hypocrisy at its finest

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/08/naacp-requires-marchers-protesting-nor...

Fucking morons. Complete and utter hypocrisy. But then what would you expect?

No votes yet

Once you realize that Liberals are pretty much insane, then all their bizarre behavior suddenly makes sense.

15 Photos From The Massive Progressive Protest You Didn’t Hear About This Weekend
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/09/3268901/moral-monday-north-c...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

It doesn't matter. We've seen the left bus people in from other states before. Last time it was in Madison, WI. What was achieved? Just some angry people yelling on the news.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID is not suppression. This law is working it's way through the court system now. I don't see the law getting struck down, maybe a portion here or there, but it's quite in line with other voter ID laws that have been upheld by the highest court in the land.

MikeyA

You have to wonder why Thom and DMHI would lie about this story. Not about the numbers, they were high. People were bused in from other states as expected. But about the lack of media coverage. I googled the story and found numerous articles on online sites, newspapers, television etc. Why lie about such a minor thing when it can be proven false so easily? Because the low information voter won't take the three minutes it took me, they would rather believe the story got no coverage and that they are being ignored.
A quick check of the NC state budget also shows some really interesting facts left out of the narrative, but I'll leave those for another thread.
I mean c'mon if they will lie about the amount of coverage what else will they lie about? Here's a couple of examples
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/8/annual-march-rally-builds...
http://www.wbtv.com/story/24669399/thousands-at-moral-march-to-protest-n...
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/index
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-hickey/moral-march-rallies-in-ra_b_4...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/08/moral-march-raleigh...

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Not in the Toledo Blade or the Monroe Evening News! Nor was it reported on the national TV networks. Hell any five Tea Baggers get together and you have more reporters than protesters.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

The ID in this case is carried to identify a person if there should be an emergency. It is for the person’s protection, and is not required to exercise a constitutional right. It is also good to have ID if you get arrested. These are the common sense reasons the NAACP tells people marching to bring ID. It's kind of like wearing a dog tag if you are a soldier.

People can protest whether they have an ID or not. It is a constitutional right to petition one’s government. It’s just safer to have your ID on you while doing the petitioning.

However, requiring someone to show photo ID when voting means you are going to deny someone their right to vote if they don’t show a photo. Our founding fathers had no idea what photos were. I don’t think they would approve.

So maybe people should bring a photo ID to the voting place--you know, in case of an emergency.

That’s good advice, and very clever of you. However, please don’t miss the point that the ID shouldn’t have anything to do with the right to vote, or have your vote count.

Is this some of that liberal double talk, like "it depends on what the definition of is is"???

"ID shouldn't have anything to do with the right to vote." (???)

As in being legally required to carry my driver's license shouldn't have anything to do with my right to drive? While I'm driving?? Yeah, let me try that on the next police officer who stops me in a speed trap for going 2 miles over the limit. I'll let you know what he says after he gets up from falling down laughing.

You know full well, pay..., that we have to produce ID for just about everything in this day and age. But liberals want illegal Mexicans to vote illegally, and so quibble about American citizens' right to demand that the only ones voting in elections are legal citizens of the U.S.

Excuse me while I get up from falling down laughing.

It’s a straight forward statement: “ID shouldn't have anything to do with the right to vote."

The founders didn’t need photo IDs and we shouldn’t need them either. Driving is something totally different (a privilege) so don’t even bother trying to make a connection.

If you’re worried about voter fraud, that’s what registration is for. Ever vote? You had to show up at the polling place in your precinct so they could check the book to see if you were registered. Once they checked the name and address, they made you sign your signature (of which they already had a sample) indicating that you showed up. If anyone else tried to use your name and/or address the poll workers would know something was wrong. It’s worked for years. Voter fraud is very rare.

"The founders didn’t need photo IDs and we shouldn’t need them either. Driving is something totally different (a privilege) so don’t even bother trying to make a connection."

The Founders didn't have photos so they used other forms to identify people. They also did put restrictions on voting. Those restrictions were designed to ensure that an educated and informed electorate voted.

MikeyA

This is precisely why we need to fight any form of suppression in the voting laws. The founders purposely forgot about woman and blacks voting, but they put in place a system that would eventually let them petition the government to gain the right. Petitioning the governmnet to gain rights is a hard road, and repeating history is never fun.

Actually, New Jersey allowed women and in four other states freed slaves could provided both had to meet the property requirement.

MikeyA

Well, that was nice of them. Go New Jersey! Does that mean we never needed the 19th amendment? All the women could have just moved to New Jersey.

What about those land requirements? Think that’s something we should require of people to vote?

Like I said, repeating history is hard.

Well don't act as if the founding fathers would have a problem with voter ID laws. They clearly wanted an informed electorate. That was the way back then to ensure it. As new ways came available they left in easy ways to change the voting processes through the states.

MikeyA

Defining the electorate and voter suppression are two different things, and you are talking about the former.

We all know the electorate was defined very differently at the founding of this country than it is today. It used to be just rich white male landowners. But, over the years we have fought to change the definition to include woman, blacks, non landowners etc.

Suppression is when a person of the electorate is prevented from having their vote count.
I’m sure the founding fathers would not have condoned suppression of the defined electorate of their time, no matter what technology was available.

"However, requiring someone to show photo ID when voting means you are going to deny someone their right to vote if they don’t show a photo."

That' couldn't be farther from the truth. If you don't have an ID you can use several other pieces of acceptable documentation to prove you are who you say you are. In the cases where nothing can be presented a provisional ballot is issued and depending upon the state the individual's vote will be counted once they meet the ID requirements.

Also there is no emergency that requires you to have a photo ID. There is nothing on it to help in an emergency. A soldier's dog tags has things such as blood type, allergies, and religion. Those are things that can be used during an emergency to save a life or give comfort to someone injured. These are not on the majority of state issued photo identification.

MikeyA

[ID] is for the person’s protection[.]

ID for voting is for the PUBLIC'S protection... protection from vote fraud.

[R]equiring someone to show photo ID when voting means you are going to deny someone their right to vote if they don’t show a photo.

No, it means they don't vote if they refuse to suitably identify themselves for the purposes of certifying that their vote is unique for the voting district.

Certification of the vote is the purpose. ID is the means of getting that done.

I smell bullshit.

Voter ID doesn't stop the sort of fraud you RRRRRRRRRRepublitards engage in:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/21/shocker-republicans-account-for-...

Throwing away voter registration forms and other dirty tricks. I'd call you scumbags, but scumbags would sue me for defamation.

I'm not a Republican. When will you understand this basic fact? I'm even socially Liberal. That's another fact that you can't even wrap you head around.

Voter ID is intended to stop VOTER fraud. Fraud in the back rooms of the polling stations is up to the VOTER to stop, through judicious selection of hard-nosed candidates who oversee officials. These aren't often chosen by the Liberal populace. Guess where the blame falls squarely, once again?

You need to change your nick to "EyesWideShut".

If you're socially "Liberal" you wouldn't be bashing all the LLLLLLLLiberals like you do.

Now are you calling all the Republican officials who perpetrated the fraud or failed to prevent it wussies (non-hard-nosed), or are you saying the LLLLLLLLLLLLiberal populace somehow elected Republican officials?

Dead wrong. If you'd bother to remember, I bash Liberals since they have no economics education. Liberals tend to be fiscally Liberal, meaning they deny one of the basic truths of man: Humans are financially motivated. And then there's that other truth: Organizations tend to grow without bound and then destroy themselves... which includes government.

You can't sanely make your Liberal faction immune to criticism, particularly when you're so roundly deserving of criticism (even contempt) for your inability to accept economic reality.

And I've clearly implied that the body politic itself is incapable by extant evidence to elect truly capable and honest people into official positions so that elections can proceed without undue worry. In fact, right or left, Liberal or Conservative, the nation is largely mismanaged by local political machines, which use vote frauds of several different sorts to keep that local control. Why do you think that regardless of who's in power in Washington at the time, the entire matter of designed-to-corrupt voting machines is a problem that remains unresolved? It's because that nearly every district is governed by a prevailing party machine, D or R, that wants easily corrupted machines to add to its arsenal of weapons against change. D or R, each district gleefully bought machines by NCR or Sequoia or whatever, counting on accessing their back doors in a wholly undetectable way.

"...I bash Liberals since they have no economics education." First of all, Mr. I'm the only well educated person on this site, the word liberal is only capitalized when it refers to a political party, as in the Liberal Party of Canada.

ALL LIBERALS, "...have no economic education??" Here's just one prominent example. Noted liberal, (properly spelled with a small "l"), Robert Reich, graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth. He also qualified for a Rhoades Scholarship. He then studied economics, politics, and philosophy, at Oxford. He then earned his J.D. from Yale, where he was an editor of the Law Review!!
Please give us a frame of reference. What are your qualifications as an expert on economics?

the term "liberal." Here's the Merriam-Webster definition:
"believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change"
"not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted"
Hmmm...says nothing about economic ignorance here!
Isn't this exactly what you desire, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass? Doesn't this "dictionary" definition of liberal fit you like a glove?
BTW -- I, personally, embrace this definition of "liberal" as a fair description of my political and social beliefs.

[Internet High Five]

No, you clearly lack sufficient economics education since like most Liberals you believe that the government should tax and tax and tax and somehow that results in a better society. It's a problem with a Liberal brain. It's either damaged by injury or disease, or structurally unsound via memes.

I must repeat: Anyone who believes in taxing and spending (or borrowing and spending) is so blissfully insane about economics that there's no sensible way to describe their character as being "educated". Indoctrinated, yes. Educated, NO.

At any rate, a true social Liberal would understand at a deep level that the government needs to be SMALL, so that people can be free to act. This comes as a surprise to most Liberals, in that the root of their label implies LIBERTY. Modern Liberals in the USA and UK aren't aligned with liberty at all... they are Fascists, eager to make use of larger and larger government in order to punish their perceived enemies.

conclusion. I do NOT want raise taxes.
The problem isn't the level of taxation nearly so much as the fairness of the taxes. If you really knew anything about economics, as you state, you would know that leaving more money in the hands of working folks is much better for the economy than leaving money in the hands of the wealthiest in our society. We have a real-life example of this. In the 8 years of the Clinton Administration, with the tax reforms and budget deals during his terms, despite what people like Ross Perot, and probably you, thought, not only was the national budget brought into balance, there were significant surpluses his last 2 years in office. In addition, the projections showed us actually PAYING OFF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in the near future!!
(BTW -- One of the greatest ironies to me is the comparison of the stock markets in the 8 years under Clinton and the 8 years under W, and, now the 5+ years under Obama. Almost all of the wealthiest in our society made billions with Clinton, and now Obama, in office. Unless they were very careful, (I did purchase stock in Exxon-Mobil shortly after W took office. That worked out well!), most of the wealthiest in our society lost A TON of money with W in office. Yes. Capital gains tax rates were lowered under W, but what good does it do to have a lower tax rate on capital gains, when one has mostly capital losses?)
In 2001, W came in with a majority of Republicans in Congress. Taxation policy changes along with wasteful overspending, turned the fiscal train back onto that tired old track of deep deficits. Eventually, the laissez faire position of "reduced" government, meant W's Administration abrogating its responsibility of proper oversight over giant financial corporations. The British call this "penny wise and pound foolish." Oversight costs money. Skilled professionals must be hired to oversee properly giant complex corporate entities, but the cost of the so-called bailout of the financial institutions which are "too big to fail," shows us that the money spent on these oversight employees would be money well spent.
While I do believe the U.S. corporate tax rate is too high, no corporation actually pays the maximum rate, because there are so many giant loopholes in the law. Let's lower, yes I said LOWER, the corporate tax rate, but plug loopholes which do little or nothing to help our overall economy. See? I'm for lower taxes!

I have to state one more thing. The difference between "education" and "indoctrination" is in the eye of the beholder. To me, YOU have been "indoctrinated" by choosing to read mostly, if not exclusively, those sources which reinforce your skewed view of the world, Mr. Empty Glass. Almost any objective observer would conclude that Robert Reich was extremely well "educated" at some of the finest educational institutions IN THE WORLD! BTW -- You still haven't shown the educational background you claim makes you an expert on economics. Just curious.
I stand behind, and accept the Merriam-Webster definition of "liberal." And you continue to misspell the word liberal, in most cases. It is properly capitalized only when referring to a political party. This would seem to be a prime example of your "indoctrination?"

"I do NOT want raise taxes. The problem isn't the level of taxation nearly so much as the fairness of the taxes."

LOL! Biggest cognitive dissonance, ever.

The only fair model of taxation is the percentage model. That rubs you Liberals so wrong it's like petting the cat with a cheese grater. If everyone just paid 10-12% or so of their incomes (true income, not wage-only bullshit income that ignores capital gains) then nobody would have rational cause to complain.

Except we have a horrible tax system by design, and it preys on the weak. And the weak isn't the poor. The poor take advantage of the tax system, via the EIC and CTC and other refundable credits. The rich take advantage of it, via every tax loophole known to man. The only real victim of our tax system is the working man. BTW that's not you; you're a member of the Golden Class, which a friend of mine calls the Praetorian Class. You're the buffer installed between the rich and the rest of society to keep them in their caviar without rioting going on. Congratulations, you sellout.

Anyway, the working man pays out at least 40% of his income and otherwise wealth base into this welfare-warfare system that's provably 12 times larger at the federal level than it needs to be. The federal budget grew at 8.5% yearly since 1940, whereas the economy it was based on only grew 3.5%, including population growth.

This is why we rational men say that we're "taxed enough already". The tax load on the working man always grows. It's as large as it's ever been. And it's destroying the middle class. The TRUE middle class, not the union shits and government fucks (the Golden Class) who really just need to be lined up against a wall and shot.

As a member of the REAL middle class, this horribly unfair and oppressive tax system needs to end. Not just change... no, there's no means of changing it, since the real middle class has no advocates in government. So the tax system needs to be destroyed. When a system can't be reformed, when it can't change, then it must collapse.

In addition to my college degree, I was in business with my father for 15 years before I started teaching. I was also the treasurer of a statewide teacher union, responsible for producing and overseeing a yearly budget.
You still haven't listed your credentials for judging anything in economics. Why not??

You even said it yourself: “the individual's vote will be counted once they meet the ID requirements”.
There should be no photo ID requirement for a person’s vote to count. That is the point! Sure, they might let you go through the motions, but the vote counting is what matters.

"Also there is no emergency that requires you to have a photo ID."
Well, no kidding! The license is to help with proper identification. That's why I wrote "The ID in this case is carried to identify a person", which, now that I think of it, in some instances could help to save life.

"There should be no photo ID requirement for a person’s vote to count." The Supreme Court has ruled that the integrity of the vote matters and that controls to achieve that integrity are proper as long as they are neither unnecessary nor burdensome.

This protest proves that having an ID is neither unnecessary nor burdensome.

" The license is to help with proper identification." First, in emergencies there are other ways people are identified. Most emergencies the individual is not identified by their ID rather other factors like passers-by or car license plates. In the rare cases where photo ID is used to identify this is not until they've reached the ER and life saving care has already been administered.

In the case of the protest it seems to me if the ID is being used for emergencies it is definitely unnecessary while not burdensome. The protest is essentially saying that the photo ID law is burdensome and they've undermined their argument by showing it is not by requiring it at their protest. It's easier to vote than to take part in this protest. I can vote with my gas bill. They won't let me into the protest with a gas bill and having it on my person gives just as much identification to me in an emergency as a photo ID would.

MikeyA

Voter fraud is nill in this country, showing photo ID is unnecessary. And yes, for some it may even be burdensome. In your very own post you proved that The Supreme Court does’nt require it. Why would you want states to find ways to implement it? Why make laws that are not needed? Americans have the right to be against photo ID requirements. Photos didn’t even exist at this country’s founding. Voter registration has always been enough to maintain the integrity.

As to this statement:
It's easier to vote than to take part in this protest.

You do realize that ”Moral Monday” ,as it is called, has many groups participating and has been going on for a year now, right? Voter photo ID is only one subject of protest, and it's very easy to get involved. If you would like, you can go protest all you want without any documentation. It is your right. Leave your gas bill at home, you won’t be needing it.

The NAACP is only one group, and they made the suggestion that their people carry ID when marching this past weekend. That is all. The NAACP does not control everyone taking part in Moral Monday, or the march that took place this past weekend.

"Voter fraud is nill in this country, showing photo ID is unnecessary. And yes, for some it may even be burdensome. In your very own post you proved that The Supreme Court does’nt require it. Why would you want states to find ways to implement it? Why make laws that are not needed? Americans have the right to be against photo ID requirements. Photos didn’t even exist at this country’s founding. Voter registration has always been enough to maintain the integrity."

Each state must certify it's vote. When they do that they are saying the vote was carried out on good faith. So each state determines it's eligibility to vote. Voter registration was not around during the days of the founding fathers. That's why being a land-owner was a requirement, their signatures were already on file with the local government for deeds and taxes. States today have deemed this to be inaccurate compared to photo ID since the technology makes more sense. Having an ID or meeting the law's requirements are not burdensome. That is why the Supreme Court has widely enforced voter ID laws.

Example, I chose to go to Ohio this year to renew my ID. I didn't have to. I could have dropped a form in the mail along with a check and a new ID would have been issued to me. It would not of had my photo on it but it would have been valid for voting as it was a state issued ID. In that scenario my "burden" is the fee for the ID and a stamp.

In reality the burden to those find it to be burdensome is their inability to know the law or seek the knowledge for themselves. A 5-minute phone call is all it takes.

MikeyA

The Liberals don't seem to comprehend that while they insist that proper photo ID for voting is some sort of racist plot, they still can't get into Government Center downtown to see their favorite Liberal politicians without that same sort of proper photo ID. And in fact, getting most any service from the government at a point of contact, requires proper photo ID. So... getting government services requires ID, yet voting doesn't. Hmm.

Loads of silence from the Liberal crowd about that. So it tells us what the Liberals really want: Lots and lots of their diversity pets and other poor people "voting early and voting often". All highly partisan factions want to cheat to keep themselves in power. Liberals are no different than any other Fascist ideologues.

When I go in to vote, my name and address are in a registration book at that location only. My signature is there. In order to be registered, I had to produce ID. In addition, I am recognized, because I have lived in the same house since 1974! And I still have to sign in, and the worker matches up my signature!
When I go into Government Center, they seldom know me "from Adam." (I have to admit. The last time I went to Government Center, one of my former students was working security, and did recognize me.) There is no other way to verify who I am. The same is true when I travel by airplane.

NICE TRY!! Since there is no voter fraud to speak of, and we already have had universal voter registration and laws to punish voter fraud for many years. The only purpose for voter ID is voter suppression. It is a cold, calculated political position which enhances the chances for Republicans to be elected to public office.

GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass and Republicans:
STOP ENACTING UNNECESSARY LAWS!
GET GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!

In order to be registered, I had to produce ID.

Then there should be zero problem producing the same proper ID at the voting location.

So there's no rational reason why Liberals are against voter ID.

When I go into Government Center, they seldom know me "from Adam."

Wrong. You have to produce proper, photo ID. Stop being irrational. (Unless there's a Super-Secret Liberal Entrance that I don't know about.)

Repetitive proof that you, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, are "indoctrinated" rather than "educated."

Where's the LIKE button?

which claims to have overwhelming support among the American people doing everything it can to suppress the vote?
I know that ideologues hate facts, but here we go again: WE HAVE SOMETHING CALLED VOTER REGISTRATION! SINCE VOTER REGISTRATION BECAME UNIVERSAL, THE AMOUNT OF VOTER FRAUD HAS BEEN MINISCULE, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT VOTER FRAUD AFFECTED A CHANGE IN ANY ELECTION!! As a concrete example, a study of voter fraud between 2002 and 2005, (when Republican George W. Bush was President), showed that -- NATIONWIDE -- the Federal government got 40 people indicted and 26 convicted of voter fraud, for an average of 8 or 9 per year! Whatever happened to the feigned concern right-wingers have for the invasiveness of government into the personal business of private citizens?
Why don't you right-wingers drop the pretense? Generally speaking, the more people who vote, the worse your candidates do. You want to win elections, so you want to suppress the number of voters. Generally, the higher the turnout, the better candidates with whom I agree do. As a lifelong Democrat, I have been working to increase voter registration and voter turnout since even before I could vote myself. (Yes. I'm so old that I couldn't vote until I turned 21 in 1968. I worked at the Lucas County Democratic Headquarters on the 1966 Congressional campaign.)
Requiring voter ID is not the only way the right-wing is suppressing the vote. All of the extreme negative advertising also is aimed at keeping the voters of their opponents away from the polls. How often do all of us hear about how upset prospective voters are about the negative tone of election campaigns, and how many of these possible voters have decided to NOT VOTE because the campaigns are so negative? IMHO this is part of the right-wing plan to suppress the vote. The unnecessary voter ID laws are only one part of the voter suppression strategy.
And now, even Rand Paul is warning right-wingers in his home State of Texas that if the Republican Party does not become more inclusive, Texas will turn "purple" or even [heaven forbid] blue within the next 10 years.
How bankrupt are your ideas and ideals when the best strategy you can devise to win elections is to suppress the number of voters?

Dale, voter ID is not voter suppression. That's not me saying that that is the Supreme Court. If asking for a voter to have an ID to vote is suppression then voter registration is suppression as it is an even bigger hurdle in the way of voting.

While voter fraud may be miniscule it does occur and every instance hinders the integrity of the vote. Having an ID is so much a part of our society that it's almost impossible to live in it effectively without one. And every voter ID law that's been passed has other ways to prove in lieu of a photo ID. This is not my opinion it is the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Now if having an ID is such a difficult task why don't you give an example of an individual who was unable to vote because getting a voter ID was so incredibly difficult.

MikeyA

showing examples of people who had a hard time coming up with proper ID.

ID laws. You can add to these people, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Jim Wright, who could not get an ID in Texas because his driver's license had expired, and they could not accept his photo ID from Texas Christian University. Mr. Wright was 90 years old at the time. WWJD?

All of these people are perfectly capable of getting an ID. There are more than enough options. http://votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id/

TCU is not the government so yes, their student ID should not be accepted.

Types include
Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport

Also Relevant

Exemption/Exceptions:

Voters with a disability may apply with the county voter registrar for a permanent exemption. The application must contain written documentation from either the U.S. Social Security Administration evidencing he or she has been determined to have a disability, or from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs evidencing a disability rating of at least 50 percent. In addition, the applicant must state that he or she has no valid form of photo identification. Those who obtain a disability exemption will be allowed to vote by presenting a voter registration certificate reflecting the exemption. Please contact your voter registrar for more details.

Voters who have a consistent religious objection to being photographed and voters who do not have any valid form of photo identification as a result of certain natural disasters as declared by the President of the United States or the Texas Governor, may vote a provisional ballot, appear at the voter registrar’s office within six (6) calendar days after election day, and sign an affidavit swearing to the religious objection or natural disaster, in order for your ballot to be counted. Please contact your county voter registrar for more details.

So yes, everyone you presented was perfectly capable of obtaining an ID or receiving an exemption from it. Failure to know the law is never an excuse.

Also, if the voters showed up without and ID card but did have their voter registration card they STILL could vote via provisional ballot but would need to produce a valid ID within six calendar days. So they get a six day reprieve from their failure to know the laws.

MikeyA

Are you sure you are correct on all that? And, are you sure you know each of these people’s cases well enough to make such a claim?

Tell you what…just for now let’s say you are correct. It’s highly unlikely you are 100% correct, but let’s say you are for the sake of conversation. My question then becomes WHY BOTHER? Sorry, was I yelling? We don’t need photo ID. Voter fraud is almost nonexistent. We don’t need to have people jumping through any more hoops just to exercise their right to vote.

"And, are you sure you know each of these people’s cases well enough to make such a claim?" It's correct because I quoted from the Texas law. It provides exceptions and outlines how provisional ballots work and are counted.

Oh I get it. You liberals are only in favor of showing something of proof of who you are only in labor bargaining when it prevents a secret ballot. Got it!

There is no hoops to jump through. Enough of society requires one to have a photo ID that an individual should have one. If not they can obtain one relatively easily. They don't have to have an ID to vote. They have to prove who they are to get their vote counted. They have 6 days after election day to do that (in the Texas law).

MikeyA

when his expired Texas driver's license AND his TCU photo ID were not good enough! Again, Mikey, WWJD? C'mon, Mikey, WWJD??

WOW! A Republican-written law that does not allow a photo ID from a long established Christian college as proper to receive a voter ID and vote. Sounds like those Republicans are writing anti-Christian laws down there in godless Texas.

Once again, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The speaker should know the law. In fact, if anyone should know it he should.

TCU is a private college. Some states allow for state college ID's to be used and I have no problem with that as long as the schools control their ID process. When I was dating a girl at Siena Heights many years ago a friend of hers had me come by and he took my photo and gave me a "school ID" so I could get into her dorm. Would you be comfortable of me being able to show that ID to vote in Michigan?

WWJD? Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". That means until God has a hard time telling his children apart I don't think Jesus wants to have a say in state ID laws.

MikeyA

The Moral Monday stuff has been taking place in North Carolina; one video example was from Wisconsin; the other video example was from Florida. Only one example was from Texas, and yet you think you are 100% correct because you quoted a bunch of stuff from Texas. You might want to check and see if you really know what you are talking about.

I don't care if photo IDs are so easy to get that they fall from the sky. They shouldn't be required to vote. Registration has always been enough.

Each state is different but they are easily looked up. I've debunked your claims already. Show me a state ID law and I'll show you how it's not voter suppression. Once again, I've got the Supreme Court backing me up.

MikeyA

Guess we all pick and choose!

Mikey...let's get government off the backs of the people. End these convoluted, ludicrous voter ID laws fraudulently put forth to solve a problem that does not exist. The law as you present it is another example of Republicans writing overly complex, detailed legislation just to confound common folks and limit the rights of common folks. When will Republicans stop writing all of these unnecessary encumbrances into law?

Just admit it, Mikey, as others have. Voter suppression is good politics for Republicans. And, as I continue to point out, negative campaigning is an important part of this strategy. Turn common folks off of the process any way you can when your ideas and ideals are losing.

Dale, we don't let 17 year olds vote. Yet they can drive. They can be charged as an adult. They can serve in the military. Why don't we get rid of those convoluted age requirements on drinking and voting?

How overly complex is it to provide a utility bill or a social security check that are both sent to you?

You still haven't showed one person whose vote was suppressed. PMW tried and failed because he didn't take the 5 mins to look up the laws of the states he cited.

MikeyA

A 62 year old woman in Madison, Wisconsin, in the 2012 Primary Election, was turned away from a voting place in an area of the city where she had voted FOR 40 YEARS, even though the poll workers knew her well. She had recently been injured in an auto accident, and hadn't been able to get a new driver's license in time to vote. This is reported from Madison in "The Isthmus."
Of course, I'm sure she could have found a way to get the necessary ID, but WHY SHOULD SHE HAVE TO??? Now, Mikey, I've come up with a real person who really lost the right to vote because of a voter ID law. When will you find an election where voter fraud made the difference since we've had universal voter registration, and made voter fraud a felony? The ball's in your court, Mikey.
Why, Mikey, do you Republicans insist upon more laws when existing laws are working well. You know there is virtually no voter fraud. It's all a political game by Republicans. It's all about voter suppression!
REPUBLICANS!! GET GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!

Dale, the Wisconsin Voter ID law is not in effect. It's been under an injunction.

How can one be denied the ability to vote when the injunction was issued on 6 March 2012? The primary you state she was denied occurred on 6 April 2012.

And had she applied before the injunction she could have received a FREE ID!

Sorry dale the dates don't match up. DEBUNKED!

MikeyA

election in which the Wisconsin law was in effect. The injunction must have come subsequent to this election.
Do a little more research, Mikey.

I posted the exact dates of the injunction and of the 2012 primary election.

You didn't post the article. If you want me to post links to the two dates I'd be more than happy to.

MikeyA

"hadn't been able to get a new driver's license in time to vote"

Invalid excuse, at least in our state. You can always make an affidavit vote and bring in sufficient ID later at the BOE to have your vote counted. There's plenty of time to get that done.

You Liberals have hitched your cart to the wrong horse again. You keep trying to prove that election certification standards (which include IDing the person voting) are racist and suppress the vote of your diversity pets. And we keep shooting you down with facts and logic in every case. Every. Case.

It's also invalid because she could have gotten a free ID that day. Had she gone to the DMV with her expired license (it could have been expired for up to 8 years) that would have been acceptable to issue her a free voter ID card.

But it's all moot since the judge put an injunction on 6 March, ruled the law unconstitutional on 12 March, it was appealed but the injunction still holds since the Appeals Court has yet to rule. That all means she didn't need an ID on 6 April.

MikeyA

PMW

PMW the people in the videos you cite are able to vote and the voting ID laws didn't prevent it.

In the first video, the woman could have produced a utility bill, bank statement, or gov't check (wanna bet she receives social security?). http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/votinginperson.html

In the second video, she was able to vote. The Wisconsin Voter ID law has not gone into affect due to an injunction while lawsuits are settled. When it does go into affect she can get a free ID card from the state. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

Both examples you give neither had a "hard time giving proper ID". One only has to show her social security check that's mailed to her. The other didn't have to provide one.

MikeyA

on the backs of people?

Voter fraud is a red herring! Laws against voter fraud prevent voter fraud without voter ID. Stop unnecessary laws!!

why do you think it is important to have photo ID laws in existance for exercising the right to vote? Telling us how easy it is to get an ID, and telling us that photo IDs are used for many other things is not a genuine answer.

Each state needs to certify it's vote. When it certifies the vote it is stating to the electorate that the vote was fair, just, and had integrity. Many states have determined that an ID is the best way to ensure it's fair, just and with integrity. As long as the ways the state uses to determine all is reasonable then there is no reason to prevent it. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that voter ID laws are reasonable.

Now you have failed to show how they are unreasonable. I have shown that with every example you are given.

MikeyA

such laws? Do they get to vote on it with their photo IDs, or do they just have to accept whatever comes down the line? Between The Patriot Act disguised as national security and voter suppression disguised as integrity, the right wing nuts are slowly giving up this country, all the while acting like they are saving it. God bless America-she needs it.

I'm outa here for the night.

Where in the link for Virginia did it say the woman could use a utility bill, bank statement, or gov't check. I didn't see any of that as acceptable ID.

From the link
"Acceptable forms of identification for in-person voting include the following: (Download Chart)

Virginia voter registration card
Valid Virginia driver's license
Military ID
Any Federal, Virginia state or local government-issued ID
Employer issued photo ID card
Concealed handgun permit
Valid student ID issued by any institution of higher education located in the Commonwealth of Virginia
Current utility bill, bank statement, government check or paycheck indicating the name and address of the voter
Social Security card (*please note the social security card does not satisfy special federal ID requirements)

A voter who does not bring an acceptable ID to the polls will be offered a provisional ballot.

MikeyA

the link says the utility bill and a lot of the other forms of ID are only good until July of 2014. What happens after that, Mikeya?

Important: Please note that there will be no changes to Virginia’s existing voter ID requirements until July of 2014. A law requiring photo identification at the polls was signed into law in May of 2013. This new photo identification requirement will not take effect until July 1, 2014. The current law allows for the acceptance of all identification documents listed below.

Apparently they’re just letting everyone get by until July. That's when they take away the right to vote without a photo ID in Virginia. That sucks! Is this what we want in America?

I asked you to provide for me an example of voter suppression. No voter has been suppressed. You have NOT provided an example despite all these states with voter ID laws.

MikeyA

Read your own post about Virginia. Read the part you forgot to copy and paste about how the law will fully implement in July of 2014.

There is a difference between suppression and outright denial.
Suppression isn’t designed to deny a person’s right; it’s to complicate exercising that right. If some elderly person is used to voting a certain way and suddenly she has a new hoop to jump through that causes her not to vote, that is suppression. Each example given to you has shown a person that had their voting experience complicated. All you have done throughout has been to list what hoops were required of them.

You still haven't shown suppression.

There is no difference between suppression and denial, they both are suppression. Suppression is discouraging people in order to determine an outcome in an election.

When in the cases you've cited a person can vote with their utility bill or receive a FREE ID there is no complication. There is no hoop to jump through besides educating yourself. Even in the cases where they fail THEY STILL can vote via provisional ballot.

MikeyA

You finally stumbled into it:
"Suppression is discouraging people in order to determine an outcome in an election."

This is exactly what is happening. People, many of which are elderly, have been used to voting a certain way and suddenly they don’t know the rules. They are told to vote provisionally when they’ve never had to before. They are told to come back Friday, or to fax, or to mail ID. People like you tell them to get with the program and educate themselves, to stop being “ignorant of the law”, to "bring in their gas bill", when all they want to do is vote the way they used to.

Republicans know that some voters will not be ready for changes in the voting laws. They know that many people are busy and won’t be able to come back, or to fill extra requirements they weren’t expecting. They have pushed laws through that, to paraphrase you, 'discourage people and determine the outcome of elections'.

If they show up without the necessary ID, they get to vote via a provisional ballot. So no, they are not discouraged. And in many cases especially like NC it requires unanimous concurrance by the precinct judges to give them a provisional ballot instead.

The Supreme Court has determined that voter ID laws are inherently not voter suppression. That's it. Done. It's defined. Everything else you say is wrong. The highest court in the land has spoken.

MikeyA

You can look the other way all you want, but the fact of the matter is the law has been used to cause suppression in certain cases. It’s all in the way something gets used. A car is not defined as a weapon, but it can cause the same results if used a certain way.

I’m sure you would agree that The Supreme Court doesn’t always get everything right. How do you feel about the constitutionality of Obamacare?

And voter suppression is a political strategy used by the Republican Party throughout this country today. This includes negative advertising which turns average folks off of the entire process!

Ohio statute #3199.52 makes it a 4th degree felony to vote illegally. Under Ohio statue #2929.14, a conviction of such a felony means a prison term of from 6 to 18 months! I thought that you right-wingers were all about using punishments to ensure compliance with the law. Since there is so little voter fraud, I guess this works! It is not a case of, if we have no voter ID law, people are free to vote illegally without a negative consequence!

In order to register to vote, one has to have proof of residence, citizenship, etc. As pointed out by another poster on this thread, in order to vote in person, everyone has to sign her/his name in front of witnesses who have a sample of your signature right there. In addition, at my voting place, many of the poll workers recognize most of the people who vote there!

Voter ID laws are in direct opposition to the long stated ideal of the Republican Party to "get government off the backs of the American people." I guess, for Republicans, it depends which American people's backs we're taking about.
In short, there is no justification for having voter ID laws, except as part of a political strategy by Republicans to suppress the vote...period!

Ohio has a voter ID law. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx

It's not dissimilar from the Texas law with the exceptions being a utility bill or bank statement.

I didn't see one voter in Ohio suppressed by it's law.

Since I vote via absentee ballot I have to show much more than just an ID. It asks me for several different ways to prove I am who I am. My on file signature and proof of residence (ID) is not enough.

MikeyA

GET GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!! LESS LAWS, PLEASE!!

I agree. Start with Obamacare and let me make my own healthcare choices.

MikeyA

And I've pointed out over and over again, it's a flawed law. Every other industrialized nation in the world has true national health care. The Republican alternative is to allow millions -- many of whom are children who have no choice in the matter -- go without adequate health care in the richest country in the history of the world. Go ahead, Mikey. Kill some more kids.
The difference is that Obamacare brings affordable health care to millions.
The voter ID law suppresses votes.
Bringing health care to millions...good.
Suppressing votes...bad. (But good politics for Republicans whose message isn't working.)

... not to mention illogical, into the bargain.

Reality check: At one of my relatives' (hereafter referred to as "R") medical clinics down south (in a state that is being flooded with illegal Mexicans) - "R" listens to these illegals openly discuss with one another how they scanned that week's newspapers' obituaries in order to obtain names for their illegal voting. Further, these same illegals (getting free care for their so-called anchor babies), when asked for their official card to get the free medical care [I think it's Medicare at "R"'s clinic]. they ALL pull the required "card" up on their IPAD's. Imagine that - poor suppressed, oppressed, Mexicans in this country illegally have IPAD's. How can they afford IPAD's, you ask? Because the husbands work on high-paid construction jobs that AMERICAN WORKERS WOULD LOVE TO HAVE... and are paid under the table. They pay no taxes, income or social security. "R" relates that these illegals are very quickly taking down the health care system in this country.

By your fractured logic, when you are required to produce photo ID at traffic stops, police officers are "suppressing" your right to drive.

You have all the liberal Dem buzz words down pat, Dale. But your logic is bankrupt.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTT

Some anonymous person on the Internets is going to be telling us all about voter fraud down south with a story from an unspecified relative and we're going to accept that at face value.

I suppose the Kochs pay you by the word.

Really FG -- Well I have a relative...blah, blah, blah...
You are very easily deceived, and/or purposely looking for justification for an untenable position.

Look -- in 1966, as Democrats, those for whom I was working as a volunteer were most concerned with VOTER TURNOUT. The statistics told them that the more voters who showed up at the polls, the better their candidates would do. Before this time and since (see my post about the elections of 1824, 1828, and 1832) both sides have understood the importance of voter turnout. Republicans know that suppressing the vote enhances the chances of their candidates getting elected. Republicans are doing the right political thing to win!! But, voter ID is unnecessary legislation.

FG -- STOP UNNECESSARY LEGISLATION!! GET GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!!

Making me have a driver's license is suppression.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

You know damn well driving is a privilege, not a right.

nm

MikeyA

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Discussion over.

That's not what the word "regulated" means in that context and you're about parsec away from the real legal definition of what it means. Don't you Liberals crow that you're so very well educated? Seems like bravado to me.

We tell you Liberals this set of facts over and over and over, and yet, the next day you get on a forum and spout the same, provably wrong nonsense about the Second Amendment. You already lost. When will you admit it?

Ever have your license suspended, Fred? The judge makes you hand it over on the spot. While this hasn't happened to me, it has happened to people when I've been with them in court.

Fred, just admit it. Republicans win more elections when voter turnout is low. For Republicans, suppressing the vote is a major political strategy. Why not just admit that part of that strategy of suppression involves needless voter ID laws?

What's the matter Dale? Can't win elections if half the cemetery doesn't vote?

MikeyA

Can't you read? Are your right-wing positions so vacuous that you can't get enough common folks to vote for you, so you need to keep as many of them from voting as possible?

The choice is NOT voter ID laws or rampant voter fraud. Voter ID laws are a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Get the government off the backs of the American people, Mikey. End voter ID laws!

In a post above, I refer to the Ohio statutes which make it a 4th degree felony to vote illegally. With universal voter registration, without voter ID laws, a 6-18 month jail sentence has meant almost no voter fraud.

You still have yet to show someone whose vote was suppressed.

If someone failed to vote it was because they were ignorant of the law, this does not mean they weren't unable to follow the law. In Ohio and many other states, I'd be willing to bet they were able to vote via provisional ballot but failed to show up later.

LOL it's funny to see the guy who supports government intervention in many other parts of our lives want the government out when it can ensure a fair election.

MikeyA

Repeating: "Suppression isn’t designed to deny a person’s right; it’s to complicate exercising that right."
Those doing the suppressing are counting on people failing to vote because they are ignorant of law. That is suppression. Suppression is not denial of a right; it’s more insidious than that. Again,each example given to you has shown a person that had their voting experience complicated. All you have done throughout has been to list what hoops were required of them.

This is hilarious. With very minimal searching I have been able to dispel every myth the liberals have tried to throw on Voter ID laws. It seems they need to thrive on ignorance so much they practice it themselves.

MikeyA

Mikey, you have yet to show a need for a voter ID law in a nation with universal voter registration, and where voter fraud is harshly punished WITHOUT a voter ID law.

Voter ID laws are to suppress voting...period! It's unnecessary legislation. Mikey...Republicans...stop passing unnecessary laws.
GET THE GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!

I have shown a need. States need to ensure an election is fair and just. THAT'S THE NEED!

I can't prove a negative. It's impossible.

Now you claim it's suppressing voting... period. Ok, provide one example and give the links.

The fact is the Supreme Court has ruled that voter ID rules are not voter suppression! PERIOD.

MikeyA

Other Republicans admit that voter ID laws are part of the modern Republican Party strategy to suppress votes. Why can't you?

You, Mikey, are in favor of laws which are unnecessary!
MIKEY, REPUBLICANS, GET GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!

BTW, MikeyA -- I'm glad you wholeheartedly endorse recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. How did you like SCOTUS finding Obamacare to be almost entirely Constitutional? Wasn't that the greatest?

Hey Mikey, if you have such a raging hardon about showing an election to be "fair and just",
then would you mind explaining to me how the hell you think you can trust unverifiable e-voting devices where anyone from some 8-year-old computer hacker in his mom's basement to MAJOR FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS could tamper with almost any point in the entire process?

Shut the hell up about this Voter ID bullshit and tell me how you think you ensure someone doesn't slip a backdoor onto the machines, or the central tabulator, or hell, doesn't pull some sleight-of-hand when removing the vote total cards from the machines.

You can't.

With paper ballots, or God help us even the old mechanical lever-flipping system, you can verify everything from start to finish. Paper ballots you can count the number of at the start of the day, verify the ballot box is empty, count the number used during the day, count the number remaining at the end of the day, physically seal the box, physically inspect the vehicle used to transport them, ensure an entire dual-control or better chain of custody of the box, count the number coming out of the box, physically read the vote on each ballot, etc. right on through to the end. However, with the computer system, you cannot be sure that someone didn't tamper with the software, put in a backdoor, etc., and if a memory card goes bad/gets erased/etc. those votes are GONE. And no, they DO NOT recount by the paper trail on any of the machines that actually bother to have a printer, and that trail can and has also been altered.

Your bullshit excuse for Voter ID of "ensure an election is fair and just" is BULLSHIT. COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Voter ID does not do one damn thing to keep the people who count the votes from fucking over the public, and you damn well know it.

price! If the right-wingers can't win on the merit of their positions on issues, they try to suppress the vote.
Once again, I point out, since I worked on my first political campaign in 1966, it's all about turnout. The Dems need high turnout and the Reps need to keep turnout down. Not only are the voter ID laws part of the Republican strategy to keep down the number of voters, negative campaigning is part of that strategy, too.

This is nothing new. In the 1820s, most states only allowed white males over 21 who were property owners to vote. In the 1824 election, no candidate received a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, so the choice for POTUS was passed on to the U.S. House of Representatives. Andrew Jackson had a clear plurality of the votes in a 4 way race. Only the top 3 candidates in the Electoral College balloting may be considered by the House for the office of POTUS. Henry Clay finished 4th. For a wide variety of reasons, Clay hated Jackson. He threw his considerable support and influence to John Quincy Adams, and J. Q. was anointed by the House. And JQ appointed Clay to be his Secretary of State and heir apparent to the position of POTUS. JQ and Clay insisted that there was no quid pro quo in Clay supporting JQ and then JQ appointing Clay, but the Jackson people were convinced that was so.
Between 1824 and 1828, Jackson's people worked hard to get the states to change their laws and allow non-property owners to vote. They knew that Jackson appealed more to the common man than did JQ, and they needed more common men to be able to vote in order to ensure Jackson's election as POTUS. Not only did Jackson win the 1828 election by a large margin over JQ, he also won re-election easily over Henry Clay in 1832!
There were many important issues to be sure, even back then, but Jackson appealed to the common American, while Adams and Clay appealed to the moneyed interests. So, Jackson's people wanted high turnouts and his opponents wanted low turnouts. With many more people eligible to vote in 1828 and 1832, Jackson won easily.

Now, stating all of this, I must say that, overall, IMHO, Jackson was a terrible POTUS. He was awful to most Native Americans. He was a strong supporter of slavery. And he hated the Bank of the United States so much, that he was determined to bring about its demise, which he succeeded in doing. This led directly to the "Panic of 1837," a severe economic depression, just after Jackson left office. His successor, Martin Van Buren, took the blame, but the common people suffered.

Can't you make the same points w/o the use of profanity and sexual references? To me, such language is usually used by those whose arguments are weak in order to garner attention and/or bully those who oppose them into not responding to their arguments. I find a lot of commonality between your positions and mine, but I truly believe that your use of inflammatory language clouds your well-taken positions on issues.
Just a suggestion.

AC

AC, I agree, voting machines should not have a back door. I additionally agree they should print a paper copy of the vote totals. I also believe that a voting machine should NEVER be networked. It should be a standalone kiosk. If a machine is not networked there is no way to tamper with the vote except manually, that means the precinct judges are the only ones with access but there are multiple precinct judges representing the major parties.

Any state that is going to allow voting machines has the responsibility to make sure they work and any problems do not affect vote totals. The onus is on the state not the voting machine company. If a state cannot ensure that then they should not be using voting machines.

MikeyA

The vote machine companies will not provide source code and compilers for their proprietary software, therefore you do not know what they might have snuck in.

Does not matter if the machine is networked or not, machines have done "sleepovers" with poll workers in the past etc. and getting around the "tamper-evident" seals is easy. Also the computers that count the vote are networked back at the county office so those are vulnerable.

Does not matter if they print a paper copy because the paper copy is not used in the count or recount either. Paper copies have been hacked in the past too.

I am perfectly happy with "Scantron" bubble sheet ballots provided that they all meet open standards so they can additionally be scanned and counted on independent machines so the "central tabulator" machine and the count from independent machines can be compared. I.e. each party or a nonparty person can provide a machine or machines to verify the count and any discrepancy over a certain number triggers a hand count. As your idol Reagan said "Trust but verify."

You are happy with the scantron as am I. I am not in favor of any voting machine that can be open to tampering. States need to realize you cannot outsource security, it is the job of the state alone. If a voting machine company won't allow their code to be analyzed then they should be denied the contract. I'm ok with that. I'm all in favor of ensuring the vote has integrity.

MikeyA

Take a look at the NC law being disputed by the Moral Mondays. http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H589v9.pdf

If they can't provide an ID or provide an ID that does not look like the individual.... provisional ballot. That means they STILL get to vote. Oh and in cases where it doesn't look like that it requires unanimous agreement of all the precinct judges.

Other interesting notes. If you are unable to get out of your car... they bring a ballot out to you. Those darn Republicans... I want my ballot delivered to me at Wendy's as I try the new Ciabatta Bacon Cheeseburger! That's voter suppression you know.

MikeyA

It's superfluous! Voter fraud is a felony in Ohio!
Mikey...Republicans...stop passing unnecessary laws!
GET THE GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!

It's a deterrent to the crime. A deterrent that does not add an undue burden or hardship upon the electorate.

You say it's unnecessary but you admit there have been cases of voter fraud.

You say it's voter suppression yet you have yet to show a case where someone was denied the right to vote by the state. Any state. Despite you and PMW posting three separate incidents and they were all debunked by looking up the laws themselves.

MikeyA

We have over 316,000,000 people in America. We average 8-9 convictions per year for voter fraud. We need no laws other than long-existing laws regarding universal voter registration and laws making voter fraud a felony.

REPUBLICANS -- STOP MAKING UNNECESSARY LAWS!
GET THE GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!

The Supreme Court has ruled that voter ID is not unnecessary. Sorry. You lose.

MikeyA

Well all righty then…

Attention Righties! Hear what Mikeya is saying? If the Supreme Robes say it’s so…it is so. So…shut up and accept Obamacare.

YAY MIKEY LIKES OBAMACARE! IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR SCOTUS IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR HIM AND US TOO!

What I am saying is SCOTUS declared it to be legal so it is law. I never denied it isn't. However that doesn't mean we can't attempt to change the law.

If you don't like voter ID you should support candidates who vow to overturn it. However screaming that it's voter suppression when SCOTUS says it is not is just whining.

MikeyA

This is exactly why there is a protest:

”If you don't like voter ID you should support candidates who vow to overturn it.”
The idea of the protest is to bring awareness so more people will support candidates who will overturn the law.

”However screaming that it's voter suppression when SCOTUS says it is not is just whining.”

Changing the laws to avoid voter suppression is the reason for the protest. That has to be said. To state this is to define the protest, and is not “whining”.

Screaming that Obamacare is illegal when SCOTUS says it isn't is just whining. Please confront your fellow Republicans with that.

I don't claim it to be illegal. Since the opinion, most Republicans don't either. There are fringe on both sides who are never satisfied. In fact, recently the only thing Republicans have said is illegal is the President changing the law by executive order which is illegal.

MikeyA

This water carrying Obama convert has ear plugs in and blinders on, no amount of truth will penetrate his mind.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Are you calling Mikey a RINO?

GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!
REPUBLICANS -- STOP PASSING UNNECESSARY LAWS! GET GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.