quote:

I agree that school ID's should not be acceptable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I have no issue with "one Citizen, one vote." None. I do believe the key here, though, is "Citizen." It's not one person, one vote. It's one Citizen, one vote.

Thanks to the US Supreme Court, companies and corporations are citizens too! Therefore if your going with the 'One Citizen, one Vote' idea, before you know it, 28,293,294,192,395,302,295,571,205,847,202,111,793,829 corporations suddenly come into existance in all fifty states and terroritories in time for the vote. And if there is a recount, would you REALLY want to have to recound EVERY ONE OF THOSE BALLOTS BY HAND? Yeah, there *IS* a wisdom of setting it to 'One Person, One Vote' (not to mention keeping things serious instead of silly). Since Corporations and companies are NOT considered persons.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Ok folks, this shouldn't be more complicated than it really needs to be. The GOP is pushing for Voter ID. That should be the first clue they are up to no good. These are the same folks that gave us George W. Bush, phantom WMDs and screwed with the regulations that ultimately blew apart both the economy and the good citizens within it. Do I need to mention that they define 'torture' only to be actually torture *IF* "the torturer believes the torturee is actually being tortured!'. In essense, you take someone that hates someone else and they will NEVER think the person they are actually torturing is being tortured. They are also the folks that gave us the 'one step from treason' Tea Party morons with Sarah Palin at its head.

quote:

The idea of having a Voter ID card is actually in direct violation with the 4th Amendment. Every citizen is allowed to vote, PERIOD. They are each given one vote, PERIOD. They state who they are and where they live. If someone objects, its the responsibility and requirement of the objector to state who the person is and/or where the person lives that is in conflict. I know it seems like a weird concept for some of you that a 'person is innocent until proven guilty' also applies with voting. Its a late 18th century concept that has been lost through the years by ignorant masses. A citizen should NOT have to 'Show Their Papers' just to vote. It is up to the objector(s) to show evidence to the local goverment (i.e. the police officer in modern times) that clearly shows the person in question is commiting fraud and should be arrested.

quote:

The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searchs of one's self and property. However, the GOP conviently forgets about this, since it servers their agenda. Citizens should be very wary of a national organization that seeks to tip the balance of power towards shadey and otherwise untruthworthy individuals. Since if a tyrannical goverment was formed from the efforts of conservatives, would those supposive 'gun rights folks' stand up and oppose the goverment they just elected through tricky and crime? Of course not! More likely they wouldnt be even dimly aware of such a thing taking place. They werent aware of even half the bad stuff the previous Republican president did to the nation for eight years....
So getting back to Voter ID. I feel such things are simply a way of removing citizens their ability and right to have the people they want representing them in goverment. These laws (sponsored by the GOP) target individuals whom routinely vote for the Democrats. Since the Republicans consider the Democrats their enemies, they need to do anything and everything to weaken and/or nulify the ability of Democrats to get elected to office. And if that means creating laws that violate the US Constitution, than its 'alright'. Since in order for a citizen to challenge it, would take place well after the election (cus our Supreme Court is 'oh so quick' with handling decisions on many pending cases).

quote:

By the way, how often does voter fraud ACTUALLY take place in EACH state/commonwealth of the country? Is it higher than 10%? That might warrent such laws. But if its less than 5% its simply a waste of taxpayer money chasing an Boogey Man. After all, in each election not even half of eligible voters, show up to the polls and vote. So where is the jusitfication for the waste of money from the very individuals that BITCH THE MOST when money is being wasted?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, tell me, joether, which part of the TEA Party platform do you actually disagree with?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I agree that school ID's should not be acceptable.

Why not?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
In my state, all voting is now by mail. No more polling places and no id required. I have not heard that fraud has been a problem

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

This is a strange distraction for a nation in which too little voting is the actual problem and too much voting the imagined problem. Obviously, this is a naked politcal ploy to reduce the Democratic vote and anyone arguing otherwise is disingenuous. It's like Casablanca; I am shocked to discover there is politcs going on here..LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, tell me, joether, which part of the TEA Party platform do you actually disagree with?

They have a platform? Wouldn't they need, you know, a leader and all that before they could be said to have one of them?

quote:

Ten Core Beliefs of the Modern-Day Tea Party Movement

Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
This is a strange distraction for a nation in which too little voting is the actual problem and too much voting the imagined problem. Obviously, this is a naked politcal ploy to reduce the Democratic vote and anyone arguing otherwise is disingenuous. It's like Casablanca; I am shocked to discover there is politcs going on here..LOL

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Gimme a break. This isn't about voter suppression. You are whining about the law not being aimed at these supposedly disenfranchised groups, and bring in race and socio-economic status. Why? This law applies to them as much as it applies to the others. They have to have their ID's, too, do they not?

Lemme guess...you have no problem with laws aimed at those that earn more, though, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Gimme a break. This isn't about voter suppression. You are whining about the law not being aimed at these supposedly disenfranchised groups, and bring in race and socio-economic status. Why? This law applies to them as much as it applies to the others. They have to have their ID's, too, do they not?
Lemme guess...you have no problem with laws aimed at those that earn more, though, right?

u HAVE a break, ur a younger white Male ,
....look in the mirror mister, u are not in any way the target of this law. u never have under any law have to change ur name, nor have to deal with any of the laws provisions. u are a member of the least likely demographic ANY ID law would apply to. Go figure.
if its not about about voter suppression, its awfully funny that its the functional end result.
And actually no I dont have any problem with a GOOD law that works for everybody.... Voter ID laws dont fit that description.
I DID ask u to....
"find Me anyone who is white and makes upwards of $200K thats going to be affected by this law? .....even $30K?? do I hear $20K? ,.....( insert their silence with sounds of crickets chirping here,...) .....any body white at even a $10K income level??" -
...I see u didnt really answer the question because even u know what the answer is...NONE
....nobody directly called u any names, that I know of...... but if the thought process fits.... (I did call it a fascist law if u want to add any names u might of missed... Just say'n...)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
This is a strange distraction for a nation in which too little voting is the actual problem and too much voting the imagined problem. Obviously, this is a naked politcal ploy to reduce the Democratic vote and anyone arguing otherwise is disingenuous. It's like Casablanca; I am shocked to discover there is politcs going on here..LOL

By "Democratic vote," are you referring to votes for the candidate(s) running in the Democratic Party, or as in the meaning that shares it's root with democracy?

Why do we force Citizens to be 18 before they can vote?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

M asked me this weekend "Why is the Left against needing to show ID to vote?"

I explained that there are far more cases of people being struck by lightening than instances of voter fraud and that the real point of the law is to suppress the vote of people who tend to vote for Democrats, such as students, who we discussed at length. He was surprised to learn so many Wisconsin students - up to 98% at some schools - do not have driver's licenses. (The new voter laws do not accept student IDs.)

I think that people who have had a DL since they were 16 or so have a hard time contemplating life without one.

Lack of ID is also a big problem with the elderly, as discussed earlier in this thread. M thought that state IDs should be free for elderly people who are unable to renew their DL and they should be grandfathered in and not have to show ID such as birth certificates. This would probably work within a state, but when I moved back to MA from FL, I had to show my birth certificate despite having previously held a MA DL and having needed to show it to get my FL DL, which was still valid.

Policy Brief on Voter Identification

* Restrictive voter identification policies - especially those that require state-issued photo ID cards - threaten to exclude millions of eligible voters.
* As many as 10% of eligible voters do not have, and will not get, the documents required by strict voter ID laws. For some groups, the percentage is much higher.
* ID requirements fall hardest on people who have traditionally faced barriers at the polls.
* ID requirements are not justified by any serious or widespread problem.
* There is no reason for states to implement burdensome ID requirements.
* States that do require proof of identity at the polls should permit an expansive range of proof.

Read more: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_voter_identification/

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
M asked me this weekend "Why is the Left against needing to show ID to vote?"
I explained that there are far more cases of people being struck by lightening than instances of voter fraud and that the real point of the law is to suppress the vote of people who tend to vote for Democrats, such as students, who we discussed at length. He was surprised to learn so many Wisconsin students - up to 98% at some schools - do not have driver's licenses. (The new voter laws do not accept student IDs.)

quote:

I think that people who have had a DL since they were 16 or so have a hard time contemplating life without one.
Lack of ID is also a big problem with the elderly, as discussed earlier in this thread. M thought that state IDs should be free for elderly people who are unable to renew their DL and they should be grandfathered in and not have to show ID such as birth certificates. This would probably work within a state, but when I moved back to MA from FL, I had to show my birth certificate despite having previously held a MA DL and having needed to show it to get my FL DL, which was still valid.

quote:

Policy Brief on Voter Identification
* Restrictive voter identification policies - especially those that require state-issued photo ID cards - threaten to exclude millions of eligible voters.
* As many as 10% of eligible voters do not have, and will not get, the documents required by strict voter ID laws. For some groups, the percentage is much higher.
* ID requirements fall hardest on people who have traditionally faced barriers at the polls.
* ID requirements are not justified by any serious or widespread problem.
* There is no reason for states to implement burdensome ID requirements.
* States that do require proof of identity at the polls should permit an expansive range of proof.
Read more: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_voter_identification/

quote:

Not everyone votes in presidential elections. There are several ways to calculate voter turnout figures for an election, but in 2004, for example, experts estimate that only about 55% to 60% of the eligible voting population actually voted. (That's actually higher than was true in the 2000 election.)

When we interview a typical Gallup Poll random sample, we are estimating the responses of all adults 18 years of age and older. We call these national adults. In our recent poll conducted the weekend of Sept. 5-7, for example, John McCain led Barack Obama among these national adults by a 48% to 46% margin.

But we almost never report this figure. It's unrealistic to do so because we know that a percentage of these national adults not only won't vote, but can't vote -- because they are not U.S. citizens or are not registered to vote in their local areas.

So we narrow down the national adult sample to registered voters. This is the group who in response to a standard poll question say they are "registered to vote in their precinct or election district." This is the group whose data we report most often, because it represents an estimate of Americans who in theory are eligible to vote and could vote if they want to. In the Sept. 5-7 poll, this group divided 50% for McCain and 46% for Obama.

Of course, we know that in the final analysis, not all of these registered voters will actually end up voting. So Gallup has over the years created systems to isolate likely voters, that group of individuals who we can estimate are most likely to actually turn out and vote.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
This is a strange distraction for a nation in which too little voting is the actual problem and too much voting the imagined problem. Obviously, this is a naked politcal ploy to reduce the Democratic vote and anyone arguing otherwise is disingenuous. It's like Casablanca; I am shocked to discover there is politcs going on here..LOL

By "Democratic vote," are you referring to votes for the candidate(s) running in the Democratic Party, or as in the meaning that shares it's root with democracy?
Why do we force Citizens to be 18 before they can vote?

The 'D' was capital thus signifying votes for the political party. Moreover, that is the meaning implied by the context. I do not understand the question. We do not force anything and I think minimum voting ages have obvious justifications.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)