New G.O.P. Bid to Limit Voting in Swing States - Page 14 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #**196** 04-04-2014, 08:39 AM

We have a liquor sales law in my state which limits the sale to people aged 18 and over.

If eligibility is not checked how would we know whether the law is working?

Jim B. · #**197** 04-04-2014, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

We have a liquor sales law in my state which limits the sale to people aged 18 and over.

If eligibility is not checked how would we know whether the law is working?

It must feel very nice to live in a state of certainty

MTI · #**198** 04-04-2014, 01:11 PM

Yes, there's little to no underage drinkin' in Louisiana . . that's for sure . . .

MTI · #**199** 04-04-2014, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that you didn't understand the post you quoted at all.......

Investigate, build a case, get an indictment and prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.... Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Some of us would prefer to allow that process to take place before passing judgement.

All your arguments are showing is that you are faithfully toting the republican party line. Guess all your protestations about partisanship only apply when it's the other side....

Yes, I wasn't sure how to respond to the post. There was a police investigation into the break in. I seem to also recall the name Archibald Cox as special prosecutor . . Judge Sirica . . .

MS Fowler · #**200** 04-04-2014, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Yes, I wasn't sure how to respond to the post. There was a police investigation into the break in. I seem to also recall the name Archibald Cox as special prosecutor . . Judge Sirica . . .

Yes, all that happened, but it didn't START with that Special Prosecutor. Woodward and Bernstein got a tip, and investigated, and published their results/ allegations BEFORE there was any Court action.

How is the report of massive voter fraud not like that? It starts with an allegation, and people investigate, and if they turn up something of substance, THEN it goes the Court route.

Would you prefer that no one investigated into the allegations of voter fraud?

MTI · #**201** 04-04-2014, 06:52 PM

What version of history are you following? The security guard at the Watergate called the cops. Five guys were arrested and indicted. The FBI found Hunt's name in the arrested guys address book. The FBI also had evidence of money coming from the committee to re-elect . . . W&B were getting warmed up at that point.

cmbdiesel · #**202** 04-04-2014, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Yes, all that happened, but it didn't START with that Special Prosecutor. Woodward and Bernstein got a tip, and investigated, and published their results/ allegations BEFORE there was any Court action.

How is the report of massive voter fraud not like that? It starts with an allegation, and people investigate, and if they turn up something of substance, THEN it goes the Court route.

Would you prefer that no one investigated into the allegations of voter fraud?

I would prefer if folks wouldn't present these allegations of voter fraud as solid proof before investigating.

Jorn · #**203** 04-04-2014, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Yes, all that happened, but it didn't START with that Special Prosecutor. Woodward and Bernstein got a tip, and investigated, and published their results/ allegations BEFORE there was any Court action.

How is the report of massive voter fraud not like that? It starts with an allegation, and people investigate, and if they turn up something of substance, THEN it goes the Court route.

Would you prefer that no one investigated into the allegations of voter fraud?

The only difference is that Watergate started with the mainstream media (Washington Post) going after the government and OP's posted report is one made by the government (at state level). Doesn't look like the same to me.

MS Fowler · #**204** 04-04-2014, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

The only difference is that Watergate started with the mainstream media (Washington Post) going after the government and OP's posted report is one made by the government (at state level). Doesn't look like the same to me.

Would you allow time to see what develops, or are you not even interested.

This should NOT be a partisan issue.

One more incident of voter fraud, I think pretty much universally recognized... In 1960, the Democrat machine in Chicago gave the election to JFK. I believe Nixon was advised that he would likely win if he protested, but he declined saying he did not want to put the country through that kind of a crisis.

It has happened. If we do nothing, it will happen again. Maybe next time it will be the "other" party that wins by fraud.

Jorn · #**205** 04-04-2014, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Would you allow time to see what develops, or are you not even interested.

This should NOT be a partisan issue.

One more incident of voter fraud, I think pretty much universally recognized... In 1960, the Democrat machine in Chicago gave the election to JFK. I believe Nixon was advised that he would likely win if he protested, but he declined saying he did not want to put the country through that kind of a crisis.

It has happened. If we do nothing, it will happen again. Maybe next time it will be the "other" party that wins by fraud.

I don't trust the government like you and some others around here seem to do. If the government comes out with a study that fits their political objective I get really sceptic.

INSIDIOUS · #**206** 04-04-2014, 10:06 PM

2004? Who won?

t walgamuth · #**207** 04-04-2014, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Would you allow time to see what develops, or are you not even interested.

This should NOT be a partisan issue.

One more incident of voter fraud, I think pretty much universally recognized... In 1960, the Democrat machine in Chicago gave the election to JFK. I believe Nixon was advised that he would likely win if he protested, but he declined saying he did not want to put the country through that kind of a crisis.

It has happened. If we do nothing, it will happen again. Maybe next time it will be the "other" party that wins by fraud.

Ha hah! Nixon did not protest because he was cheating somewhere else just as badly! I always suspected that but it was revealed by a Nixon insider recently in a book.

Jorn · #**208** 04-04-2014, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Ha hah! Nixon did not protest because he was cheating somewhere else just as badly! I always suspected that but it was revealed by a Nixon insider recently in a book.

Yeah, but Nixon was a liberal, what else do you expect?

4x4_Welder · #**209** 04-05-2014, 04:10 AM

Can someone show me how requiring an ID to vote gives a negative effect to the "poor"? I have to pay for all my own stuff, the supposed "poor" people seem to refer to here get a debit card loaded with my tax money. Requiring extra ID would be more of a burden for working people, as they would have to take time away from being productive to get this ID.
People act like the evil republicans are wanting to put a cover charge on the polling places-

cmbdiesel · #**210** 04-05-2014, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4x4_Welder

Can someone show me how requiring an ID to vote gives a negative effect to the "poor"? I have to pay for all my own stuff, the supposed "poor" people seem to refer to here get a debit card loaded with my tax money. Requiring extra ID would be more of a burden for working people, as they would have to take time away from being productive to get this ID.
People act like the evil republicans are wanting to put a cover charge on the polling places-

Do try and keep up, and possibly even read the thread title...

Although there are many issues involving the mechanics of republican sponsored voter ID laws, we have been discussing voter suppression laws which go beyond the seemingly popular idea of requiring ID to vote.

You are apparently following the republican lead perfectly, as they have you convinced that anyone opposing every one of their voter suppression attempts is against showing an ID to vote. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Laws which deny using welfare ID or Student ID are a couple examples I feel are not fair.
Laws which require birth certificates from previously acceptable voters who do not have a birth certificate fall into the same category.

The R's have done a masterful job of entwining their voter suppression and gerrymandering efforts into the larger debate about voter ID.
- Cutting early voting times is not a voter ID issue.
- Redrawing districts to eliminate minority representation is not a voter ID issue
- Restricting voter registration drives is not a voter ID issue
- Requiring ID which cannot be gotten at no cost to the recipient is not a voter ID issue
- Eliminating same day registration is not a voter ID issue
- Limiting the number of polling places is not a voter ID issue

Please feel free to explain how any of the aforementioned issues (all of which are being put forward now by R's) have anything to do with improving the legitimacy of our election process, or with showing an ID.