Uhhh, no.

Not if that means getting an ID. It changes the rules and excludes a very certain demographic from voting, for no good reason other than tilting the vote in a particular flavor. It's not complicated. It's evil. Stop changing the rules that don't need to be changed. There is no fraudulent voting of any scale that makes changing these rules necessary. The line of thinking that there is fraud that must be fixed by requiring IDs is a lie. Plain and simple. That lie is created to make it harder for a certain demographic to place a vote. That benefits the people that are continuing the lie. This isn't complicated.

I'm easy to convince that IDs are necessary. Just show me where the actual fraud is that these rules will protect us from. Certainly you would agree, that given the amount of energy put into these ID laws, that if there was wide scale voter ID fraud that was swinging elections that it would be pretty easy to detect and show. Nobody has been able to do that - why? It's a lie.

Yup. If you marked it wrong, you "spoil" that one and get a new one (subject to a max of 3 tries).

If it won't go in the scantron (keeps getting pushed back) you get to keep trying until it works (the voter is the only one handling the ballot). But once accepted your vote is "cast" and you are done.


On the privacy at home voting thing, you have an envelope for the ballot that goes in the mailing envelope. So I guess you could vote your conscience and then seal it up so your spouse can't get eyes on it...

and good point Jake.

If you didn't see earlier our state's voter registration form doesn't require any ID other than knowing your SSN.

These forms are available on the web, libraries, at any election/driver license office, and are handed out on a regular basis by any political activity group.

So perhaps that might ease (or eliminate) the "poll tax" argument.

Although you do have to mail your ballot which is something like $0.60 now?

Agreed. I'm done here. Hopefully this dies faster than the drill thread.

I respect that there are those here with a different opinion on this topic than mine. Hopefully the feeling is mutual.

Mike

Nope... no pass... on the can't we just set aside our differences of opinion.

Mike, were it just a benign difference of opinion....
take a difference of opinion on war and peace... while in no way inconsequential, is ... just a difference of opinion. (I can respect your differing opinion and be done with it. Agree to disagree and all that... I will buy you a beer) You and I don't have any responsibility in that debate. War and peace is not a constitutional issue at the core of democracy.

We have a constitutional democracy which has over the years corrected itself to reflect our American Ideal with respect to citizenship and voting. We pledge allegiance to the constitution and we take responsibility as citizens to honor, preserve and protect the constitution and the rights that it bestows. George Washington and the other founders spoke about our interdependence in our democracy. So... at stake are the rights of other citizens to vote.

Yes, you have an opinion as to these voter photo id laws and their impact on some citizens in the country. I respect that part... However, unlike a difference of opinion on war and peace, etc. I ask you to consider your responsibility as a citizen to honor and uphold the constitution. Will you test your opinion against the reality? What facts do you have that voter photo ID laws are not taking away some people's constitutional rights? What facts of jake's do you discount?

See Jake's last post and address the facts as a responsible citizen.... Not just a citizen with opinions.

Remember, The civil war was not a difference of opinion... it was a constitutional crisis. Richard Nixon precipitated a constitutional crisis when he fired all of those people at justice (separation of powers). These were not just differences of opinion. Citizens had the responsibility to resolve the issue. (eg slavery/secession and the president must obey the law)

Trumps pretty powerful, with one tweet that the new fighter was no good, he got our parliament to start looking for a new fighter

bump, more sailing threads if you want this one gone

Why am I so fired up about just an "opinion" about what is at the core of a democratic republic, "voting rights".

George Bush's speech writer, Michael Gerson, wrote this this AM.



Voting Rights are fundamental to America... We have a responsibility to protect them by debunking the noise that fuels "opinion" and remind everyone that citizen is the most powerful position in a democracy and with citizenship comes responsibility (cribbed bits from current AG).

the one with audio is much better ;-)

Only 3 more days until MAGA

I had to clarify my earlier posts that photo ID is only required to vote in person.

A photo ID is NOT required to register to vote (or vote by mail) in my state.

See below, I had to steal Jake's coding to get it to load, thanks Jake.

I like this one better still...but...

"I am not talking about the pee pee!"

Only 2 more days to go until MAGA

Is this really the best you guys could come up with?
He didn't even know how many countries make up Europe (something that a US president really should know IMO).

He is also becoming aware that companies are using him to recycle their old business news for cheap PR (companies don't do $1B investments decisions in a week).

Ya see Tony facts and intelligence are no longer relevant. Trump has promised to make white people great again and that's all that matters so anything Trump says or does is acceptable because it's all part of the plan to make Merica white and christian the way god intended!

#peepeeparty #grabthembythepussy

300 million people and Trump and Clinton were our only choices... yes it is pretty sad...

This was an opportunity for a third party to really shine and what did they do with their candidates... shinola comes to mind.

ah... now we are back to matters of opinion.. If you are a fan of 3rd parties... are you also in favor of a parliamentary system?

assuming the answer is no... as a practical matter... How would anything get done in our system with a third party president... with NO politicians of his side in the two legislative branches.. (This sounds like obama talking about hope and change in changing politics.... Nope!)


We have a two party system because that is what tends to work. Hell, Washington worried about parties given the design of the country ... The system is designed to be a FORCED CHOICE and to AMPLIFY small differences of opinion into a governing action. and it has a but.... The election is a forced choice... It's A or B.... and if you don't vote or vote third party...ONE of them wins... The system is designed to force a clear decision but over time ... that is the BUT. in two years... you get to vote in 1/3 of senate and all of the house. So that is why you build it with a forced choice. The idea is to get /force government actions and slow your roll.

Hating both candidates is unusual ... but in our system... you vote for one of them. If you don't... and then try to claim some non existent high ground... of ... a third party would have been better.... and then hating both of those guys... not to mention other people on the ballot. probably means you need to rethink how you vote in the two party system we have. Voting is not a beauty contest... its a forced choice. One of them will win. Doesn't matter if you like the choices... One of them will win.