53,000 voter registration applications on hold in Georgia as election nears, report says
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
October 11, 2018 at 8:54 AM CDT - Updated October 11 at 8:54 AM
ATLANTA (RNN) - More than 53,000 voter registration applications – most of them black voters - have been put on hold in Georgia, according to an Associated Press report.
The AP found, of the pending voter registrations, 70 percent are African-American in a state where they make up 30 percent of the population. The report comes less than a month away from the Nov. 6 midterm elections and days after the registration deadline for those races.
Georgia’s “exact match” law requires voter registration information to match a voter’s Social Security records, driver’s license or state identification card.
The law was passed in 2017 and enacted in February.
The law drew criticism from voting rights groups who allege it would negatively impact minority groups in Georgia.
Georgia’s tightly-contested governor’s race between Democrat Stacey Abrams and Republican Brian Kemp will be decided in less than a month with the general election on Nov. 6.
Kemp is the secretary of state, who is tasked with running Georgia’s election system. Abrams is looking to become the first African-American female governor in the country.Recent polls have the two in a dead-heat.
Voters may still be able to partake in the midterm elections if they verify their information.
Georgia voters can check their registration status on the secretary of state website.
They can do so by showing their license when they vote or mail in information in advance, Candice Broce, a spokesperson for Kemp, told the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Voters have 26 months to correct inaccuracies.
“Every American’s right to vote is sacred, and Georgians won’t tolerate these attacks on our most basic civil liberties,” Abrams’ campaign told the AJC in an email.
Tags
Who is online
74 visitors
Why is Kemp allowed to decide who can vote in his own election? He should be made to recuse himself from that decision until after the election.
A review of the applications showed that 70% were for African Americans while NC is only 40 some % AA.
wow
who would of guessed...?
The fuck does North Carolina have to do with this story?
If it weren't for cheating, Kemp would not win. I'll find the citation from devangelical about what this bastard did the last time.
'This is the same confederate asswipe that deleted the voter results from the last election.'
'That Kemp fucktard purged voters from the rolls, shut down and then manipulated certain polling stations to be crowded, certified the election, denied the DHS offer to investigate any outside election fraud, and then wiped the voting data from state computers. Nothing to see there I guess.'
This is simple math. If people vote GOPERS lose.
People did and will vote.
Which explains how the Democrats lost over 1000 elected seats in about 8 years.
There is no Constitutional Right to vote.
Neither is there a 'constitutional right' to dissuade, block or refuse citizens the right to vote.
especially if you were a woman, or a person of color,
for FAR TOO LONG
Apparently, y'all are confused.
The Constitution does not give anyone an explicit right to vote.
Amendments to the Constitution DO limit what a state can use as a basis to prohibit voting. That is, they cannot prohibit based on race, creed, color, national origin, sex, failure to pay a poll tax, or age older than 18.
Consider the very heart of this article. Voter Registration. A state can deny you the ability to vote, if you have not registered.
Also consider Voter ID laws. Currently there are 8 states with strict Photo ID requirements for voting. One of them is in fact Georgia. Texas just won their case in the Appeals Court, and will require photo ID for this mid-term election. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits this, and these 8 or 9 states have withstood judicial challenges to their laws.
So no, you do not have a right to vote.
So, I guess you think that it is right for the person who is running for governor of the state to also be in charge of voter registration and, to withhold 58,000 applications of new voters to keep them from voting? That is what is happening here.
That would depend. The article doesn't state exactly why these 58,000 applications are on hold. Perhaps, they do not conform to the Law in Georgia for registration?
That's just it, according to folks who are involved in trying to get those applications approved, all of those groups are from Georgia none are from "outsiders" as the Republican candidate claims, those applications may have a period out of place or, may have had a name spelled wrong and, here's the kicker, the applications aren't filled out by the voter, they are filled out by personnel in the registers office so, these voters are being kept from voting by a mistake made by someone who works in the freaking office. This particular law wouldn't be allowed to exist if the SCOTUS back when Scalia was on it hadn't voted to alter the voting rights act a couple of years ago because it discriminates against none white voters.
Perhaps, the reason these 58000 applications are on hold could be because of this:
You do realize that just because a candidate makes some comment that is interpreted to mean "undocumented" persons are part of the "blue wave", that does NOT in any way mean they have any actual evidence of undocumented immigrants actually voting. This was a misconstrued comment that is easily explainable.
"The thing of it is, the blue wave is African American. It is white. It is Latino. It is Asian-Pacific Islander" "It is made up of those who've been told that they are not worthy of being here. It is comprised of those who are documented and undocumented," Stacey Abrams.
What she's saying is that both documented and undocumented immigrants are part of the blue wave pushing for immigration reform and better minority representation, it doesn't in any way claim that undocumented immigrants will be trying to vote in the upcoming election.
A person would have to wonder if he is actually making decsions for that office or if he has handed the reins off to his second in command? I mean, it makes a good story and all to say he is blocking all these, but if it's the 'office' of his current job, that's a bit different....and the fact that they are following the law as it was written, approved, signed into law, upheld in court and the appeals court might lend some legitimacy to it.
So how can one put restrictions on a non right?
I do not think it is ok that the man running for office also is in charge of overseeing the election results.
Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop.
Isn't that convenient.
Actually, the question should be, how can one put restrictions on a right? Since voting is not a right, you can put restrictions on it.
Your argument make no sense. You say gun ownership is a right yet restrictions can be put on it.
So according to your logic, gun ownership is not actually a right if restrictions are and can be put in place.
I liked this part bruce...
National State huh? really? so I guess that people that live in Oklahoma should be subject to the whims of voters in Georgia? Well that fits with their desire to have national elections determined solely in California....
Or the flip side, voters in Georgia should be subject to the whims of rich people from say Connecticut or Massachusetts or New York etc etc...
Restrictions cannot be put on the "Right", they can however be put on how one effectuates that right.
Hence no new machine gun sales...., no nuclear weapons, no non-demiled artillery pieces and so on and so forth...
And there is no inherent right to vote..... there is an inherent right to choose ones representation.
Voting is the mechanism to preserve that right.... and since voting is a mechanical act, it can be regulated, various ways of doing it can be outlawed, in fact the entire process of voting can be outlawed, but I suspect they would have to come up with another way for the citizens to effectuate their right to choose their representation.
Ok, so, show us where in this statement Abrams said that the people were undocumented or, illegal aliens.
Your source is lacking credibility,
Now you are twisting. Effectuates the right? No matter how you put it, it is restrictions on the right. Banning concealed carry is a restriction upheld by the SC.
So choosing a rep is a right but not the way one is chosen? I would say otherwise. There are rights emulated like the right for women to vote and the right for non landowners to vote.
We have the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So we have a voting rights act as law but no right to vote?
The act said specifically that people had a right to vote.
Then the question should be, since speech IS a right, how can restrictions be put on it?
How bout you post the entire quote....
she said, going through a diverse list of groups.
So rightfully she was asked....
Did you not read the linked article? or in the alternative, posted only what you thought would aide your argument?
It has already been proven that the 58,000 applications are sitting in HIS office waiting for HIM to come to a decision on them, which of course he has no plans on doing until AFTER the election.
Link please ...
Libel and Slander....
No one is saying that being able to speak isn't a right, what they ARE saying is free speech has limits. If it didn't then the Libel and Slander laws would be unconstitutional....
The Supreme court, in any political flavor has consistently upheld Libel and Slander prohibitions as constitutional.
Which is a limitation of free speech.
Full Quote....
Being reported by a myriad of sources, I'm sure all those sources are right leaning....
Typical, cant challenge the validity, trash the source.....
all citizens have a right to Access....
That is what the Voting Rights Act guarantees.
It does not guarantee that a non-citizen gets to vote..... nor does it mandate the method....
Access to voting is the same thing as voting.
I never brought that up. Nor did I say they should.
Boy that went right over your head...
You don't think this happens now? If a state votes in a Senator don't you think that Senator's decisions in Congress effect you as well or, is it only your Senator that matters to your state? There are 100 Senators in Congress, everyone of them when they vote effect your state, whether you voted for them or, not.
Yes, I did read the full article but, it seems that you skipped over this part of it,
So, according to the rest of the article Abrams was saying that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to vote in the election. But, that is not what Abrams said, she said this,
Now, I have lived in quite a few states in my life, when I arrive in that state I am considered undocumented until I get my drivers license changed over to that state. Does that make me an illegal immigrant? God's I hope not. What it does mean is that I have to go register at the DMV, give my address and, register to vote, if I wish to vote. Until those documents are registered properly, I am consider undocumented. Understand?
His arguments never make any sense
Actually, the source trash's itself by innuendo and, supposition in a story, instead of telling the story as it should have been told, ending it when Abrams office didn't get back in touch with them before printing the story, instead they went on editorializing about why she didn't get back in touch with them so, that makes the whole story suspect IMO.
There are 4 amendments to the US Constitution that are very clear that we do have a right to vote. There cannot be barriers or impediments put in place to abridge this constitutional right. This idea is driven home by the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
One that Democrats opposed.
BULLSHIT
Now they are coming right out and telling the truth. Whatever happened to "Pay no attention to undocumented immigrants voting and voter fraud, that never happens."? I guess they feel like they don't need to hide it and lie about it anymore. I think they are desperate and feel they need to appeal directly to the constituent base no matter the cost.
That is not what was said and, you know it. Spin all you want, anyone with sense knows the real story.
I love how you always try to call bullshit on facts you don't like (always with absolutely no supporting facts of your own of course) ....and how you always seek to change you parties racist history.
Read a history book for crying out loud. The Democratic party has always been on the wrong side of it.
Vote totals
Totals are in " Yea – Nay " format:
By party
The original House version:
Cloture in the Senate:
The Senate version:
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Oh I DID listen to the WHOLE speech and am crystal clear on exactly what she meant.
"The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was introduced in Congress on March 17, 1965 as S. 1564, and it was jointly sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL), both of whom had worked with Attorney General Katzenbach to draft the bill's language"
So it was co-sponsored by Democrats, and Democrats had a majority in the house and senate, and Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the 1965 voting rights act, but yes, it is still true that some Democrats opposed it as did some Republicans, specifically those from the Southern States.
So the fact is, more Democrats voted for the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act than Republicans and Democrats either sponsored or co-sponsored both bills.
Here is the 1964 civil rights act vote by party & region:
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War . "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
The Senate version:
So the fact is that 100% of Republicans from the Southern States voted against both bills. Sure, there were only 11 of them, but 100% of Southern Republicans voted against the civil rights act, but combined with the Northern Republicans who also voted against it you have a total of 40 Republican legislators voting against it. And when it comes to Democrats, 93% of the Southern house and 95% of the Southern Senate voted against plus a handful from the North totaling 117 Democrat legislators voting against it while the vast majority, 198 Democrats voted for it compared to the 165 Republicans voting for it.
Anyone trying to tell you that the Democrat party was against the civil rights and voting rights acts IS LYING TO YOU. Were some Democrats against it? Yes, as were some Republicans, but a minority in both cases.
Oh, and where do you think all those Southern Democrats who voted against the civil rights act and voting rights act moved after the 1960's? Did they get up and leave their States moving to coastal "Union lover" States and cities? Did those large populations supporting those racist legislators sell their homes and move to L.A. or San Francisco? Did they sell their family farms and head to the beach? I only ask because how else could those States have become the bastions of conservative Republicans today without all those racist Democrats moving out and becoming the minority, right? Because if you listen to Republicans, they were never, ever, ever, Democrats who then started to vote Republican after a Democrat President signed the civil rights act and voting rights act into law. The Southern Republicans today have nothing in common with those racists that used to live where they live now, they don't support confederate monuments or fly confederate flags, they don't do civil war reenactments where they dress up as apparently someone else's ancestors who fought to own slaves and created the discriminatory Jim Crow laws for decades after, right? /s
I know how badly the southern States and their residents wish to wash their hands of their past, but the fact is, that's their cross to bear. They can't just simply change party affiliation, invent some BS narrative about the Dixiecrats all moving away and expect to be welcomed and trusted as some new kind of political animal. Especially when their current elected legislators are still trying to invent new racist laws, it proves those Republicans are the same slimy Dixiecrats of the last century in Republican sheep's clothing.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has once again declined to reinstate North Carolina's strict voter ID law, which was struck down last year after a court ruled it was intentionally designed to stop African-Americans from voting."
The nation's highest court refused to consider an appeal by North Carolina Republicans, NPR's Pam Fessler reports.
That fight began in 2013, when the state made cuts to early voting, created a photo ID requirement and eliminated same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting and preregistration of high school students.
"More than half of all voters there use early voting, and African-Americans do so at higher rates than whites. African-Americans also tend to overwhelmingly vote for Democrats."
In its ruling, the appeals court said the Republican law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision ," the court said.
Let me explain.....again, how things work in Georgia, undocumented in that state means that you don't have a Georgia DL or, picture ID, which as we know means that they must get one in order to vote and, they must go to the registers office to fill out the paperwork once they have that ID, until then they are UNDOCUMENTED CITIZENS in the state of Georgia, key word here is CITIZENS. In Georgia they have what is called an "exact match" system, which means that if there is an extra space in your application for voting they can deny that application, if there is one period missing, they can deny your application, if there is one letter out of place in your name, address or, any other part of the application they can deny your application. Are you starting to understand now or, is it still over your head?
Spin it any way you want. The fact remains the Democrats were the overwhelming opposition to the bill. They also Brought us Jim Crow and the KKK and were for slavery.....and most recently the "nuclear option".... Like I said...ALWAYS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.
And, those same Dixiecrats, yes, Dixiecrats, are now a part of the Republican Party and, support your "fearless leader" Trump.
That is just yet another myth spread by Democrats who never want to admit that they loved the Southern Democrats when it helped them to win elections and not so much when history is brought up by Republicans.
The majority of southern Democrats stayed Democrats. How many politician actually switched parties, and how many Democrats kept getting elected in the South after the Civil Rights Bill passed?
No it didn't, what it does do is reveal the actual intellectual knowledge of the poster..... And for everyone that agrees with him/her/it.
Saying that without mentioning they were also the overwhelming support and even sponsored the bills and had their parties President sign them into law is the very definition of spin.
They always seem to forget the LBJ was not only from Texas he was a Democrat as well.
Those racist Dixiecrats split from the DNC and became Republicans. The south flipped from being a Democratic stronghold to being a bright red TEAparty fortress by 1995 because of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. What party was LBJ a member of?
Sell your spin somewhere else.
A handful of Democratic politicians switched parties. Other Democrats continued to be elected long after the CRA passed. There was no mass switching of parties over the CRA. Major portions of the South kept voting Democratic well into the 1990's. Two Democratic Presidents carried the South well after CRA.
You're right, there was no mass exodus in a short period of time, it took decades for the transition to complete. The south didn't truly become "Red States" till the late 1980's early 1990's. But the campaign strategy employed by Republicans started shortly after the civil rights and voting rights act were passed. The Republican majority capitalized on the Democrat parties embrace of civil rights and appealed to the disaffected longtime Southern Democrats and slowly, over time, the same confederate loving, Jim Crow supporting, anti-civil rights voting Democrat families have become Republicans. Often elderly parents who passed on their racist views to their kin never changed their party, but the next generation did because the new Republican party they were introduced to seemed to reflect their ideals more than the new Democrat party that had embraced equality and made them feel guilty about their indoctrinated racial prejudices.
No one can argue that the South isn't a bastion for Republicans today, and I don't think anyone is really claiming that all the old white Southern Dixiecrats and their families died off or moved away. So the only logical conclusion to draw is that the descendants of those who openly and physically fought against integration and equality, voted against the civil rights and voting rights act and supported bans on interracial marriage, continue to carry water for their prejudiced parents and grandparents but now consider themselves conservative Republicans.
The conservative Republican ideals of self reliance streamline nicely with those sickened at the thought of their tax dollars going to feed or aid poor minority families. Same thing with their belief that the government shouldn't be in the business of policing who a business can refuse service, their anti-minority and anti-immigrant platform, their desire to make English the national language and ban any other language from being used in public schools, their attempts to disenfranchise eligible minority voters with voter ID laws that target black Americans with "surgical precision", as well as the fact that their party elected officials are the least diverse with almost no minorities or women being represented, the vast majority being white male Christians. All these factors make the Republican party a comfortable sunny retreat for white supremacists, wannabe Nazi's and bitter neo-confederates still hoping the "South will rise again!".
Details matter,
You can make up all sorts of things and make up excuses all day long.
Yawn.
@3.3.49
So you agree with my statement that two Democratic Presidents carried the South after CRA.
Good to know!
Look, I get it that today's Democrats would love to distance themselves from slavery, and the KK, and lynchings, and the South.
None of that erases facts and history.
Please enlighten me as to what all I "made up". Are there no ex-Dixicrats hiding among the Republican party? Do the Nazi's and confederate flag waving white supremacists not support Trump and vote Republican? Do you really believe the anti-civil rights Southerners have all either died off or moved leaving the Southern States free of their past endemic racial hatred and prejudice in just the last half century?
I am pretty sure there are still some old Dixiecrats around, and some are likely to be Republicans. They are just as likely to be Democrats, too.
The current Democrat party opposed those actions and that is why the southern Dixiecrats split. Which political part still panders to the Dixiecrat bigots with the support of "States Rights" that was used to defend racism and slavery? How many Klansmen/Alt-right endorsed Hillary? How many supported Trump?
Why would a racist Dixiecrat support the DNC when liberals support equal rights for all, regardless of race, creed color or gender?
How many Dixiecrats voted for Obama?
Just as likely? Really? To still be voting for a party that no longer works to suppress minorities? A bigoted Dixiecrat still identifying with the party who now has embraced equality for all regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof? Seems pretty unlikely to me unless they live in a cabin with no access to news and have never been informed of the changes that have happened in the last 60 years or the last Democrat Presidents skin color. It seems far more likely those Dixiecrats are all now well entrenched in the Republican party, believed the lie about Obama not being born in Hawaii, love the anti-immigrant and anti-minority agenda of Trump and the white nationalist Republicans, feel a connection to the white nationalists in Russia and support a sexist racist imbecile because he's speaking their language, that of taking America back to a time where white male Christians were still large and in charge. I can't imagine any old Dixiecrat sitting there today debating over which party to support, of course they vote Republican, it's almost as if the Republicans adopted everything they've ever wanted in their party platform, everything they were fighting for back in the 1950's, so no doubt they are wearing their red MAGA hats proudly.
You know Dixiecrats were a party that disbanded some 60-70 years ago, right?
It doesn't freaking matter who was what back then. Most of those folks are dead and gone.
I just think it is stupid to say that all the Southern Democrats became Republicans when they clearly kept electing Democrats (Democrats the DNC was MORE than happy to get). If they all left because of the CRA and VRA, it damn sure wouldn't have taken them so freaking long to start voting Republican.
Carter would have lost in a landslide had he not won the South so convincingly.
And you do realize that Democrats hold offices in every Southern state, right? Did all those Democrats move to the South after the CRA and VRA passed?
Did all the Californians who voted for Ford vs. Carter seem like such "racists" to you that they would vote for a Republican instead of a Democrat? Or did loads of Southern Democrats move to California after the CRA and VRA?
Always made so much sense to me that people would claim that Southern Democrats left the Democratic Party in droves after the CRA when the Republican Party voted for it in a higher percentage than did Democrats.
/S
And then again, I have to remind myself we are talking about Democrats here, so I suppose it is possible that some were stupid enough to move to a party historically opposite of what they wanted.
LMAO!
How many of those that switched to the Republican Party voted AGAINST the CRA and, how many of them opposed it in their state? I'll bet you every single one of them did.
How many of them supported the CRA during debate and, then voted for it when it came to the floor and, how many of them supported it in their states?
Sure there was, many African-Americans switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party in the south and, many whites switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in support of Richard Nixon and, his southern strategy.
Of course they did, those were African-Americans who had switched party's and, young people like me who had joined the Democratic Party after they had seen the direction the Republican Party was going.
Did they support the CRA or, were they against it?
You do realize or, maybe you don't, that many African-Americans became Democrats after the CRA and, VRA was passed simply because LBJ supported it and, signed it into law. So, the Democrats didn't lose support in the south but, GAINED support in the south because, the African-American community in the south was and, is larger than the white community in the south. When the vote isn't suppressed by poll taxes and, racist laws in the south white racists lose elections.
Black in the 60's and 70's didn't turn out in big enough numbers to have much influence on statewide races.
It was Southern whites who helped most to elect Carter.
Some people want to make it appear that there was a mass exodus from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. That is false. Why would Southern Democrats join a party that they mainly despised their whole lives and who voted for the CRA in higher percentages than did the Democratic Party?
You have two fallacy's here, one is the assumption that Southern Democrats all left the party and, joined the Republican Party and, that no one joined the Southern Democratic Party after that and, that there were two different Democratic Party's, one branch in the south and, the other in the north. Will Rogers said it best, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat", the Democrats were a very diverse party back then, you had people in it that were racists, mostly from the south, the southern strategy wasn't just about the south, it encompassed the entire nation, the "southern strategy" was meant to reach out to those who were racists in whatever part of the nation they lived in, to get them to come over to the Republican Party to support Republican candidates, especially Richard Nixon and, it worked, whether those Democrats changed party's officially or, not isn't the question, whether they voted for a Republican is the question, Nixon was elected, that is a fact, in FACT he was elected twice.
So, it isn't about officially changing party's it is about who they voted FOR in the elections, in many southern states you can "cross over" and, vote for someone who isn't a member of your party, especially in presidential elections. Now, those Dixiecrats might have stayed Democrats for a decade or, two but, they eventually changed party's, either becoming independents and, voting for folks on the Right or, becoming Republicans, either way they support Trump now.
The fact that it was a southern Democrat who was president at the time of the creation of the VRA and, CRA that signed it into law and, campaigned for it in Congress is also a factor in why the racist Democrats voted for Republicans after those acts were passed.
Yes the Democrats constantly try to pedal that lie that the parties somehow "switched" as soon as they figure out they are talking to someone that has a clue of history LMFAO! In order to do so you have to ignore that as recently as 1960's Lindon Johnson said he would have N**gers voting democrat for 200 years along with:
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again....and they are still using that very strategy to this very day!!!!
And yet here we are with people trying to deny that the white supremacists are all proud republicans.
has a clue of revisionist history you mean?
LMFAO! right.
I am talking about actual American history. Not your liberal fantasy version.
So you are going to deny the present?
Are you going to deny that the proud boys are republican? Going to deny the Charlottesville rally 'unite the right' people are republicans?
I haven't seen all their voter registrations how should I know. Would you say the domestic terrorist group called ANTIFA are all Democrats?
I have never seen anything to either confirm or deny that any of them are republicans or not. They may all be independents or even democrats for all I know. Do you a have any conclusive evidence of their political affiliation? Speculation does not count.
I would not deny their political affiliation. I would say that they are not terrorists. I would call people on the right with guns on rooftops more terrorist.
I would say that their name, 'unite the right' would be a clue.
Since you brought up the Proud boys have you ever noticed the pattern?
How many times is it going to take before these morons figure out a better strategy?
You mean the three guns that were owned by people with the proper permits who had their three weapons unloaded and in their cases and complied with the police instructions to pick them upon a secure space (the guns were not confiscated) . Those guns?
Not going to deny who and what they are. I have said before I do not agree with them or their tactics.
According to articles I have read, they were confiscated, then returned.
Funny how the story keeps changing though. Now the guns were unloaded in their cases.
Like that makes it all ok. We were just on this rooftop with rifles to watch the action through our scopes....
I don't own binoculars, when I really need them I use a scope or my digital camera instead (maybe once or twice a year if that? so why buy binoculars?) if the gun is more handy I use the scope I don't remove the scope becuse I would have to site it in again. A process that takes time and several rounds. I guess I would be automatically guilty if I grabbed the gun instead of the camera to get a closer look. Admittedly, if I were going out of the house I would grab the camera but if I didn't have the camera?....I am not making excuses, just pointing out that it isn't unthinkable.
What a great idea and cheap, NASCAR here I come. All the action up close, it's gonna be great !!
Hey that might be a good way to see sports and even music festivals up close as well. Heck this could catch on.
.
Sarc
You keep claiming that Republicans are racists, which is why the Southern Democrats left to join them.
That is incorrect. It would make no sense for racists to come to a party that historically had been the exact opposite.
If it were true, then the whole Republican Party would be racists. And no state like California would have voted for Ford over Carter if that were true.
yep Great idea, IF you live way the hell away form others.
If I see a neighbor looking at me, looking in my yard or at my stuff thru a scope on a rifle, I'm pretty likely to call the cops.
Where as if they had binoculars or a camera I'd confront them myself to find out WTF their problem was. lol
If they removed the scope it would look like a telescope, and if they had a pirate hat you would just think it was part of a haloween costume.
Just because the Dixiecrat party was disbanded doesn't mean that those voters and their relatives or the people who agree with them do not exist. Those former Dixiecrats would be 75 and older and many of them are still active voters, for the GOP. They were absorbed into the Republican party when Nixon and Reagan appealed to their racism with the support of "States Rights" and evangelical Christian beliefs. Those southern bigots are now the core of the TEAparty.
If the Dixiecrats are the past of the current DNC then you have no problem listing the discriminatory policies of the Democrats or (gasp)Progressives that appeal to the bigots of the Klan.
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
You should supply shovels and hip-waders if you are going to spew that much bullshit.
true, it would also be much lighter to carry up on to roof tops.
Or to take anywhere.
What party elected Donald Trump, Steve King, Strom Thurmond, David Duke, and Jeff Sessions?
Your inability to answer the question about racist DNC polices speaks volumes.
What party elected Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, and George Wallace?
And don't Democrats always claim that there are more Democrats than Republicans? Pretty hard to elect someone when you are the supposed minority party.
You name what racist policies Republicans employed to get all those Southern Democrats to change parties.
Go!
Robert Byrd renounced his racism as did George Wallace.
.
.
So you all keep saying.
Why would anyone who was a racist join a party historically KNOWN for being anti-slavery and which voted in higher percentages for CRA than Democrats? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?
"Oh, we don't like the Democratic Party anymore because of the CRA, so we will now vote for the party that overwhelmingly supported it"
/S
Gerrymandering, opposition to equal rights for women, blacks, Hispanics and LGBT. Them oppose hate crime protections and still use the phrase "States Rights" as a code word for rolling back the protections of the 14th Amendment/Reconstruction Amendments.
The northern progressive Democrats voted for the CRA and the VRA.
Gerrymandering?
Like the Democrats did for decades?
Only reason it is an "issue" now is that Dems have lost their ability to do so through the ballot box and are pissed off about it. Win some elections and change it!
Women have equal rights now. What right do I as a man have that you don't?
What rights do I have as a white man that black and Hispanics don't have?
And so did Republicans. Point?
Show me where I said that "The Republicans are racist", I'd like to see that, especially considering that my father was a Republican his whole life.
It would make perfect sense if the Republicans wanted to boost their chances in the south after the CRA was passed and, signed into law by a Democratic president from Texas.
No, that wouldn't be true, that is why those Republicans who aren't racists are now leaving the party they have supported their whole life.
You are talking about the beginning of the migration from one party to another, it took a while but, with the "Southern Strategy" working for them and, the "dog whistles" for those who thought the way the Republicans wanted them to think, the party gradually changed from its progressive stance, which it had until the 1960's, to the current stance of conservativism and, racist dog whistles that it holds dear today.
That isn't what you said,
I live in an area where hunting is a pastime and, if someone points a gun in my general direction, I will call the cops on him or, her, if I really feel threatened and, I have a gun on me, I'll shoot whoever is pointing theirs at me and, I won't regret a minute of it.
When were these folks president? I believe they only won state elections.
A good thing about Democrats and, at the same time it makes it hard to elect a Democrat nationally, we don't walk in lockstep with the party line, we think for ourselves.
Not if you all walk in lock step with every issue and, let fear rule you.....like the Republicans do.
During Reagan's time, "welfare queens", "welfare Cadillac's" just to name two of them.
Ah, there it is!
I knew someone here would utter the famous "dogwhistle" line and claim that the GOP makes everyone think the same.
And to think just a few short years ago, Democrats were decrying the Tea Party as detrimental to the GOP.
Hmmm....so you HONESTLY think uttering those words is policy, huh?
Pretty damn weird!
[deleted/taunting]
Those words were used by the Republicans to set policy for their agenda for the past 50 years.
Okay, what specific policy was set by "the welfare queens" statement?
First, let me remind you of what I actually said so that there is no mistake,
Every Republican campaign since Reagan has called for cuts to "entitlements", social security, Medicare, food stamps, WIC, all social programs. The term "Welfare Queens" is a dog whistle for anyone with brown skin who collects or, might collect these social program benefits and, white people collecting those same benefits think that it means that only those brown skinned people will be the ones effected so, they vote for those Republicans who say they will cut the social programs and, when their benefits get cut they're like, "What happened, oh, it must be the Democrats who did that to us, it couldn't have been the Republican I voted for", guess what, it was the Republicans.
That means there's also no inherent right to keep and bear arms. The language of the second amendment is exactly that of the way the "right to vote" is expressed everywhere it appears in the Constitution.
Excuse me?
The 15th, the 19th, the 24th, and the 26th Amendments to the US Constitution, plus the 1965 Voting Rights Act says that you are very wrong.
We have the inherent right to vote. We do not have to prove it. They have to prove conclusively that we do not. It's the same idea that we are innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow a of a doubt.
Just to earmark what epistte has stated here,
So, it would seem that there is a right to vote, the Constitution and, U.S. law says so.
You missed the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.
Ooops, sorry. (hangs head in shame)
No harm, no foul.
I missed the 24th Amendment previously and had to add it. I knew of the 15th(voting rights for blacks/former slaves) 19th (women's suffrage) and the 26th (18 year olds get to vote). I thought that it was the 1966 Voting Rights Act, so I had to edit that boo-boo.
I wonder how some people managed to pass their high school civics requirement without knowing these basic facts. I went to a crappy school but I did pay attention in class and aced it, mostly because it was so easy.
I've always been interested in history and, I lived through the Civil Rights period and, campaigned for the age for voting change during Nixon's time in office, I was going to turn 18 soon and, wanted to vote if I could be drafted.
I had just started elementary school at that time. I first got to vote in the mid 1980s.
Ive always been a political junkie because I love history and philosophy.
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker , 146 U.S. 1 , 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id ., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
Bush v Gore, US Supreme Court.
And, how pray tell, does this have to do with what I posted? Neither I or, epistte were talking about the "Electoral College".
Your argument is a red herring. It does not address the idea that we have the right to vote. The US president or federal judges also don't vote on those electors. The citizens can not vote on issues before Congress or for federal judges but that doesn't mean that we do not have inherent voting rights. The US is not a direct democracy.
[deleted]
The electoral college has nothing to do with slave states..... (nor the 3/5ths compromise)
Of course it does. And the 3/5th compromise? Really?
Show me your factual proof, cause I'm absolutely prepared to show mine....
and I will be using the Founders own words to prove it...
“It’s embarrassing,” said Paul Finkelman, visiting law professor at University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I think if most Americans knew what the origins of the Electoral College is, they would be disgusted.”
Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves , who comprised about 40 percent of its population.
During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
Madison knew that the North would outnumber the South, despite there being more than half a million slaves in the South who were their economic vitality, but could not vote. His proposition for the Electoral College included the “three-fifths compromise,” where black people could be counted as three-fifths of a person, instead of a whole. This clause garnered the state 12 out of 91 electoral votes, more than a quarter of what a president needed to win.
“None of this is about slaves voting,” said Finkelman, who wrote a paper on the origins of the Electoral College for a symposium after Gore lost. “The debates are in part about political power and also the fundamental immorality of counting slaves for the purpose of giving political power to the master class.”
He said the Electoral College’s three-fifths clause enabled Thomas Jefferson, who owned more than a hundred slaves, to beat out in 1800 John Adams , who was opposed to slavery, since the South had a stronghold.
Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz championed legislation in New York that brought the state into the compact and was asked by the NewsHour Weekend why the movement is important.
“We are the greatest democracy on the planet, and it seems to me that in the greatest democracy, the person who gets the most votes should win the election,” said Dinowitz. “We’re one country, North, South, East and West. One country. The votes of every single person in the country should be equal. And right now, the votes are not equal. Some states your vote is more important than in other states.”
New York overwhelmingly agreed on his bill in 2014, joining nine other states and Washington, D.C. Together, they have 165 electoral votes. If they gain a total of 270 — the majority needed to elect a president — the nation will move to a popular vote.
We don't need all the States to agree, just enough States to clear 270, that's only 105 to go. If just those States all agree to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner then it's a done deal, the slavery based unequal electoral college will be effectively neutered and this country would be far better and more prosperous from it.
yawn
[deleted]
DNFTT
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Time to que the moderators and purple pen....
[deleted]
[deleted]
And, DP. I have flagged your whole conversation about the Electoral College and, when and, why it was instituted, the reason I stated earlier, "What the fuck does this have to do with this election cycle or, this article?" It is a derail and, it is off topic and, I have marked this thread as such in my flags, please stay on topic, if you wish to talk about the Electoral College start a seed.
Don't want the truth and facts on your article?
I do but, the Electoral College has nothing to do with this election or, what is going on in Georgia in this election cycle. DON'T DEFLECT AGAIN.
Yeah, right, and the original lie is still up? that is only a skirting violation?
completely disproven but remains...
I guess that answers the question about truth on the article. Doesn't it..
I"ll tell ya the other interesting part.
Quoting the Founders is now a skirting the Coc violation. Especially if it proves a progressive liberal claim to be a lie...
The site would rather have lies up front and read than the historical truth.
Ergo sum, any integrity the site has is history.
I apologize for getting "squirrelled".
There is some connection between the EC and this seed considering the seed is specifically talking about the disenfranchisement of minorities which has been endemic since our founding. But you are correct, none of our side tangent had anything to do with the realities we face ourselves with today where Republicans are actively trying to win elections, not by stopping ineligible voters, but by blocking eligible voters they know are more likely to vote Democrat.
I understand, that is why I simply asked for it to stop and, flagged it as "off topic".
Not one of those gives anyone the right to vote. All they do is state what conditions are not allowed to be used to deny someone the vote but does not give anyone the right to vote.
You need to go back and, re-read them, each one begins with "A citizens RIGHT to vote", notice the words, right to vote is at the beginning of each amendment.
You left out the end of those sentences were it says "shall not be denied". Those ammendents don't say you have the absolute right to vote but only delineates the reason she one can not be denied the right to vote.
Ark, in states like Georgia, North Dakota, Texas, any state that is currently "Red", those rights are being denied to certain segments of society, through the systematic removal of the ability of people to register to vote, the making of laws that if not "poll taxes" they come really close to being poll taxes by creating a system that makes potential voters jump through political hoops to register or, to keep their ability to vote in an election. Right now Georgia is the worst one but, this is going on in almost every Red state in this country right now, the suppression of the vote by Republicans.
Why are you continually looking for loopholes as a way to deny people the right to vote that is stated in 4 different constitutional amendments? Do you do the same thing for the various rights in the 1st and 4th Amendment, or is this ploy just to keep people from voting, as a way to protect Republican political power? You are treating voting as a privilege instead of as a right, while trying to deny your actions.
If you are 18 and a US citizen you can vote.
Facts have no effect on these people, epiette.
I've slowly come to the same conclusion. These people reject logic as a foreign language.
These are the very same people who claim to know and understand the Constitution but apparently, the various Amendments are only suggestions, unless they agree with them.
Again, rightwing lies never die. The "right to vote" is directly mentioned 4 times in the Constitution:
It is also, affirmed if not mentioned specifically in the twenty-third amendment which gave the residents of DC the right to vote in presidential elections. This preposterous notion that the Constitution does not confer a right to vote is ludicrous, not to mention loony, beyond description. How people can convince themselves that the plain language in the Constitution doesn't say what it says is a tribute to how ideology can destroy the ability to think or even to see what's right in front of one. It is the exact same type of wording that's used in the second amendment for the right to keep and bear arms. Would these people would let me get away with saying that there's no constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Umm...15th Amendment
Voting isn't buying a loaf a bread at the supermarket and it should take a higher standard to do it. Proving ones bona fides is a bedrock principle of any viable election system. Without proof of who the voter is, the election system is meaningless.
Prove to me that these 53,000 "disenfranchised" voters are truly disenfranchised after they proved their bona fides, and i'll be right next to you protesting the hold up.
I suspect many of the 53,000 expect the voting standard to be the same as the standard to buy a loaf of bread and HAVE NOT met the required standard to vote. Which is likely the problem. That said, most of us have ZERO problem offering ID for the privilege of voting. I fail to see the problem with requiring proof of who you are to vote.
So?
That doesn't change, or more importantly disprove, the premise of my argument.
So what is your argument? Voter fraud is actually less than one percent. So in order to fight an almost non existent problem, make it harder for people to vote? Shorten voting days? Take away polling places?
My argument is clearly stated. I guess yours is that you feel a few fraudulent votes is okay. I don't.
Again, proving bona fides is the basis for any viable election system and not a burden for any civic minded person that wants to vote.
I do understand however its tougher when folks have no interest in voting unless they get something out of it. Ala Acorn ...... that no longer exists by the way because of the frauds it perpetrated.
So again, you are for more restrictions making it harder to vote when in this one state, NC only one fraudulent vote was found. And it was for trump.
What most people don't understand is it will impact more than just who you all think it will.
One of these days it will get to the point that some of you get turned away for some stupid reason. Maybe then you will all realize what you are helping to accelerate.
I’ll never get turned away because i’m not afraid to prove who I am. Its not really that hard to understand.
Prove who you are or don’t vote. Requiring anything less, regardless of how you try to spin it, is simply progressive nonsense.
Hopefully that finally clears things up for you
If the government somehow made an error in your processing in some states even if you went to vote it seems some were not allowed to. I offer no links or prove as that is just what I've heard. IF that is the case that sucks. Someone else's mistakes affect us often enough as it is.
If and when that happens, it would be wrong. Clearly.
Having been involved in several elections, our township basically doesn't turn anyone away. If a voter can't prove bona fides for one reason or another they are allowed to fill out a "provisional" ballot. Those ballots may be scrutinized to a higher level if required.
Still, that doesn't change the bedrock principle of any viable election system.
That is to say, requiring that each voter proves their bona fides to vote at the chosen polling place.
All Acorn did was encourage people to register to vote and to get out and vote.
What frauds did they perpetrate?
You surely cannot be referring to O'Keefe and his bogus investigation?
ANOTHER way the GOP has disenfranchised voters. Hell, when they make it all but impossible for the League of Women Voters can't even register voters, shit is out of control.
Yeah, Acorn is not longer around because they did it righteous .......
Wrong again Tessy.
Acorn employees guilty of election fraud
One wonders if you and others here ever get tired of being wrong.
You used Fux 'news' as a source?
That's as valid as O'Keefe's sting operation.
The truth once again obliterates your response.
Sad! I guess you aren't tired of being wrong yet .....
You're wrong too Sparty.
NONE of them were even tried for 'election fraud'. A couple were found guilty for 'voter registration fraud'. BIG difference.
Yes, i understand in your world it is different. However, in the real world they amount to the same thing. And trying to pass them off as something different is simply progressive nonsense. You defend election system dishonestly like its not a bad thing, and it clearly is.
What started out as a good organization ultimately got bastardized by radically progressive liberals. And they destroyed that good organization with their dishonesty. No one else is to blame and it is shame how they single handedly took down Acorn.
Yes, in MY world, FACTS matter.
But they ARE NOT the same thing, which is why there is a distinction in the LAW and to pretend that they are the same is simply regressive nonsense.
See how that shit works?
The ONLY fucking thing I am defending is the TRUTH.
You're defending media dishonesty like it's not a bad thing BTFW. I thought y'all were all about 'honesty' in journalism. I guess that goes down the shithole as long as it's Fox doing it.
Total bullshit. The RW singled out Acorn and when the League of Women Voters tried to step into the void, they went after them too.
The FACT is that the ACTUAL issues are NEVER bad enough for y'all. Whatever the issue, y'all have to EXAGERATE it with hyperbolic BULLSHIT. 'Voter fraud' isn't bad enough, y'all have to make the FALSE claim that it was 'election fraud'. Your own fucking link makes it clear that the Fox headline is intentionally misleading since it cites the 'voting fraud' conviction yet NOT ONE 'election fraud' prosecution. Believe your own source.
BTFW, words matter.
Simmer down nah .....
[deleted]
It my world, facts is facts. One of which being, no matter how you try to spin it, you clearly continue to defend fraudulent election practices. Acorn is gone because of actions like that. No other reason.
See how that shit works?
I really could NOT care less what your emotional state is.
The fasts in YOUR link are clear to any thinking person to read, which it seems you didn't bother to do.
Your own posts refute that claim.
Yet here you are moving the goal posts. First it was 'election fraud', now it's 'fraudulent election practices' and BOTH are BULLSHIT. Why is it so hard for you to admit that your own fucking link sites 'voter registration fraud'?
Acorn is gone because the GOP WANTED it gone and they didn't stop with Acorn.
Yes, I see how your comments is STILL BULLSHIT.
You pretend to like facts, here, this is my LAST attempt at bringing you into the REAL world for this topic.
I don't know about you but when I registered to vote, my 'bona fides' were checked and I was issued a voters registration card. It had been the ONLY form of 'voter ID' I needed to vote, other than my matching signature, since the 70's.
Prove to me that the Secretary of State had any intention of INFORMING those 53,000 that their applications were being held.
All evidence to the contrary. The Secretary ADMITS that they are being held based on the 'exact match' statute, which is NOT a 'standard to vote', it's spell check on crack.
This isn't about what 'most of us' can do. It took me over a YEAR to get a 'certified' copy of my birth certificate, which I had NEVER needed in over 60 years.
I fail to see the problem with using the same document that I have been using for over 40 years.
Your drivers license and, your matching signature should be enough.
If they demand a photo ID to vote then make the voter registration card a photo ID, but it cannot come at a cost because that cost and effort would be a poll tax.
There is absolutely no proof that there is voting fraud that can be eliminated or that the infinitesimally small amount would be lessened by requiring a photo ID to exercise a right. This partisan sham is nothing more than a 21st-century poll tax to disenfranchise people who don't vote conservative. The GOP knows that they cannot win if the majority of people exercise their right to vote, so they need to find a way to keep people from voting if they are to stay in power.
ID is easily obtainable for most of those who don't already have one.
It isn't an unreasonable requirement, especially in light of the things we do almost every day that already require an ID.
The GOP will be just fine with more people voting. It has done pretty well over the last 10 years, as Democrats can attest to, especially the thousand who lost elected seats in that span.
As I have stated before and been challenged on this.
My TX voter registration only matches my passport. Military Id does not include my middle name, TX drivers license doesn't match because my middle name does not fit in the space allotted.
So I have been asked before (as recently as 2016) to sign an affidavit acknowledging my "aliases" in order to vote.
All very friendly, butt utter nonsense in my opinion.
3 photo Ids and I'm "hassled" because the TX drivers license (photo) isn't technically on a par with the TX voter registration card ( no photo)
It is the job of the Bureau of Elections to prove that you are not eligible to vote after you fill out the paper registration. You cannot be forced to jump though hoops to exercise your right to vote.
How many of those actions are constitutional rights?
There is no proof that the requirement of a photo ID cuts down on the already one in a million case of voter fraud.
3 photo Ids and I'm "hassled" because the TX drivers license (photo) isn't technically on a par with the TX voter registration card ( no photo)
I live in AZ here its easy to get on the absentee voter and they send you the ballot, you have about a week to vote and return it. Its wonderful.
I have plenty of time to research all the candidates from all parties and I vote for the person I think is most qualified for the position they are seeking.
In November of 2004 in Ohio I went to vote with a photo ID (drivers license) my voter registration card and a post card that was mailed to me by the county bureau of elections on October 15 stating that I was a registered voter, when the hours were and where I was to vote. I was denied the right to vote because my name was removed from the voter rolls in a partisan charade by J. Ken Blackwell. I had to cause a scene to even get a provisional ballot.
@5.2.6Voter ID has been upheld by SCOTUS.
Constitutional right has nothing to do with it.
Much like requiring ID to buy a gun.
I never claimed that ID cuts down on voter fraud.
But it damn sure can't hurt.
Must be why most countries require some sort of voter ID.
If it can't be conclusively proven to cut down on vote fraud then what is the use for requiring people to have it to exercise a right? Requiring voters to have a photo ID to vote is a blatant poll tax. Most countries do not require a state-issued ID to vote. The fact that requiring a photo ID is an unfunded mandate. The GOP should be forced to pay 100% of the cost for these IDs and to provide them to voters without any effort on the part of the voter.
How many people have been killed when a ballot goes off in a crowded room?
The level of vote fraud in the US is a statistical anomaly and it's a partisan emotional claim. We need to be instead focusing on how to get more people to vote instead of making it more difficult to cast a ballot. Tell me when fraud is more than .5 % and I start to look into the issue.
@5.2.10If we have to show ID to buy a gun, certainly we can do the same for voting. Does the government pay for those IDs it requires for buying that gun? Has SCOTUS upheld voter ID laws?
I am not concerned about Canada's voting laws, I am not Canadian and don't ever plan on becoming eligible to vote there.
How many American lives have been affected by the vote? I'd say damn near ALL of them.
I haven't had to "register" per se since i can't remember. In Michigan to vote you have to be:
As a tax paying resident of the township i vote and own a home in, i am automatically registered. If you aren't a homeowners, etc, a person must show some form of State or Federally issued picture ID, each year to prove their bona fides and register to vote. Such as a valid Drivers License, Passport, etc.
This is verified one last time at the polling place where you fill out a card with your address of record, show a picture ID which is verified and crossed off a paper copy of the townships voter rolls.
What state and township are you talking about?
Things tend to change in 40 years for most people. People move, etc. Having to prove who you are once a year to vote is barely an imposition for most people. I still fail to see the issue with that.
Things that make you go, hmmmmmm ...... i need an ID to do that:
- Apply for unemployment
- Apply for a job
- Buy booze or smokes
- Apply for welfare, food stamps, etc
- Open a bank account
- Apply for a mortgage or rent a place
- Get on an airplane
- Rent a car
- Buy a car
- Get married
- Rent a hotel room
- Apply for licenses such as a hunting license
- Pick up a prescription
- Purchase a gun
And the list goes on and on and on ......
Again, my first ID was a stamped and signed original of my birth certificate and I got my SS card and then my DL, then my voters registration card.
As I moved from town to town and state to state, my DL was ALL I needed to get a new DL and voters registration card. ALL these years those were based on me going into the SS office in 1969 when I used my hospital issued birth certificate as an ID.
My wife got her name change on her SS and DL WITHOUT a certified birth certificate, based solely on a COPY of our marriage license. Those are federal and state forms of ID.
Note that I could have 'created' that copy of our marriage license on my computer in about 10 minutes.
So neither my DL or hers are founded on an ORIGINAL copy of certified State ID of any kind. For all these years we have voted without an issue.
That could change with a stroke of a pen in any state at any time. The GOP gerrymandered my district and extended a tiny little fingers to move us [and other Dems] from a purple district into a deep blue district and they got their Tea Party wingnut elected to congress in my old district.
My voter ID card is in NO WAY a form of ID that would allow me to vote. It USED to, it doesn't now.
Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day.
Under Indiana Code 3-5-2-40.5, which defines "proof of identification", your photo ID must meet 4 criteria to be acceptable for voting purposes. It Must:
1. Display your photo
How's that for 'couching'?
Just think, maybe next time Democrats will win and then they can gerrymander as they did for decades.
The only reason Dems piss and moan about gerrymandering is simply because they have lost their ability to do it in most of the country.
Do what a famous Dem suggested--win some elections.
I see, so your AREN'T using the same document for 40 years. And you HAVE been required to prove your voting bona fides more than once in 40 years
Thanks for finally fessing up.
Typical that my point went right over your head.
My 'bona fides' are based on the SAME fucking documents that I used 40 years ago. The state has decided that it's own 'state issued voter ID card' is no longer sufficient to allow me to vote.
Oh and THEN the state changed the documents that qualify to get a NEW DL or state picture ID. THEN they CLOSED many of the BMVs and limited the hours, so now we all have to travel farther to get renewals or a NEW DL or state picture IDs for those that do not drive. BTW, this in a county that has little to NO public transportation and only ONE BMV location is accessible by that limited bus service.
The GOP was in charge of the Indiana Legislature for 5 redistricting's in a row...
False.
I haven't shown my picture ID to ANYONE this entire year.
They've done 'pretty well' by limiting the vote of young people and people of color wherever they can. There is documented evidence to that FACT, including the proof in this seed.
True !
Only the dumbest of the dumb …….. Can't/Won't !
"I haven't shown my picture ID to ANYONE this entire year."
You don't do much outside the house...do you.
Typical, you're still not listening. You don't give a fuck what anyone else sez, likely never have. Nothing new there.
Answer the question i posed several posts ago.
What state are you talking about. Never mind, it doesn't matter. The boulder sized chip on you shoulders on this topic isn't going to change not matter what.
That said, anyone who bitches about having to show the appropriate ID in Michigan to vote is just a whiny little bitch. Especially since the SOS will provide a State issued picture ID for free if the voter shows cause.
Yep, lots of whiny little bitches running around these days.
Cry me a river that's what you told me
Lack of transportation or the correct underlying documents has NOTHING to do with intellect and anyone claiming differently lacks intellect.
I presume that is a question, though it is improperly punctuated.
To answer, I do tons of shit 'outside the house'. The last time I had to show my DL was when I went to reup my DOT driving qualifications last year. I haven't flown or rented a car in over a decade.
My bank just asks for my account #, my grey hair is all I have needed to get all the booze and tobacco I want [I haven't been carded ANYWHERE for over a decade]. Groceries, no worries, they ask me for my Kroger's or Meijer's card. NONE of those 'forms of ID' have pictures on them...
Y'all can claim all you want that a picture ID is needed by everyone on a day to day basis but if YOU 'do much outside the house', y'all KNOW it's utter BULLSHIT.
Tissue?
Excuse after excuse isn't something to tout as a good thing !
But I guess that's the "Liberalistic" way. "It's not my fault" !
Do those country's have a Constitution that guarantee's a persons right to vote?
Don't know and don't care. I am an American, and what other countries' laws are don't matter much to me nor affect me much.
Asking for ID isn't too much to ask. We have to show one to buy a gun.
First I note that MOST of those are not 'day to day' events. Those that I highlighted in bold, I have done in the last 12 months all WITHOUT a photo ID [actually, I rented a house in WI].
Not excuses, intended barriers.
BTFW, are citizens who live in outlying areas that don't or can't drive and have no public transportation at fault? Are they at fault when the state closes their local BMV? Are they at fault because they don't have a certified copy of their birth certificate even though the state didn't even issue them when they were born?
If so, HOW so?
Well then, when you can show me, in the Constitution were ID is required to vote, then I will agree that we need ID to vote, until then, I don't give a fuck either what other country's require when they vote, in this country every American Citizen 18 and, over has a right to vote.
Sure they do. If they are not incarcerated, or on parole, or had that right suspended for any other reason. And if they comply with the laws governing voting in their state. Including voter ID, which has been upheld by that nasty old SCOTUS some on the left detest so much.
You show me where in the Constitution it states that to buy a gun, you must provide ID and undergo a background check.
Agreed, at least in this country it is because it isn't in all countries. And the most basic requirement to verify one's identity can not, by any reasonable explanation, be called disenfranchisement.
Not as long the verification process is a fair one. Which in my state it is. Extremely so in fact.
Cool, agreed.
Now tell us how we prove someone is a Citizen and at least 18?
What I will do is tell you a story, it is true and, I know it is true because I watched my mother live through it. My mother was born in Lumberton, N.C. when she was born a birth certificate was issued and, stored at the local courthouse, when my mother was four that courthouse burned to the ground taking all the records with it, including my mother birth certificate so, she never had one thanks to that fire. She was able to get a drivers license because she still had her old ID from when dad was in the Army and, she was able to register to vote because of those ID's, however, in todays U.S. she would not be able to vote because she would be required in some states not only to present ID but, her birth certificate which she can't get because it burned in a fire in 1918.
There are people out there that would have as much trouble as my mother would have had or, nearly as much trouble as her because, certain records are hard to obtain or, none existent so, you tell me, what are they suppose to do to be able to vote in places like Georgia?
Voting is a right of citizenship so why should people convicted of a crime lose their right to cast a ballot when they keep their others rights, with the exception of the 2nd? You are treating voting as a privilege instead of a right.
Their SSN on the voting registration form is a good way.
No, I am following the law.
Many states have laws restricting felons' voting rights.
Take it up with SCOTUS if you don't agree with their laws.
Just like felons are often limited to exercising their Second Amendment rights.
There is a very valid reason to strip the 2nd amendment rights from a convicted criminal but what are the equally valid reasons to take away someone's voting rights, except to as pandering politicians desire to play to the emotions of voters who seek to further punish people?
If that is what you think, that is your opinion.
I certainly never claimed such nonsense, but go right ahead if you wish!
Tell it to SCOTUS.
I have no power to change or make or interpret laws for everyone.
What would be a good reason to strip Second Amendment rights away from someone convicted of selling drugs, or embezzling, or drunk driving?
I am not asking you to change the law. I am asking for your reason why these people should not be able to exercise their voting rights. You are saying "because they said so" and dancing around the question. The SCOTUS has been known to get a decision wrong occasionally.
That doesn't stop you from pontificating on LGBT rights, abortion, tax policy, religious rights or immigration, among many others.
Some of those aren't a valid reason to strip people of their 2nd amendment rights.
What happened? Did you run out of emojis?
Some laws need to be changed.
This is a deflection and, you know it, this seed doesn't mention felons.
Congress makes the laws, the SCOTUS interprets whether they are Constitutional.
Again, this is a deflection and, really Texan, it isn't worthy of you, you can do better. This isn't about the Second Amendment or, felons.
You know, every time someone doesn't take your posts and march in lockstep with your ideas IS NOT a deflection.
If you can't see that requiring ID to vote is no different than requiring ID to buy a gun, then I can't help you. It isn't an outrageous request, especially since the vast majority of American citizens already have ID or can easily obtain one.
Why would you make someone show ID (which, to my knowledge, no state does for free) for gun buying, but not for voting, which states DO provide for free?
You're ridin' especially high on your BS Train on this subject, Tex.
Not someone, Tex. And, yes, it is a deflection (which is to say a surrender to the facts and a desperation move).
Just groovin' in the tracks you laid.
ID IS easy for most people to obtain.
That is why most people HAVE ID.
Proving the supposed bona fides is the job of the bureau of election when you register. You do not have to prove that you are a voter in the same way that the legal system has to prove that you are guilty beyond a show of a doubt. It is their job to prove that you are not eligible to citizen because we have a right to vote. You want to turn the system on its head and put the burden of proof on the voter.
The fact that voter fraud is literally a one in a million occurrence and that we cannot disenfranchise even one person to chase down a possible case of vote fraud seem to be lost on you. Vote fraud at the current rate is a statistical anomaly and must be left alone until there is a pattern that can be accurately addressed, especially when voting is a constitutional right. You cannot change the system to chase after every case when the faults are this low. Your boss would fire you if you treated quality control problem in this manner in a manufacturing environment via 6 Sigma.
ISO 9000
QMP6 – Evidence-based decision making
who would change a manufacturing process based on 1in a million?
Nobody with any intelligence would even think of changing the process based on in a million fault in 2-3 occurrences. These are statistical fliers to be ignored until a predictable pattern develops that can be accurately addressed. The fact that voting is a constitutional right means that this situation must be addressed very pragmatically so that 1000 people aren't disenfranchised in the wild goose chase to find a possible case of vote fraud. Americans don't understand statistics or statistical process control. My former neighbor used to teach statistics to non-engineering undergrads and we used to joke about this nonsense claim. He uses the GOP claim as a trick question on quizzes.
True and how do they do that?
Actually, as a practicing Engineer for the last 35+ years, if we have a way to make our results more accurate, we do it. As long as the fix is not too prohibitive in some way.
No accomplished Engineer would operate in any other way.
Well mine was based on a copy of my UNCERTIFIED [by any state] birth certificate in the 70's.
Now, though I was born on a Naval base in California when my dad was serving in the USMC and my birth certificate was signed by an Admiral, it isn't be accepted as a form of ID today...
All you have to do is have people sign a slip when they register to vote, digitize all those signatures, and have the voter sign a slip at the polling place that can be compared to the scanned signature from the registration. End of story. Other arrangements can be made for the few voters for which this system is impractical.
Photo voter id requirements are entirely about the Republicans trying to disenfranchise democrats. Everyone knows it, including the Republicans who have often blurted it out in public.
You fill out the paper card with name address phone number and SSN. They do the rest.
The level of vote fraud in the US is infinitesimally small, on the order of one case in 2 million votes cast.
Birth certs went out the door when picture ID's became required. That was a long time ago in my state.
Do you feel a 40 year old birth certificate is a more appropriate way to identify someone than a current, Photo ID?
I am also an engineer (BSME, female engineers do exist). Nobody would change the manufacturing process based on information of one in 2 million data bits, unless they have been watched over time and can be predicted. Those are outliers to be ignored unless there is a pattern to be observed. You'd cause much more harm than good if you chased everything that you recorded. When the number of possible votes cast is approaching 100 million the amount of vote fraud will never be zero.
My local precinct went to digital signatures on a tablet 2 years ago. Its to the point that we could use fingerprints. The use of fingerprints raises the possibly of that same fingerprint being saved and used for criminal profiling, which is an invasion of privacy.
What is required to get that picture ID in your state? In mine, you need a certified birth certificate. You also now need one to get a Passport.
If my 62 year old birth certificate had been certified by the state, it WOULD have been 'appropriate' even today. It WAS indeed appropriate when I applied for all of the underlying documentation that I now use to vote.
IF I were to loose my DL, I would need my certified birth certificate to get a replacement. THAT would be the FIRST time in my life that I would use it for ANY reason.
BTW, I could get an Indiana DL [photo ID] for about $150 by the end of the day...
A $150 is both prohibitive and punitive for many people. That is after you put in the physical effort to track down those documents and deal with the friendly people at the DVM. A permanent state photo ID should be issued to all people without cost on their 16th birthday. You surrender that ID when you get a drivers license that can also function as a ID. if you ever lose your license for any reason (age, disability, DWI) they must reissue you a photo ID without cost.
The DL would also be a FAKE. A Nursery I worked for fronted guys the money to get FAKE DL in the AM and they were at work driving by the afternoon. An extra $100 gets you a SS card too...also FAKE.
That's a cute trick. What's the point of making people jump through the hoop of obtaining a certified BC if they are willing to issue fake DL's when sufficient money is greasing their palms?
Oh the FAKE ID's are produced by a counterfeiter. There is always on in Ag areas to 'service' immigrants that need ID to work. My ex-boss helped 'key' employees to get the ID's they needed.
Indiana? This is directly from the Indiana SOS website.
So a Photo ID to vote is free in Indiana if one doesn't already have one that is acceptable.
Can't get any cheaper than free .....
And again, my point went right over your head and again, it's not surprising.
[deleted]
Buying a loaf of bread isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.
Who said it was?
And how does the constitution automatically exclude one from proving who they are to vote?
Not requiring proof of bona fides to vote is crackpottery. Plain and simple.
No other logical way to categorize such an expectation.
Ok, I'll give you a question, how did people prove who they were before picture ID's were invented?
They insist that everything is 'black or white'.
If you're against the latest version of voter disenfranchisement, you're for anyone walking in and voting. If you're against families being separated or kids being 'detained', your for open borders. If you're against everyone having whatever fucking weapon they want, your for taking away all guns.
It's all total BULLSHIT but they seem incapable of nuance.
That would be exactly like if someone is for showing ID at the polls, they are against people voting. Or if you want government accountable for spending, you want lower taxes. Or if you wish to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress, you are somehow "anti immigration".
And if you want Medicare and Medicaid reformed in any way, you want to "push Granny off a cliff".
See you prove my point. The NUANCE is WTF is wrong with the fucking ID I used before? Why all of sudden is my voter registration worthless? What happened to my signature matching my registration card and we're all good?
That's a fail.
Again, nuance. For DECADES we worked under a 'deferral' program. Each POTUS tweaked it but it remained in place since Reagan. Families have lived within that system and their AMERICAN CITIZEN kids have too.
Now, in an utter 180 from our values as a nation, Trump has decided that tearing those families apart will 'MAGA'. People are being deported because of traffic tickets. All it does is make us look like tyrants.
Granny PAID into Medicare and she has little to nothing to do with Medicaid. When corporations are making record profits, when Trump and the GOP are doling out Trillion $ tax cuts to the top 10%, when Trump demands war time defense spending in a time of peace, asking Granny to take a cut to pay for that debt is immoral.
BTFW, Trump promised not to touch Medicare.
My God, just because some want to follow immigration LAWS does not mean they are anti-immigrant. Some should REALLY learn the difference between anti-immigration and anti-ILLEGAL immigration. Nuance and all, don't ya know! Illegal aliens are NOT permitted under our law. Now, you may not give a rat's ass where people are coming from entering our country, or who they are or what they may have done, but some of us DO care. Don't like, elect someone who doesn't give a shit about any of that and change the damn law.
I don't know where you live, nor do I particularly care. If you have a personal problem with how YOUR state chooses to run elections, go whining to YOUR state. Barring that, elect some people who will pass laws YOU want.
And for the record, the President can not alter Medicare by himself.
The government knows the identity, the locality and where the overwhelming majority of the 'illegal aliens' in deferment programs came from. Those in the deferment program are the majority of deportable people in this country.
Secondly, a large percentage of those that came here recently are REFUGIES, NOT 'illegal aliens. That's not nuance, that's a fact.
BTFW, when I see employers, like my ex-boss, being jailed for hiring undocumented immigrants to make a bigger profit, I'll believe y'all are serious about stopping illegal immigration.
And when you can prove that Democrats don't hire illegal aliens, you will have a point.
Illegal is illegal, right?
Report your ex-boss if it is that important to you and you have facts that ICE can use.
There are over 11 million ESTIMATED illegal aliens. Please don't try to snow me by telling me the govt. knows where they are and who they are. That is ridiculous!
Refugees who have applied for asylum and been granted it are welcome--just like LEGAL aliens are who come here the right way, stay here the right way, and abide by our laws.
Yes illegal is illegal and what fucking party the vote for is irrelevant.
That was over 10 years ago and he has 'friends in high places', like Chris Chocola. BTW, they just raided a Nursery in Ohio with over 100 'illegal' employees and the owners got off scot-free...
Again, you miss the nuance.
Bullshit. Refugees are being denied asylum and deported and their children are being detained.
Just because someone applies for asylum doesn't mean that everyone of them is granted. That would be STUPID.
Trump's DOJ is refusing to allow them to apply for asylum, which is a violation of Treaties BTW. They have been arrested, had their children taken away, jailed and then deported WITHOUT their kids. ALL without due process. Hell they are having 5 year old children SIGN deportation documents. It's monstrous.
Currently there are 13k children being held by our government and, their "crime" is coming here with their parents. Where are their parents now? Most of them were told that if they signed a piece of paper with English writing on it, that they didn't understand, they could see their children, when they signed that paperwork, they were sent back to their home country, without their children.
I'm sure you will continue to be upset over any and all policies implemented by the Trump Admin.
Maybe in 2020 you can elect someone new.
Actually, I heard today that Trump says that he is going to make Pharma put pricing in their ads. I think that's a good idea, which is why I doubt he'll actually do it...
Well, that's a new idea, and one I am sure you will find some fault with eventually.
How can you be so sure Tex?
From having read many of your posts. I don't recall any of them being complimentary to Trump in any way.
I may be wrong, and would absolutely love it if you prove me wrong in the future by writing something nice about our President.
WTF does that have to do with flip flopping on my support for a policy?
The guy is the most successful conman in the history of this country. Happy?
Happy?
Of course, and I usually am!
Thanks for asking!
I can kind of tell that makes ONE of us happy!
Trump has a nice hairpiece and a healthy orange complexion. How does that grab ya Tex?
Grab me?
You trying to give me a #MeToo moment?
I'm sorry if you've been treated that way Tex. I've been treated like a piece of meat more times than I can recall, so I totally understand!
[deleted]
Funny that. The vast majority of businesses hiring illegals are agricultural which is a very heavily republican dominated sector.
Now, gee whillikers, that there is PROOF!!!!!
LMFAO!!!!!
Can you cite what percentage of ag workers are illegal aliens?
The most I have seen is less than 20%.
I can, took me 10 seconds:
So now, perhaps you can explain to me why you think the percentage matters.
If we take your numbers that still means that conservative business owners are hiring 20% of their employees 'illegally'. Right?
Conservative business owners.
Prove they are conservatives.
Most businesses, especially large agricultural ones, care about making money for themselves and their shareholders. Is that a conservative trait or a BUSINESS trait?
Jobs Americans Won't Do? - NumbersUSA
https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do
The Pew Hispanic Center also estimates that only 4% of illegal workers in the United States work in agriculture. 7 million illegal aliens hold non-agricultural jobs in the U.S. According to the Pew Hispanic Center , there are approximately 8.3 million illegal workers in the United States.
NYTimes:Only 4% of illegals work in agriculture...
https://www.alipac.us/f12/nytimes-only-4%-illegals-work-agriculture...
About 20 percent of illegal immigrants work in construction, 17 percent in leisure and hospitality industries, 14 percent in manufacturing and 11 percent in wholesale and retail trade. In addition, illegal immigrants represent a substantial share of overall employment in quite a few industries, some of which require extensive skills and training.
Aww, come on SP, I want to see Tex's response! I thought I had an agreement with you mods that attacks on me would not be pulled. Perrie agreed to it but I haven't seen it happen yet. I'm not sure if it was an attack on me because I can't see it,
but I want to see it either way. The COC is way too oppressive. 'Speak your mind' is a joke.
It was ticketed as "off topic" by the author.
You're cool with being off topic though---he just doesn't want ME to be off topic.
it wasn't any kind of attack on anyone.
I suggest you review the election results in the VAST majority of farming communities in America. All the 2016 results are at your fingertips.
Blah, blah, blah.
You asked what percentage of Ag workers were 'illegal aliens', NOT what percentage of 'illegal aliens' work in Ag. Stop moving the goal posts, it's bad form.
Didn't move anything. Learn to read what I ask so you comment better on it.
Well let's take another look Tex. Yep, here is what you asked:
This is what I said YOU said:
Sure as hell looks like I read what you asked better than YOU did Tex.
Keep
, it's entertaining...
Yes, let's review, shall we?
In post 5.4.24 a claim was made that the vast majority of businesses hiring illegal aliens are agricultural businesses.
In post 5.4.27, I asked what percentage of ag workers are illegal aliens.
And I linked a source showing that the vast majority of illegal aliens are NOT ag workers.
Anything else I can help you with, or do you think you can understand what I asked now?
I forget what it was now, if you want to repost it Texan, I won't flag it this time. Promise.
Nope, that's okay. I sent it to him in a private message. Wouldn't want to offend anyone! LMAO.
But I AM curious--why flag my ONE post as off topic when I wasn't the only one off topic?
Couldn't be because I am a conservative Republican from a deep red state, could it?
Yes let's.
In post 5.3.28 I posted a link that cited the percentage of ag workers that are 'illegal aliens'.
Which is utterly irrelevant to your own question and a false equivalency.
Then you posted this:
Yet your 'review' clearly shows that you moved from:
To:
I read your fucking comment PERFECTLY, you can't even focus on the topic of your own question.
I didn't need your help to understand what you asked for. The proof of that is that I posted a link that cogently your question.
YOU are the one citing data that is irrelevant to your question, not I.
I find it humorous just how much facts that burst your ideological bubble upset you.
As the Chinese proverb says: Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
The claim was made that the vast majority of businesses hiring illegal aliens are ag businesses.
Since there are over 11 million estimated illegal aliens here, how can ag businesses POSSIBLY be the largest employer of illegal aliens when there are less than 1 million workers OVERALL in ag?
OUR conversation isn't about 'the claim', it's about YOUR QUESTION.
if you don't like my fucking questions--don't answer them. Problem solved. In fact, feel free to never respond to anything I write.
I already answered your question and instead of addressing the data I provided you went down a rabbit whole.
You mad?
Impasse.
Now you offend me. I flag off topic or, other things that are insulting on my seeds equally. I believe that Perrie told me once that if I comment to a post that is off topic I can't or, shouldn't flag it, I think I commented to Lenny in the thread so, that is why I didn't flag him at that time.
So, you're now telling us it's no big deal?
I'm real sorry you are offended, That wasn't my intention.
But take a good long look at the WHOLE thread, and then tell me HONESTLY that I am the ONLY one off topic.
I am ADMITTING I was off topic, and am not complaining that you flagged it. What I AM complaining about is the fact that you let so many other comments go unchecked.
Either flag them all or flag none. Especially when you participate in it. Someone else did that shit to me before---seeded an article, made the first comment, and when I responded TO his comment, was flagged for being off topic!
If you are having trouble following the conversation, it would be wise to go back and READ all of the posts.
That way you can comment more intelligently on it.
And you would probably, maybe, know what the fuck I was talking about,
The answer is obvious as pictures ID's have not always been available or common and that doesn't even begin to apply today. In the 21st century.
People used to use horse and buggy as a main means of transportation. Does that mean we should still use it like that today?
Yet, in places like New York and, Chicago back in the day people without picture ID's or any other way of identifying themselves other than saying "I'm me" and, signing a page in a book were able to vote.
Ask the Amish and, the people on "The Walking Dead" they seem to do a pretty good job with it and, there's an added benefit, using a horse and, buggy leaves fertilizer everywhere.
And yet, now that we have much more accurate means to positively identify people, some people still propose to use antiquated, archaic means instead.
You can't be serious can you? Big cities would completely implode without modern transportation. While more rural areas would fare much better if it ever came to that. That said i had a feeling you might go the Amish route but the Walking Dead? You do know that is only a TV show right?
You didn't catch my tongue in cheek sarcasm with that one? WOW.
LOL and you didn't catch mine ..... double WOW!!
WTF is 'antiquated' or 'archaic' about voter ID cards and signatures? As far as I know, every state STILL issues voter ID cards. From my experience, signatures are still required on credit card purchases.
Nothing, as long as its recent and vetted via some other form of ID that proves the persons bona fides.
I haven't used a voter ID card since i can't remember when ..... neither has anyone else i've asked except you. Well you and whoever chimes in here to support you that is simpatico with the narrative you're pushing.
Nothing wrong with states requiring photo ID or some other form ID that is more conclusive than a 40 year old voter ID card. Nothing at all.
I heard a story today about a school teacher who had been voting for forty years in Georgia, she decided to show her students how to register to vote online and, when she pulled up the information she got a shock, she wasn't registered to vote, it seems the register had removed her from the rolls because they had misspelled her last name when entering it, they had dropped the first letter of her last name, it took her a few months to get it straightened out but, it was a hassle she shouldn't have had to go through. If the people who worked at the registers office had done their job properly this wouldn't have happened but, you all want to blame the voter, that is bullshit.
Mistakes are sometimes made. Doesn't mean it is some sort of sinister plot to disenfranchise anyone.
Out of the 53,000 applications that have been put on hold 70% of them are African-American. Gwinnett County Georgia has a high rate of rejection of mail in ballots as well,
And, look who is named in the lawsuit there. Ooops it's the Republican candidate for governor.
Well, if you are perfect, perhaps you should apply for the job ...... just to be safe don't ya know .....
It should not be a penalty on the voter for a clerical error, it should not take months to correct an error made by the clerks in the office, it should be a simple fix but, Georgia has made it the voters problem to solve instead of making it easy to fix these problems with their system.
Hasn't that been true all along? Did you register to vote without providing your birth certificate? I needed mine BUT it was the one issued to my parents by the Naval Hospital with my footprint on it...it wasn't 'certified' by the state. I don't even know if the state 'certified' birth certificate back then...
Why does it have to be 'recent'? I moved here 16 years ago. My state, and NO state that I know of requires anyone to 'renew' voters registration.
My mother has lived in the same house since 1978. One would presume that back in 1978, the state verified her 'bona fides'. WHY should she have to have a 'recent' voter ID? Why isn't the one that the state issued back then fine?
Why should either of us have to jump through NEW hoops when both of us have been qualified to vote for over 4 decades?
Does your state accept your 40 year old voter ID or are they now asking for a photo ID? Regardless, you're making a huge deal out of small expectation if they are so i say why not? Why would you have a problem showing a more recent photo ID? ...... other than that boulder sized chip on your shoulders regarding the topic at hand.
Well ..... we may wish to live in a perfect world but alas ..... we don't.
So welcome to reality. Pull up a chair and stay awhile.
I note that you ignored my questions yet feel that I should answer yours...
No, my 16 year old voter ID is worthless.
Would you rephrase that question cogently please.
My 'recent photo ID' wasn't used to register to vote so WHY do I need it to actually cast my vote?
When your state threatens to disenfranchise you, you tend to get pissed off...
BTW, I note that you carry around quite a few boulders of your own...
I answered it here in 5.4.61. Perhaps you missed it. Oh wait, now i see. You were playing NT grammar monitor so here you go. My answer was why not? It's a small thing to expect if that's what they require.
Oh get over yourself. You knew what i meant.
Because if that's the law, that's what they require. Again, whats the problem?
Horseshit! Having to show a photo ID is not disenfranchisement no matter how you try to slice it.
True but mine are pea stones compared to yours. Disenfranchisement? Hilarious!
I'm sorry. It wasn't Cory Booker was it?
And trying to keep certain classes of eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote goes all the way back to the founding of the country and it's still fucking going on where especially where the practice was perfected. But republicans have been very successful at franchising Jim Crow style voter suppression to every state they get control of.
As usual you've put the burden of proof on the wrong party. Before a citizen is denied or even impeded in the right to vote, the state needs to prove they're not eligible. In these cases, mass de-registration without a valid cause is exactly what the Jim Crow South made famous and republicans have now franchised to every state they control.
Oh, I dunno. Perhaps this has something to do with some "suspicions"?
First, the Judicial Watch 'study' has been debunked.
Secondly, there is NO evidence that 'dead people' vote.
This is the synopsis,
Do you not know the difference between a "registered voter" and "vote cast"? All it takes to have more registered voters than eligible voters is for some of the registered voters to die. Their family isn't thinking "Ah! We've got to remove them from the vote rolls right away!". Of course not, they have plenty else on their minds when a loved one passes.
But what does it take for a fraudulent vote to be cast? It takes intentionally, illegally forging someone's signature or stealing their identity, risking major fines and jail time, all to cast one additional ballot for a specific candidate. And the evidence of such voting is statistically insignificant with between .0001% to 0.02% found in every comprehensive non-partisan investigation of votes cast.
"Perhaps this has something to do with some "suspicions"?"
What's suspicious is the eagerness of Republicans to dump voter rolls and institute voter ID laws and restrict early voting when all the evidence suggests voter fraud just isn't happening on any sort of scale anyone has to be worried about. The 20 out of half a billion votes cast do not justify the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of eligible voters, unless of course, that was the goal all along, which for Republicans, it was. But Republicans just can't come out and say "We're targeting black Americans, who are most likely to vote Democrat, with surgical precision", no, it took the courts to say that about them.
Thank you for using Snopes and for debunking your own BS at the same time. Someday you people might learn to actually read the links you put up:
One other obvious point needs to be made: the number of people registered and the number of people on those registries have fuck-all to do with each other. When votes are counted they come nowhere near even the number of eligible voters so this is just another rightwing way of lying about voter fraud.
So leaving that 3.5 million on the voter rolls is okay with you then. That's fine. It opens the door. As for your.............
"It takes intentionally, illegally forging someone's signature or stealing their identity, risking major fines and jail time, all to cast one additional ballot for a specific candidate"
I don't know where you live but when I vote, I have to sign in but there is nothing to compare it to at the table. As long as I know my next door neighbor's name and address, that is all they ask to take my sticker out and place it on the card for the actual polling attendant to see. And if you want to know, I checked after the election in 2016 in the state I used to live in and I was still registered there. While I realize the effort and chances one takes to do so, it isn't out of the realm of possibility...........no matter how slight you may think it is.
Tell me. How do you prove after the fact that someone who voted was doing so not using their own name?
BTW, I always take out my driver license and show it to the person at check in even though they tell me "We don't do that. You don't have to do that".
What state do YOU live in? It sounds like their election practices are lacking...
So you are part of the 3.5 million that you're bitching about.
Well one way would be that they state a name and that person has already voted. Or, when the true voter comes in to vote, someone has already voted under their name. BTW, Trump said over 3 million people did that and he found it impossible to prove...
Yeah it was also those damned illegals and ferigners voting for Hillary!!!
BULLSHIT--pure, rightwing, Jim Crow inspired BULLSHIT.
Jim Crow weren't right wing laws--they were DEMOCRATIC laws passed by DEMOCRATS.
They were conservative democrats
Key word being DEMOCRATS.
No one can deny the past, it just seems some want to deny the present.
The present doesn't change the past. Nor does ignoring it.
While Democrats love to brag about how "woke" they are now, the simple facts remain that Jim Crow, slavery, and racial prejudices were stalwarts of the Democratic Party for decades. The GOP has not passed laws anything like what Democrats did under Jim Crow.
No, key word being CONSERVATIVE!!!!!
All of those laws were passed by CONSERVATIVES. I don't care what party they were from, they were all laws passed by conservatives.
Both parties have changed. There is no denying it.
Well, those DEMOCRATS became REPUBLICANS after democrats ditched their racist ties to the past.
Okay, prove your point.
Tell us which Jim Crow laws were passed by conservative Republicans.
Tell us which conservative Republicans endorsed slavery, or started a civil war over it.
I'll wait.
Exactly and the point is that no matter what party they were represented by, they were always conservatives.
That is bullshit and you SHOULD know it by now. If that were remotely true, then the South would have been voting Republican once the CRA and VRA passed.
But look at the results--Democrats continued to win Southern elections, and voted for Carter and Clinton. Carter would have been trounced had he not carried the South.
Again, it doesn't matter what party they belonged to, they were CONSERVATIVES. Do you actually think the republican party of today is the republican party of Lincoln?
Then simply prove it. Tell us what Jim Crow laws were passed by conservative Republicans, as I already asked you to do in post 8.2.11.
Denying your conservative heritage I see. Again, do you think the Republican party of today is the same as the Republican party of Lincoln? If you think it is, then you really need to do some research. Again, as I have stated many times, I don't care what party they were, they were all passed by conservatives....CONSERVATIVES!!!!
Hell, the republican party of today isn't even the party of Ronald Reagan much less the party of Lincoln....
One must remember Boehner at the Republican convention telling everyone "No more Ronald Reagans" after gutting Ron Paul's bid for the nomination.
I didn't deny a damn thing.
I simply asked you to prove something you claimed, and am STILL waiting for that proof.
I know many Democrats don't care what party they were because to care would mean to admit that it was the Democratic Party passing that shit.
To even begin to think that all the Southern conservatives became Republicans is ridiculous.
Seems like Democrats LOVED them some Southern conservative Democrats when it meant keeping a majority in the House and Senate. It damn sure isn't like they kicked them out of the Democratic Party or disowned them or anything.
First, I am not a liberal. I was a registered Republican until conservatives decided that moderates were not welcome in their party any more. Remember calling us all RINOs. So, yes, I am registered as a Democrat because in Pennsylvania you cannot vote in primaries unless you are registered to one of the two parties. I dislike extremism on either side. What I have seen from conservatives is that they deny their conservative history and blame everything on "Democrats" which is not necessarily the case. Whether Democrat conservatives or Republican conservatives, in the end, they are/were conservatives.
Say, can you tell me more about my "conservative heritage" that you seem to know so much about?
I never said one word about you being a liberal. I don't know what the fuck you are, nor do I particularly care. The difference between us is me NOT telling you what you are and YOU telling me what I am.
You seem to want to equate conservative Democrats with conservative Republicans. That is rather stupid.
If they were the same, then SURELY you can point out some Jim Crow laws passed by GOP conservatives to back that claim up.
You say that Democrats deny their heritage/history by denying that the conservative side of the Democrat party were racist. I have owned up to that. The conservative heritage/history is also racist!!!!! Own up to it. I'm not the one in denial.
So simply prove that the GOP passed any Jim Crow type laws to support your little theory. Show us how the GOP fought to keep slavery. Show us how the GOP attempted to filibuster civil rights acts in Congress. Show us how the GOP tried to defy federal law regarding integration of schools.
Show me SOMETHING besides your "opinion"!
You should check out my comments (8.1.4) posted a day before your spouting off.
Who are now Republicans. Dems purged those racist Southern Dems nearly 50 years ago and they all ran for the open arms of the Republican party.
It's amazing that they still pretend this isn't a fact.
And it's just as factually "simple" that those are the "values" of the Republican party today.
I won't speak to your political "heritage," but I can nail you on what you're a part of today: an apologist at least for (if not technically a member of) the party that eagerly welcomed former Southern Democratic segregationists, who were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party, and who brought with them all their old Jim Crow strategies of voter suppression (less directly violently but no less effective and pervasive) of minorities. IOW, a slightly gentler white supremacy.
Key word: "were." They ARE republicans now.
Okay, go ahead and name the Jim Crow laws enacted by Republicans.
It never ceases to amaze me how many wrong things you are able to pack into a single post.
Prove it.
Read this article, that should be proof enough. If it isn't then try one about the voter suppression going on in North Dakota,
Ummmm, at the time this was passed, the Democrats were Right Wing, the Republicans were progressives, check out Teddy Roosevelt and, (gasp), Abraham Lincoln, both were progressive.
So list all the GOP-passed Jim Crow laws. Should be quite easy since you seem to think all of the GOP is conservatives. And God knows that all those Southern Democrats you keep claiming became Republicans would NEVER allow themselves to remain members of a party that doesn't do what you claim they want to do.
I suppose you have some reason for posting that article.
But what I asked for was proof that all the Southern Democrats became Republicans.
Not quite sure how your post illustrates that.
Here ya go, if you will notice all the states listed in this have one thing in common, they are "Red" states and, they all suppress the votes of minority's.
Here's North Carolina's effort,
You asked for proof that the racists that were in the Democratic Party had joined the Republican Party so, what I've done is, I've shown you that it is the Republican held states that are passing Jim Crow like laws to limit voters rights. It is only happening in states controlled by Republicans so, that means, if you use logic and, not feelings, that the racists are now in the Republican Party and, are trying the same tactics they used back in the days of Jim Crow to suppress the vote.
Voter ID has been upheld by SCOTUS.
Did you bother to read the link I provided or, did you simply skip that part because it might prove you wrong?
Yeah, I read it. That's how I knew to respond as I did.
Voter ID isn't Jim Crow laws. SCOTUS confirmed as much.
Then you missed the point of the article about North Dakota's Native American population. They don't have street address's, they have P.O. Box's, in order for them to get a street address to put on their ID they have to meet with the sheriff and, get one from him and, he is never available so, getting a street address is an undo hardship for them, that is a Jim Crow law.
Nice try (to deflect); no cigar.
Missing word: FORMER
de·flect
[dəˈflekt]
VERB
cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.
"the bullet was deflected harmlessly into the ceiling" · [more]
synonyms:
turn aside/away · divert · avert · sidetrack · distract · draw away · block · parry · stop · fend off · stave off
(of an object) change direction after hitting something.
"the ball deflected off his body"
synonyms:
bounce · glance · ricochet · turn aside/away · turn · alter course · change course/direction · diverge · deviate · veer · swerve · slew · drift · bend · swing · twist · curve
Hope this helps you with what that word means.
Prove it.
Prove I'm wrong.
It just tells us that you know what it means but that was never in doubt. You're expert at it.
I know you'd like to pretend that the last 60 years didn't happen and also would like to pretend that the political coalition that ended slavery was Northern Dems and Republicans which just happened to be the same coalition that passed multiple civil rights and voting rights laws in the 1950s through the 1960s. Ever since then the republican Southern Strategy has been in effect but extended to all states under the republican boot and that's seen continuous offensive against voting rights by republicans whenever and wherever they have enough power to do it. NC, TX and GA are particularly proficient and notorious at suppressing the minority vote.
Not all of them:
court-strikes-down-texass-voter-id-law-for-the-fifth-time /537792/
You asked for examples of republican passed Jim Crow laws and those are two of them. Of course this "exact match" law in GA is another one and the "must have street address" law in NC is another one (Native Americans do not have street addresses on their lands so it's specifically aimed at suppressing those mostly Dem voters).
Not one of those gives anyone the right to vote. All they do is state what conditions are not allowed to be used to deny someone the vote but does not give anyone the right to vote.
No, the Constitution gives that right and it's stated outright as "the RIGHT to vote" in at least four amendments and implied in one other.
There is a reason that people need to be accurate with their information when they vote. There has to be checks.....and yes there are people who will use a system that is willy nilly to illegally vote.....Here is a prime example of one who just by sheer coincidence and chance got caught.....
Some claim that voter fraud rarely happens......well....if officials are not checking and verifying registrations.....how would anyone identify fraud? How do we know the so called "data" is accurate....answer....we don't know if the data is accurate.
And, one political party uses so called voter fraud to limit the number of people who can actually vote.
There have been huge and multiple studies of the rate of actual voting fraud in this country and it's so low as to be statistically invisible. I know this is futile but here's where you could start your education on this subject:
Here's a little background on what gubernatorial candidate, Brian KKKemp, in GA has done to hold up 53,000* (at least) voter registrations, more than 70% of which are those of blacks citizens:
Exact Match
Of course, for such a requirement to be entirely fair and credible it would have to work flawlessly. Does anybody think that the bureaucratic process works that way?
* one recent analysis estimates that this "exact match" law could eventually disenfranchise nearly 1M citizens:
So, to address Texan's demand for proof of Jim Crow style laws being implemented by Republicans, there it is. And it's been going on in every state controlled by the Republican party ever since it became the refuge for segregationists when they were no long welcome in the Dem party. And that began with the Nixon campaign of 1968 and his "Southern Strategy."
What principled people would be appalled about only excite the base. It's unhealthy but it's real and people need to accept that this is who they are. They cannot be shamed into doing the right thing.
These are typical ways of gaming the system when it's the only way one can win. That should be alarming to all citizens but some are more accepting of these manipulations if it keeps people that look like them in power. Eventually this will catch up to them and they will be disenfranchised too.
Yep meanwhile the tail that wags the dog is gaining strength as we lose more control of our country to big money politicians and the media.