Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    89,604
    It would be nice if all that was require was an ID to vote, but here lies the problem. In order to get that ID, they make you run through hoops, their has been many cases in which people simply could not get the ID required for many reasons and it mostly is because they are poor.

    Then the best part is that they will cut down the number of polling places were many of these people live and not everybody has the patience or method of transportation to make to these places on a working day.

    Many churches and other organization have drive the elderly to the polling place and this is where the old rumor that people get bussed from outer state to illegally vote comes from.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,514
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'd be OK with voter ID laws if they were done along with these other initiatives, but it'd have to be strictly controlled.

    First, you'd have to specify a timeline in excess of 2 years prior to implementation of the law to allow people to get the word out and to get the new IDs.

    Second, Anyone who doesn't have an ID should be allowed to get a voting ID for free from the government (otherwise, it's in essence a poll tax).

    Third, There should be a special government registry office to assist those that don't have proper documentation to get voting ID laws.


    If we are going to make people have to show an ID to vote the government should be responsible for giving all it's citizens an ID.
    To me this is the way to go if people want to require ID's to vote. I don't really care a ton on this issue as I don't see it as a major problem/issue atm but think if we wanna require ID's they must be freely available.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Raider_Mackin View Post
    Bull **** but to be expected.
    you're going to have to explain further. if the intent is to make sure that only those that are eligible to register/vote and the actual people registering/voting, then what is the problem?






    Quote Originally Posted by Raider_Mackin View Post
    Because there is no widespread fraud to regain with and why add a extra loophole when it is not needed? Regardless of how many support it (republican propaganda b's caused this btw) iis a sham and not needed.

    Please support something that franchises more instead of limiting. There are many more glaring issues to tackle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raider_Mackin View Post
    BS about not a attempt to disenfranchise. We are not talking about the issues you mentioned above we are speaking of voting.

    What don't you understand? THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH VOTER FRUAD! MANY STATES HAVE MAIL IN BALOTS! NO NEED TO ADD A EXTRA LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY TO A NON EXAISTANT PROBLEM! THIS IS A ATTEMPT TO DISINFRANCHISE PEOPLE!

    Also.I.don't get carded when buying cigs or alcohol and the person behind the counter makes a good judgement call on my 45 year old face. I have never had to show ID for a bus pass. And voting causes no momatry gain on a individual level to draw on. Your analogies have no sway.

    yet there was just a person convicted and sentenced to prison because he was registering dead people as Democrats. that is voter fraud. look up Andrew J Spiels.







    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Right there you are restricting some demographics from voting ... as soon as you say that some people who can legally vote will opt out to keep government scrutiny from their doorstep.

    It's a sticky thing because logic seems to say that it's a no brainer to require an ID to vote, but doing so means a lot of people won't vote and those people are disproportionately likely to vote Democrat.
    why did you bold "citizens"? the only people that should be voting/be eligible to vote are actual American citizens.



  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK:31849948
    Quote Originally Posted by Raider_Mackin View Post
    Bull **** but to be expected.
    you're going to have to explain further. if the intent is to make sure that only those that are eligible to register/vote and the actual people registering/voting, then what is the problem?






    Quote Originally Posted by Raider_Mackin View Post
    Because there is no widespread fraud to regain with and why add a extra loophole when it is not needed? Regardless of how many support it (republican propaganda b's caused this btw) iis a sham and not needed.

    Please support something that franchises more instead of limiting. There are many more glaring issues to tackle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raider_Mackin View Post
    BS about not a attempt to disenfranchise. We are not talking about the issues you mentioned above we are speaking of voting.

    What don't you understand? THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH VOTER FRUAD! MANY STATES HAVE MAIL IN BALOTS! NO NEED TO ADD A EXTRA LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY TO A NON EXAISTANT PROBLEM! THIS IS A ATTEMPT TO DISINFRANCHISE PEOPLE!

    Also.I.don't get carded when buying cigs or alcohol and the person behind the counter makes a good judgement call on my 45 year old face. I have never had to show ID for a bus pass. And voting causes no momatry gain on a individual level to draw on. Your analogies have no sway.

    yet there was just a person convicted and sentenced to prison because he was registering dead people as Democrats. that is voter fraud. look up Andrew J Spiels.







    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Right there you are restricting some demographics from voting ... as soon as you say that some people who can legally vote will opt out to keep government scrutiny from their doorstep.

    It's a sticky thing because logic seems to say that it's a no brainer to require an ID to vote, but doing so means a lot of people won't vote and those people are disproportionately likely to vote Democrat.
    why did you bold "citizens"? the only people that should be voting/be eligible to vote are actual American citizens.
    Once again it is not a wide spread problem. You can find a occasional instance but nothing that merits a extra layer of government regulation added. Recent or not it happens very far and few in between.

    Also please provide your own links of there is something you want me and others to view.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    75,508
    Remember when limited government conservatives were for limited government. Pepperidge Farm remembers.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    89,604
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Remember when limited government conservatives were for limited government. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
    Only when it suits them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that some people will not vote because of fears of divulging information to the government? I'm not sure how these people are voting currently if that is the case.

    If I misunderstood, I apologize. Can you clarify?
    From what I've read, people who are legal US citizens often don't vote because they feel registering to vote will bring scrutiny to their house and family which may include illegals. Every further restriction results in fewer people registering.

    But again, I don't really see any simple solution. We need to make it 1 citizen 1 vote and we need to make it as easy as possible and the two are in opposition.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Remember when limited government conservatives were for limited government. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
    Before Bush 1.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Raider_Mackin View Post
    Once again it is not a wide spread problem. You can find a occasional instance but nothing that merits a extra layer of government regulation added. Recent or not it happens very far and few in between.

    Also please provide your own links of there is something you want me and others to view.
    what would be considered wide spread? multiple places across America have had problems with more registered voters than actual voters. that is a definition of voter fraud. I have posted about multiple incidents in the voter fraud thread.

    I have talked about Andrew J Spiels before in the actual voter fraud thread, but here it is again.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ers/ar-BBDmi7r
    Student Gets Prison Term for Registering Dead People as Democratic Voters
    that is literally voter fraud.

    I also recently posted about a problem in New Jersey.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...a-suggest.html
    Out-of-staters may have won New Hampshire for Clinton, data suggest



  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,619
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    what would be considered wide spread? multiple places across America have had problems with more registered voters than actual voters. that is a definition of voter fraud. I have posted about multiple incidents in the voter fraud thread.

    I have talked about Andrew J Spiels before in the actual voter fraud thread, but here it is again.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ers/ar-BBDmi7r

    that is literally voter fraud.

    I also recently posted about a problem in New Jersey.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...a-suggest.html
    No that isn't, that is because people do not dis-enroll themselves from the voting registries for a particular state when they move.

    The New Jersey "problem" was already answered. New Jersey allows people who are going to school in New Jersey to vote with out of state ID.

    Do you have any proof that anyone in New Jersey voted illegally?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    No that isn't, that is because people do not dis-enroll themselves from the voting registries for a particular state when they move.

    The New Jersey "problem" was already answered. New Jersey allows people who are going to school in New Jersey to vote with out of state ID.

    Do you have any proof that anyone in New Jersey voted illegally?
    I covered what voter fraud is in the voter fraud thread here..
    http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...9#post31735699

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politi...ned/index.html
    What is voter fraud?
    Voter fraud can be many things. Examples include:

    -Paying people to vote for a certain candidate
    -Voting multiple times in a federal election or impersonating a voter
    -Registering to vote or voting when a person is not eligible because of felony (this depends on the state) or lack of US citizenship
    -Lying on a voter registration card with a false name, address or period of residence
    -Intimidating voters physically or economically
    -Malfeasance by election officials

    I just covered a person convicted for voter fraud in registering dead people as Democrats.

    the issue in New Jersey should be investigated, which should be the purpose of the voter fraud commission.



  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,619
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I covered what voter fraud is in the voter fraud thread here..

    http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...9#post31735699

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politi...ned/index.html

    I just covered a person convicted for voter fraud in registering dead people as Democrats.

    the issue in New Jersey should be investigated, which should be the purpose of the voter fraud commission.
    I know you did, but voting with an out of state ID card is not one of the listed criteria of voter fraud. So again, what proof have you that the New Jersey issue is voter fraud?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I know you did, but voting with an out of state ID card is not one of the listed criteria of voter fraud. So again, what proof have you that the New Jersey issue is voter fraud?
    I misspoke, it was New Hampshire and not New Jersey.
    we already had this conversation.

    http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...7#post31840567

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...a-suggest.html

    The figures obtained by Jasper, however, reveal the potential abuse of the voting procedure. According to the data, 6,540 people registered to vote, and voted in the New Hampshire election, provided just out-of-state license.

    Only 15 percent, roughly about 1,014 of the voters, have since obtained the in-state license, while 200 other people had since registered a vehicle in the state.

    Despite New Hampshire law mandating that drivers acquire a state driving license within 60 days of becoming a resident in the state, more than 80 percent of people who registered to vote with out-of-state licenses still had not received their in-state license or registered a new vehicle nearly 10 months after the election.

    In addition, 196 people were under investigation for voting in two states.



  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    No that isn't, that is because people do not dis-enroll themselves from the voting registries for a particular state when they move.

    The New Jersey "problem" was already answered. New Jersey allows people who are going to school in New Jersey to vote with out of state ID.

    Do you have any proof that anyone in New Jersey voted illegally?
    I voted illegally in the state I moved from because I was not able to register in my new state in time. But I only voted once. My intent was not fraud, just to have my vote counted, but strictly speaking I think I broke the law.
    Last edited by Scoots; 09-15-2017 at 09:30 AM.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,619
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I misspoke, it was New Hampshire and not New Jersey.
    we already had this conversation.

    http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...7#post31840567

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...a-suggest.html
    And yet you still haven't given me an answer. According to your own list of what constitutes voter fraud, voting with an out of state license is not voter fraud. So what proof do you have of voter fraud?

    I also want to point out some statistics:

    Of the 6,540 people who voted in the New Hampshire election with out of state licenses, only 196 are under investigation for voting in 2 states.

    There were 743,117 votes for President in the 2016 election. That means that .0002% of the votes are under investigation for voter fraud. Clinton won the State by over 3,000 votes by the way, so even if all 196 under investigation are found to be voter fraud, it would change nothing.

    So Special is *****ing about a problem that potentially might affected .0002% of the votes.
    Last edited by valade16; 09-15-2017 at 11:35 AM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •