Elderly, non-English speakers who don't post on political forums.
I think Acorn plotted to get registrations approved so they could then vote those registrations. Yes I do. I didn't say they were smart. Most criminals get caught because they aren't very smart.You really think ACORN was plotting to have the Dallas Cowboys vote in Las Vegas?
You've been making up and building straw men all afternoon.
Did they not have drivers licenses or ID's before they were elderly? You've never heard of license/ID renewal by snail mail?
If that's what you think, you're either ignorant about how registration drives work or you're just an idiot.
Do you know how election officials found out that ACORN had false registrations?
"I think Acorn plotted to get registrations approved so they could then vote those registrations."
You're parroting Repug lies, no surprise.
What wrong with "getting out the vote"? Repugs don't do it?
(zip)
In many cases, no.
Ask a direct question you don't want to answer and it's a straw man. What topic in here ever goes exactly in a straight line with no digression? Got it, ankle biter.
So they didn't pay taxes either? You have to have an ID to pay taxes.
Quiet, you.
They turned them over because they got raided by the Attorney General.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/30613864.html
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz1jHkA9ZitA major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud.
So on the federal level, let's say the number of people impersonating other people in order to vote is zero.
Do you agree?
They turned them over because they got raided by the Attorney General.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/30613864.html
They got raided because they turned the names over to the election officials.
You don't need a photo ID to pay taxes.
Why do you insist on making up?
What topic have you discussed without building a straw man?'
I can't think of one lately.
You have to have a legitimate ID to get a social security number in order to pay taxes.
So not a photo ID.
Thanks for helping me out there.
So it's ALL about a PHOTO ID?
REALLY?
You must really think these people are sub-humanly stupid if they are legitimate citizens with legitimate identifications and can't get a photo ID before the next election.
Well, it's been fun but gotta make a ranch run this afternoon.
Straw man.So it's ALL about a PHOTO ID?
REALLY?
You must really think these people are sub-humanly stupid if they are legitimate citizens with legitimate identifications and can't get a photo ID before the next election.
It's an unnecessary burden since the incidence of actual registered voter impersonation is zero.
It was especially fun when you claimed there were hundreds of thousands of cases of vote fraud.
I'm glad CC enjoyed the pants-down spanking. I doubt it'll be the last one he gets here.
This is not true. You don't need to have a social security number to pay taxes. You can get an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) from the IRS and use it to pay your taxes.
That's how the vast majority of illegals that do pay taxes do it.
Political Battle Brewing Over New Voter ID Laws
As the presidential campaign kicks into high gear, a fight is brewing over stricter voting laws that could affect turnout and influence general election results in battleground states.
New laws in several states will require millions of voters to show photo identification when they cast ballots this year, the result of a nationwide push mostly by Republicans who claim the measures will prevent election fraud. Democrats and voting rights activists oppose the laws, arguing that they are unnecessary because voter fraud is rare.
Opponents also say the laws are part of a Republican strategy to suppress turnout among scores of eligible voters — particularly young voters, poor voters and African-Americans — who tend to favor Democratic candidates.
In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-identification law in Indiana, saying that requiring voters to produce photo identification is not uncons utional and affirming that states have a "valid interest" in improving election procedures and deterring fraud.
Now 31 states require voters to show some form of identification at the polls. Fifteen of them require photo IDs. (The rest require identification without photos, such as a voter registration card, Social Security card or other government-issued ID, or a utility bill or bank statement showing a home address.)
Many of these states have passed other laws that scale back early voting periods — which have often benefited Democratic candidates — or stop allowing people to register to vote on Election Day, a practice credited in 2008 with adding tens of thousands of new voters, the majority of whom voted for President Obama.
A recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which opposes such laws, estimated that the new laws could harm 5 million voters. About 18 percent of seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have photo identification, according to the study.
Critics decrying the laws as purely politically motivated say the laws have been passed particularly in 2012 battleground states. The Brennan Center report found that states that have passed such laws hold 171 electoral votes, or 63 percent of the 270 votes needed to win the presidency.
"These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities," researchers Wendy R. Weiser and Lawrence Norden wrote in the study. "This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election."
Opponents are fighting back. Groups such as the Brennan Center and the American Civil Liberties Union are filing lawsuits to block such legislation, and have successfully scuttled voter ID bills in Ohio and elsewhere. Democratic governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina vetoed strict new photo ID laws in 2011.
In some cases, these are state battles. In others, the federal government plays a role: The 1965 Voting Rights Act mandates that the Justice Department approve any changes to the election laws proposed in nine southern states, including South Carolina and Texas, which have a history of racially discriminatory voting practices.
Late last month, the Justice Department blocked South Carolina's new photo ID law, saying it would unduly harm thousands of minorities who don't have identification.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145044...s?sc=17&f=1001
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
