Voter ID

Ben also realized that “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic”.

That insight has corrupted most politicians since that time. Promising public largesse to the electorate, those with little stake in the outcome, has corrupted the citizenry as well. Now the country is $20 trillion in debt yet the issue for people like Bernie Sanders is 'inequality' and, of course, Hillary Clinton believes "we should make it easier to vote, not harder".

The responsibilities adults assumed during Ben Franklin's time has become a land of 'safe zones', an acceptance of living with your parents until age 26, and designated free speech areas - which once included the entire United States.

 

The radical right is, as a lot of people observing, trying to get you to buy into a solution that has no problem to be applied to.

At issue is the National ID argument. So, if some people try to circumvent your Liberties by requiring (sic) and National ID card, then it should be justifiable for other infringements? Two wrongs don't make a right.

The first thing that these dishonest people ought to know is that I am not left wing nor Democrat. So now they can pull their heads out of their a** and get tuned into reality.

I oppose National ID. Up until the tragedy of 9 / 11 being opposed to National ID was a fundamental tenet of right wing conservative philosophy. The power brokers knew a long time ago if they created the right kinds of events, they could sell the sheeple on National ID. And they have done on the most flimsy grounds.

Today, most people think that we should undergo background checks, pee test, hair sample, blood test, MVR records check, credit check, criminal background check, and then produce a driver's license, Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and National ID Card for just about everything. It is far worse and far more encompassing than Hitler's silly tattoo idea. And, to what end?

The ONLY thing all that National ID crap has been useful for is assaulting the Fourth Amendment, locking some people out of the ability to fend for themselves, and to jeopardize personal Liberties, paving the way for globalist thinkers to control the people. Other than that, National ID is about as useful as tits on a boar hog.

In order for things like National ID to work, the government wants a "unique identifying number" as the argument goes. And so, a few years ago when the income tax was on the ropes and we had a chance to rid ourselves of the income tax and the 16th Amendment, a certain element thought they needed National ID. Well the "unique identifying number" was your Socialist Surveillance Number - there I go again, "Social Security Number" and voila, the whole income tax charade was saved because globalists convinced the right that tyranny was somehow necessary. The right, Tea Party Republicans for the most part, saved the income tax (a plank from the Communist Party Platform) and turned back the clock on constitutionalists by fifty years.

There is not even one aspect of the use of National ID that it has impacted any legitimate concern of the American people. Well, it has impacted a lot of you in ways that we could not begin to fathom (though I accurately predicted them back in the late 1990s.) ANY Tom, Slick or Harry can now access your most private and personal information via the use of your SSN.

Furthermore, when you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee, you are supposed to ask the government's permission since you are no longer free, but rather a slave that belongs to the almighty STATE. You cannot resist unconstitutional forces as everything about your, from the womb to the tomb is being scrutinized, monitored, and cataloged. And, if you screw up; if you make a mistake, Heaven have mercy on your soul. A simple youthful indiscretion (even something as smoking pot) can follow you around the rest of your life, forcing you out of the job market and not being to get credit - which means you may not qualify for a house.

Yet, here we are arguing with a segment of society that is the very essence of mental midgetry, trying to argue in favor of tyranny and oppression for a non-existent problem. Adding insult to injury, they will make it look like this is a right v left or Democrat v Republican issue. It isn't. Thirty years ago the John Birch Society, Conservative Caucasus Committee, Eagle Forum, etc., etc. all opposed National ID. It is a constitutional issue. The radical right has become more socialist than the left they wail about. And this is one of their issues they co-opted from the far far left.. left of Bernie Sanders. Some on the left saw, after becoming victims of their own legislation abandoned the fight and gave it to the right so the right would hang themselves - and they are doing a damn good job of it on this thread.

 

I would love to visit one of these 'can't afford $100 for ID' families you speak of. Very curious to see what sort of things their money is being spent on. Any soda? Any junk food? Any cigarettes? Any alcohol? Any large quantities of food? Any big screen TVs? Any new clothing or footwear?

 

Here we go with this again.

It's that anyone is or isn't stupid..it's that the ID's for poorer people are not that easy to get. The GOP wants to keep as many poor people from voting as possible.

 

You can't eat an ID

 

Hundreds of convictions over how many years and across how many states?

Hundreds out of hundreds of MILLIONS is not a reason to disenfranchise tens of thousands.'
There's only one reason to do it.

The GOP is trying to keep "those" people from voting. The poor...people of color...the elderly...people on Disability...ya know...people that understand how important government is in their lives and believe in it

 

It's not hard to obtain a photo ID. Democrats just cheat, it's harder to catch them this way. That's why they don't want it .

 

Living with your parents until 26 is quite usual in 2017, but I fear you have limited exposure to the cultures who've always done this, and why they do it. It's NOTHING to do with millenialism, and everything to do with financial security. Kids stay rent free (at home) until they've saved enough to make a down payment on their first property. It's very sensible, and parents who don't encourage and support this are letting their kids down. We shouldn't force our kids into rent enslavement, perhaps destroying any chance they'll ever have to own property, because we're naively and unquestioningly wedded to some very outdated ideas about kids and independence. An idea that MAY have fit when kids were buying houses, getting married, and starting families at 18 - but hasn't fit in at least 30 years, if not considerably longer.

 

No, straw man king, "national ID" is not the thread topic. Picture voter ID is, and for the record I oppose any further national ID as well.

And regardless of what you claim to be or not, objecting to picture voting ID on the grounds that there's no voter fraud is a nonstarter. First union label lie narrators argue "there is no voter fraud" despite full well knowing otherwise. Then when their lies are exposed with factual convictions and cases, the narrative becomes "oh well it's not -enough-" to do anything about. So slimy, so transparent.

1. Most people of any social standing whatsoever, even the poorest poor, already have a picture ID. Only about 10% of voters, depending on jurisdiction, don't already have one. The ones who don't are overwhelmingly very young and very old and live in cities where driving is not necessary. There tends to be plenty of public transport in those areas to get them to polls or ID providers. So NINETY PERCENT already have and use picture ID. The Democrats want to hide this fact so that you will think making folks get picture ID is a bigger problem than the triviality it actually is.

2. Every jurisdiction I'm aware of allows indigents to get free picture ID. So there goes another plank of their rotten narrative.

3. Every jurisdiction allows provisional voting, even the strictest picture ID states allow you to go in, vote, and then come back with ID later to get your vote counted. This is another fact they try desperately to hide.

EDIT: 4. As crank points out in the post below this one, almost all countries in the advanced world require voter ID. Are they all racists disenfranchising millions of voters? If they are they are mostly SOCIALIST LW racists. LOL.

To restate, picture ID puts big kinks on one of the Democrat thug machines' favorite fraud tactics, packing large busses with black voters from housing projects, taking several of those busses to already crowded polling locations (often when less crowded polls are a few miles away, the intent is to overwhelm) during early voting to overwhelm the workers and resources. This is bad enough in regular districts, in Democrat union controlled districts, it's rampant. They then bring the SAME PEOPLE over and over, and to different polls, where they can vote again as "mistakes were made" in striking their names from the list.

There are no poll police, and states aren't anxious to fill already overfull prisons with these low level vote fraudsters. It is extremely difficult to catch and prosecute in ANY voting district, and well nigh impossible to catch and prosecute in crooked Democrat districts. The narrative against it is crafted by criminal thugs in public union PR departments seeking to keep their Tammany Hall type scams up and running, and repeated by union/LW shills all over the net, here and elsewhere. There is no rational reason whatsoever to oppose picture ID to vote other than to facilitate fraud schemes Democrats and some GOP (but far far less) have been running for decades, none.

 

So in my very liberal, very multicultural, socialist democracy, how do you explain the dual 'insult' of voter ID laws AND compulsory voting? Is it racist here, too? Even when upheld by politicians of every shade and hue?

I love lefties, but sometimes my American comrades are very dim.

 

how many people in the USA have been convicted of voter fraud, in the last 20 years?

 

When in doubt you can always howl the extremist position to deflect. The buzz words are straw man, logical fallacy, ad hominem, etc. Those are deflection words that have no meaning when dealing with legal analogies. So... let me answer you:

1) Even in YOUR example, 10 percent of the people do not have a photo ID. Don't know where you get your stats from, but we can work with them. My mother had a Social Security card, issued many years ago. Across the top, it read NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION. Today, ALL ID, including the voter ID is issued to SSN holders. That is part of the REAL ID Act. If you have rejected the notion that you are a 14th Amendment subject as opposed to the Citizen, you do not use SSN based ID.

2) Irrelevant

3) No citing source so irrelevant

4) I don't give a rat's a** what they do in the rest of the world. This is the United States; we are the home of Liberty - like none other.

The rational reason for opposing your fear mongering is that you do not whizz away the Right to Privacy over an issue wherein no problem exists. And there are reasons for opposing National ID.

A) National ID / photo ID / the current federal based ID requiring an SSN is a threat to your Liberty. Now you cannot avoid losing your Rights as you become a subject, not a citizen

B) You jeopardize your Right to Privacy and allow for any Tom, Slick or Harry to assume your identity AND place everything ever known about you into one easy place for not only future tyrants, but identity thieves as well

C) You reduce God given Rights (unalienable Rights) reducing your Rights to mere privileges and end up asking the government for permission to do things they have absolutely NO JURISDICTION OVER. You forfeit your Liberties and Rights in exchange for permission. So, in the future, you cannot argue for your Rights. Sir, you cannot piss away your Rights and argue for them. When you get a National ID card (which is what photo ID is based off of) and you start asking for permission, you LOST your Right! One of our founding fathers admonished us:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

So far you have demonstrated that you cannot understand the concept. But, one day, you wake up and and a Right you once had will not be available to you. It will because you screwed another person out of their right. I realize you think differently, but common sense ought to dictate that the government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have and you seem to be in a rush to give them that very power. And you are wrong.

 

Unresponsive.

 

Nor can you eat large quantities of junk food (washed down with soda), but people still choose that over responsibilities.

PS: It's MUCH cheaper to eat like a healthy frugal, than it is to eat like a 'poor person'.

 

Absolute horsesh!+. My wife has two sons. One lived with the grandmother until she kicked his carcass out. He's living in a tent rather than to work a job. Her other son is living with the grandmother and he is unemployed. My wife has a brother (well over 26) and he still lives at home and does not work.

The fact is about 35 percent of men in the age group of 18 - 34 live with mommy while 29 percent of the ladies in that age group are still dependent on their mothers.

Nobody is swayed by that amateur argument of staying with mommy while saving for a house. Here's why:

If you buy a house today, between the payments and the increasing value of your home, it is Waaay more than what little you could save for a down payment. While you're "saving" for a home, inflation is pushing the value of a home up. If you were paying, instead of "saving" you would have more equity and more value in your home as compared to that cheesy pretext you're using.

 

Uh....yes you can eat junk food. You want to be the food police now?

 

Your experience of the many ways in which kids are raised (around the world) is apparently quite limited ... and limited to apparently a handful of fairly unusual examples. There are a number of cultures which have always operated this way, and they (not) coincidentally raise responsible and hardworking adults. All those Asian kids doing STEM degrees at your Ivy League colleges (and will all be earning vastly more than most of us) .. they come from families who operate this way. You'll need to work hard to convince yourself that their parents are fools.

And you absolutely can save the money for a down payment by staying at home rent-free - if your parents were sensible enough to ensure you studied for something which pays well. I know many kids who've done it, and who are currently doing it.

 

The Obama justice dept. stopped states from sharing voter registration rolls for comparison and refused to share any federal information.

 

I await your evidence

 

I'm not concerned about how kids are raised around the world. Our problems are right here in the United States... and NO, for the final time, you do not purchase a house in the manner you describe. You can, but, financially it's not done that way.

BTW, there are a LOT of schools out there teaching people how to make money off real estate. ALL of them use the example I gave you. ALL of them, son.

 

Why would any of these people be unable to obtain ID? In fact, wouldn't they need ID to obtain their benefits?

 

That's the rather typical whine many have grown accustomed to hearing since the mills were old enough to whimper.. The poor babies are forced to stay at home with Mommy and Daddy because they'd have to pay rent in the real world.

I think many genuine adults have had sufficient exposure to these safe space snowflakes to understand completely what a bunch of crybabies they really are.

 

As one example I quote from NPR of June 12, 2012:
"The U.S. Department of Justice sued Florida on Tuesday to stop it from trying to remove noncitizens from its voter registration rolls.


The department says the way the state is going about doing this violates federal law. Florida says it's partly the federal government's fault for not sharing citizenship data with the state.


It's all part of the escalating battle between the Obama administration and Republican-led states over voting laws............

In its suit, the Department of Justice says what Florida is doing violates the National Voter Registration Act — also known as the motor voter law. That law prohibits the removal of voters from the rolls within 90 days of an election.............

On Monday, Florida filed a suit of its own, accusing the federal government of violating the law by not sharing a citizenship database with the state to use in the registration roll cleanup."

 

I'm not sure why you suggest it's a Snowflake thing. It has NOTHING to do with that, and everything to do with future planning, finances, and education. Probably simply your naivety speaking. You're ignorant of the widespread practice outside of America, and have assumed the 1970's idea still stands. ie, 'lazy slackers living in basements'. Such people are rare where I come from, and they're invariably produced by useless parents. They're not even in the equation.

 

Many elderly don't drive.Many poor don't drive. Those would be WORKING poor by the way ..

SO do you need a photo ID for Medicare? For Social Security?

I don't believe so