Voter suppression

the one that was a politician and related to long

why did you say he was a racist, if you didn't know who i was referring to?

 

how so

 

Once again, the GOP is making efforts to make it harder for Democrats to cheat.
Since the Democrat party is becoming less and less relevant among its citizens in America, they are looking to import a voter demographic from other nations to support their efforts to take an ever increasing amount of money from the people to pay for the fat salaries of people who wield enormous power and never face a ballot box, or to shower business that cash that never have to face a customer.

 

oh yeah, this one guy proves the massive right-wing conspiracy right under your noses!

now where are those ACORN videos?

 

one guy? what a joke, i've posted much more than one guy saying it

there have been court cases over it, it's abundantly obvious to anyone except for dishonest deniers, what's going on

 

aye, I've been following every one of your posts - I have an email notification each time you post - I was in fact only joking.

 

Shouldn't affect you unless your president lead an organization that profited from taxpayer funded voter fraud.

 

here's the straight dope from a credentialed gop leader"

“They claim that there’s widespread abuse and voter fraud, but nothing substantiates that,” Powell said. “There isn’t widespread abuse.”

http://thehill.com/video/sunday-shows/318659-colin-powell-says-gop-voter-id-laws-will-backfire-on-republicans#ixzz2vZHUsfe7

 

Did he endorse someone who ran a voter fraud group?

You can play by the rules lefty. I know getting an ID is hard between all the gay strip clubbing, crack smoking, and baby scraping you guys do all day but you can do it. I have faith. Besides you will need that ID to get into "Julio's".

 

what a joke, everyone that pays attention knows what the gop is trying to do


Voter suppression is a threat to all

Marcus Anthony Hunter is an assistant professor of sociology at Yale University and author of “Black Citymakers: How the Philadelphia Negro Changed Urban America.” This piece was published in partnership with the Scholars Strategy Network.

Signed into law as a federal holiday 30 years ago by President Ronald Reagan, the occasion to honor and remember Martin Luther King Jr. is also a moment to reflect on the state of democracy in the United States.

After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed, King called it “a great step forward in removing all of the remaining obstacles to the right to vote.’’ His carefully chosen words highlighted the triumph of the act while signaling that there was more work to be done. For his part, King announced in his annual report to the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) a new initiative, the Political Education and Voter Registration Department. Charged with equipping poor and black voters with an understanding of the voting process and the new protections of the Voting Rights Act, King and his colleagues set out to help expand the number of registered voters.

Without regard for political affiliation or outcome, this initiative championed voter education and registration as a means to allay past injustices such as poll taxes and to guide the nation toward a more free and just society.

In 1968, the first presidential election after the act’s passage, the voter turnout was 60.8 percent. Nearly 50 years later, this remains the highest voter turnout (as a percentage of voting-age population) since the civil rights era. King never got to witness the fruits of the Southern Christian Leadership Council voter initiative, as he was killed several months before Richard Nixon was elected as the 37th president.

Today, we find ourselves embattled in a partisan debate that has amounted to reducing the voting rolls in many states. In numerous Republican-controlled state legislatures, elected officials from Pennsylvania to Indiana to Wisconsin to Texas (to name just a few) have fixed their collective energies not on underemployment but on voter fraud, despite the fact that this crime is almost nonexistent. Though Reagan approved Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and Nixon may have benefited from the high turnout of 1968, their Republican successors have incrementally rolled back the Voting Rights Act, undoing the great work of King, the SCLC and their allies on both sides of the aisle.

What now? The way forward begins where King’s efforts ended, with a citizen-based initiative to inform, protect and increase voters, especially young ones.

Though the laws that suppress voting are being passed by Republican-dominated legislatures, the ultimate effect extends beyond our current political arrangements, contexts and leaders. Like gerrymandering, a practice of drawing district boundaries to limit voters’ choices long used by both parties, new voting laws will have lasting consequences even as states experience the ebbs and flows of political turnover from Republican to Democratic majorities and the impending shift toward a majority-minority nation. Laws that suppress poor and minority voters will likely have an equal impact on the same populations even if Democrats later control the state.

As King did, we must develop a national citizens’ movement to ensure that voting is open and expanding. The key shift we need, then, would be that citizens, not politicians, safeguard our voting rights. King’s approach demonstrates that citizens must protest, lobby and build a mass movement to protect the right to vote. The power of the vote, mobilized through ongoing initiatives for voter education and registration, can pressure and compel change from our elected officials.

We must remember King’s wisdom that the Voting Rights Act was meant to limit state and local politicians’ ability to impede citizens’ right to vote, no matter political affiliation. Such limitations were meant to protect citizens from political and socioeconomic obstacles to voting, their most fundamental opportunity to participate in a representative democracy. As King knew, an active and unfettered voting citizenry ensured a more limited yet effective and responsive government.

In 1963, in a jail cell in Alabama, King wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we should take heed: Voter suppression anywhere is a threat to voters everywhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-suppression-is-a-threat-to-all/2014/01/19/abc56154-7fa6-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html

 

That's funny considering you won't answer the question about why if someone can show ID to register and it is not a violation of their rights to require them to do so that they then cannot show ID to vote and would violate their right to do so. Still waiting for you to square that circle you created.

And it ain't about lines.

- - - Updated - - -

But not for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. Post the entire clause.

 

Yes you can do that with the facts.

Yes it does, the historical reality....not the made up one the Democrats so desperately try to use to hide the fact that it was the Democrat party that harbored the segregationist racist and even welcomed them back into their party after the brief existence of the Dixiecrats as a third party.

- - - Updated - - -

He had nothing of the sort.

So what? After George Sr, lost his third party bid where did he go?

 

At the state and local level yes and do a better job of it. And yes the Democrats have bought off the black vote and instituted an new type of slavery for Southern Blacks called government dependency.

 

thought sounds like an underhanded concession that the democrats are the people's party

an untwisted way of saying what you said, is that democratic representatives stand for their constituents

the gop is enforcing the will of billionaire magnates like the koch brothers, who want to restrict democratic voting

 

Entirely having to show ID is having to show ID.

How it is you assert they can provide ID to register but not one to vote and that to require one for the former does not discriminated but does so for the latter? Please explain the conflict in your position.

Looks pretty good and stupid.

Actually she even looks good in that grab shot and still smarter that Obama and Biden. Her statement was a slip of the tongue after just saying we should hold sanctions against the North Koreans and she corrected it. Obama's as his statement of fact which he even pondered before he made the statement and didn't correct it.

 

What do you object to in the video you post where nothing is said about suppressing the vote. Do you REALLY want EVERYONE to vote including those who are clueless to how our government works and have never listened to any of the candidates speak on the issues let alone even know who is the current President. You really WANT such politically ignorant people to vote? People who haven't read a newspaper of listened to the news in their entire life? If so why? Why do you WANT them to vote?

 

the significance of his rhetoric was, he doesn't want everyone to vote

how could it be more simple than that? easily understandable

it's called justice, freedom and equality, you know, like in the constitution

of course, what else would harvard law graduates be known for?

 

I'm a people and they ain't my party. I know lots of people for whom the Democrats are not their party. As I said after losing the civil rights battle they had their own Southern strategy which was a new enslavement.

I'm a constituent and they certainly don't stand for me or most people in my state.

My state like most supports voter ID and again if requiring an ID to register is not restrictive then having to show one to cast the vote isn't, something you haven't been able to reconcile.

 

Yes I understand exactly what he was saying do you? Try again and answer my questions this time.

What do you object to in the video you post where nothing is said about suppressing the vote. Do you REALLY want EVERYONE to vote including those who are clueless to how our government works and have never listened to any of the candidates speak on the issues let alone even know who is the current President. You really WANT such politically ignorant people to vote? People who haven't read a newspaper of listened to the news in their entire life? If so why?

And give me the timestamp where he says he wants to suppress voting.

Sure they have the same right to vote as anyone else if an election is held, the question is why do you WANT the ignorant to vote? What good does it do our system of government and our country if people totally ignorant of politics and the issues go into the polling place and vote for someone they know nothing about and about issue about which they are clueless? Why do you WANT such people to vote?

It this case not being so bright when it comes to government and the economy and the Constitution.

 

you're one of the people falling for gop pandering

 

Just a people and the Democrats ain't my party like it ain't the party of LOTS of people and in fact the Republicans had more people in the Florida election yesterday than the Democrats.

 

Since when? Or put it this way, representative of what?

How can it be representative if a good chunk of those voting don't know whom or what they are voting about?

We have no obligation to encourage anyone to vote, we merely make it accessible and requiring the voter show the person and the polling place who they are certainly does not make it inaccessible nor hard nor discouraging.

That's up to them you can't make them keep themselves politically aware and educated and if they choose not to we certainly shouldn't encourage them to vote nor coddle them about it.

 

Do I want clueless people to vote? No.

Do I want the government to intentionally make it harder for people to vote even if they are clueless? Hell no.

Besides, a lot of the most clueless people vote the most often. Some of the most clueless are often the elderly, and they vote more than anyone else. However, the elderly aren't being targeted by this. Minorities, the poor, and college students are.

Even if the elderly were being targeted, I still wouldn't approve of it.

Like it or not, democracy isn't about the smartest people voting. It's about whatever the majority supports. There are reasonable limits to majority rule, but voter suppression isn't one of them.

 

Exactly, it would be foolish to "want everyone to vote"

Since no one has said that..............and since no one is doing that..........

We certainly shouldn't make it easier for them to vote than anyone else either should we?