Obama election staffers have no problem with vote early and vote often.

[jjjayb]

[jjjayb]

So what he is saying is that the MAJORITY of America are racists. Because the majority of Americans think ID laws are needed. That's why you and I agree with this law. Not because we think it will prevent fraud, but because we don't want poor black democrats to vote. If you didn't know you were a racist, you are. Just ask Literature.

[ROYC75]

Cheating to win is an American right, it's mandatory if you are a liberal democrat. When one has no values or morals, cheating becomes a way of life.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So you maintain that the sole purpose that these laws were proposed is to disenfranchise voters. That at no time did any of these state legislators (over 30 of them) considered protecting the legitimacy of the actual election?

You sure do like playing that race card.

Comparing the current laws to Jim Crow is disingenuous at best.

I also fail to see how making a reasonable requirement of voting (a photo ID), is someone disenfranchising and racist. Do minorities not cash checks? Do they not get mortgages? Do they not buy cold medicine? Should we change those laws, and not require any form of ID for anything at all?

No, I think there were several purposes, and one was most likely to prevent in-person voting fraud. But we know that in-person voting fraud is very rare. Where there is voting fraud is in mail-in voting. But the amount of times people have come to the voting booth and said that they were someone they really weren't has barely ever happened, if ever. (The reasons for that should be rather obvious: that kind of fraud faces a serious penalty, and the chances of being caught are very good: if you claim to be someone on the registration list, and that actually someone comes into vote, you're ****ed; and since voting rolls are public after the election, the person you alleged to be can see that someone stole his identity).

Because of how rare in-person voting fraud is, and because of how widespread the problem of not immediately having a voter ID was for many minorities, poor, and older citizens, the driving purpose of these laws becomes clear to any person who isn't hopelessly naive or dishonest: this was a way that could disenfranchise many likely Democratic voters on election night.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Again, I fail to see how a photo ID is an "undue burden". You need a photo ID to collect welfare and food stamps as well...should we stop that, since it disenfranchises the unemployed?

Have you read the judicial orders or opinions on these cases? Do you care about those opinions? Maybe that will help you understand why the enactment of these laws so close to the 2012 election became undue burdens to such a degree that the courts have said, "You can probably make these laws, but not like how you did here and now."

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Read my post again Jensen. I said I support their rights~

Great! You definitely seem to be a huge pillar of support for people's right to vote. Keep up the terrific work!

[RNR]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

So what he is saying is that the MAJORITY of America are racists. Because the majority of Americans think ID laws are needed. That's why you and I agree with this law. Not because we think it will prevent fraud, but because we don't want poor black democrats to vote. If you didn't know you were a racist, you are. Just ask Literature.

The laws needed to be changed. Until they are we have to deal with the laws in place. IMO those who are claiming to defend the poor in this debate know they are full of shit. They do however have very solid footing in this debate. The law is the law and if one person is denied their right to vote that person must be defended~

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Literature

Great! You definitely seem to be a huge pillar of support for people's right to vote. Keep up the terrific work!

Whatever Jensen~

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

So what he is saying is that the MAJORITY of America are racists. Because the majority of Americans think ID laws are needed. That's why you and I agree with this law. Not because we think it will prevent fraud, but because we don't want poor black democrats to vote. If you didn't know you were a racist, you are. Just ask Literature.

I think a majority of people fall into one or more of these categories: 1) don't mind disenfranchising likely Democratic voters, 2) have a false perception that there's a ton of voter fraud going on in our elections and want to do something about it because they hear about it on the media, or 3) think that voter ID laws are a reasonable procedure.

I also think that aside from the first group of people, and some who fall only into the second group, and almost everyone entirely in the third group would realize that there needs to be a fair advanced-warning process in place for these measures.

And I think Republican lawmakers have a vested interest in the first group of people. Because one less Democrat voting is one more advantage to their keeping their jobs. But perhaps I'm a little too cynical of some Republican politicians.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

The laws needed to be changed. Until they are we have to deal with the laws in place. IMO those who are claiming to defend the poor in this debate know they are full of shit. They do however have very solid footing in this debate. The law is the law and if one person is denied their right to vote that person must be defended~

The timing of the laws, and the manner of payment seem to be the main hangups on these laws. I am on record stating that if someone cannot afford a photo ID, and the state is requiring one, that the state has the burden of supplying that ID free of charge to those who cannot afford it. The other concern appears to be that given the proximity of the election, that enough time needs to be given so that those who wish to get said ID have an opportunity to do so. Legislators, as they typically do, passed the laws too late in their sessions to get them enacted in time.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

The timing of the laws, and the manner of payment seem to be the main hangups on these laws. I am on record stating that if someone cannot afford a photo ID, and the state is requiring one, that the state has the burden of supplying that ID free of charge to those who cannot afford it. The other concern appears to be that given the proximity of the election, that enough time needs to be given so that those who wish to get said ID have an opportunity to do so. Legislators, as they typically do, passed the laws too late in their sessions to get them enacted in time.

Do you seriously think that was an accident?

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

I think a majority of people fall into one or more of these categories: 1) don't mind disenfranchising likely Democratic voters, 2) have a false perception that there's a ton of voter fraud going on in our elections and want to do something about it because they hear about it on the media, or 3) think that voter ID laws are a reasonable procedure.

I also think that aside from the first group of people, and some who fall only into the second group, and almost everyone entirely in the third group would realize that there needs to be a fair advanced-warning process in place for these measures.

And I think Republican lawmakers have a vested interest in the first group of people. Because one less Democrat voting is one more advantage to their keeping their jobs. But perhaps I'm a little too cynical of some Republican politicians.

You conveniently left out category #4..Those that don't mind illegals and voter fraud because those votes heavily factor Democrats and allow them to keep their jobs. You cannot have category 1 without category 4.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

You conveniently left out category #4..Those that don't mind illegals and voter fraud because those votes heavily factor Democrats and allow them to keep their jobs. You cannot have category 1 without category 4.

In-person voter fraud does not happen enough to give any party an advantage in elections! What part of this aren't you understanding?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

The timing of the laws, and the manner of payment seem to be the main hangups on these laws. I am on record stating that if someone cannot afford a photo ID, and the state is requiring one, that the state has the burden of supplying that ID free of charge to those who cannot afford it. The other concern appears to be that given the proximity of the election, that enough time needs to be given so that those who wish to get said ID have an opportunity to do so. Legislators, as they typically do, passed the laws too late in their sessions to get them enacted in time.

You and I are on the same page~

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

Do you seriously think that was an accident?

Given that the Democrats in said legislatures did everything in their power to prevent those bills from being passed, I think it is just a result of the legislative process....any highly contested bill is going to take longer to pass...committee delays, long debates on the floor, attempts to hold the bill by certain legislators, etc.

Thinking that somehow the Republicans in those states magically held those bills to the last minute and snuck them under the radar is, frankly, tin-foil hat material.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Given that the Democrats in said legislatures did everything in their power to prevent those bills from being passed, I think it is just a result of the legislative process....any highly contested bill is going to take longer to pass...committee delays, long debates on the floor, attempts to hold the bill by certain legislators, etc.

Thinking that somehow the Republicans in those states magically held those bills to the last minute and snuck them under the radar is, frankly, tin-foil hat material.

Do you realize you can look up the legislative history of these laws?