Common argument on voter ID law: it's not a big problem

^_- you mean when the party of federalism stops supporting federalism you'll take them seriously?

I don't think there'd be a great deal of resistance from either party to adding a photo to social security cards.

 

In any case, here is what's needed and should be pursued:

1. Encourage/ensure that eligible voters have reasonable opportunity to place their votes.

2. Ensure that methods of tabulating votes are verified and maintained in the strictest manner possible.

3. Fund studies which provide continual improvement of voting in this society.

Anyone who wants peace and a better nation overall, ought to be concerned about people VOTING and being counted properly.

 

I'm very concerned. I want everyone who is eligible to vote, to be able to. That is why I love absentee balloting, even though I know it's the easiest way to cheat. I am sure we can fix most of that. When ballots are opened and counted, there should be people from at least two sides making sure every ballot is counted and tabulated. I would think that's a given. The boxes should be under surveillance all the time so no one can stuff it. That or locked so no more ballots can't be put in after polls are closed.

I am also concerned that making illegals here citizens will encourage more to sneak in to jump on the next citizenship bandwagon. Having a SS ID, will take that away. Securing our border where we wouldn't have to add thousands of new border guards. But again we have way to may Liberals that either want open borders, or not concerned with those who sneak across. It will take a real effort to educate the Liberals that a S,S, ID is a good thing and it doesn't hurt the poor and elderly, but opens doors for them that has been shut for years. Reading their post on here, educating them on the benefits will be a real job.

 

Alright. I think we're on the right track here.

America: Let's get on with properly setting up our voting system. (That is, unless we want the most serious type of unrest many nations have known.)

 

Do you believe them?
That party officials were not concerned about voter fraud, but were pushing for changes in election law that would reduce minority turnout, because minorities voted Democratic, do you believe they're telling the truth?

 

Does having a driver's license reduce the number of drivers on the road? Does having a social security card reduce the number of people who draw social security? Think.....and get a voter ID.

 

Actually requiring a license does reduce the number of drivers on the road.....
Requiring a social security card to draw social security reduces the number of people who draw social security.

Do you believe Charlie Crist is telling the truth when he says party officials are not concerned with voter fraud, but that they are interested in making rules changes that suppress voting by groups that vote Democratic?

 

Voter ID's are unconstitutional, as I've said in countless threads.

Are we moving back in time, Republicans?

Unless ID's are being PROVIDED by the state to every eligible voter FREE OF CHARGE, it can be classified as a poll tax.

Now, the GOP isn't actually interested in providing citizens voting IDs, now are they?

 

You can say it all you want. Doesn't make it so. The state has a legitimate interest in reasonable voting regulations. In the past, it was much harder to vote absentee and there were few if any early voting days. Reasonable regulation of voting, including ID, does not equate to disenfranchisement or suppression.

What SCOTUS case are you citing that a modest fee for ID equates to a poll tax? I haven't read that case and would like to read it.

 

It is full blown asinine to claim that having proof of identity is unConstitutional and then not claim the same thing for having to provide ID to get into the Democratic National Convention; obtain SSI; unemployment benefits, and a whole host of other benefits.

 

except none of those are a poll tax, which IS unconstitutional. sorry.

 

the right loves to wave the constitution in our faces.... except when they don't.

 

Your race card flipping opinion is noted.

Driver's licenses require a fee. That is not considered Unconstitutional or a poll tax. Nice try though.

 

Drivers license aren't a right granted by the constitution.

Any fee for voting is unconstitutional. That means voter ID, or any "required GOVERNMENT ISSUED documents" to obtain a free ID.

Summary: Republicans are skirting around the constitution. If they mandate a free ID but it requires ANY DOCUMENT that has a cost associated with it, it is unconstitutional.

CHARGING PEOPLE TO VOTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The amendment is explicit. Once again, are we moving back in time, Republicans?

 

Gun ownership is yet you have to pay a fee to buy a gun license. Next.

Again. Your race card flip is noted and rejected per my prior examples of govt regulated and accepted licensing required for Constitutional activity.

Summary, I've destroyed all of your specious arguments. Now go get the ID.

 

what does driving have to do with voting anyway?

 

Did you notice how this kurtz fellow totally ignored my request to disprove my claims about voter suppression by changing the conversation to racism? Lol! You're right, they cannot sell it, because they can't defend it, where it makes any sense. So they change the whole conversation.

 

Cite the Amendment that states a "gun tax" is unconstitutional.

I'll continue to repeat:

Let it marinate.

 

When you have to drive two hours one way, it has a lot to do with it.

 

Cite where a gun tax is Constitutional. Your turn.

 

Constitution doesn't work that way. It defines what powers are limited by the government. There is no constiutional provision that declares gun costs unconstitutional. However, there IS an amendment that addresses poll taxes and literacy tests that were once directed at African Americans for voter disenfranchisement.

Just stop for your own good.

 

This is a stupid position. You have not demonstrated any poll tax by calling an ID a poll tax. If we were to apply your asinine claim to the rest of those things which are needed to get to the voting booth, you would be forced to call a bus pass a poll tax; buying shoes a poll tax, etc.

Grand mal stupidity.

In addition, you lefties love to claim so many people are disenfranchised by requiring an ID, but are silent when the same requirement exists to collect SSI.

When you can produce a list of disenfranchised voters due to ID larger than the list disenfranchised by actual voting fraud, you'll have the barest degree of credibility.

Until then, you're just dishonest schills attempting to prop up your illegitimate positions with illegitimate voters.

 

So.

Your own cite demands that it is citizens which are given these rights.

And how, exactly, are you suggesting that the people voting are determined to be citizens?

None of you leftists actually want voter ID, because the only claim upon which you're hanging your ridiculously specious argument is the wail that it costs money to obtain an ID.

IDs are free; that's what we support. There. Problem solved.

Until you contrive another one.

 

Let's first define the word tax.

Pretty explicit. A burdensome sum of money demanded by the government. The 24th Amendment specifically states that a poll tax ("demanded by government") for voting is unconstitutional.

Do I need to recite it again?

SSI is not outlined in the constitution specifically, so that isn't a valid analogy.

 

Most of the people voting are ALREADY REGISTERED TO VOTE. They just don't have a photo ID. One can have a birth certificate (proof of citizenship) and no photo ID. This is the case with many older voters (70+). A social security card is the same effect.