Reply With Quote
You're joking, right?
what Colbert/Stewart are doing to expose the issues with super pacs/citizens united is a better gag and quite frankly more important. Colbert for president of the US of South Carolina.Again, lets get this staight...I think that OKeefe is an over the top attention thats about a half bubble off and I have no affection for him at all...
BUT
He really does do a fairly effective job of poking holes in classic progressive positions...
In this case resisting having voters show ID's to vote...
He proved beyond a shadow of a doubt how easy it is to cast a fraudulent vote without showing an ID.
And the more you guys talk about him and the media talks about him the more effective he is...
You're joking, right?
They should get a medal if anything for exposing how easy the fraud is, and that you only get caught if you want to.
Please keep your erotic fantasies to yourself.
There wasn't any spanking going on, just more of the usual chump ankle biting.
Point for point, your failure has been striking in this thread. There's degree of self-pantsing, but much was received at the hands of your interlocutors.There wasn't any spanking going on
Disagreeing is not depantsing but if you feel that strongly that you have to "win" on the internet it says a lot more about you than me.
never said that I won, but you clearly lost
lol after declaring victory upstream
I can understand wanting to deflect the shame but you're just making it worse for yourself, tbh.
No, and the Bush administration proved there isn't a fraud problem at all.
Because the most commonly proposed countermeasure, requiring IDs, could disenfranchise up to three million legit voters, including 18% of seniors and 25% of African-Americans.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...r-suppression/THE 2012 general election campaign is likely to be a fight for every last vote, which means that it will also be a fight over who gets to cast one.
Partisan skirmishing over election procedures has been going on in state legislatures across the country for several years. Republicans have called for cutbacks in early voting, an end to same-day registration, higher hurdles for ex-felons, the presentation of proof-of-citizenship do ents and regulations discouraging registration drives. The centerpiece of this effort has been a national campaign to require voters to present particular photo ID do ents at the polls. Characterized as innocuous reforms to preserve election integrity, beefed-up ID requirements have passed in more than a dozen states since 2005 and are still being considered in more than 20 others.
Opponents of the laws, mostly Democrats, claim that they are intended to reduce the participation of the young, of the poor and of minorities, who are most likely to lack government-issued IDs — and also most likely to vote Democratic.
Conflict over exercising the right to vote has been a longstanding theme in our history. The overarching trend, which we celebrate, has been greater inclusion: property requirements were dropped; racial barriers were formally eliminated; women were enfranchised.
Yet there have always been counter trends. While the franchise expanded during some moments and in some places, it contracted in others, depriving Americans of a right they had once held. Between 1790 and 1850 — the period when property requirements were being dropped — four Northern states disenfranchised African-American voters, and New Jersey halted a 17-year experiment permitting women to vote. During this same period, nine states passed laws excluding “paupers” from political rights.
After Reconstruction, both major political parties attempted to constrict the electorate, albeit in different locales. In the South — as is well known — Democratic state legislatures employed a variety of devices, including literacy tests, poll taxes, “understanding” clauses and, eventually, Democratic primaries restricted to whites. As a result, African-Americans were largely excluded from electoral participation from the 1890s until the 1960s.
In the North, similar, if less draconian, legal changes, generally sponsored by Republicans, targeted (among others) the millions of immigrant workers pouring into the country. In 1921, for example, New York State adopted an English-language literacy requirement for voters that remained in force (and was enforced) for decades. Almost invariably, these new limits on the franchise were fueled by partisan interests and ethnic or racial tensions; they were embraced by respectable Americans, like the eminent historian Francis Parkman, who had come to view universal suffrage as a “questionable blessing.”
Many of the late 19th- and early 20th-century laws operated not by excluding specific classes of citizens but by erecting procedural obstacles that were justified as measures to prevent fraud or corruption. It was to “preserve the purity of the ballot box” that legislatures passed laws requiring voters to bring their sealed naturalization papers to the polls or to present written evidence that they had canceled their registration at any previous address or to register annually, in person, on one of only two Tuesdays.
The new procedures were widely recognized, by both their advocates and their targets, as having a far greater impact on some groups of voters — immigrants, blue-collar workers, the poor — than on others, and they often succeeded. In Pittsburgh in 1906, a personal registration law, sponsored by Republicans to check the influence of a crusading reformer, cut the number of registered voters in half.
In the 1930s, “pauper exclusion” laws were invoked to disenfranchise jobless men and women who were receiving relief. In 2000, Massachusetts disenfranchised prisoners after they formed an organization to promote inmate rights.
The targets of exclusionary laws have tended to be similar for more than two centuries: the poor, immigrants, African-Americans, people perceived to be something other than “mainstream” Americans. No state has ever attempted to disenfranchise upper-middle-class or wealthy white male citizens.
Why can't they wait that long? What else do they have to do?MARTIN: And what about - are the states making any provision to help voters like this who have not previously had IDs...
DADE: Yeah.
MARTIN: ...to get them? Or are interest groups doing that?
DADE: Well, they are. The interest groups are trying to fill in the void of information, where to get the IDs, what kind of do ents you need to get them when you show up so you're not caught unawares.
As far as the states go, they are issuing non-driver voter IDs. Many of them are for free, but the problem is, when you go to Department of Motor Vehicle offices, the waits are very long, they're time consuming. The governor of Tennessee, who's a Republican, by the way - he has expressed concern about the average wait times there, which extend well beyond an hour. And if you're talking about thousands of elderly, in particular, they can't wait that long.
perhaps there's a method that wouldn't exclude hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, but obviously you don't give a about excluding valid voters to solve practically non-existent voter fraud
CC's bank account causes him extreme myopia, where he can't see that old, sick, disabled, no-car people have a hard time make 1,2,3 trips to whatever govt offices to get birth certs, IDs, photos made, etc.
bag, anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-FREEDOM Repugs know they are ed unless they can force govt to intrude into voters lives and dis-enfranchise Ms of Dem voters.
Repugs are ed? I thought the VRWC was un able. Are you suggesting voting actually matters?
I read the articles you posted. It's all excuses. It is not that hard to get a certified copy of a birth certificate if you don't have one and then get a free photo ID. The only thing that would exclude them from voting is being too lazy/unmotivated to get a photo ID.
If you care so much why don't you donate your time to helping them get ID's?
what's your excuse for wanting to disenfranchise the poor, the sick, the elderly and disabled by the truckload? The statistically insignificant incidence of voter fraud ? How pathetic.
you're defending a procedural hurdle that is not only unneeded, but will curtail the most basic right: voting
that's a much bigger deal than voter fraud imho.
It's just an ID! Cry me a ing river...They would only be disenfranchised if they CHOSE to be disenfranchised.
voter ID isn't needed, because voter fraud doesn't threaten US elections. why should we make voting more difficult absent a significant threat to the integrity of elections?
I guess we will choose to disagree about this. I think people should prove who they are before they vote, you don't. You fear that this requirement will cost Democratic votes which is the REAL issue.
If it were Republican voters who stood to lose, my position would be exactly the same. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
