America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 years ago by DrafterX. 129 replies replies.
3 Pages<123
Trump wants investigation into voter fraud.
Speyside Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
If someone can travel to vote, why can't they travel to get an id?
Abrignac Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
Yes, I read them. Similar laws were passed in 2012, where the existing systems of voting did not have widespread fraud. Then after the restrictive laws were passed and the elections held with those restrictions in place, the results showed fewer people voted, a disproportionate number being poor, and minority. It worked, so ...



What does that mean?

Perhaps it means that legimate votes were suppressed or perhaps fraudulent voting was curbed. If you can offer proof that legitimate voters were suppressed because there was absolutely no way they could obtain an ID within a reasonable time and have a plausible reason that prevented them from getting a vote cast within the allotted time frame I'll concede. Until then, it's nothing but an empty argument as far as I'm concerned.

Voting is an awesome responsibility. I'm of the opposite ion that all the hyperbole is nothing but a smokescreen. Rather, I beleive its simply an example of taking an extreme position then crying foul when the left doesn't get its way.

For God's sake, would someone actually find some representative examples of people being disenfranchised so we can dissect it to find out what extraordinary circumstances suppress thier right to vote.
Abrignac Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Speyside wrote:
If someone can travel to vote, why can't they travel to get an id?



That's the million dollar question that has absolutely no answer.
delta1 Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Abrignac wrote:


For God's sake, would someone actually find some representative examples of people being disenfranchised so we can dissect it to find out what extraordinary circumstances suppress thier right to vote.


Hereyago, Ant:

http://billmoyers.com/story/voter-suppression-laws-working/

Just small samples...The full affect of the 2016 voter restriction laws prolly wont be known until the studies currently underway are completed...

I promise I'll accept their findings...you?
Abrignac Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
Hereyago, Ant:

http://billmoyers.com/story/voter-suppression-laws-working/

Just small samples...The full affect of the 2016 voter restriction laws prolly wont be known until the studies currently underway are completed...

I promise I'll accept their findings...you?



As I have said, show me a legitimate reason that people are having their voter registration suppressed in an unduly burdensome manor.

I did read that article. But, was she unduly burdened when it comes to having a valid ID?

From the Wisconsin DMV regarding renewal:

Quote:
​A courtesy reminder notice is mailed to the last known address on your driving record 45 to 60 days before your birthday in the year your driver license expires. ​

You may renew:

Your regular driver license within one year of its expiration
Your probationary driver license within 90 days of its expiration. Depending on your eligibility, you may be able to renew your probationary driver license using our online driver license application.
The interactive driver licensing guide is a helpful tool for those looking for information on driver licensing requirements. The guide will provide you with a checklist of requirements, and allow you to pre-fill any required application(s). Depending on your eligibility you may also be able to use the guide to electronically submit your application and schedule an appointment with the DMV for expedited service.
To renew your driver license​
You must appear at a DMV Customer Service Center
You will have a new license photo taken
You will have your vision screened by a DMV employee
​Be sure to bring corrective lenses if you use them for distance vision
Driver license vision standards
Vision test options​
​​​​Existing medical conditions​ may require a Medical Examination Report.
A written and/or ​​driving exam may be​​ required (see tests required​​/driving with a disability​)​​
If you are not a U.S. Citizen, you must provide proof of your legal presence status in the United States
If you have changed your name, you must:
​Provide a document to prove legal name change
Marriage Certificate
Divorce Decree
Court Order of Name Change
​Complete your name change with Social Security Administration one day before appearing at DMV
Present a completed Driver License Application form MV3001
​The MV3001 is available at all DMV Customer Service Centers
You may complete the MV3001 online, print it, and bring it to a DMV Customer Service Center
Pay your renewal fee​
​Driver licenses and ID cards are mailed
Customers will receive a paper driving receipt that is valid for 45 days​


I would like to know how long her DL had been expired? Since her state requires a valid ID, who's responsibility is it to ensure they have one? How far does she drive to the polls? How far does she drive for radiation treatments?

All these questions should be answered before one can determine if she was unduly burdened. As far as her husband is concerned, he had the opportunity and chose to protest instead. What a shame it would have been had Hillary lost by one vote.

To me this is nothing but an example of painting a doomsday scenario that may not even be relevant. Certainly there are much better and clearly defined examples of suppression?
delta1 Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Ant, they were old and poor, and have voted for more than 64 years!!!

In Arizona, decisions made by GOP election officials:
http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

Here's a statistical analysis:
https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_r=0
Abrignac Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Al, I understand that. But, it seems they have voted successfully in the past. It seems she was notified that her license was going to expire. It's her responsibility to renew it. As callous as it seems, short some mitigating set of circumstances this is a akin to someone forgetting to go to the polls then showing up to vote after they close.

It's government's responsibility to provide a mechanism. It up to us to sink or swim.
Abrignac Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
Ant, they were old and poor, and have voted for more than 64 years!!!

In Arizona, decisions made by GOP election officials:
http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

Here's a statistical analysis:
https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_r=0



Example 1:

Looks like a left-wing version of InfoWars. That being said, you made it sound like it was the GOP who suppressed voters. Did you read it??? The local registrar sets the polling places. Under what guidelines? Did they break laws, or did they follow the rules set forth by a Democratic State House and signed by a Democratic governor??? It also seems there where long lines statewide. If that is the case, didn't the Democratics also suppress votes in areas they controlled???

Is it the GOP responsible for that as well since that was the way you framed it??? What about the issue of calling the election? The media which is largely left leaning did that. Is that too the GOP's fault??
Abrignac Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Example 2 shows absolutely no net effect based on unduly burdensome restrictions.
delta1 Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
I see cows coming home, and I don't think you'll be persuaded by the studies being done on the effects of voter restriction laws on the 2016 election...

... the GOP won the 2016 elections in a clean sweep...can we agree on that?
Abrignac Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
I see cows coming home, and I don't think you'll be persuaded by the studies being done on the effects of voter restriction laws on the 2016 election...

... the GOP won the 2016 elections in a clean sweep...can we agree on that?



I don't disagree with the statistics you mentioned. But, there is nothing to prove people were unfairly disenfranchised in favor of Republicans. Is it possible that Democratic votes were reduced because people were restricted to only one vote??? If so, wouldn't you agree that is good thing?

In essence, until there is proof that actual legal voters were disenfranchised I'll be in favor of ID laws.
delta1 Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
How about this, from members of the GOP's own mouths?

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/10/six-of-the-most-ubelieveable-republican-statements-about-voter-suppression/


I thought Hillary was not a great choice...but after seeing and hearing Trump campaign, I never considered voting for him...Bernie might've done better...we'll never know.

I have voted for GOP CA governors before, Deukmejian and Wilson, and for local GOP mayors. I thought their ideas. agenda and experience would be better for me, my town and the state, than the Dem candidate. Was right about some, not the others...

At the end of the day, I think we should make it easier for people to vote, not harder. It's a basic Constitutional right, like freedom of speech...and you don't need an ID to speak...but there are some, mighty few, limits.
Abrignac Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
How about this, from members of the GOP's own mouths?

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/10/six-of-the-most-ubelieveable-republican-statements-about-voter-suppression/


I thought Hillary was not a great choice...but after seeing and hearing Trump campaign, I never considered voting for him...Bernie might've done better...we'll never know.

I have voted for GOP CA governors before, Deukmejian and Wilson, and for local GOP mayors. I thought their ideas. agenda and experience would be better for me, my town and the state, than the Dem candidate. Was right about some, not the others...

At the end of the day, I think we should make it easier for people to vote, not harder. It's a basic Constitutional right, like freedom of speech...and you don't need an ID to speak...but there are some, mighty few, limits.



I'll see your raw story and raise you a politicalinsider

https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_r=0
Abrignac Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
As far as basic rights, the right to bear arms is also fundamental to our constitution. If memory serves me correctly Al, you have been in favor of restricting that right. Perhaps, we ought to let anyone bear any arm they choose without any interference???
delta1 Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Abrignac wrote:
I'll see your raw story and raise you a politicalinsider

https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_r=0



I was going to tell you to look at this one too!!! We have a breakthrough!!! Since we both found something in it with which we agree, maybe he'll do a post 2016 analysis, and we can put this debate to bed.

Let's wait until Trump does something about the firearms issue before we have a discussion. But, yes, I do believe in some restrictions of firearms. I have three guns: one rifle, and two handguns, and do not want to part with them...
Abrignac Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Why is it ok to restrict one constitutional right, but not another???
ZRX1200 Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
I'm gonna wait for teedubya to mock you for using the rawstory link.......
delta1 Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Yes, Raw Story is a left leaning news site, but those videos/stories were compiled from other sources. Here are more names of GOP members who have publicly stated that restricting voting in some way will help reduce the vote, helping the party win. Ted Yoho, FL, Jim Greer, GOP party chair FL, Mike Turzai, congressman PA, Dale Schultz, senator WI, Glenn Grothman, representative, WI
delta1 Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Abrignac wrote:
Why is it ok to restrict one constitutional right, but not another???


Limitations exist on free speech, but are very narrowly defined and intended to protect public and personal safety.
In that spirit, we should narrowly limit the right to bear arms...
ZRX1200 Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Because we don't? You better watch out, you're going to confuse teedubya into wondering how much of an anarchist you really are.
delta1 Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
...some days I do feel like throwing a cocktail...
teedubbya Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I'm so confused
ajerrils Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 07-27-2016
Posts: 179
I know in Indiana you are allowed a free State ID Card from the BMV if you are over 18 to allow people the right to vote so price isn't an issue.
Abrignac Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
Limitations exist on free speech, but are very narrowly defined and intended to protect public and personal safety.
In that spirit, we should narrowly limit the right to bear arms...



Playing devils advocate here as I don't feel people should be unduly burdened to vote. But, if it is ok to restrict speech and the right to bear arms, why isn't it ok to restrict the right to vote. My point is that it's a very slippery slope.

While on the subject, if it's ok to require a government ID to purchase a firearm so you can exercise your right to bear arms, why isn't it ok to require a government ID to exercise the right to vote?
teedubbya Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
given the choice I'd say neither rather than both and certainly don't want an FBI check/clearance to vote.
victor809 Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Yeah I see no reason why we should be restricting the 2nd amendment. Why do you keep suggesting horrible ideas like that Anthony? Damn lib...

Free guns, free votes... WTF we're all adults.
Abrignac Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
teedubbya wrote:
given the choice I'd say neither rather than both and certainly don't want an FBI check/clearance to vote.



I agree. Gun possession isn't the problem. It's the absense of life changing consequences that deters gun violence. As a retired LEO, I can say without a doubt that at least 95% of all firearm related violence IS NOT committed by people who would be eligible to purchase and possess under current law. It's been my experience that any one who wants a firearm has access to one. So called sensible gun laws have absolutely no net affect on illegal gun ownership and/or possession.
ZRX1200 Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Well many people only like undue burden upon things they dislike.....

I don't like what the Democrat party has become.....but I don't want their voting rights restricted, I want MY sacred vote to count for or against LEGITIMATE votes. Yet people who have a problem with this largely are OK with the undue requirements already in place and FURTHER restrictions for the 2nd ammendment. So how does this pan out? Here in Oregon, out of the 1700 denials last year there were 7 convictions. The State Police had a policy put in place to send a trooper (off the road) to respond to every denial. You can see how successful they were...so we're back to arguing undue burden on who? The legal people or those not complying? And why is it we can't agree.....intent? Perception?

In my perfect world the state and federal government would take simple steps for voter rolls (like Abrinac outlined earlier) and people would be glad to know that the most important right, voting, is protected. Now everyone go hide behind their sacred cow and gore each other's ox.


Go.
DrafterX Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
I heard 64 million dead people voted... Mellow
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123