NC GOP puts the hammer down on voter fraud...NAACP not happy!

[was_peacemaker]

NC GOP puts an end to types of voter fraud, and passes bills that real southerners want! Sorry Moral Monday NAACP protesters.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/26/nc-lawmakers-approve-sweeping-changes-to-voting-rules/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Interna l+-+Politics+-+Text%29

[LAGC]

Ah yes. A new round of voter suppression by the "Grand Old Party." How noble of them.

How terrible it is to encourage young people to be civic-minded and register to vote... after all, we can't have them voting against Republicans now, can we?


Nonpartisan voting rights groups, Democrats and Libertarians say the true goal is suppressing voter turnout among the young, the old, the poor and minorities.

Yep. This doesn't just hurt Democrats, it hurts Libertarians as well.

Hope the courts overturn this undemocratic shit. No one should be discouraged from voting.

[was_peacemaker]

Ah yes. A new round of voter suppression by the "Grand Old Party." How noble of them.

How terrible it is to encourage young people to be civic-minded and register to vote... after all, we can't have them voting against Republicans now, can we?



Yep. This doesn't just hurt Democrats, it hurts Libertarians as well.

Hope the courts overturn this undemocratic shit. No one should be discouraged from voting.

I wish for once you would come down south and live in and around the southern black man. I know your type and I have had your type transplant down here. I have heard your types lectures and then within a year your type changes and becomes the biggest racist ever. Many upper mid-westerners, and yankees do what you do until they are in and around the crap everyday. I was raised just down the road from Farrakhan's Alma Mater...and just a few miles away from the first sit in. Please come lecture me on racism from...Idaho! Give me a break.....you know what I would do, to be were you are or Montana for that matter? By the way, what are the open carry laws there?

BTW: You can go give the biggest and most, loving civil rights speech to any black southern civil rights group. You can kiss their tails...and at the end of the day your still a cracka to them. But they will use you if they think they can prosper from you...but ya still a cracka!

[AKM]

I vote in Florida and I m thrilled to show the Poll Worker my drivers license everytime I vote. I think everyone else should have to do the same.

On early voting, if I had my way, there would be a National Voting Day. National Voting Day will be the only day that you can vote in a Federal Election. None of this early voting bullshit. There is way to much a chance for fraud in early voting. Of course there would have to be exceptions for Citizens and Troops that are overseas.

[AKM]

Ah yes. A new round of voter suppression by the "Grand Old Party." How noble of them.

Who is being suppressed? How are they being suppressed?

[Schuetzenman]

You need an I.D. to cash a check, rent a car, get a driver's license, check into a decent hotel, get on an airplane. The argument that needing an I.D. to vote is bullshit. What it is, is a favorite way the LEFT counts on in their stealing of elections by voter fraud.

[LAGC]

I wish for once you would come down south and live in and around the southern black man. I know your type and I have had your type transplant down here, I have heard your types lectures and then within a year your type changes and becomes the biggest racist ever. Many upper mid-westerners, and yankees do what you do until they are in and around the crap everyday. I was raised just down the road from Farrakhan's Alma Mater...and just a few miles away from the first sit in. Please come lecture me on racism from...Idaho! Give me a break.....you know what I would do to be were you are or Montana for that matter?

It's not just blacks that this law targets though. Didn't you even read the article? They are trying to discourage students and the elderly (and even active-duty military who vote absentee) as well. Why should folks who don't have a need for (or can't afford to pay for) a driver's license be barred from voting? That puts a price tag on what should be a fundamental basic right of citizenship.


By the way what are the open carry laws there?

They are pretty liberal. (As in tolerant.) I see people open-carrying every so often. It's no big deal, unless someone slings an AR over their shoulder in public or something. That's when the police get called.

There was some noise by Republican lawmakers a few months back when someone open-carried inside the state-house and was seen on security cameras rooting around through one of the legislator's trash bins. I don't think they ever identified him either, but there was talk about outlawing OC in the state-house at least because it bothered some of the legislators. But I don't anything ever came of it.

[was_peacemaker]

You need an I.D. to cash a check, rent a car, get a driver's license, check into a decent hotel, get on an airplane. The argument that needing an I.D. to vote is bullshit. What it is, is a favorite way the LEFT counts on in their stealing of elections by voter fraud.

Bingo! We have a winner! Just like the left hates stand your ground because it gives law abiding citizens reason to defend themselves against the criminal element and criminal based sympathizers that the left uses for support.

[Ruskiegunlover]

I agree lagcsocialist......Do you agree that no one should be required to show a licence to buy alcohol or cigarettes in this country? How about buy a car? Or get a loan? Do you agree that we should not be forced to show id in those situations? Do you agree that we should still be able to buy alcohol, cigarettes, guns, take out loans, buy houses and fly without showing id? I mean, these things are very small when compared to the actual ELECTION of our government. I mean, when we vote we are choosing how our entire country will be run......thats no small thing. Buying alcohol? Taking out a loan? Those are small things. So why should we be forced to take out an id for them? Isn't that too discrimination for those who cannot afford an id?

And doesn't my last point kind of prove the entire thing is bullshit? The MILLIONS of people who supposedly cannot afford a 20 doller id......that means they do not have one correct? Then how to all of them do the above listed things? Fuckers juist want to steal elections.

Voter fraud should be a capital crime. It'd also thin the herd of socialists in this country, as they commit it by a 10/1 margin to the right.

[was_peacemaker]

I agree lagcsocialist......Do you agree that no one should be required to show a licence to buy alcohol or cigarettes in this country? How about buy a car? Or get a loan? Do you agree that we should not be forced to show id in those situations? Do you agree that we should still be able to buy alcohol, cigarettes, guns, take out loans, buy houses and fly without showing id? I mean, these things are very small when compared to the actual ELECTION of our government. I mean, when we vote we are choosing how our entire country will be run......thats no small thing. Buying alcohol? Taking out a loan? Those are small things. So why should we be forced to take out an id for them? Isn't that too discrimination for those who cannot afford an id?

And doesn't my last point kind of prove the entire thing is bullshit? The MILLIONS of people who supposedly cannot afford a 20 doller id......that means they do not have one correct? Then how to all of them do the above listed things? Fuckers juist want to steal elections.

Voter fraud should be a capital crime. It'd also thin the herd of socialists in this country, as they commit it by a 10/1 margin to the right.

Voter fraud should be treason against the state and dealt with swiftly. You sir are correct.

[slamfire51]

Can't afford an ID???
WTF are you saying?
TN provides State IDs free of charge and transportation to get them to boot.

More excuses please......................

Dimocrats will try and block any action that will deter their voting fraud actions. How the Hell do you think our POS POTUS got elected?

[LAGC]

I agree lagcsocialist......Do you agree that no one should be required to show a licence to buy alcohol or cigarettes in this country? How about buy a car? Or get a loan?

None of those are constitutionally protected rights. Many students and elderly have no need of a driver's license, so its an undue burden to impose such requirements on them when other forms of I.D. (like student ID's) would work just fine. But the Republicans are against that, too! Instead, they are trying to force all those indigent to go through the hassle of long DMV lines and other barriers to discourage them from voting.

All this talk of voter "fraud" is just sore losers who don't like the way elections turn out. I've worked the polls before, on several occasions, and believe me -- if anyone tried to vote twice, we would notice. Poll workers aren't dumb.

This is a false controversy, Republicans just trying to do everything they can to suppress the vote.

Which is why the courts will ultimately strike this down.

[slamfire51]

None of those are constitutionally protected rights. Many students and elderly have no need of a driver's license, so its an undue burden to impose such requirements on them when other forms of I.D. (like student ID's) would work just fine. But the Republicans are against that, too! Instead, they are trying to force all those indigent to go through the hassle of long DMV lines and other barriers to discourage them from voting.

All this talk of voter "fraud" is just sore losers who don't like the way elections turn out. I've worked the polls before, on several occasions, and believe me -- if anyone tried to vote twice, we would notice. Poll workers aren't dumb.

This is a false controversy, Republicans just trying to do everything they can to suppress the vote.

Which is why the courts will ultimately strike this down.

Voter fraud is a constitutional right???

I'm calling your reply.....:bs:

[Krupski]

I wish for once you would come down south and live in and around the southern black man. I know your type and I have had your type transplant down here. I have heard your types lectures and then within a year your type changes and becomes the biggest racist ever. Many upper mid-westerners, and yankees do what you do until they are in and around the crap everyday.

You know what's interesting....... when I was a kid my dad was a rabid racist, so of course I was also. Everything was the fault of "those damn n---ers". And it seemed to be true. Most of the crime was perpetrated by blacks, hell my nice peaceful European immigrant neighborhood turned into a burned out, gang and drug infested wasteland after "those damn n---ers" moved in.

I felt that way until I was in my 30's. Then one day I saw an interesting show on TV (which I almost didn't watch).

They took two guys... one black and one white. They were the same age, same education, same weight and height, as "the same" as possible.

They were wired with mikes and cameras, then they set out to do everyday things like open a bank account, buy a car, try to get a mortgage, etc...

In EVERY CASE, the white guy was treated better. In the car dealership, the white guy was immediately approached by a salesman, was offered coffee, was patiently shown several cars and quoted a price and interest rate.

At the same dealership, the black guy was ignored by the salesmen, who all retreated as far back as they could get, looking at each other to decide who the "poor slob" would be that had to deal with the black guy.

When one finally approached the customer, he wasn't offered any coffee, the salesman seemed annoyed at every question and finally when the (black) guy decided to buy a car, he was quoted a HIGHER price and interest rate.

The same thing happened with all of the other dealings that they did.

Even just walking down a sidewalk, the white guy was ignored or given a passing "nod", while the black guy got stares and nasty looks from probably 60 percent of the people he passed.

When I saw that, I wondered how *I* would feel if I were treated that way, and that was when I realized that yeah, some blacks are trouble makers, but the biggest problem is the chip on their shoulder caused by the way WE (whites) treat them.

After that, I made it a point to try and observe how black people were treated by whites and many times I saw the same thing.

My "rabid racism" completely went away. I knew I was wrong.

With all that said, I agree with you 100% that no matter how "nice" we (whites) try to be, they (blacks) always consider us as "crackas". But, have you ever thought WHY they feel that way?

This doesn't excuse the "ghetto blacks" living on welfare in their burned out drug dealing neighborhoods, but this also doesn't excuse how WE treat them. It's a vicious circle, and one that's not likely to be broken any time soon.

[Krupski]

They are pretty liberal. (As in tolerant.) I see people open-carrying every so often. It's no big deal, unless someone slings an AR over their shoulder in public or something. That's when the police get called.

There was some noise by Republican lawmakers a few months back when someone open-carried inside the state-house and was seen on security cameras rooting around through one of the legislator's trash bins. I don't think they ever identified him either, but there was talk about outlawing OC in the state-house at least because it bothered some of the legislators. But I don't anything ever came of it.

WTF is the difference between an open carried pistol or an open carried rifle?

Both can kill just as dead.

[El Laton Caliente]

You mention Blacks, Collage Students and Elderly... Those are three groups that the DemocRATs target for voter fraud. The "register" a large number of bogus names at a heavy Dem controlled area and bus numbers of blacks and collage students from poll location to poll location voting the bogus registrations. The elderly, they will fill out the absentee voting card of the dementia and Alzheimer's afflicted for them and/or intercept their registration cards and use them at the polls.

Along the southern border they hire Mexican Nationals to be bussed in and vote the bogus registrations.

I just read yesterday about a New Hampshire State Senator (D) that had both her grown children registered to vote at her house. According to their facebook pages, both are married, one lives in Virginia and one lives in Washington DC.

The DemocRATs have been caught doing all of this and far more...

[ltorlo64]

Ah yes. A new round of voter suppression by the "Grand Old Party." How noble of them.

How terrible it is to encourage young people to be civic-minded and register to vote... after all, we can't have them voting against Republicans now, can we?



Yep. This doesn't just hurt Democrats, it hurts Libertarians as well.

Hope the courts overturn this undemocratic shit. No one should be discouraged from voting.

No, it actually takes us back to our roots. Here is some interesting historical information;


John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:

Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.


Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value. Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes. Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

Such requirements tended to delay a male colonist's entry into the voter ranks until he was settled down and established. They reflected the belief that freeholders, as property owners were called, had a legitimate interest in a community's success and well-being, paid taxes and deserved a voice in public affairs, had demonstrated they were energetic and intelligent enough to be trusted with a role in governance, and had enough resources to be independent thinkers not beholden to the wealthiest class. English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s:

The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty. (This sounds like a prophesy when we look at today's electorate.)

The above is taken from http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm.

Voter fraud is easier to perpetrate when you do not have to provide ID. Historically, you had to provide ID to prove you were able to vote. To think that having to provide an ID causes people to not vote is absurd. It only causes people to not vote who do not want to be known. IDs are too easy to get. Most states that are trying to require an ID have in the law that if you are so destitute as to not be able to afford one, one will be provided at no charge. Even for those that don't, they are not that expensive. Don't buy candy bars for a couple of weeks, or forgo coffee, or alchohol (for which an ID is needed to purchase) if you want to vote you can find a way to get an ID. Unless you are legally prohibited from having an ID, in which case you are also legally prohibitted from voting.

Voter ID is not about restricting peoples legitimate right to vote, it is about restricting (hopefully preventing) people who do not have a legitimate right to vote from voting. This protects democracy and our repersentative republic from voter fraud. It is beyond me how anyone can think any differently. If someone wants to see the President or First Lady, they have to show ID. If you want to use a credit card, by alcohol, tobacco (or firearms, I couldn't resist) or go to an R rated movie you have to show ID. I think voting is much more important than these things and yet we, specifically liberals, argue about it. It does not hurt political parties to do this but it hurts the country if we don't.

Oh yeah, voter fraud does happen. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/19/cincinnati-poll-worker-sentenced-to-5-years-for-voter-fraud-in-presidential/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text).

[Richard Simmons]

Same old liberal argument. You have to get a social security number, you have to show ID to do just about anything and I presume you have to have some type of ID for public assistance but requiring an ID to vote on average once every four years is "voter suppression". Go figure.

One question I have is once you are registered to vote can you not simply request an absentee ballot?

[LAGC]

WTF is the difference between an open carried pistol or an open carried rifle?

Both can kill just as dead.

I know, its just that you don't see people open-carrying rifles very often (compared to handguns), so it stands out more. But even if police harass the open-carrier, they leave without an arrest. After all, its not against the law. At least not in Idaho or Montana.

[ltorlo64]

One question I have is once you are registered to vote can you not simply request an absentee ballot?

Depends on where you are registered. I don't like it, but a few years ago Washington state changed all elections to absentee ballot (mail in ballot) supposedly as a cost saving measure. Before that I had an absentee ballot due to my deployment schedule. I don't remember if I had to go in and show my ID to get put on that list, it has been so long ago. I can tell you that to change my registration when I move I have to show my ID.

[LAGC]

You mention Blacks, Collage Students and Elderly... Those are three groups that the DemocRATs target for voter fraud. The "register" a large number of bogus names at a heavy Dem controlled area and bus numbers of blacks and collage students from poll location to poll location voting the bogus registrations. The elderly, they will fill out the absentee voting card of the dementia and Alzheimer's afflicted for them and/or intercept their registration cards and use them at the polls.

Bullshit. If this was really going on, there would be leakers all over the place. It would be a huge scandal. No self-serving political party would risk it. They do audits, you know, if any precincts have an abnormally high voter turn-out (at least compared to the others) they start matching names and verifying addresses. No way any large-scale fraud would get through.

That's what you guys don't understand -- we poll workers, we've been in the trenches. We know how it works. There's no way someone could vote for their dementia-addled spouse, the poll workers would recognize the same spouse going through the line twice. They're also pretty good about adding all the deceased into the system, so if any of them tried to vote it would get noticed.


I just read yesterday about a New Hampshire State Senator (D) that had both her grown children registered to vote at her house. According to their facebook pages, both are married, one lives in Virginia and one lives in Washington DC.

Just because the voter registration rolls aren't always updated and purged doesn't mean those registrants are actually voting.

In the FEW cases that this has happened, there have been prosecutions and harsh punishments.

It's just not happening on a wide-spread scale like the Republicans are claiming.

[Ruskiegunlover]

Awesome, so lagcsocialist and I agree then right? Are you then agreeing that we shouldn't have to show id to do the above listed things? Will you give me a clear answer? Isn't it JUST as much an undue burden on people, ALL people, to get drivers licences? Why should I have to show id to buy a gun? Isn't THAT a right we have? Buy alcohol? I agree: getting your licence is a HUGE pain in the ass.....so why should I have to?

Will you give me a clear and serious answer?

[LAGC]

Historically, you had to provide ID to prove you were able to vote.

Well sure, back then only white male property owners could vote. Voter rights have been expanded quite a bit since then, to include every adult citizen, even women. Although its pretty obvious some folks want to go back to the old way of doing things...


IDs are too easy to get. Most states that are trying to require an ID have in the law that if you are so destitute as to not be able to afford one, one will be provided at no charge.

Except you have to waste a whole day waiting in line at the over-burdened DMV, depending on where you live. A lot of people just don't want to put up with the hassle, and I don't blame them.


Oh yeah, voter fraud does happen. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/19/cincinnati-poll-worker-sentenced-to-5-years-for-voter-fraud-in-presidential/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text).

Very rarely. And when it does, people are DETECTED and prosecuted for it. There is no wide-scale fraud. Our elections are the cleanest in the world.

[Ruskiegunlover]

Lagcsocialist, you are so full of shit swimming must come easy to you. Your above post is absolutely rediculous. BULLSHIT that the described voter fraud doesn't happen? Go actually EDUCATE yourself, instead of being another low info dumbass, on American election history. Look specifically at JOHNSON and KENNEDY. Look at JOHNSONS ENTIRE POLITICAL CAREER, STARTING IN COLLEGE. Look at the 1960 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Your above post really floors me. It shouldn't.....There is a reason the socialists pray on people like you. Its because you are too stupid and lazy to educate yourselves and develop analytical skills, reading skills, and you'll buy into the dumbest ideas imaginable. You won't understand how economics work, or the real world for that matter. You'll just blindly vote and follow whoever gives you more from ME.

[LAGC]

Are you then agreeing that we shouldn't have to show id to do the above listed things? Will you give me a clear answer? Isn't it JUST as much an undue burden on people, ALL people, to get drivers licences?

I already answered you. Those things you listed are PRIVILEGES, not RIGHTS. So they can be reasonably restricted. I don't think you should have to show an ID to buy a gun either. And you don't in many states if you buy private-party.

I just wish more Republicans would focus on that (not requiring ID for exercising a constitutional right) instead of focusing on restricting the rights of others.

[Ruskiegunlover]

"Very rarely. And when it does, people are DETECTED and prosecuted for it. There is no wide-scale fraud. Our elections are the cleanest in the world."
lagcsocialist

Did you know that EVEN JOHNSON told JOKES about his 1948 senetorial campaign? Do you know he openly called himself and introduced himself as 'landslide' Johnson in the senate? That his election was an open joke? The guy would LITERALLY JOKE about his stolen election.... (won by 87 votes the 2nd senate seat from texas after a lengthy court battle, in which EVERYONE new about the fraud. The people involved, years later, OPENLY ADMITTED TO THE MASSIVE FRAUD THEY HAD COMMITTED).

[Ruskiegunlover]

So lagcsocialist, you do not think we should have to show id to buy alcohol, cars, medicine, houses, take out loans?

[LAGC]

So lagcsocialist, you do not think we should have to show id to buy alcohol, cars, medicine, houses, take out loans?

Like I said, none of those things are rights, so they can be reasonably restricted. In the cases of medicine, houses, and loans, those are contracts with private corporations, so they can require any sort of restriction they want. You volunteer for it by entering into a contract with the other party.

[Ruskiegunlover]

Please quote me and answer simply. Its not a hard question....

[LAGC]

I did! I said I don't see any reason why those things can't be restricted.

[Ruskiegunlover]

So when it comes to who is going to run the country, the most important part of our history and heritage, we should have NO security against fraud? Something as simple as getting an id that shows your address, name, and a picture? You are telling me that in our country these people cannot find one day to go get an id? When they are FREE in many cases, or the state bends over backwards to help people get them?

Do you believe lagcsocialist that ANYONE should be allowed to vote in our elections? Say....Irainains? Russians? Mexicans? Italians? Somalis? Cubans?

[Ruskiegunlover]

should all of those people be allowed to vote in our elections?

[Ruskiegunlover]

Guess I scared him away???

[LAGC]

I think there's enough safe-guards in place to make the whole issue moot.

Most places you have to show proof of residency to register to vote in the first place. Utility bills can be verified through the utility companies. If someone were using bogus info, it would get noticed. If a whole bunch of people used the same address, it would get noticed.

The FBI and other agencies look into this type of thing on a regular basis. Yet there have been very few prosecutions. It would be big news if it were really that big of problem.

Check this out: The Truth About Voter Fraud (http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf)

[Ruskiegunlover]

Ok, ha, got me there.....Like the infamous prosecution by the Justice Department of the New Black Panther party in 2009....Yup, sure stopped those bastards. Or the hundreds of FELONS who were caught and prosecuted for swaying the election for Al Franken.....Or the FACT that in 12 100+ (notice that? 100% + PLUS) registered voters who voted in many counties in Florida and Philidelphia? Yup, the Justice Department didn't just DROP any of those cases did they? Yup, prosecuted them to the fullest extent of the law right?


Just like the FBI and CIA did during Johnsons time? Or Kennedies? Yup, to the FULLEST extent of the law!

You are comically uneducated on the historic FACTS of this issue.

[AKM]

Bullshit. If this was really going on, there would be leakers all over the place. It would be a huge scandal. No self-serving political party would risk it. They do audits, you know, if any precincts have an abnormally high voter turn-out (at least compared to the others) they start matching names and verifying addresses. No way any large-scale fraud would get through.

That's what you guys don't understand -- we poll workers, we've been in the trenches. We know how it works. There's no way someone could vote for their dementia-addled spouse, the poll workers would recognize the same spouse going through the line twice.
This sorry bitch voted for Obama 6 times.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/07/26/de6ytabu.jpg

[Ruskiegunlover]

HA....a quick search showed you posted info from a GEORGE SOROS FUNDED 'THINK' TANK!

In all seriousness, I am actually laughing outloud at you. Thanks lagcsocialist, I needed to let off a little steam here.

Still laughing....


See, educated people look at what we see first hand, read about all over the country, look at history as a teacher, and see reality as it is. NOT a utopia. YOU simply read 'research' funded by YOUR SIDE and see it as that simple. Yup, its just that simple. It didn't happen. Because your side says it didn't.

You just showed why the socialists pray on you and people LIKE you by the way.....People who really can't think for themselves. Have to 'group' think....Or just take orders....Or just be told what to think....

[ltorlo64]

I just wish more Republicans would focus on that (not requiring ID for exercising a constitutional right) instead of focusing on restricting the rights of others.

It is only a constitutional right if you are here legally and are voting for yourself. If you are not it is not a right.

[Ruskiegunlover]

Lots of smoke to see....But as lagcsocialists handlers told him to think and say, smoke doesn't mean fire. EVER. Smoke just means that, uh, extreme heat cooked off moisture. Never a fire....


Two legs bad, four legs good!

Right lagcsocialist?

[Ruskiegunlover]

No, no, no....We are supposed to allow anyone, Iranian, mexican, italisn, russian, cuban to vote right? AS LONG AS THEY ARE CITIZENS! Lagcsocialist has hit it! As long as they are citizens! So when a mexican comes up to the polls, can say only 'HI' and 'I voter' in broken english, and signs his name as Henry Martin, we don't need to stinkin id's!



Then later, a middle aged white guy walks up and says 'Hi, I'm Henry Martin, here to vote.....', they'll just ask to see his voter registration card, and let him go ahead as long as he is registered dim....


We don't need no id's!

[ltorlo64]

Well sure, back then only white male property owners could vote. Voter rights have been expanded quite a bit since then, to include every adult citizen, even women. Although its pretty obvious some folks want to go back to the old way of doing things...

Does not negate the fact that they had to show they were elligible to vote, in part by proving who they were.


Except you have to waste a whole day waiting in line at the over-burdened DMV, depending on where you live. A lot of people just don't want to put up with the hassle, and I don't blame them.

That is an excuse, a and a poor one at that. The people who are not poor, not going to college, etc, etc, find time to go to the DMV to get an ID. They should too, if they wish to vote.


Very rarely. And when it does, people are DETECTED and prosecuted for it. There is no wide-scale fraud. Our elections are the cleanest in the world.

Ruskie answered this very well.

I noticed you ignored the two quotes, one by John Adams, of what would happen if you let people who were uneducated and poor be part of the voting process.

[Ruskiegunlover]

Since lagcsocialist openly displays the dishonesty of the left, here is a site discussing the brennan center for justice....


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/brennancenteragenda.html

[Ruskiegunlover]

Right now he doubtless is doing a quick google search, trying to find ANY info to invalidate what I poated about PROVEN, KNOWN voter fraud cases.....He'll trott out some weak site, say its true.....I've read countless books, including the series of biographies written on Johnson that are considered the best record of his life. He has no argument, but cannot admit the real reasons why they want to keep voter id laws off the books.

[5.56NATO]

The law seems to only "discriminate" between those who are eligible to vote and those who are not.

[Richard Simmons]

So the gist of the liberal viewpoint is that the line at the DMV is too long to make folks get an ID? How do those same folks fare at the bank, grocery store, welfare office, unemployment office, doctors office, etc? Last time I was at the DMV you actually sit until they call your number so they don't even have to stand. If the line at the DMV is too much to bear I would imagine they are turning around at the polls on election day if there is more than one person ahead of them.

The other argument seems to be that folks can't get to the DMV but they seem to be able to get every where else they need to go. Go figure.

[Cypher]

Dims are racist for even suggesting that minorities are too incompetent to get a government issued photo ID and vote on time.

There is one reason dims don't want people to prove who they are for voting and that is voter fraud.

[Kadmos]

Melowese Richardson, the woman who voted 6 times would not have been stopped by voter ID laws.

She went to the polls once, in her own name, for which she easily could have had legal ID.

Then she voted "on behalf" of several relatives by absentee ballots without their knowledge.

She also got convicted of 4 felonies.

Voter ID laws only work is the person actually has to show up with ID.

And of course if they have multiple ID's then it's easily defeated.

Or if the election judge is "sympathetic" and instead of ID they hand over a coupon for 10% off antiperspirant.

Or if the voter rolls aren't clean and they are registered in multiple districts.

But the fact is, while it happens, voter fraud is still rather rare, really rare when you consider how many people vote in this country.


States that have enacted voter ID laws have seen that attendance doesn't drop off after the law is introduced

Which means both sides are wrong, people aren't massively disenfranchised, nor if it were occurring, voter fraud isn't massively stopped.

Which should tell you that it's basically a waste of time, effort, and money.

At best you get the illusion of safer elections, and at worst (aside from the giant waste) you disenfranchise some (generally targeted) voters.


The argument of you need ID to cash a check, buy booze or cigs, get on a plane, or rent a car is utter nonsense, which has nothing to do with the point.

Lets face it, if you don't have a DL, you aren't renting a car anyway. The poor folks who don't have ID probably aren't among the "jet set", most people have never been on a plane.

As to checks, I don't "cash" checks, I deposit them...no ID required. I think I've cashed 2 checks in the last decade, took them to the writers bank, mostly because I didn't trust the person enough, could have been avoided by depositing, and likely a student ID, work ID, library card, or generally just enough loud bitching could have avoided the ID requirement, as it's "policy" not law.

Just as showing ID for cigs and booze is "policy" not law...I'm 40...do you really think I get "carded" anywhere...of course not. If you get carded somewhere and don't have ID you either complain or go to a different store that won't ask.

No, it's not that big of a deal to get an ID, assuming you have the right paperwork, which not everyone does. Not everyone has their birth certificate handy, or social security card, you may have to send away for those which can take weeks, and generally you still need proof of address which is not as easy as it sounds for everyone (alot of cash renting going on)

Yeah, the system could stand some serious updating, it's important that only citizens vote and that they only vote once, it's also important not to make citizens jump through so many hoops that it's overly burdensome to vote.

But these voter ID laws...it's pretty much a waste.

However, the democrats love when you guys push for them, it loses you so many potential minority votes. It's really easy to paint republicans as racists who want to stop blacks and Hispanics (not a race, an ethnicity ;)) from voting. And of course the poor, so easy to get the poor to vote democrat.

[Cypher]

With margins as tight as they are in most counties it only take a fraction of the votes to swing it in the favor of fraudsters.

There are MANY transactions that require you to show ID. I guess two checks in 10 years doesn't give you a lot of experience but every bank I have dealt with require ID for many transactions or they won't deal with you. Obviously the government isn't going to pass a law saying bank x must require ID, it is in the banks best interest to verify who you are so they require it and make it a policy.

Here is one http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak
NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

Here is another one http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-bates/2012/06/06/first-lady-requires-photo-id-her-book-signings-voter-id-law-hating-media
First Lady Requires Photo ID for Her Book Signings; Voter ID Law-hating Media Fail to Note Obama Hypocrisy

I'll be durned, another one http://www.inquisitr.com/321278/democratic-national-convention-requires-photo-id/
Democratic National Convention Requires Photo ID

Straight from the FTC site http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/redflagsrule/faqs.shtm


We're a creditor that regularly arranges for our customers to get credit from third partiesand we have covered accounts. What should our Identity Theft Prevention Program look like?

You can create your own policies and procedures for your Program or incorporate reasonable policies and procedures from the lender's Program. Reasonable procedures might include asking for photo identification, comparing the photo to the person presenting the ID, looking for signs the ID has been altered or forged, and comparing the information on the ID with what's on the credit application. Your Program also should include reasonable procedures for responding to red flags and complying with the Rule's administrative requirements.

[Kadmos]

Again though, you are talking about policies not laws. Plus the stakes are completely different. You may have to go to a different shop, avoid something like getting your book signed by the first lady (and yes that's an obvious example of hypocrisy)

If you don't have an ID then you simply work around that kind of stuff.

Voting is more of a fundamental right.

Personally I think people should of course simply have ID, it's not that big of a deal to get it usually, and it is useful.

But I don't think it makes sense to have voter ID laws, especially when there is so little voter fraud, what voter fraud there is won't be stopped by voter ID's and it costs millions of dollars to essentially get no result

[imanaknut]

There is no voter fraud. Just because obama-messiah beat Romney 95,000 to ZERO and similar "*" to zero in several Ohio precincts isn't fraud.


Like it was said, we need an ID to drive, to get on an airliner, to buy a firearm, and a host of different things. What is the big deal about an ID to vote, other than the results might be more honest, but with the advent of computer voting, there is no such thing as a recount anymore, so making sure that "one person - one vote" is the rule is only the right way to do it.

They tried to use the excuse in Indiana when we mandated an ID to vote that certain people (gee, guess who) could not afford it, so the state ID is FREE. Then they said certain people (guess who) could not get to the license branch for the ID, so they came up with a FREE transportation system to take people who "can't afford it" to get to the license branch for their FREE ID.

No excuse, one person, one vote or go to jail!!!!!!

[El Jefe]

Damn, the same limp dicks making the same BS excuses.

Even tho I bought an annual pass for Rocky Mountain NP, I still have to show my drivers license along with the pass each time I enter the park. What an outrage!

[nfa1934]

The left wouldn't fight so hard against voter ID if it didn't affect their ability to commit fraud.

[was_peacemaker]

The left wouldn't fight so hard against voter ID if it didn't affect their ability to commit fraud.

Yep! Its like the dirty football team that doesn't want rule changes. They (the left) depend on dirty tricks to win.

[slamfire51]

No, it's not that big of a deal to get an ID, assuming you have the right paperwork, which not everyone does. Not everyone has their birth certificate handy, or social security card, you may have to send away for those which can take weeks, and generally you still need proof of address which is not as easy as it sounds for everyone (alot of cash renting going on)

Ah, key words here. The right paperwork is impossible for those who are here illegally, or who are NOT able to vote legally.


Yeah, the system could stand some serious updating, it's important that only citizens vote and that they only vote once, it's also important not to make citizens jump through so many hoops that it's overly burdensome to vote.

Millions of voters have jumped these hoops. Another BS excuse for the Dimocrats. :rotflmbao:

[nfa1934]

The thing about voter fraud is that you can't beat a Dem in a close race with just enough to squeak by. You have to win by a fraud-proof margin.

[Kadmos]

Ah, key words here. The right paperwork is impossible for those who are here illegally, or who are NOT able to vote legally.



Millions of voters have jumped these hoops. Another BS excuse for the Dimocrats. :rotflmbao:


I was talking about things like a birth certificate and proof of address.

I was born in Florida but live in Missouri, when I turned 15 I had to get my BC from Florida to get my DL, it cost a few bucks, but the real pain in the butt was proving I was me and had a right to my own BC! I had to get one of my parents BC and an affidavit from them to prove they had a kid which was me. It can be tough to get ID without having ID.

Then the proof of address can be a problem, generally you need a utility bill or a lease, a lot of people pay cash rent with utilities included ...owners would rather keep the bill in their own name than deal with switching it around every time, or being forced to pay a tenants bill after they left and didn't pay the bills.

In lower rent places, and in cities, this is really common. No DL because they don't drive, no proof of address because the bills are in someone else's name.

It's not insurmountable usually, but it's a real hassle.

My personal opinion is that by the time you are 18 you should have gotten it figured out and at least picked up a state ID. But that still leaves you with registration problems if you move.

Illegals obviously shouldn't be voting at all (unless local elections allow them to)


The left wouldn't fight so hard against voter ID if it didn't affect their ability to commit fraud.

Actually has nothing to do with it, it's mostly a ploy, it allows them to be "for the poor and for the minorities", costs them nothing, gains them alot.

Republicans actually feed that beast by pushing ID laws, further pissing off the poor and minorities, driving them towards democrats.

I often wonder just how stupid the republican party is, drive off the poor, drive off minorities, drive off women, drive off the educated, drive off non-Christians...then complain that you lose elections because of same groups, which keeps them from voting for Republicans in the future.

[El Laton Caliente]

Bullshit. If this was really going on, there would be leakers all over the place. It would be a huge scandal. No self-serving political party would risk it. They do audits, you know, if any precincts have an abnormally high voter turn-out (at least compared to the others) they start matching names and verifying addresses. No way any large-scale fraud would get through.

That's what you guys don't understand -- we poll workers, we've been in the trenches. We know how it works. There's no way someone could vote for their dementia-addled spouse, the poll workers would recognize the same spouse going through the line twice. They're also pretty good about adding all the deceased into the system, so if any of them tried to vote it would get noticed.



Just because the voter registration rolls aren't always updated and purged doesn't mean those registrants are actually voting.

In the FEW cases that this has happened, there have been prosecutions and harsh punishments.

It's just not happening on a wide-spread scale like the Republicans are claiming.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/poll-worker-gets-5year-sentence-for-illegal-voting/-/13549970/21014378/-/mwbbrsz/-/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/indiana-dem-official-sentenced-to-prison-for-08-ballot-fraud-in-obama-clinton/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/01/congressman-denies-involvement-in-staffers-vote-fraud-attempt/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/ohio-democrat-and-obama-supporter-melowese-richardson-convicted-of-felony-voter-fraud/

http://www.wmctv.com/story/22400987/former-west-memphis-councilman-police-officer-sentenced-for-conspiracy-to-commit-election-fraud

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/30/Voter-Fraud-Lawsuits-Filed-In-Two-Mississippi-Counties (In this case two heavy dem counties are turning in more absentee votes than they have population)

http://nationalreview.com/corner/346855/election-fraud-presidential-campaign

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/22/trial-begins-for-officials-accused-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/#ixzz2RINBz4WA

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/from-works-of-mercy-to-voter-fraud?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrisisMagazine+%28Crisis+Maga zine%29

http://menrec.com/more-evidence-that-voter-fraud-is-indeed-a-normal-political-tactic-for-new-york-democrats/

http://www.news4jax.com/news/2-Lake-City-women-accused-of-fraud-in-2010-election/-/475880/19680990/-/p8cu5j/-/index.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/castro_forged_papers_Q72rDsVm97OW5upEcRXm0K

http://newyorkpost.com/p/news/local/bribing_his_way_onto_the_ballot_3XFvV67oWZHFo7bVdo CkcO

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14795-voter-fraud-charges-filed-in-hamilton-county-ohio-others-may-follow

http://www.wnct.com/story/21750126/5-investigated-in-nc-for-possible-voter-fraud

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/prosecutors-charge-10-with-voter-fraud-4t98ni8-199446341.html

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/2-More-People-Charged-in-Voter-Fraud-Investigation-200066651.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/cincinnati-poll-worker-charged-with-voting-half-dozen-times-in-november/

http://menrec.com/four-ny-democrats-sentenced-to-community-service-jail-time-for-role-in-voter-fraud-case/

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/23/v-print/3250726/the-case-of-the-phantom-ballots.html

Nothing to see here... move along...

You want more?

[5.56NATO]

With margins as tight as they are in most counties it only take a fraction of the votes to swing it in the favor of fraudsters.

There are MANY transactions that require you to show ID. I guess two checks in 10 years doesn't give you a lot of experience but every bank I have dealt with require ID for many transactions or they won't deal with you. Obviously the government isn't going to pass a law saying bank x must require ID, it is in the banks best interest to verify who you are so they require it and make it a policy.

Here is one http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak
NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

Here is another one http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-bates/2012/06/06/first-lady-requires-photo-id-her-book-signings-voter-id-law-hating-media
First Lady Requires Photo ID for Her Book Signings; Voter ID Law-hating Media Fail to Note Obama Hypocrisy

I'll be durned, another one http://www.inquisitr.com/321278/democratic-national-convention-requires-photo-id/
Democratic National Convention Requires Photo ID

Straight from the FTC site http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/redflagsrule/faqs.shtm

Post of the thread.

[stevelyn]

So the NAACP supports voter fraud?

[Oswald Bastable]

blah, blah, blah...stupid leftist shit...

When I see you actively campaigning for the end of fees for background checks (not to mention background checks themselves), taxes on firearms or ammo, restrictions on what kind of arms can be bought, which are all restrictions on the 2nd and hit the poor far harder than the middle class or well off...

...at that point I'll begin to believe you may, actually care about this issue.

And before you try to tell me there are not the inherent risks in unrestricted voting that there are in 2A exercise, understand that unrestricted voting has resulted in some of the dumbest, most classless, most corrupt politicians on the planet being elected to office, resulting in more deaths among poor blacks and other minorities than unrestricted access to the 2A ever has. The occasional whackjob offing a few people pales in comparison with the horror, poverty and death that unrestricted voting has brought to the poor.

[Oswald Bastable]

Melowese Richardson, the woman who voted 6 times would not have been stopped by voter ID laws.

She went to the polls once, in her own name, for which she easily could have had legal ID.

Then she voted "on behalf" of several relatives by absentee ballots without their knowledge.

She also got convicted of 4 felonies.

Voter ID laws only work is the person actually has to show up with ID.

And of course if they have multiple ID's then it's easily defeated.

Or if the election judge is "sympathetic" and instead of ID they hand over a coupon for 10% off antiperspirant.

Or if the voter rolls aren't clean and they are registered in multiple districts.

But the fact is, while it happens, voter fraud is still rather rare, really rare when you consider how many people vote in this country.


States that have enacted voter ID laws have seen that attendance doesn't drop off after the law is introduced

Which means both sides are wrong, people aren't massively disenfranchised, nor if it were occurring, voter fraud isn't massively stopped.

Which should tell you that it's basically a waste of time, effort, and money.

At best you get the illusion of safer elections, and at worst (aside from the giant waste) you disenfranchise some (generally targeted) voters.


The argument of you need ID to cash a check, buy booze or cigs, get on a plane, or rent a car is utter nonsense, which has nothing to do with the point.

Lets face it, if you don't have a DL, you aren't renting a car anyway. The poor folks who don't have ID probably aren't among the "jet set", most people have never been on a plane.

As to checks, I don't "cash" checks, I deposit them...no ID required. I think I've cashed 2 checks in the last decade, took them to the writers bank, mostly because I didn't trust the person enough, could have been avoided by depositing, and likely a student ID, work ID, library card, or generally just enough loud bitching could have avoided the ID requirement, as it's "policy" not law.

Just as showing ID for cigs and booze is "policy" not law...I'm 40...do you really think I get "carded" anywhere...of course not. If you get carded somewhere and don't have ID you either complain or go to a different store that won't ask.

No, it's not that big of a deal to get an ID, assuming you have the right paperwork, which not everyone does. Not everyone has their birth certificate handy, or social security card, you may have to send away for those which can take weeks, and generally you still need proof of address which is not as easy as it sounds for everyone (alot of cash renting going on)

Yeah, the system could stand some serious updating, it's important that only citizens vote and that they only vote once, it's also important not to make citizens jump through so many hoops that it's overly burdensome to vote.

But these voter ID laws...it's pretty much a waste.

However, the democrats love when you guys push for them, it loses you so many potential minority votes. It's really easy to paint republicans as racists who want to stop blacks and Hispanics (not a race, an ethnicity ;)) from voting. And of course the poor, so easy to get the poor to vote democrat.

So then, you would support repealing all restrictions on exercising the 2A, same as voting rights, yes?

After all, they disenfranchise the poor at a far greater rate than they do us middle and higher class schlubs who have ID and can pay for and pass a background check...right?

How about repealing all restrictions on the 1st? Cuz, poor folk may not understand that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater might have unintended consequences? We'd best not make them think too hard about their actions in these cases either...it infringes on their right to free speech...

[was_peacemaker]

So then, you would support repealing all restrictions on exercising the 2A, same as voting rights, yes?

After all, they disenfranchise the poor at a far greater rate than they do us middle and higher class schlubs who have ID and can pay for and pass a background check...right?

How about repealing all restrictions on the 1st? Cuz, poor folk may not understand that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater might have unintended consequences? We'd best not make them think too hard about their actions in these cases either...it infringes on their right to free speech...

Good points and good read Oswald! :cool:

[Schuetzenman]

The left wouldn't fight so hard against voter ID if it didn't affect their ability to commit fraud.

This!

[was_peacemaker]

This!

Yep!

[Kadmos]

So then, you would support repealing all restrictions on exercising the 2A, same as voting rights, yes?

After all, they disenfranchise the poor at a far greater rate than they do us middle and higher class schlubs who have ID and can pay for and pass a background check...right?

How about repealing all restrictions on the 1st? Cuz, poor folk may not understand that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater might have unintended consequences? We'd best not make them think too hard about their actions in these cases either...it infringes on their right to free speech...

No. (Although I am for cheaper firearms;))

The idea is to come up with sensible laws that will insure both the validity of elections as well as the appearance of the validity of elections.

At best ID laws only address the appearance of the validity of elections, and in truth they don't do very well at that for anyone who puts actual thought into the topic.

We see over and over that the bulk of what little fraud there is comes mostly from absentee ballots, where there is no checking state ID with an actual face.

I'm all for the idea of beginning to reform the system, but the reforms have to be done fairly, with the intent of making for secure, fair, and free elections, not attempting to disenfranchise voters.

When you have Republicans pushing a voter ID law through just a few months before a Federal election, the intent is obvious. Some even went and outright said it if I recall correctly

[El Laton Caliente]

We see over and over that the bulk of what little fraud there is comes mostly from absentee ballots, where there is no checking state ID with an actual face.


No, it is just an easy, obvious method and one you can get caught at, therefore gets documented... The worst is stuffing ballot boxes.

During the Kennedy-Nixon race in 1960, the Dems stuffed ballot boxes in south Texas and Chicago turning the election. Three counties in south Texas turned in more votes than registered voters.

The same happen in the last two Obama elections. Philadelphia, Florida and Ohio for example had over 100% turn out in heavily Dem precincts.

The Washington state Governor's race a few years ago, a down town Seattle precinct and something like 1500 voters registered at a Dem office and had 100% turn out. That and some other irregularities turned that governors race also.

[Kadmos]

The same happen in the last two Obama elections. Philadelphia, Florida and Ohio for example had over 100% turn out in heavily Dem precincts.


Not what happened. What we had was more voters in a precinct than there were voting age residents according to the census. A non-issue with easy explanations.

[LAGC]

I find it interesting that its always the Dems doing the ballot stuffing. If this was really so easy and widespread going on, why wouldn't the GOP do the same thing?

Indeed, if you head over to Democratic Underground you find the same wild accusations of voter fraud of one sort or another on the part of Republicans. Just petty partisan blame-gaming, sore losers who don't like the way elections turn out.

[L1A1Rocker]

You need an I.D. to cash a check, rent a car, get a driver's license, check into a decent hotel, get on an airplane. The argument that needing an I.D. to vote is bullshit. What it is, is a favorite way the LEFT counts on in their stealing of elections by voter fraud.

Here's the real kicker that you need a photo I.D. for. . . . ready for it??? Welfare! Yep, in order to apply for food stamps, etc, you have to provide a photo I.D. The arguments against it for voting are B.S.

[Krupski]

Melowese Richardson, the woman who voted 6 times would not have been stopped by voter ID laws.

She went to the polls once, in her own name, for which she easily could have had legal ID.

Then she voted "on behalf" of several relatives by absentee ballots without their knowledge.

She also got convicted of 4 felonies.



But, if enough people vote multiple times, then get punished for doing it, what good does it do us? 0bama still got "elected". And we're stuck with him.

[Krupski]

So the NAACP supports voter fraud?

Well I know that the NAAWP doesn't.

[Krupski]

No. (Although I am for cheaper firearms;))

You should know the difference between "cheap" and "inexpensive"..........?

[Kadmos]

But, if enough people vote multiple times, then get punished for doing it, what good does it do us? 0bama still got "elected". And we're stuck with him.

Generally the idea of punishing the people is to disincentivize people from doing it in the future.

If enough is found then the election can be challenged, but lets face it, it wasn't close.

[Oswald Bastable]

If enough is found then the election can be challenged, but lets face it, it wasn't close.

Patently false.

Serious issues of over voting were raised in FL, PA, OH and WI (all states that either did not demand voter ID, or could not due to dim challenges to voter ID).

The final electoral collage vote count was 0bama - 332 | Romney - 206.

The electoral collage total for the four states in question is 77.

Subtract that from 0bama's total and add it to Romney's and you have Romney - 283 | 0bama - 255...Romney wins.

All of those states were relatively close, all questions of fraud were swept under the rug, the over voting dismissed.

That you would dismiss even the potential for such fraud in our election system as "What we had was more voters in a precinct than there were voting age residents according to the census. A non-issue with easy explanations." speaks volumes about where you stand as a citizen...if you even are.

[Kadmos]

Oswald, I was dismissive of the voter turnout numbers because they are nonsense.

It was news stories intended to shock people who couldn't be bothered to actually think.

It sounds shocking to say "125% voter turnout"

It's less shocking to say "Using data from a 2 year old census, 125% of voting age people turned out to vote in 2012, while actual turnout of registered voters was 67%"

You can't expect 2 year old census data to accurately predict the number of people who will turnout to vote.

First, everyone 16 and 17 in 2010 would be old enough to vote in 2012.

Single people get married, which adds another potential voter, possibly several if adult children move in.

Mom moves in with kids which adds another voter.

People move back in with parent which adds at least one more voter, and possibly 3-4.


Using the census is not an accurate predictor.

And frankly it's more than a bit dishonest when it's so easy to see what actual voter turnout of registered voters was, which I don't believe reached much over 75% anywhere in the country.


It's like those people who say "Half of all marriages end in divorce", do you know how they get those numbers? They take the total number of marriages that year and subtract the total number of divorces. Sure it tells you the current stats of marriage and divorce, but it doesn't accurately tell you what overall percentage of marriages will end in divorce. You will have years where marriage is up (often seen in a better economy) and years when divorce is up (often seen in a bad economy)


All those voter numbers really mean is that in 2 years the number of voting age people has increased for that area, something that is neither surprising, shocking, or at all related to fraud.

[Oswald Bastable]

Oswald, I was dismissive of the voter turnout numbers because they are nonsense.

It was news stories intended to shock people who couldn't be bothered to actually think.

It sounds shocking to say "125% voter turnout"

It's less shocking to say "Using data from a 2 year old census, 125% of voting age people turned out to vote in 2012, while actual turnout of registered voters was 67%"

You can't expect 2 year old census data to accurately predict the number of people who will turnout to vote.

First, everyone 16 and 17 in 2010 would be old enough to vote in 2012.

Single people get married, which adds another potential voter, possibly several if adult children move in.

Mom moves in with kids which adds another voter.

People move back in with parent which adds at least one more voter, and possibly 3-4.


Using the census is not an accurate predictor.

And frankly it's more than a bit dishonest when it's so easy to see what actual voter turnout of registered voters was, which I don't believe reached much over 75% anywhere in the country.


It's like those people who say "Half of all marriages end in divorce", do you know how they get those numbers? They take the total number of marriages that year and subtract the total number of divorces. Sure it tells you the current stats of marriage and divorce, but it doesn't accurately tell you what overall percentage of marriages will end in divorce. You will have years where marriage is up (often seen in a better economy) and years when divorce is up (often seen in a bad economy)


All those voter numbers really mean is that in 2 years the number of voting age people has increased for that area, something that is neither surprising, shocking, or at all related to fraud.

Really?

And how do you account for the fact that in each and every district where this happened, every single one was heavily (some might say exculsively) democraitc, and in every single one, nearly every vote went to 0bama.

How do you account for not a single report going the other way, i.e., 125% turnout with 99% of the vote going for Romney?

You know...if it's all about that whole 2-year-old, out of date census thing?

Oh...and so kind of you to address the impact those four states had on your "not even close" statement...you know, total dismissal and disregard for your complete fabrication of reality...

You are some piece of work...

[T2K]

It's painfully obvious to me that the Founders got it correct in principle - only people with a stake in the nation's future should have the right to vote.

While I don't advocate a return to the methodogy in use then (more or less - white, male landowners) I do advocate a return to the principle. Maybe:
-net federal taxpayer or -honorably discharged veterans or -etc

That ONE thing would correct the course of the USA in ONE ELECTION CYCLE. You know it and I know it. Things will have to get worse before we can revert to that, though.

[Kadmos]

Really?

And how do you account for the fact that in each and every district where this happened, every single one was heavily (some might say exculsively) democraitc, and in every single one, nearly every vote went to 0bama.

Lets see...densely packed districts, frequent and rapid changes in demographics....any particular areas come to mind?

Hint, it's not rural...

If a new apartment building goes up, where is it more likely to go up? Heavily populated area? Perhaps a city? Might suddenly even double the population of a district in a matter of months depending on the size of the project.


How do you account for not a single report going the other way, i.e., 125% turnout with 99% of the vote going for Romney?

See above....but also, did anyone look? First why bother to look to see if the loser got too many votes (hint, he didn't...not in any meaningful way). And of course who puts out these stories...it's mostly conservative media, they aren't going to look for or report any irregularities for Romney.



You know...if it's all about that whole 2-year-old, out of date census thing?

If the actual turnout of registered voters was above 100% it would be cause for concern, since it was closer to 70% it's a bit silly to get worked up over it when there is such an obvious reason


Oh...and so kind of you to address the impact those four states had on your "not even close" statement...you know, total dismissal and disregard for your complete fabrication of reality...

Yes, if different states had voted differently the results would have been different. But they didn't. The race really wasn't all that close, and when you look at the popular vote it was even less close. Any allegations of the massive amount of voter fraud necessary to have changed the election aren't based in anything near fact. A few cases, mentioned over and over to not constitute massive voter fraud.

[Oswald Bastable]

-net federal taxpayer-

If that were the requirement you can be assured the tax laws today would insure that every welfare recipient and leech upon society showed them paying at least a "net" $1 tax each year...

I still think property owner is the best requirement. It incentivizes industriousness as a prerequisite for involvement in the political process.

[Oswald Bastable]

Lets see...densely packed districts, frequent and rapid changes in demographics....any particular areas come to mind?

Hint, it's not rural...

If a new apartment building goes up, where is it more likely to go up? Heavily populated area? Perhaps a city? Might suddenly even double the population of a district in a matter of months depending on the size of the project.



See above....but also, did anyone look? First why bother to look to see if the loser got too many votes (hint, he didn't...not in any meaningful way). And of course who puts out these stories...it's mostly conservative media, they aren't going to look for or report any irregularities for Romney.




If the actual turnout of registered voters was above 100% it would be cause for concern, since it was closer to 70% it's a bit silly to get worked up over it when there is such an obvious reason



Yes, if different states had voted differently the results would have been different. But they didn't. The race really wasn't all that close, and when you look at the popular vote it was even less close. Any allegations of the massive amount of voter fraud necessary to have changed the election aren't based in anything near fact. A few cases, mentioned over and over to not constitute massive voter fraud.

So...you got nothing...

[Kadmos]

So...you got nothing...

No, I explained it to you.

There are thousands of districts, do you honestly think someone checked them all against the census data?

No, they checked swing states only, and there only places that were likely to have voter fraud in their minds, and then only districts with high voter turnout, and of course only for the winner of the election.

No one was going to compare census data to voter turnout in some random rural Montana district to see if Romney got 3 extra unexpected votes.

Not just does no one care, but it would be so obviously meaningless that it wouldn't be worth reporting.

[Kadmos]

Maybe:
-net federal taxpayer



Lifetime, or that year?

If it's yearly I think AARP is going to have a huge problem with that.

And of course anyone who say opens a business and takes a loss for the first year or so.

What do you do for the lifetime people who lose their jobs and never get work again?

What do you propose for 18-25 year olds who may have chosen schooling over work?

Obviously nothing says equality or freedom than denying the vote to massive amounts of people. Obviously it makes no sense to give the poor a voice, wouldn't want them to try to use it to improve their lives or those of their children. Oh but the poor can vote so long as they give military service...not helpful for the disabled kids so much, but what a kind gesture

(Yeah, that was purple)

[Oswald Bastable]

No, I explained it to you.

There are thousands of districts, do you honestly think someone checked them all against the census data?

No, they checked swing states only, and there only places that were likely to have voter fraud in their minds, and then only districts with high voter turnout, and of course only for the winner of the election.

No one was going to compare census data to voter turnout in some random rural Montana district to see if Romney got 3 extra unexpected votes.

Not just does no one care, but it would be so obviously meaningless that it wouldn't be worth reporting.

So, as a boxcar jew...you're more than happy to contribute to your own extermination?

[Kadmos]

So, as a boxcar jew...you're more than happy to contribute to your own extermination?

Excuse me? WTF is that nonsense about.

Yeah I'm for free and fair elections, yeah I'm for every adult citizen having the right to vote.

Yeah I think it's stupid to waste time and huge amounts of money on what truly amounts to a non-solution to a non-issue.

There is little voter fraud, what little voter fraud we've seen wouldn't have been prevented by voter ID, certainly not the bulk of it.

Is it a hell of a hardship to obtain ID? No, not really. But the fact is the people who tend not to have it seem to be the same people who the people pushing for it really don't want to vote.

It is blatantly a partisan issue of hoping to suppress the vote, not a response to actual voter fraud.

As I said, the bulk of fraud wouldn't be stopped by voter ID, because the bulk of fraud is done by absentee ballot...so where is the Republican push to end absentee balloting? Nowhere of course, because they know whatever fraud there is, is hugely offset by the number of Republicans who use absentee ballots, the military, much of the elderly, rural people who have an easier time mailing a letter than showing up, people with multiple homes who may be residing in a different state at the time of the election, businesspeople who travel. All more likely to use absentee ballots, all more likely to vote republican.

[slamfire51]

Excuse me? WTF is that nonsense about.

Yeah I'm for free and fair elections, yeah I'm for every adult citizen having the right to vote.

Yeah I think it's stupid to waste time and huge amounts of money on what truly amounts to a non-solution to a non-issue.

There is little voter fraud, what little voter fraud we've seen wouldn't have been prevented by voter ID, certainly not the bulk of it.

Is it a hell of a hardship to obtain ID? No, not really. But the fact is the people who tend not to have it seem to be the same people who the people pushing for it really don't want to vote.

It is blatantly a partisan issue of hoping to suppress the vote, not a response to actual voter fraud.

As I said, the bulk of fraud wouldn't be stopped by voter ID, because the bulk of fraud is done by absentee ballot...so where is the Republican push to end absentee balloting? Nowhere of course, because they know whatever fraud there is, is hugely offset by the number of Republicans who use absentee ballots, the military, much of the elderly, rural people who have an easier time mailing a letter than showing up, people with multiple homes who may be residing in a different state at the time of the election, businesspeople who travel. All more likely to use absentee ballots, all more likely to vote republican.

Even those who are NOT eligible?

So, why is the NAACP overly concerned about potential voters not being able to acquire an ID?

I'm surprised they haven't tried to end ID requirements for Food Stamps and welfare.

[ltorlo64]

Lifetime, or that year?

If it's yearly I think AARP is going to have a huge problem with that.

And of course anyone who say opens a business and takes a loss for the first year or so.

What do you do for the lifetime people who lose their jobs and never get work again?

What do you propose for 18-25 year olds who may have chosen schooling over work?

Obviously nothing says equality or freedom than denying the vote to massive amounts of people. Obviously it makes no sense to give the poor a voice, wouldn't want them to try to use it to improve their lives or those of their children. Oh but the poor can vote so long as they give military service...not helpful for the disabled kids so much, but what a kind gesture

(Yeah, that was purple)

English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s:

"The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty."

As for military service, I think they should be allowed to vote as they are the ones who are fighting and dieing due to the policies established by the government. I see that as a tax, a very expensive tax. As my wife says, "if they don't have a dog in the fight, why should they be allowed to vote?"

[AKM]

Yeah I'm for free and fair elections, yeah I'm for every adult citizen having the right to vote.


The right to vote for what? Did you know that the SCOTUS has ruled that we do not have a Constitutional Right to vote for POTUS? They were correct too! You will not find a Constitutional Right to vote for POTUS in our Constitution.

http://www.fairvote.org/the-constitutional-right-to-vote-blog-bush-v-gore-ten-years-later#.Ufe-LNKzea8



The Bush v. Gore majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876.
The very fact that a state could completely deny its citizens a chance to vote in presidential races underscores the range of other ways our right to vote can be diluted and weakened by federal, state, and local laws without recourse.

[T2K]

My response was sketchy at best since we are in no way able to re-establish this necessary principle at this time. We will in the future, I think, one way or the other, when things get worse.

The delineating factors must be few in number and must grant the franchise only to those with a stake in the nation's future. I'll give you a comprehensive list when our political environment allows us to make this necessay correction. At present, having an electorate that can and does vote for candidates who will, in turn, vote to allocate non-existent, and thus borrowed, resources to those same voters is the primary cause of the demise of the US.

Lifetime, or that year?

If it's yearly I think AARP is going to have a huge problem with that.

And of course anyone who say opens a business and takes a loss for the first year or so.

What do you do for the lifetime people who lose their jobs and never get work again?

What do you propose for 18-25 year olds who may have chosen schooling over work?

Obviously nothing says equality or freedom than denying the vote to massive amounts of people. Obviously it makes no sense to give the poor a voice, wouldn't want them to try to use it to improve their lives or those of their children. Oh but the poor can vote so long as they give military service...not helpful for the disabled kids so much, but what a kind gesture

(Yeah, that was purple)

[was_peacemaker]

So, why is the NAACP overly concerned about potential voters not being able to acquire an ID?

I'm surprised they haven't tried to end ID requirements for Food Stamps and welfare.


Right now in NC...the GOP in Raleigh is trying to work on regulations that would require welfare recipients to be drug tested....and that also as the NAACP upset. They say its an attack on "poor people". Really the GOP in Raleigh is trying to tighten the rings on these over blown and abused social programs that the Liberals have given us.

[Oswald Bastable]

Excuse me? WTF is that nonsense about.

One bit of nonsense deserves another.

[Kadmos]

One bit of nonsense deserves another.

Except I didn't give you nonsense.

The potential for voter fraud isn't the same as actual voter fraud.

Actual cases of voter fraud are few and far between, and hardly ever enough to actually even sway elections.

But even with the obvious facts, it's so easy to put out BS statistics comparing voter turnout to old census data, while being able to see actual voter registration numbers no longer coincide with the data, or to scare people with dead voter registrations that are still on the roll (but votes not being cast), or video of a guy who asks for those ballots but no quite going through with it.

It's an excuse for not winning elections, and it's based on the scantest of evidence.

You wanna know why Republicans have trouble winning elections in places like cities? It's got nothing to do with "free shit", it's because the party barely, just barely, contains it's obvious disgust of minorities, particularly blacks.

It's because you are dicks, a party of country club exclusionist types, you don't like blacks, you don't like hispanics, you don't like gays, you kinda tolerate Jews, you don't like educated people, you certainly don't like Muslims (whom you confuse with Bhuddists, Seiks, and Hindus), you don't like women, you barely tolerate half the people in your own party, calling any who waver a bit from your personal pet peeve of the day as a Rino. You basically eat your own young.

It's the party of the old guy who sits on his porch and yells at people passing by to stay the hell off his property when they are simply walking down the sidewalk.

It's not fraud that loses you elections, it's you.

Now you are welcome to whine that I just called you racist or whatever, but the fact is, I told the truth, even if you kinda tolerate minorities it's obvious you don't like them, and they can tell.

Hell, recently half your party essential said "we will hold our nose and vote for some sort of path to citizenship because we want to get more of the Hispanic vote"

Came right out and said it! "We don't like you, or doing this, but we want your votes"

Well, so much for not being able to find an honest politician! They certainly were honest about it!

Of course don't be surprised when that doesn't actually translate to a whole lot of new Republicans...

[AKM]

Kadmos, name everything that Obama has done to prove that he likes blacks, gays, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims and woman!

[Kadmos]

Kadmos, name everything that Obama has done to prove that he likes blacks, gays, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims and woman!

It's not about Obama.

But the big thing, the real difference, he could look them in the eye and talk to them like they were real human beings, worthy of basic respect.

Not telling them they are worthless, or worth less, or destined to go to hell, or all leaches sucking on the American taxpayer...that alone goes a long way

[Oswald Bastable]

Except I didn't give you nonsense.

The potential for voter fraud isn't the same as actual voter fraud.

Actual cases of voter fraud are few and far between, and hardly ever enough to actually even sway elections.

But even with the obvious facts, it's so easy to put out BS statistics comparing voter turnout to old census data, while being able to see actual voter registration numbers no longer coincide with the data, or to scare people with dead voter registrations that are still on the roll (but votes not being cast), or video of a guy who asks for those ballots but no quite going through with it.

It's an excuse for not winning elections, and it's based on the scantest of evidence.

You wanna know why Republicans have trouble winning elections in places like cities? It's got nothing to do with "free shit", it's because the party barely, just barely, contains it's obvious disgust of minorities, particularly blacks.

It's because you are dicks, a party of country club exclusionist types, you don't like blacks, you don't like hispanics, you don't like gays, you kinda tolerate Jews, you don't like educated people, you certainly don't like Muslims (whom you confuse with Bhuddists, Seiks, and Hindus), you don't like women, you barely tolerate half the people in your own party, calling any who waver a bit from your personal pet peeve of the day as a Rino. You basically eat your own young.

It's the party of the old guy who sits on his porch and yells at people passing by to stay the hell off his property when they are simply walking down the sidewalk.

It's not fraud that loses you elections, it's you.

Now you are welcome to whine that I just called you racist or whatever, but the fact is, I told the truth, even if you kinda tolerate minorities it's obvious you don't like them, and they can tell.

Hell, recently half your party essential said "we will hold our nose and vote for some sort of path to citizenship because we want to get more of the Hispanic vote"

Came right out and said it! "We don't like you, or doing this, but we want your votes"

Well, so much for not being able to find an honest politician! They certainly were honest about it!

Of course don't be surprised when that doesn't actually translate to a whole lot of new Republicans...

Total bullshit!

Which party pushed through civil rights? Which party tried its hardest to block it?

Which party started the civil war? Which party tried its hardest to block it?

Which party has put a black man on the supreme court? Which party tried its hardest to block it?

As usual, you're full of unbridled shit.

[Oswald Bastable]

It's not about Obama.

But the big thing, the real difference, he could look them in the eye and talk to them like they were real human beings, worthy of basic respect.

Not telling them they are worthless, or worth less, or destined to go to hell, or all leaches sucking on the American taxpayer...that alone goes a long way

I see you're long on style and short on substance.


Obama gets poor ranking on mentions of ‘poverty’; more abundance for ‘middle class’

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/8/obama-gets-poor-ranking-on-mentions-of-poverty/

But it doesn't surprise me that you find lip service of far more import than action.

[LAGC]

Total bullshit!

Which party pushed through civil rights? Which party tried its hardest to block it?

Which party started the civil war? Which party tried its hardest to block it?

Which party has put a black man on the supreme court? Which party tried its hardest to block it?

As usual, you're full of unbridled shit.

Wow, struck a nerve, I see.

The problem is, since the Civil War, the Democrats and Republicans have completely switched ideologies.

Back then, it was the Republicans who were the pro-Federalists, the Democrats who were for states rights.

That all got fucked to hell after LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law:


Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party. Moreover, Richard Nixon politically counterattacked with the Southern Strategy where it would "secure" votes for the Republican Party by grabbing the advocates of segregation as well as most of the Southern Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Civil_rights

That was the defining moment that the Democrats lost the South and all the old "Dixiecrats" became Republicans.

It is what it is.

[Oswald Bastable]

Wow, struck a nerve, I see.

The problem is, since the Civil War, the Democrats and Republicans have completely switched ideologies.

Back then, it was the Republicans who were the pro-Federalists, the Democrats who were for states rights.

That all got fucked to hell after LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Civil_rights

That was the defining moment that the Democrats lost the South and all the old "Dixiecrats" became Republicans.

It is what it is.

More total bullshit!

Which party offers minorities a leg up through self-sufficency? Which offers them continued plantation status through bribes and a substandard life on the dole?

But of course we know you're also long on style, and short on substance.

Name one dim party policy that has raised standards for minorities.

[LAGC]

More total bullshit!

Which party offers minorities a leg up through self-sufficency? Which offers them continued plantation status through bribes and a substandard life on the dole?

But of course we know you're also long on style, and short on substance.

Name one dim party policy that has raised standards for minorities.

I'm not saying the Democrats are much better, they mostly just pay lip-service to caring about the poor. No argument there.

You're the one with the binary thinking, trying to white-wash history and making the GOP out to be heroes.

Both parties are corrupt to the core and have the whole system rigged.

See, while we're arguing about voter fraud this and voter suppression that, the powers-that-be are laughing all the way to the bank.

Because regardless of which party wins -- sure, we might get gay marriage this, abortion bans that -- the banksters and plutocrats continue to rob the rest of us blind as they push us closer to their "New World Order."

I just think its silly to complain about partisan "vote rigging" when any real alternative to our two-party duopoly doesn't even stand a chance.

[was_peacemaker]

More total bullshit!

Which party offers minorities a leg up through self-sufficency? Which offers them continued plantation status through bribes and a substandard life on the dole?

But of course we know you're also long on style, and short on substance.

Name one dim party policy that has raised standards for minorities.

You have been kicking tail this thread Oswald! But (I can't believe I have to do this) I have to agree with LAGC on this one....or every college level history book on the subject is wrong. The Republicans and the Democrats did switch ideologies around the 1930's. From about the 1860's to the late 1920's the Republicans were the more liberal Pro-Federalist group and the Democrats were more of the small government states rights oriented group. I can't think of one history professor I have had conservative or liberal that would say different...and I know some pretty conservative history professors.

[AKM]

It's not about Obama.

But the big thing, the real difference, he could look them in the eye and talk to them like they were real human beings, worthy of basic respect.
And everything the motherfucker says to them is a lie! Everything this pos does for someone is popularity related! Gays in the military and the dream act. The two were because his support with gays and Latinos was slipping. If he really cared about them, he could have did anything he wanted for them in his first two years. Blacks.......he'll most of them will vote for him no matter what! Look up the numbers, black unemployment numbers in all age groups have accelerated under Obama and he still gets their vote. Jews.......he hates Israel! Muslims........he doesn't talk to them with respect at all. He just won't tell the truth about Islam and you interpret that as respecting them. Reagan gave Mexicans and his support from dropped after that. Latinos like a nanny state and democrats provide it. Actually, most of America is getting used to having a nanny state.

Another thing about blacks.......blacks will never vote for republicans for one reason. Republicans talk about a limited government. Look up the number of blacks that are employed by local, state and federal governments. The number will be mind blowing. The number of government employed blacks will be much greater than the percentage of blacks in our population. Limited government means fewer government jobs and blacks will not go for that shit!


[QUOTE=Kadmos;325031
Not telling them they are worthless, or worth less, or destined to go to hell, or all leaches sucking on the American taxpayer...that alone goes a long way

[/QUOTE]

[Kadmos]

Total bullshit!

Which party pushed through civil rights?

The Republican party.


Which party tried its hardest to block it?

Southern Democrats


Which party started the civil war?

Republican.



Which party tried its hardest to block it?

Democrat.


Yes, technically SC fired the first shots, but they did so because Lincoln sent relief forces there to provoke that reaction.


Which party has put a black man on the supreme court?

I'm going to guess Republican, since you brought it up...I will admit I don't know offhand.



Which party tried its hardest to block it?

Guessing Democrat



As usual, you're full of unbridled shit.

Nope...you are.

Because you are trying to hang your hat on old accomplishments that don't reflect current attitudes or the current situation.

It's great that the Republican party once had those ideals (well, to a degree, as we shall see), but that doesn't alter the current situation.

The republicans in fact had the black vote for 100+ years.

Then they promoted the civil rights act to attempt to break the democrat party.

They knew southern Democrats would not support civil rights, and of course they didn't.

And after the civil rights movement many of those southern democrats left the democratic party. Most of them did in fact become republican (can you see where this is going?)

But not just did the white southern voters leave the party and join the Republicans, but white southern former politicians left the Dem party and became republicans....and the Republicans were more than happy to have those old Dem powerhouses put on the Republican brand.

Essentially, the republican party opened it's arms and embraced the racist assholes who fought against civil rights....

....Kind of a WTF move for the "Party of Lincoln, freer of the slaves", wouldn't you say.

And that wonderful line of Ronald Reagan "I didn't leave the Democrat party, it left me" takes on a bit of a different possible meaning in that light.

But for obvious proof just look at the likes of Strom Thurmond...not a whole lot of need to look much past that

If you prefer your proof in the form of actual statements though, look at the "Southern Strategy" as put forth by Kevin Phillips, political adviser to Nixon



From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

Essentially he said, "make the voting rights act stronger, so blacks will vote more, and of course now that we pissed them off, they obviously will vote democrat, this will force white democrats to switch and vote for us, because obviously white democrats hate blacks just like we do"

Republicans didn't want the black vote, they literally maneuvered blacks to vote democrat, and strengthened the voting rights act so more blacks could vote, hoping it would drive whites to vote republican.

Sadly, being honest, and realistic, it probably would have worked better than it did (it actually did work fairly well for awhile at least) if the Democrats hadn't continued to strongly support the Unions and the Republicans had waited before going after the union.

Turned out white union workers would rather stay union more than they wanted to oppress blacks, at least in the north.

My guess is alot of folks on this board either had parents or grandparents who were democrats and left the party with the Dixiecrats.

For a fun take on the more modern issues, I really do urge, and I rarely do this, so please excuse it, but for a bit of fun....Jon Stewart on Rand Paul's visit to Howard University

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-11-2013/guess-who-s-coming-to-howard

Which really should be followed up by his little bit with Larry Wilmore afterward

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-11-2013/guess-who-s-coming-to-howard---larry-wilmore-on-rand-paul

Yeah, they likely had some fun with the edit, but it is a bit funny, and shows the point fairly well

[Kadmos]

Which party offers minorities a leg up through self-sufficency?


Seriously, I have to ask...were you able to say that with a straight face or did you giggle a bit when you wrote it?

Really, how did that go?

"Well, we know we offered up 40 acres and a mule to help you get started...but we have a new plan that we think is even better! It's called "self sufficiency"!...here's how it works...."

"Ready?...ok, reach down and grab your bootstraps...oh, no boots? That's ok, just reach down and grab hold of whatever part you have near your feet.."

"Ok, good...now, ready for this?...start pulling upward"

"Now, if we have this right your feet should now be out of the muck and you should be rising up toward heaven!"

"We'll check back in 40 or 50 years and see how that's coming along"

Get real man.

You didn't want to invest in their education, didn't want affirmative action, didn't want to stop redlining so they could get home loans, or home improvement loans, didn't want to give them food, shelter, or a bit of cash to get started.


Which offers them continued plantation status through bribes and a substandard life on the dole?


I suppose that's one really jaded way to look at it...of course millions of blacks now have good educations and good jobs, real opportunities as a direct result of the programs the democrats fought for.




Name one dim party policy that has raised standards for minorities.

Wic
Food stamps
TANF
Headstart
Affirmative action
subsidized housing
SBA
Minority Business Development Agency
All sorts of loans and grants
school breakfast programs

That's just off the top of my head.

Yeah yeah, I know ALL those just oppress minorities more, they extra help of getting a low interest business loan keeps them dependent on the government for generations, and making sure their kids have a breakfast before school, man that is so oppressive, what plantation thinking that surely is. :rolleyes:

[AKM]

Wic
Food stamps
TANF
Headstart
Affirmative action
subsidized housing
SBA
Minority Business Development Agency
All sorts of loans and grants
school breakfast programs

That's just off the top of my head.

Yeah yeah, I know ALL those just oppress minorities more, they extra help of getting a low interest business loan keeps them dependent on the government for generations, and making sure their kids have a breakfast before school, man that is so oppressive, what plantation thinking that surely is. :rolleyes:
A lot of what you posted breeds irresponsibility ( can't afford to raise a kid on your own, no problem, we will help you do it) to reverse racism via affirmative action. I think the Supreme Court just said that law schools can no longer discriminate against more highly qualified whites just to let a black kid enroll when they don't stand a chance in passing.

Since you posted head start, why don't you give us some numbers from an unbiased source as to whether or not our tax dollars have been well spent. I know that you have no idea if head start has been a success or not so why don't you just admit that you posted whatever came to mind.

School breakfast.....that a fuckin joke! Are you not aware that the government had been advertising on the radio to feed your kid in school throughout the summer months?

Kadmos, do you think this nanny state bullshit should ever stop or do you support it 100%?

Btw Kadmos, you forgot to mention about how the free Obama Phone Program has helped the underprivelaged!

[LAGC]

Btw Kadmos, you forgot to mention about how the free Obama Phone Program has helped the underprivelaged!

That program was actually started under the Bush Admin. The only reason it started getting called "Obama Phone" was because of that viral Youtube video of that black lady ignorantly claiming it was Obama's doing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

Truth about those phones here:

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

[was_peacemaker]

Obama phone lady is singing a different tune now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ghmBInC2N8

[AKM]

That program was actually started under the Bush Admin.
I don't care if it was started by Jesus Christs! It's just another handout that shouldn't exitst! BTW, I think it's the Mexican Billionaire, Carlos Slim that owns the company that makes these phones. I wonder what Senator or Congressman is making money off of this.

[Kadmos]

School breakfast.....that a fuckin joke! Are you not aware that the government had been advertising on the radio to feed your kid in school throughout the summer months?

Ok, so, what's your point? Do rich kids not eat during the summer? The need for nutrition doesn't stop just because school let out.


Kadmos, do you think this nanny state bullshit should ever stop or do you support it 100%?


When should charity stop?

Obviously when the need is gone.



Btw Kadmos, you forgot to mention about how the free Obama Phone Program has helped the underprivelaged!

I'm sure there are dozens of things I forgot to mention. But yes in modern society access to a phone is an important thing to have, if for nothing other than emergency services, but of course it's very useful when trying to find work, having a place potential employers can call you back is pretty helpful, being able to call potential employers is useful.


I get it, to you it's all "free shit that keeps them from achieving anything on their own, and goes on for generations".

Sorry, but that's crap. Millions upon millions of blacks were raised with assistance and now get up and go to work every day and don't take a dime from the government. Too many to count were aided by that assistance and now no longer need it, likely neither will their children.

Moreover, there is a stigma against taking assistance in the black community, yes many still take it, but most don't, and are embarrassed of the ones who do.

Yet still, less than 5% of the black vote went elsewhere...do you really think 95% are freeloading the government?

If you do think that, then maybe now you see the root of the issue...why would blacks want to join a party that thinks of them as basically just freeloaders?

[Oswald Bastable]

"Well, we know we offered up 40 acres and a mule to help you get started...but we have a new plan that we think is even better! It's called "self sufficiency"!...here's how it works...."

Now who's talking old history?

[AKM]

Ok, so, what's your point? Do rich kids not eat during the summer? The need for nutrition doesn't stop just because school let out.



When should charity stop?

Obviously when the need is gone.




I'm sure there are dozens of things I forgot to mention. But yes in modern society access to a phone is an important thing to have, if for nothing other than emergency services, but of course it's very useful when trying to find work, having a place potential employers can call you back is pretty helpful, being able to call potential employers is useful.


I get it, to you it's all "free shit that keeps them from achieving anything on their own, and goes on for generations".

Sorry, but that's crap. Millions upon millions of blacks were raised with assistance and now get up and go to work every day and don't take a dime from the government. Too many to count were aided by that assistance and now no longer need it, likely neither will their children.

Moreover, there is a stigma against taking assistance in the black community, yes many still take it, but most don't, and are embarrassed of the ones who do.

Yet still, less than 5% of the black vote went elsewhere...do you really think 95% are freeloading the government?

If you do think that, then maybe now you see the root of the issue...why would blacks want to join a party that thinks of them as basically just freeloaders?Never mind! It's just not worth arguing with some people over certain issues!

[was_peacemaker]

"Well, we know we offered up 40 acres and a mule to help you get started...but we have a new plan that we think is even better! It's called "self sufficiency"!...here's how it works...."

This was never an official government program...this was a quick fix done by Gen. Sherman while he was going through the Carolinas. He had many former slaves following his Army and he couldn't afford to feed and shelter them all. So on the coast SC, he had his troops split up land in 40 acre lots and he had mules provided for those lots to give to the free blacks.

[AKM]

This was never an official government program...this was a quick fix done by Gen. Sherman while he was going through the Carolinas. He had many former slaves following his Army and he couldn't afford to feed and shelter them all. So on the coast SC, he had his troops split up land in 40 acre lots and he had mules provided for those lots to give to the free blacks.
This and reconstruction is where the shit really hit the fan with Southerners, blacks and yankees! Southerners were treated like dog shit after the War Against Northern Aggression ended and it continues till this day!

[was_peacemaker]

This and reconstruction is where the shit really hit the fan with Southerners, blacks and yankees! Southerners were treated like dog shit after the War Against Northern Aggression ended and it continues till this day!

Yep...this +1000. But it won't be long before every known business up north leaves and moves south, and the midwest leaving all their cities looking like Detroit.

[ltorlo64]

When should charity stop?

Obviously when the need is gone.

This is a great question. The answer is that charity should never stop. This also begs another question, where should charity be coming from? Should it be coming from people who are forced to be charitable via taxes or from a decision made by a free person who decides what and who to give to, and how much. I give almost 25% of my income to charity, not to mention what I give my mother, mother-in-law, and other family members to keep them off government assistance. This means I do not own a nice house, but my family is not on assistance. How much do (did the President before he was eleceted) give to charity? I put my money where my mouth is and I know many others that do as well. Why am I then castigated for being against public assistance and being for lower taxes, being told that I do not care for the poor and only want to keep them poor. My actions show that is a lie, but because I think it should be a decision on the part of the people losing the money Democrats and liberals call me greedy. This is intelectual dishonesty at its best.

[ltorlo64]

I'm sure there are dozens of things I forgot to mention. But yes in modern society access to a phone is an important thing to have, if for nothing other than emergency services, but of course it's very useful when trying to find work, having a place potential employers can call you back is pretty helpful, being able to call potential employers is useful.

You can get a land line for about $15 bucks a month with no long distance service. This would supply the need you pose. Why do they need a government supplied cell phone that costs us much more than that. So they can have a cell phone since I have a cell phone, so we are all equal? I work hard to get the money to have a cell phone and I didn't get one until I had the money to afford one. Why is this such a hard concept.

And yes, I believe alot of people vote Democrat for fear that the Republicans will take away their free government stuff that they get (and should not be getting). Just look at the Obamaphone. It was started by President Bush (thanks LAGC, I did not know that), a Repuplican. But who gets the credit, President Obama. And who are people concerned will take it away? The same party that started it. I think it should go away, but I do not think the Republican's will worry about it because it is a comparativley small expense. The problem is when all the small expenses are added up, they are no longer small.