin Luther King Jr. writes this about the 1964 Republican National Convention: "The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." "The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade." "Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy. King was speaking about a philosophy that had now dominated the Republican Party. Conservatism. The same Conservatism that had dominated the Democratic Party. So it never was about Parties. It was always about the ideology that was driving them. King had no allegiance to either party. King was not a partisan and never endorsed any political candidate. In a 1958 interview, King said “I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses … And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” What Rand Paul himself fails to grasp is that it's not that people see the Republican party as having anything in particular to do with voter suppression. It's a party. It's not a philosophy. It's the philosophy that is driving the party not the other way around. The party doesn't dictate the philosophy. Today, the Republicans are totally dominated by the conservatism that King found poisonous to the civil rights movement. And it shows itself in it's language of exclusion toward every minority group and attempts to block voting rights, just as conservatives did during the Jim Crow south when conservative Democrats did the same thing.
Are you suggesting that you have real evidence that confirms some election's result actually being changed because of voter impersonators? Wow! Why have you concealed your proof for so long whilst serving up incredibly feeble airy-fairy scenarios? .
So far the best he could come up with was 950 people dead people who voted in South Carolina, But South Carolina ruined it for him, they actually investigated every instance and changed the count to ZERO. But somewhere in the same story, was a link to a video, that was actually posted to the INTERNET, and that said 7 people had actually voted illegally, and that wasn't investigated, so it could be true...... What he hasn't come up with is a docket number, a name, an indictment or anything else that a reasonable person would consider evidence. But he has intimated that if people don't believe there's massive voter fraud...Tinkerbelle will DIE...
For some reason, he evokes the tale of the prudish old lady who stopped watching television after seeing the old Invisible Man movie, and suddenly realizing that there could well be dozens of naked Claude Rainses brazenly cavorting about unseen on every programme.
That's a false argument, the ID's that the VAST majority of voters already have is perfectly acceptable and new ones have been created for those that didn't have them. My blind mother had a state ID that she used for her daily life's activities and use it to vote so spare me the phony arguments. They have been posted over and over and no need to post them again. First they don't rigoursly go after it and it is very hard to catch without an ID system. Which is not a measure of how much is going on. Strawman. For instance in the last tally in the Florida 2000 electoral vote the difference was just over 500. A single fraudulent vote in just SOME of the voting precincts would have swayed that election and then the entire Presidential election. On the state and local levels close elections are not rare and those are elections that can be target for fraud and swayed by those fraudulent elections, it's not just Presidential elections. Engaging in this stupid attempt to allow the disfranchisement of legal votes is ridiculous. So tell is Canada engaged in vote suppression? They require an ID to vote. In rare cases and being overrulled, last count I believe it is 36 states requires ID and it is widely supported by the voters. When you can demonstrate where requiring an ID has suppressed the vote I'm sure we 'll all be interested in hearing all about it.
I could care less what he has to say about it nor your snarky remarks. And no the Democrats in the South were POPULIST and they were SEGREGATIONIST they were not CONSERVATIVE. DEMOCRATS none the less, fully embraced by the DEMOCRAT party. Voter ID is not voter suppression, refusing such a common sense measure if voter disfranchisement. - - - Updated - - - Follow your own link to the actual report.
I did, you're lying again. You got PWNED and now you're trying to hide it..... I demonstrated that your "evidence" was lies, and you've been claiming that I didn't discredit all of it.... I don't have to show it's all BS, the fact that some of it is is enough to discredit your whole argument... There is no voter fraud problem in the US, there is a problem with a propaganda machine fooling people into thinking there is. But there is no evidence of a voter fraud problem. And anyone who says there is....is lying... Just so you know when you post another link to widespread voter fraud....
Very few cases of repeat voting have ever been found. Very few cases of illegals voting have ever been found. Since the very idea of voter ID is to prevent fraud and the two cases mentioned are so rare as to be non-existent, what type of fraud are you afraid exists out there that needs to be avoided at a cost of disenfranchising millions of voters on a state by state basis? Since states control the right to vote and the procedural issues with voting, your American citizenship cannot grant you equal protection as you move from state to state. In essence, your right to vote is a local right to vote wholly dependent upon the politics of the state in which you reside. So then the issue devolves into location verification since the overwhelming majority of votes are cast by US citizens. Is it proper for a state to determine who can vote in national elections based upon their own fear of location fraud? I term location fraud to be about the address in which you are registered and actually live. This has always been addressed by a simple check of your house bills or by bringing in some form of proof of address like a gas bill, water bill or something like that. But even if you were engaging in location fraud, how does that impact your implied right to vote in a national election that elects a President? This whole issue is a problem that can easily be solved by a constitutional amendment guaranteeing every US citizen the right to vote regardless of location, sex, race, legal history and so on. Imagine a nation that grants the right to vote upon birth to every single person that is born a legal US citizen. That right to vote would follow you for the rest of your life even if you have not registered. Why register to vote at all? Your SS address should be good enough for anyone to vote anywhere in the nation whether it be on-line, at a poll via an on-line portal, by mail or some other means. States rights have trumped national rights in this regards since the founding. It is time to make the right to vote a national right to vote because most of us actually think we have the right to vote. We do not.
Not true. That's ridiculous. Who's standards are you using to make that call? So how much is going on? Specifically. Give me some statistics. I'm not about to accept your opinion of what constitutes some epidemic voter fraud that serves no other real purpose than to obstruct the voting process. Do you know what a Strawman is? I've quoted exact numbers that pertain to the exact argument we're having. What you're doing is acting on the "suspicion" of voter fraud, rather than any evidence, because you can't accept that most people actually reject your politics. That's why your side lost. It has nothing to do with voter fraud. It's astonishing to most normal people that those in your camp can't conceive of the possibility that you, and of course your ideology, could ever be wrong. You're fallible, in case you forgot. And that means that your ideology is fallible as well since its man-made and prone to error. So what you're now doing, is not accepting that your extremist views turn off voters, and instead, attempting to impose voting restrictions to reduce the turnout and invalidate the credentials of voters that don't have your new (and improved?) voting IDs, thereby eliminating the competition of ideas, by reducing the number of those that might oppose your thinking. Now that IS a Strawman because nobody is arguing that point. That is called a Red Herring. The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. In this case; it's Canada. What does Canada have to do with what we are arguing about regarding the US. Canada has a Parliamentary system. Are we supposed to now argue for that over the Federalist system as well? Why are you introducing Canada into our voting laws? Are we supposed to model our system after theirs?? 93-year-old black man disenfranchised by Alabama voter ID law With Alabamas voter ID law debuting today, state Republicans are offering a big cash reward to anyone who helps them dig up some voter fraud. But finding voters disenfranchised by the law isnt difficult, even without financial incentives. Willie Mims, 93, showed up to vote at his polling place in Escambia County Tuesday morning for Alabamas primary elections. Mims, who is African-American, no longer drives, doesnt have a license, and has no other form of ID. As a result, he was turned away without voting. Mims wasnt even offered the chance to cast a provisional ballot, as the law requires in that situation. Mims talked about what happened in this video shot by Empower Alabama: [video=youtube_share;ks-4YRZWaNY]http://youtu.be/ks-4YRZWaNY[/video] Jenny McCharen of Empower Alabama, a progressive group that gave Mims a ride to the polls, recounted the story for msnbc. McCharen said Mimss voter file showed he has voted in every election since 2000, as far back as the records go. How many Alabamans lack ID isnt knownin part because the state made no effort to find out before the ID law. But nationwide, most studies put the figure at around 11%, and as high as 25% for African-Americans. The chairman of the Alabama GOP wrote online that the party would give $1,000 to anyone with information leading to a voter fraud conviction. So now, in Alabama, there's a monetary incentive to root out "voter fraud"? An institutionalized "witch hunt" for voter fraud? Watch the accusations fly after everyone looks for a way of cashing in. Your turn.
You're historically, factually wrong. They were always Conservative. There has never been a time in our history that they weren't. The South is and always has been the most conservative part of this country, and the party they belonged to didn't change that. And they weren't embraced by the entire party, which is evidenced by the ideological break with the conservatives southern Dems that opposed civil rights. Obviously every one knows that the Democrats are the liberal side of things, and the Republicans are on the Conservative side of things. Democrats don't win in the south. They aren't conservatives. Republicans are. You're clearly historically challenged and obviously very young. Too young to know what was going on in this country in the 60's.
