Red1966
Well-Known Member
No, he was just lying. You know how he is.
Kochs Try To Register Cat To Vote..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
Looks like a proper ID is $25.00
You can get one at age 5.
I really don't think that is an outrageous amount to spend.
Not sure but those on "programs" surely get them for free.
State-issued identification cards are a handy resource if you do not, or are not old enough to, carry a driver's license. DMV.org has gathered the information you'll need to apply for an ID in your state.
Having some form of photo ID is critical in our world today; you need to be able to prove you are who you say you are in many situations. You'll need a picture ID to board an airplane, get a job, set up bank accounts, and in order to make certain purchases.
Click around DMV.org to learn the documentation you'll need to apply for an ID card, which forms to fill out, where to apply, how long IDs are valid, and the costs involved to get one.
Some states even allow you to renew your ID online, so be sure to check out those links, too.
http://www.dmv.org/id-cards.php
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
The way it stands, if I (a foreigner) was to be in your town on Election Day and had your name and SSN I could vote on your behalf.
Does that make any sense?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
in order to get a photo ID you need a Birth certificate, in order to get a birth certificate you need a photo ID
add in the cost of transportation
Offices only open during business hours (your screwed unless you take a day off
DMVs being shut down on Saturdays
Wait times on the mail
There is no voter fraud problem. This is just an attack on voting becuase the Republicunts have figured out they do poorly when more people vote
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Lol, why would Democrats need time off work?
If the sample here is representative, none of them work.
Yeah the fudging was over the top which is why I quit responding....
Doer
Well-Known Member
Did you not even read what I so carefully posted for you?
You cannot vote on my behalf with a SSN.
You just need my name and address. SSN is a financial ID and not something we use as voter ID. There is no voter ID.
You can vote for me, anytime you want, and will be right for me whatever your choice. It is only one vote and the next person to vote against cancels yours (stolen from me) out.
This is why it doesn't matter unless the voter pool was very small. If it was small, however, you could not steal my vote. Everyone would know I am not that butt ugly as how you showed up.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Let say you were in an underprivileged part of a County. Lets say "out in the sticks." But, that could be in the top of a walk up tenement building, OK? You have no money but the church takes care of you somewhat. They know who you are.
You are old, sick, and black, but quite happy to be an American. Served in Korea, let's say. Do you have a computer? Hell no. Telephone? No. Car? License? You haven't driven in years. Voter? HELL YES!!
Now look at the income distribution in America and tell me this is not a very large portion of voters. The idea that you have to be taxed to vote is where this came from, you know? Poll tax. Forcing this Korea Vet that can hardly get around to go the DMV and present a birth certificate he may not even have or any records he may not even have is not LEGAL in this country.
Last edited:
it also assists the states bottomline on so many levels that im sure somehow, someway there could be funds to assist those who are now required to show photo ID and cannot afford to do so..if you want to impose something on someone that never existed in order to excercise their god-given right to vote?..states need to pay for it.
N&N love your "let them eat cake" approach to the conundrum
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Want a really good example?
Out of state college students living on campus.
They are legal residents of the state, they are entitled to vote. but they need proper ID. There out of state Iicense doesnt qualify and neither does their student ID. So it is either go home for one day during the school week or get a new Wisconsin ID which of course is open during the time they should be in class and cost money.
What do you think the from out of state college student is going to do ?
Not vote.
And people not voting helps the Republican party
Like someone else mentioned. If Voting was mandatory.
The Republicans would get kicked out of office
Out of state college students living on campus.
They are legal residents of the state, they are entitled to vote. but they need proper ID. There out of state Iicense doesnt qualify and neither does their student ID. So it is either go home for one day during the school week or get a new Wisconsin ID which of course is open during the time they should be in class and cost money.
What do you think the from out of state college student is going to do ?
Not vote.
And people not voting helps the Republican party
Like someone else mentioned. If Voting was mandatory.
The Republicans would get kicked out of office
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
No you couldnt.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Since 2011, Republican lawmakers in swing states have pushed hard for new restrictions on voting, from voter identification to new rules on early voting and ballot access. “Nine states have passed measures making it harder to vote since the beginning of 2013,” notes the New York Times, and other states “are considering mandating proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or passport, after a federal judge recently upheld such laws passed in Arizona and Kansas.”
Jamelle Bouie
Jamelle Bouie is a Slate staff writer covering politics, policy, and race.
Voting rights advocates have attacked these laws as blatant attempts to suppress the votes of low-income and minority voters, but Republicans defend their actions as justified to protect “voter integrity” and ensure “fairness” and “uniformity” in the system. Here’s Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman on a bill—signed last week by Gov. Scott Walker—to end early voting on weekends. “Every city on election day has voting from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The idea that some communities should have weekend or night voting is obviously unfair,” he said. “It’s a matter of uniformity. I don’t know what all the hoopla is over,” he told Reuters.
The fact that some communities have a greater demand for voting than others reduces Grothman’s logic to obvious nonsense. To wit, under the constraints established by the new law, voters in the cities and large suburbs of Wisconsin are at a disadvantage compared to their rural counterparts. For example, Republicans have limited total early voting time to 45 hours during the week. In order to accommodate the number of early voters in 2012 under that time limit, explained Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, you’d have to have a voter cast a ballot every nine seconds. Areas with fewer voters, of course, would have an easier time.
a recent paper from Keith G. Bentele and Erin E. O’Brien, there’s a clear pattern to the incidence of voter restrictions. States that elected Republican governors, increased their share of Republican lawmakers, or became more electorally competitive under Republicans were more likely to pass voter identification and other limits on the franchise. The same was true for states with “unencumbered Republican majorities” and large black populations—they were especially likely to pass restrictive measures. Not out of racial animus, but because African-Americans are a reliable Democratic constituency.
It’s clear that these laws are driven by partisanship—an effort to manipulate the rules of elections to blunt the impact of demographic change on Republican prospects. It explains why North Carolina Republicans coupled their push for voter ID with an assault on student voting (closing precincts near colleges and universities and blocking students from running for office) which leans Democratic. Indeed, partisan voter suppression is Texas Attorney General Greg Abott’s defense against allegations of racial discrimination with its new voting law. “The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations,” wrote Abott in a brief, “and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary.”
Republican voter suppression might not be an explicit attempt to target low-income and minority voters, but as far as effects go, it doesn’t matter either way. The outcome is still one where minorities and low-income Americans have a harder time at the polls.
It should be said that none of this is new. Most Americans are familiar with race-based voter suppression—the poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses of Jim Crow—but those are part of a larger history of partisan voter suppression that stretches back to the early 19th century. After a flood of Irish immigrants tipped the electoral scales and threatened Whig electoral prospects in New York, observes Alexander Keyssar in his book The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, Whig lawmakers rushed to pass tough new registration rules for New York City, which contained the largest concentration of Irish voters. What’s more, in states like Missouri, Maryland, and Indiana, Know-Nothing and Whig lawmakers sought to delay voting rights for naturalized citizens, fearing the political consequences of large-scale immigrant enfranchisement.
This fear wouldn’t go away, and would become a preoccupation of Republican lawmakers in the Northeast. In the late 1880s, for instance, New Jersey Republicans pushed a measure that would have required naturalized citizens to have their naturalization papers when voting—a precursor, of sorts, to voter ID. “A sad feature” of New Jersey’s requirement, noted the New York Herald, “was that many persons will be deprived of their vote, as their papers are either worn out, lost, or mislaid.” It’s a worry that should sound familiar to anyone concerned about the impact of a strict ID requirement for voting.
Today’s voter suppression is the clear echo of a familiar past, where an earlier generation of American politicians worked to adjust to immigration, racial change, and newly competitive elections.
Jamelle Bouie
Jamelle Bouie is a Slate staff writer covering politics, policy, and race.
Voting rights advocates have attacked these laws as blatant attempts to suppress the votes of low-income and minority voters, but Republicans defend their actions as justified to protect “voter integrity” and ensure “fairness” and “uniformity” in the system. Here’s Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman on a bill—signed last week by Gov. Scott Walker—to end early voting on weekends. “Every city on election day has voting from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The idea that some communities should have weekend or night voting is obviously unfair,” he said. “It’s a matter of uniformity. I don’t know what all the hoopla is over,” he told Reuters.
The fact that some communities have a greater demand for voting than others reduces Grothman’s logic to obvious nonsense. To wit, under the constraints established by the new law, voters in the cities and large suburbs of Wisconsin are at a disadvantage compared to their rural counterparts. For example, Republicans have limited total early voting time to 45 hours during the week. In order to accommodate the number of early voters in 2012 under that time limit, explained Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, you’d have to have a voter cast a ballot every nine seconds. Areas with fewer voters, of course, would have an easier time.
a recent paper from Keith G. Bentele and Erin E. O’Brien, there’s a clear pattern to the incidence of voter restrictions. States that elected Republican governors, increased their share of Republican lawmakers, or became more electorally competitive under Republicans were more likely to pass voter identification and other limits on the franchise. The same was true for states with “unencumbered Republican majorities” and large black populations—they were especially likely to pass restrictive measures. Not out of racial animus, but because African-Americans are a reliable Democratic constituency.
It’s clear that these laws are driven by partisanship—an effort to manipulate the rules of elections to blunt the impact of demographic change on Republican prospects. It explains why North Carolina Republicans coupled their push for voter ID with an assault on student voting (closing precincts near colleges and universities and blocking students from running for office) which leans Democratic. Indeed, partisan voter suppression is Texas Attorney General Greg Abott’s defense against allegations of racial discrimination with its new voting law. “The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations,” wrote Abott in a brief, “and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary.”
Republican voter suppression might not be an explicit attempt to target low-income and minority voters, but as far as effects go, it doesn’t matter either way. The outcome is still one where minorities and low-income Americans have a harder time at the polls.
It should be said that none of this is new. Most Americans are familiar with race-based voter suppression—the poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses of Jim Crow—but those are part of a larger history of partisan voter suppression that stretches back to the early 19th century. After a flood of Irish immigrants tipped the electoral scales and threatened Whig electoral prospects in New York, observes Alexander Keyssar in his book The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, Whig lawmakers rushed to pass tough new registration rules for New York City, which contained the largest concentration of Irish voters. What’s more, in states like Missouri, Maryland, and Indiana, Know-Nothing and Whig lawmakers sought to delay voting rights for naturalized citizens, fearing the political consequences of large-scale immigrant enfranchisement.
This fear wouldn’t go away, and would become a preoccupation of Republican lawmakers in the Northeast. In the late 1880s, for instance, New Jersey Republicans pushed a measure that would have required naturalized citizens to have their naturalization papers when voting—a precursor, of sorts, to voter ID. “A sad feature” of New Jersey’s requirement, noted the New York Herald, “was that many persons will be deprived of their vote, as their papers are either worn out, lost, or mislaid.” It’s a worry that should sound familiar to anyone concerned about the impact of a strict ID requirement for voting.
Today’s voter suppression is the clear echo of a familiar past, where an earlier generation of American politicians worked to adjust to immigration, racial change, and newly competitive elections.
let me throw one more thing into the mix..the poll people MOVE the polls from school to an area NOT within walking distance and to do so would be to walk along a narrow road where no sidewalks exists just to get to the polls:
North Carolina Republicans Escalate Attack On Student Voting
http://www.thenation.com/blog/175837/north-carolina-republicans-escalate-attack-student-voting#
my current fave these days is Red Velvet cake..nom! nom!
Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.
~GOP House Leader Mike Turzai
~GOP House Leader Mike Turzai
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
A cat got some info regarding registering to vote? That's pretty funny.
I laughed when Acorn employees turned in registration cards for Mickey Mouse and the starting 22 for the Dallas Cowboys(in Ohio lol) as well.
I wonder if anyone has tried to register Space Ghost?
I laughed when Acorn employees turned in registration cards for Mickey Mouse and the starting 22 for the Dallas Cowboys(in Ohio lol) as well.
I wonder if anyone has tried to register Space Ghost?
