1 edit
@mike69 saidWe already have "safe, honest elections".
Well we have grown, many more ways to cheat, why don’t you want safe honest elections for all? I have some ideas!
Making it more difficult to vote for tens of millions of citizens because they don't vote like you want isn't a "reform".
By now, right wingers know that SAVE isn't going to pass, so what they are doing is to try to undermine the upcoming elections so that when they lose they can scream "Cheat!" for partisan purposes though they'll have no evidence to support such an inflammatory claim.
@no1marauder saidI don't need to b sarcastic to top your every post. This is a top of your post.
Your post, as usual. makes no sense.
I see nothing in the Constitution saying what "proofs" the States must use when running their elections.
Maybe you could dig that out for me.
But you have to follow me,..... The constitution does not say what proof a state must use to establish age, residency, or identity either. Yet every state verifies those things in some manner. Why should your citizenship be the only voting qualification that cannot verified?
For that matter, it doesn't specify how the ballots are printed, how voter rolls or maintain or how polling places are operated. All it establishes is who may vote and everything else is left to the state to decide how they handle the vote.
I believe that you amaze everyone on the Forum with your liberal approach to everything.
This time it falls on its face.
@shavixmir saidAll you have said in this post is confirming that the identity as a citizen of a person needs to be proven before they vote. You are aware that your friend marauder does not think that should be the case. Would you please banter with him and the two of you arrive at something that we would find interesting cause I’m getting tired of talking about it. He just wrote that the constitution doesn’t require proof. Quite a few things can be inferred from the constitution.
I’ve already stated this.
But just for you: the Netherlands has a law. Everyone over, I believe 14, has to have an ID.
So, obligating the use of an ID is no big thing.
And we have mail in ballots as well for people who live abroad. You can nominate someone else to vote for you.
Everyone receives a voting card. The card has a number on it and the name of the person ...[text shortened]... an only vote once.
In the US there are too many people without ID’s to make use of such a system.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou're lying about my position as you invariably do.
All you have said in this post is confirming that the identity as a citizen of a person needs to be proven before they vote. You are aware that your friend marauder does not think that should be the case. Would you please banter with him and the two of you arrive at something that we would find interesting cause I’m getting tired of talking about it. He just wrote that the constitution doesn’t require proof. Quite a few things can be inferred from the constitution.
Every State has methods to verify voter citizenship as I already showed you.
@shavixmir saidEach of the 50 states sets their own rules. That is.a given, since the Constitution says that. What we are discussing is just what we should expect the rules to be. AvJoe says it should include proof of citizenship, whether by photo or by bringing the 'head of citizenry' to the polls with them, whatever it takes. geez
Yeah... not an official ID though.
And it's really official ID's what we're talking about.
Sure, you can flash your library card about, but it sure as poop ain't an ID.
So, if your referenced 'library card' qualifies a voter, then so be it. The thing that WE are trying to get at here is what we think a state should require.
So, isn't Marauder saying 'not much should be required."?
@no1marauder saidThen what is your problem, Marauder? You are simply annoying. You have said getting such 'verification' is expensive and just too much trouble . This implies that one should not have to get it.
You're lying about my position as you invariably do.
Every State has methods to verify voter citizenship as I already showed you.
The only way to eject yourself from this is to go-sonhouse on us.
@AverageJoe1 saidYour reading comprehension skills suck.
Then what is your problem, Marauder? You are simply annoying. You have said getting such 'verification' is expensive and just too much trouble . This implies that one should not have to get it.
The only way to eject yourself from this is to go-sonhouse on us.
I'm content with present verification methods.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYes, your reasoning, which is far outpaced by my reading comprehension, is what we are writing about.
Your reading comprehension skills suck.
I'm content with present verification methods.
Tell us your real reasons, which of course are to allow Asians and Yemenites and Bolivians and Russians and Koreans to vote in our elections so that you can win DC and infuse socialism into our country. You must be like me, you have a fallback that you will end up on the top of the hill like I will. The difference is I will feel sorry for the wretches down below. I bet they will have to wait a lot longer than a week to get a knee replacement.
PS: I prevail in this topic. I almost feel like rewriting it, especially that the Constitution did not mention photo ID? James Madison would ask B Frankliin,,,,,,,what is a photo.
@AverageJoe1 saidSo? I don’t need to agree with everyone on everything.
All you have said in this post is confirming that the identity as a citizen of a person needs to be proven before they vote. You are aware that your friend marauder does not think that should be the case. Would you please banter with him and the two of you arrive at something that we would find interesting cause I’m getting tired of talking about it. He just wrote that the constitution doesn’t require proof. Quite a few things can be inferred from the constitution.
And I have stated I have no problems with ID requirements, but I also stated that the US can’t enforce this yet, because there are too many people without a proper ID.
@AverageJoe1 saidWe already have this in England.
Should we discuss this. There were a lot of vague color people on my last flight, and I saw black people driving cars, meaning they all had photo IDs. Meaning voter ID, with which to Matt up with voter rolls.
176 countries of all different distinctions have this one thing in common.
None of you come across with a simple explanation of why you do not want that as well, for the world‘s greatest country.
(The world's greatest country).
@AverageJoe1 saidI already gave my real reasons.
Yes, your reasoning, which is far outpaced by my reading comprehension, is what we are writing about.
Tell us your real reasons, which of course are to allow Asians and Yemenites and Bolivians and Russians and Koreans to vote in our elections so that you can win DC and infuse socialism into our country. You must be like me, you have a fallback that you will end up o ...[text shortened]... Constitution did not mention photo ID? James Madison would ask B Frankliin,,,,,,,what is a photo.
They have nothing to do with your right wing conspiracy theories.
@shavixmir saidWrong, that is state issued I’d card and drivers license. The drivers license alone makes up the overwhelming amount of the 97 plus percent.
Yeah... not an official ID though.
And it's really official ID's what we're talking about.
Sure, you can flash your library card about, but it sure as poop ain't an ID.
@no1marauder saidYou can’t prove anything you said it’s opinion.
We already have "safe, honest elections".
Making it more difficult to vote for tens of millions of citizens because they don't vote like you want isn't a "reform".
By now, right wingers know that SAVE isn't going to pass, so what they are doing is to try to undermine the upcoming elections so that when they lose they can scream "Cheat!" for partisan purposes though they'll have no evidence to support such an inflammatory claim.