ID to Vote

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Marlin60

Photo IDs are required to open a bank account, cash a check at a grocery store, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, get on a plane, enter some office buildings, buy a gun, rent an apartment, and get a legal job.  A non-drivers license can easily be obtained for very little money.  So, I think if a person can not get it together to get a ID to do any of these things, I don't think they would be a informed voter.  Oh, I get it now that is just what the Democrats need!

Comments

DynoDon
I'll eliminate the above as

I'll eliminate the above as an informed voters if you eliminate Fox News viewers.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Marlin60 wrote:Photo IDs are

Marlin60 wrote:
Photo IDs are required to open a bank account, cash a check at a grocery store, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, get on a plane, enter some office buildings, buy a gun, rent an apartment, and get a legal job.....
There's an old saying that scoundrels wrap themselves in the flag. In reality there are all sorts of things scoundrels wrap themselves in... God, flag, history, morality, and faux reasonableness.

In a democracy if scoundrels don't place a respectable spin on their schemes, they'll go nowhere. The GOP voter suppression schemes have to be sold to their base as moral, reasonable efforts to protect the integrity of the system even as the GOP works to subvert that integrity. The REAL intent of these laws is to selectively surpress groups that contain mostly Democratic voters but they can never admit that any more than they can admit irresponsible tax cuts are designed to sabotage the Treasury.

 

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Pierpont wrote: and faux

Pierpont wrote:

and faux reasonableness. 

Priceless...

Commonsense461
Eric holder gave a speach to

Eric holder gave a speach to the NAACP today in Houston on Texas voter id law. The irony of it all is that to get into hear it you had to show a government issued id. Why did Eric holder disenfrachize a quarter of the Naacp members from coming? 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Pierpont, "The GOP voter

Pierpont, "The GOP voter suppression schemes have to be sold to their base as moral, reasonable efforts to protect the integrity of the system even as the GOP works to subvert that integrity."

 Most voters 70-80% are in favor of requiring voter ID. Only problemis the DNC has not done such a good job of selling their base that voter fraud and illegal voting will help elect dems, especially in close races. Why is this constantly ignored by supposed intelligent folk?

I would not be opposed to having to pass a minor civics test for all to vote. Dems count on most voters being uninformed and most will blindly vote dem.

As for voter suppression, let's not for get the wonderful new black panthers abd their henchman racist AG Holder.

Marlin60
The Left keeps talking abut

The Left keeps talking abut the % of blacks, students, elderly and other sub-groups who don't have ID.  These numbers mean nothing.  The only number that would have any point in this argument is % of registred voters with no ID.  Get those numbers an then make you point. 

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
They can't. the vast majority

They can't. the vast majority of voters favor voter ID requirements. It is the DNC and Holder who are fighting it under phony pretenses.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote:Dems count on

camaroman wrote:
Dems count on most voters being uninformed and most will blindly vote dem.
ROTF First of all, I'm not a Dem.

The GOP has been busy the past 30 years sabotaging the collective intelligence of the GOP faithful and they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Even as revenues in constant dollars have been LOWER than Clinton's last year for arguably all but one of the past 11 years, braindead dittoheads now widely believe there's no revenue problem and only spending plays a role in balancing a budget!

Herr Goebelles would be proud!

Commonsense461
Np comments on the irony?

Np comments on the irony?

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: Eric

Commonsense461 wrote:

Eric holder gave a speach to the NAACP today in Houston on Texas voter id law. The irony of it all is that to get into hear it you had to show a government issued id. Why did Eric holder disenfrachize a quarter of the Naacp members from coming? 

Welcome back CC! As I wrote last time you started this thread on a similar topic

1: You have NO proof Holder wanted to keep minorities out of the signing.

2: There's a matter of legitimate intent. If someone has to produce an ID for security purposes around a federal official, it's probably a Secret Service requirement. There's a difference between that and having contempt for democracy and trying to win elections by suppressing those likely to vote for the other side. But thanks again for proving there's not one Orwellian Right or GOP lie you won't believe. It's True Believers like yourself that allows the GOP to pull off election fraud while pretending to be protecting the integrity of the system.

delete jan in iowa
Commonsense461 wrote: Eric

Commonsense461 wrote:

Eric holder gave a speach to the NAACP today in Houston on Texas voter id law. The irony of it all is that to get into hear it you had to show a government issued id. Why did Eric holder disenfrachize a quarter of the Naacp members from coming? 

This is the same baseless crap you said about Michelle Obama's book signing.   

Commonsense461
Cc?

Cc?

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote: They can't.

camaroman wrote:

They can't. the vast majority of voters favor voter ID requirements. It is the DNC and Holder who are fighting it under phony pretenses.

Sure sure... as if the Dems havn't learned ANYTHING from how the GOP rigged the Florida vote back in 2000 with a voter purge.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
It's pretty pathetic that

It's pretty pathetic that this is the biggest issue for the conservatives to hang their hat on.  Nothing about job creation, nothing about a replacement for the ACA, nothing about anything that is important to this country right now.  Nope, nothing, nada, just a cheap tactic to lower the amount of Democrats at the voting booths.  They are quick to mention the unemployment rate but offer nothing as a fix.  They should change the name of the GOP to the Pathetic Party.

delete jan in iowa
Sometimes this blog gets like

Sometimes this blog gets like our shower when the water backs up, the pipes just needs to get flushed.  

Commonsense461
Bush_Wacker wrote: It's

Bush_Wacker wrote:

It's pretty pathetic that this is the biggest issue for the conservatives to hang their hat on.  Nothing about job creation, nothing about a replacement for the ACA, nothing about anything that is important to this country right now.  Nope, nothing, nada, just a cheap tactic to lower the amount of Democrats at the voting booths.  They are quick to mention the unemployment rate but offer nothing as a fix.  They should change the name of the GOP to the Pathetic Party.

And the DNC can be the do nothing congress.

delete jan in iowa
Commonsense461 wrote: And the

Commonsense461 wrote:

And the DNC can be the do nothing congress.

NO the Republicans are the Pathedic Do Nothing Congress.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
jan in iowa

jan in iowa wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

Eric holder gave a speach to the NAACP today in Houston on Texas voter id law. The irony of it all is that to get into hear it you had to show a government issued id. Why did Eric holder disenfrachize a quarter of the Naacp members from coming? 

This is the same baseless crap you said about Michelle Obama's book signing.   

Poor CC, done in by his same idiotic choice of topics and his inability to spell "disenfracizes".  Maybe it's one of those words one doesn't learn until they're in 5th grade!  ROTF

drc2
Marlin, proving that you do

Marlin, proving that you do not know what you are talking about seems to be the consistent them in your posts.  Of course there are lots of registered and eligible voters who do not have the ID these poll tax laws require.  It is not that easy to get them, particularly if you are not totally mobile and have time off from work to go to the office to get one.

There is not problem to fix with this ugly 'idea.'  It is purely racist, GOPimp ALECSHIT.

Musclecarbrain gives us more exhaust.

Cap does not understand that his sophistry has been skewered.  

While I do appreciate that liberals have often been "naive" about the immoral and insane reactions they will encounter from the GOPimps, and while trusting your pen to be mightier than swords or facing overwhelming force unarmed may not be what tactical non-violence and 'discourse' does best, defending the bullies and brutes who think winning is everything gets not respect here.  I am not looking to wipe the field of my enemies and inherit a world where only my friends are left alive.  I find the other side acting this way all the time.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Marlin60 wrote: Photo IDs are

Marlin60 wrote:

Photo IDs are required to open a bank account, cash a check at a grocery store, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, get on a plane, enter some office buildings, buy a gun, rent an apartment, and get a legal job.  A non-drivers license can easily be obtained for very little money.  So, I think if a person can not get it together to get a ID to do any of these things, I don't think they would be a informed voter.  Oh, I get it now that is just what the Democrats need!

All of those examples are private business policies.

It's not my constitutional duty to open a bank account or buy alcohol.

According to the Constitution you are innocent until proven guilty.  You cannot be searched or your property seized without a court ordered warrant.  In requiring a "government issued photo ID" to PROVE that you are a citizen means that every citizen is guilty of trying to defraud the government until you prove otherwise.  If you think that I'm commiting voter fraud then it's your job to prove it, not the other way around.

The only reason that I find this whole thing objectionable is that it leads to so many other infringements upon our rights.  If you have to prove that you are a citizen BEFORE you are afforded your constitutional rights then what stops law enforcement from harrassing me or even jailing me if I don't happen to have my ID on my person at the time.  What keeps the law from kicking in your door and illegally searching your home until they find proof that you are a U.S. citizen?  What keeps the law from holding me indefinitely behind bars where I can't get out to prove that I'm a citizen? 

If there's a way to be pre registered to vote or some reasonable way to account for citizenship without it being a hardship for citizens then I'm good with it but if there isn't then these politicons can kiss my Constitutionally protected American Ass.

Commonsense461
How many days did we go

How many days did we go without a budget passed with Pelosi as specker and senate in democrat hands? If I remover correctly there where 4 years where no budget was passed.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: How

Commonsense461 wrote:

How many days did we go without a budget passed with Pelosi as specker and senate in democrat hands? If I remover correctly there where 4 years where no budget was passed.

Budget?  Were we talking about the budget?  Who gives a shit about the budget.  Have they ever stuck to a budget in recent memory anyway?  Does the government shut down if there's no budget?  You are not supposed to bring up the budget for a couple of more weeks.  Didn't you get your copy of "Conservative Talking Points Illustrated" this month?

camaroman
camaroman's picture
It obviously doesn't matter

It obviously doesn't matter that a majority of registered voters across party lines, male, female, black , white, hispanic, elderly favor voter ID. As long as the DNC opposes it however vehemenantly and obammy's racist henchman AG Holder and his ilk are opposing it in as many states as they can , that's all that matters and THAT makes it right., To hell with what the majority of voters want ,after all there just legal voters , right? And wasn't that obammy's objective in his lastest presidential edict to not deport children brought here illegally, to garner the support of the hispanic vote so crucial to his Nov. 6 re-elction bid. Legal or illegal dems need all the votes they can get, legal or not.

 

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
I still say there has got to

I still say there has got to be a way to prove who you are when you vote.  Otherwise you get a tremendous turnout from the local graveyard.  Never forget that it was voter fraud in Illinois that elected JFK in 1960.

And no, I am not iterested in keeping anyone from voting, just find a way to prove who you are.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
mauiman58 wrote: I still say

mauiman58 wrote:

I still say there has got to be a way to prove who you are when you vote.  Otherwise you get a tremendous turnout from the local graveyard.  Never forget that it was voter fraud in Illinois that elected JFK in 1960.

And no, I am not iterested in keeping anyone from voting, just find a way to prove who you are.

Agreed.

ah2
Marlin60 wrote: Photo IDs are

Marlin60 wrote:

Photo IDs are required to open a bank account, cash a check at a grocery store, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, get on a plane, enter some office buildings, buy a gun, rent an apartment, and get a legal job.  A non-drivers license can easily be obtained for very little money.  So, I think if a person can not get it together to get a ID to do any of these things, I don't think they would be a informed voter.  Oh, I get it now that is just what the Democrats need!

None of the things you mention above are Constitutionally protected rights.

chilidog
Our whole system of

Our whole system of government is set up to thwart majority rule: the Senate, the Electoral College, the Constitutional Amendment process...

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
camaroman wrote:It obviously

camaroman wrote:
It obviously doesn't matter that a majority of registered voters across party lines, male, female, black , white, hispanic, elderly favor voter ID.
You're making a claim without a source and since you've repeated it, it must be a right wing talking point. I'd like to see who did the poll and how the question was asked. If the question was

"Some say voter fraud is widespread. Do you believe voters should have IDs to protect the integrity of our elections?"

will get you different answer than

"Since there is no evidence of voter fraud, should citizens be challenged to officially identify themselves just to exercise their right to vote?"

EDIT... it's a Rasmussen Poll... figures. I wonder what public support would be if the Right hadn't been ginning up this issue in preparation for its voter suppression campaign?

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
mauiman58 wrote: I still say

mauiman58 wrote:

I still say there has got to be a way to prove who you are when you vote.  Otherwise you get a tremendous turnout from the local graveyard.  Never forget that it was voter fraud in Illinois that elected JFK in 1960.

I don't know if that's even possible. I'm pretty famililar with the voter registration system in Mass. It's a state wide database and local Registrars of Voting not only get death notices so they can pull a name off the rolls, but there's also an annual state census to see if someone is even still at the same address. If someone moves to another town, that town is notified so people can't vote twice.  

anonymous green
camaroman wrote: It obviously

camaroman wrote:

It obviously doesn't matter that a majority of registered voters across party lines, male, female, black , white, hispanic, elderly favor voter ID. As long as the DNC opposes it however vehemenantly and obammy's racist henchman AG Holder and his ilk are opposing it in as many states as they can , that's all that matters and THAT makes it right., To hell with what the majority of voters want ,after all there just legal voters , right? And wasn't that obammy's objective in his lastest presidential edict to not deport children brought here illegally, to garner the support of the hispanic vote so crucial to his Nov. 6 re-elction bid. Legal or illegal dems need all the votes they can get, legal or not.

 

That's a mouthful for someone who fell in love with a copy of the Ford Mustang.

A mouthful of vile, racist bullshit.

The poor choices you show in life shine like your pussy Camaro.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Quote, "So much for that

Quote, "So much for that narrative(Rasmussen) Eighty-two percent (82%) believe all voters should be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote. Only 14% oppose such a requirement.

Just 21% think laws requiring photo identification at the polls discriminate against some voters. Seventy-three percent (73%) disagree and feel that such laws do not discriminate.

So, the vast majority favor voter ID, and do not find it discriminatory. Humph."

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2030/589/Oops:_82_Favor_Voter_Identification.html

83% according to Civitas

http://www.nccivitas.org/2011/civitas-poll-voters-continue-demand-requiring-photo-id-vote/

It wouldn't matter the source if you were slapped in the face with it. You don agree so the majority of voters doesn't fucking matter to you or fit your liberal meme.

 

 

anonymous green
My God! Someone cry FIRE or

My God! Someone cry FIRE or WOLF! Your statistics keep changing, always in your favor.

Do you make them out of the fudge frosting on the cake they feed you?

Do you still drive that stupid car, or is it just a pipe-dream that you have had ever since seeing a Mustang in a Ford showroom that you knew you were too much of a pussy to drive.

 

 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
camaroman wrote: Quote, "So

camaroman wrote:

Quote, "So much for that narrative(Rasmussen) Eighty-two percent (82%) believe all voters should be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote. Only 14% oppose such a requirement.

Just 21% think laws requiring photo identification at the polls discriminate against some voters. Seventy-three percent (73%) disagree and feel that such laws do not discriminate.

So, the vast majority favor voter ID, and do not find it discriminatory. Humph."

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2030/589/Oops:_82_Favor_Voter_Identification.html

83% according to Civitas

http://www.nccivitas.org/2011/civitas-poll-voters-continue-demand-requiring-photo-id-vote/

It wouldn't matter the source if you were slapped in the face with it. You don agree so the majority of voters doesn't fucking matter to you or fit your liberal meme.

 

 

Just 21% think laws requiring photo identification at the polls discriminate against some voters. Seventy-three percent (73%) disagree and feel that such laws do not discriminate.

Since when is an opinion regarded as fact?  Just because you don't think requiring an ID discriminates against some voters doesn't make it true.  Was this pole given to Constitutional scholars or the average citizen who doesn't even know the 3 branches of government?

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
I drove a mustang when I was

I drove a mustang when I was a teenager. Real men know the difference, queef!!!

B_W, "Since when is an opinion regarded as fact? Just because you don't think requiring an ID discriminates against some voters doesn't make it true. Was this pole given to Constitutional scholars or the average citizen who doesn't even know the 3 branches of government?"

My case exactly for having to pass a short civics test to become eligible to vote. I'd like to give the "pole" to some "Constitutional scholars", but I think it was a poll.Just because you think requiring an ID discriminates against some (especially illegal voters) doesn't make it true either.

anonymous green
camaroman wrote: I drove a

camaroman wrote:

I drove a mustang when I was a teenager. Real men know the difference, queef!!!

B_W, "Since when is an opinion regarded as fact? Just because you don't think requiring an ID discriminates against some voters doesn't make it true. Was this pole given to Constitutional scholars or the average citizen who doesn't even know the 3 branches of government?"

My case exactly for having to pass a short civics test to become eligible to vote. I'd like to give the "pole" to some "Constitutional scholars", but I think it was a poll.Just because you think requiring an ID discriminates against some (especially illegal voters) doesn't make it true either.

The first question should be:

Are you convinced that Civics, as we portray the idea, is telling the truth, or, like the Bible, has the story been changed to fit the page.

The next one can be about Camaros,

camaroman
camaroman's picture
What is your ideation of

What is your ideation of civics as you see it portrayed, Mustangboy that has been queefed by camaroman?

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Lost in this ridiculous

Lost in this ridiculous debate is what's the law. The range and scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been expended in the subsequent years. Leaving aside the fact that some states/counties are still on a legal watch list for past voter discrimination, the law is

Quote:
(a) No citizen shall be denied, because of his failure to comply with any test or device, the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election conducted in any State or political subdivision of a State.

(b) As used in this section, the term “test or device” means any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting

(1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter,

(2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject,

(3) possess good moral character, or

(4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1973aa

So, do voter ID laws violate the "test or device" provisions of this law? I suspect so.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Revelation!!! You are

Revelation!!! You are right!!! Can I bring my dog to vote? I don't want my dead granddad to vote he voted democrastic. Did that seem ridiculous, Pont. Not being for voting integrety and insuring the validity of voting is ASKING for trouble. Hell let's get the new panther party to oversee the integrity of the upcoming Presidential election November 6th. We'll station them at every polling place. But I must warn you they might run into a little trouble and resistance at some of the polling places in Texas. So we'll arm them with clubs, uh,wait, we have guns in Texas, I almost forgot.

anonymous green
Hey Cameraman, The pictures

Hey Cameraman,

The pictures in your head are an ugly vision of what brainwashing can do to a human being.

The picture of your Camaro speaks volumes. Do you want me to explain the psychological reasons why you let a phony Mustang front for you?

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
You wouldn't know the truth

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you up side your ignorant head, you queef. Why don't you just let the car analogy go you imbecile. You probably don't even know how to drive.

Marlin60
Bush_Wacker wrote: Marlin60

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Marlin60 wrote:

Photo IDs are required to open a bank account, cash a check at a grocery store, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, get on a plane, enter some office buildings, buy a gun, rent an apartment, and get a legal job.  A non-drivers license can easily be obtained for very little money.  So, I think if a person can not get it together to get a ID to do any of these things, I don't think they would be a informed voter.  Oh, I get it now that is just what the Democrats need!

All of those examples are private business policies.

It's not my constitutional duty to open a bank account or buy alcohol.

According to the Constitution you are innocent until proven guilty.  You cannot be searched or your property seized without a court ordered warrant.  In requiring a "government issued photo ID" to PROVE that you are a citizen means that every citizen is guilty of trying to defraud the government until you prove otherwise.  If you think that I'm commiting voter fraud then it's your job to prove it, not the other way around.

The only reason that I find this whole thing objectionable is that it leads to so many other infringements upon our rights.  If you have to prove that you are a citizen BEFORE you are afforded your constitutional rights then what stops law enforcement from harrassing me or even jailing me if I don't happen to have my ID on my person at the time.  What keeps the law from kicking in your door and illegally searching your home until they find proof that you are a U.S. citizen?  What keeps the law from holding me indefinitely behind bars where I can't get out to prove that I'm a citizen? 

If there's a way to be pre registered to vote or some reasonable way to account for citizenship without it being a hardship for citizens then I'm good with it but if there isn't then these politicons can kiss my Constitutionally protected American Ass.

Sorry but you are incorrect, ID for banks, cigaretts, alcohol, and flying all due to various laws, not private business ideas.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Marlin60 wrote: Bush_Wacker

Marlin60 wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Marlin60 wrote:

Photo IDs are required to open a bank account, cash a check at a grocery store, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, get on a plane, enter some office buildings, buy a gun, rent an apartment, and get a legal job.  A non-drivers license can easily be obtained for very little money.  So, I think if a person can not get it together to get a ID to do any of these things, I don't think they would be a informed voter.  Oh, I get it now that is just what the Democrats need!

All of those examples are private business policies.

It's not my constitutional duty to open a bank account or buy alcohol.

According to the Constitution you are innocent until proven guilty.  You cannot be searched or your property seized without a court ordered warrant.  In requiring a "government issued photo ID" to PROVE that you are a citizen means that every citizen is guilty of trying to defraud the government until you prove otherwise.  If you think that I'm commiting voter fraud then it's your job to prove it, not the other way around.

The only reason that I find this whole thing objectionable is that it leads to so many other infringements upon our rights.  If you have to prove that you are a citizen BEFORE you are afforded your constitutional rights then what stops law enforcement from harrassing me or even jailing me if I don't happen to have my ID on my person at the time.  What keeps the law from kicking in your door and illegally searching your home until they find proof that you are a U.S. citizen?  What keeps the law from holding me indefinitely behind bars where I can't get out to prove that I'm a citizen? 

If there's a way to be pre registered to vote or some reasonable way to account for citizenship without it being a hardship for citizens then I'm good with it but if there isn't then these politicons can kiss my Constitutionally protected American Ass.

Sorry but you are incorrect, ID for banks, cigaretts, alcohol, and flying all due to various laws, not private business ideas.

No, the law requires that you be a certain age to buy smokes or alcohol.  It is up to the private business to decide how to enforce it.  It's funny that I never had to prove who I was or how old I was when required to sign up for selective service.  Somehow the government already knew my age, my identity and my gender.  They were even kind enough to send me a reminder just before my 18th birthday.

Redwing
Redwing's picture
jan in iowa

jan in iowa wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

And the DNC can be the do nothing congress.

NO the Republicans are the Pathedic Do Nothing Congress.

How is that budget bill going in the do nothing Senate?  Approaching 1200 days and Harry Reid can't manage to produce one? Both the house and senate are a waste of time.  It is not one party or the other.

If, in a dream world, EVERY ELEGIBLE VOTER actually owned an acceptable form of ID, to show they were who they say they are, would you still object to a law that says it has to be produced at the polling place to be allowed to vote?

Commonsense461
It was a press release so it

It was a press release so it took me a little doing to get it but here it is pier.

All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials at http://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT security sweep.  Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.

Commonsense461
Pier?

Pier?

delete jan in iowa
Redwing wrote: jan in iowa

Redwing wrote:

jan in iowa wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

And the DNC can be the do nothing congress.

NO the Republicans are the Pathedic Do Nothing Congress.

How is that budget bill going in the do nothing Senate?  Approaching 1200 days and Harry Reid can't manage to produce one? Both the house and senate are a waste of time.  It is not one party or the other.

If, in a dream world, EVERY ELEGIBLE VOTER actually owned an acceptable form of ID, to show they were who they say they are, would you still object to a law that says it has to be produced at the polling place to be allowed to vote?

Are you speaking in generalities or are you asking a specific person a question?

Redwing
Redwing's picture
Anyone that is opposed to a

Anyone that is opposed to a proof of who you are when you enter the voting booth.

delete jan in iowa
Redwing wrote: Anyone that is

Redwing wrote:

Anyone that is opposed to a proof of who you are when you enter the voting booth.

Has anyone here said that you should not show a form of ID, like your old voter registration card?  

DynoDon
Why do you progressives keep

Why do you progressives keep verbally masturbating on this topic. You are not going to change the minds of any of the right wing trolls. They want to limit democratic voting. Notice this only comes up in presidential election years. If the trolls mentioned encouraging voter turnout or offering ways to get people ID's for those in difficulty, I might think they had good intentions. You do realize if everyone had the IDs, the right would complain that they are fakes or not valid.

Commonsense461
DynoDon wrote: Why do you

DynoDon wrote:

Why do you progressives keep verbally masturbating on this topic. You are not going to change the minds of any of the right wing trolls. They want to limit democratic voting. Notice this only comes up in presidential election years. If the trolls mentioned encouraging voter turnout or offering ways to get people ID's for those in difficulty, I might think they had good intentions. You do realize if everyone had the IDs, the right would complain that they are fakes or not valid.

To bad the law was created in 2005 and wasn't able to be passed untill now.

http://m.statesman.com/statesman/pm_23035/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=...