House Passes 'Historic' Bill to Restore and Expand Voting Rights "Brings us one step closer to restoring the Voting Rights Act."

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

  As long as they have a process in place so it's not unduly difficult for people that don't have ID, I'm OK with it. 

I was actually pretty surprised when they put it forward and ended up passing it. The General Assembly did this to try and dispel any rumors and talk of  "voter suppression" which is a dog whistle by the Left.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

While this certainly had merit, I doubt those 53 folks across the country care much about voting anymore. 

 

  I agree the number of people who have never had an ID is diminishing, but certainly more than 53. My grandpa was like many in his generation, straight out of high school to fight in WW2, back home into a job market that required labor and didn't require ID. He never drove and stayed in the same job until he retired so it just never really came up. I don't think it's an isolated event. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I agree the number of people who have never had an ID is diminishing, but certainly more than 53. My grandpa was like many in his generation, straight out of high school to fight in WW2, back home into a job market that required labor and didn't require ID. He never drove and stayed in the same job until he retired so it just never really came up. I don't think it's an isolated event. 

You are right the only ID you needed back then was your SSN and your BC. But that timeframe has come and gone. We now need a valid ID to do pretty much anything these days. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

You are right the only ID you needed back then was your SSN and your BC. But that timeframe has come and gone. We now need a valid ID to do pretty much anything these days. 

 

  Almost gone. I imagine it's probably pretty rare to find someone between the age of 18 and 70 who has never had photo ID. Go back 20 years even, and it was still relatively common. Skip ahead 20 and it will be almost unheard of. Right now it's just one of those rare exceptions that the law does not always address adequately. 

[ohcoffeeeyes 120]

On 12/7/2019 at 3:11 AM, ALFKAD said:

Who had their voting rights revoked?

 

On 12/7/2019 at 6:22 AM, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, who was suppressed?

 

Oh you know... ex-cons... like people who get caught with 1g's of weed in their car, serve 60 days in county jail and now they can't vote ever again. Or people who pee 3 times in public and get given a felony like in California. Yeah, they don't get their voting rights revoked or suppressed at all despite living their entire life in the US. Sorry to create a strawman but imagine if you had left prison 10+ years ago, had a steady job, a family, and you can't decide what goes on in your community cause you punched someone once or had marijuana residue in your car that you forgot was there.

[Canerican 242]

3 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Thanks for your reply. Do you agree that the immigration process is (necessarily) lengthy , involved and costly? If you do agree would you say that there was  zero immigration fraud? 

I understand what you are saying but as I stated on another topic earlier today, "that is the price you pay for others who did not complete the process the right way." There is a process and we need to protect the right to vote to only US Citizens. Voting is a right not a privilege and those who are at the polling stations need to be able to distinguish between a fake passport, passport card, or birth certificate from a real one as that is what our world has come to unfortunately. In my opinion all natural born US Citizen should have at least as birth certificate as I mentioned earlier. I work in mental health and we require our patient's parents to bring a birth certificate to the intake to establish relationship with the child.   

[ohcoffeeeyes 120]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I was actually pretty surprised when they put it forward and ended up passing it. The General Assembly did this to try and dispel any rumors and talk of  "voter suppression" which is a dog whistle by the Left.

Voter suppression is a real thing my man, not just to the people but to limiting people's options, why do you think the minimum to be in the debates for a third party is 15%? And the fees to run for office are so high? Either way, if you say thats a dog whistle, so is the claims of undocumented people driving everything, voting 10 times like they have time to do that and they're SO dedicated to the liberal cause.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, ohcoffeeeyes said:

Voter suppression is a real thing my man, not just to the people but to limiting people's options, why do you think the minimum to be in the debates for a third party is 15%? And the fees to run for office are so high? Either way, if you say thats a dog whistle, so is the claims of undocumented people driving everything, voting 10 times like they have time to do that and they're SO dedicated to the liberal cause.

The fees to run for office are high? Here in NC the fees to run for office any office is 1% of the salary of said office. So for State Rep/Sen the price to run is $130 while the price to for Congress is $1800. 

 

Yeah illegals are driving many things for the Democrats. 

[ohcoffeeeyes 120]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

The fees to run for office are high? Here in NC the fees to run for office any office is 1% of the salary of said office. So for State Rep/Sen the price to run is $130 while the price to for Congress is $1800. 

 

Yeah illegals are driving many things for the Democrats. 

I was talking specifically about presidential elections, small parties generally don't have a lot to cough up to be more than a write-in and then again, the polling amounts for ballot access in said-states is managed by a bipartisan committee, who will always side against the third parties.

Illegals aren't driving things for democrats, there is just NO documented proof of it, if you had documented proof, I'd be inclined to agree but uh, no one does. In fact, most data points towards illegal immigration being a positive in US society.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 hours ago, ohcoffeeeyes said:

Voter suppression is a real thing my man, not just to the people but to limiting people's options, why do you think the minimum to be in the debates for a third party is 15%? And the fees to run for office are so high? Either way, if you say thats a dog whistle, so is the claims of undocumented people driving everything, voting 10 times like they have time to do that and they're SO dedicated to the liberal cause.

The example in your post has nothing to do with voter suppression at all, whatsoever. No one is being prevented from researching candidates or contacting campaigns, and most of all, from going into the polls and voting for anyone they want. If one decides a vote based on "debate eligibility", that is still a choice, and no one else's fault that they limited their own options or delegated the criteria of their vote to other people. It's funny how people invent victimhood out of thin air. 

[TBoneTX 45,298]

11 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

get rid of voter ID requirements.  Then drive around from one polling station to another, and vote multiple times.

We should also respect the cemetery vote, somehow.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, ohcoffeeeyes said:

 

Oh you know... ex-cons... like people who get caught with 1g's of weed in their car, serve 60 days in county jail and now they can't vote ever again. Or people who pee 3 times in public and get given a felony like in California. Yeah, they don't get their voting rights revoked or suppressed at all despite living their entire life in the US. Sorry to create a strawman but imagine if you had left prison 10+ years ago, had a steady job, a family, and you can't decide what goes on in your community cause you punched someone once or had marijuana residue in your car that you forgot was there.

Yes, yours is a strawman argument to an extent.  For weed possession, it's a misdemeanor under federal law until your third offense, at which time it can be either a misdemeanor OR a felony.

 

Ex cons who serve out their sentences can regain their right to vote.  Not saying they all DO, but they can.  Here are some facts on the matter:

 

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/

 

[90DayFinancier 910]

7 hours ago, CDN(ON)-USA(VT) said:

I understand what you are saying but as I stated on another topic earlier today, "that is the price you pay for others who did not complete the process the right way." There is a process and we need to protect the right to vote to only US Citizens. Voting is a right not a privilege and those who are at the polling stations need to be able to distinguish between a fake passport, passport card, or birth certificate from a real one as that is what our world has come to unfortunately. In my opinion all natural born US Citizen should have at least as birth certificate as I mentioned earlier. I work in mental health and we require our patient's parents to bring a birth certificate to the intake to establish relationship with the child.   

Let's use your example of the patients records and the birth certificate. Your mandate is to protect the child which is important.

 

1. If the situation was emergent, like to provide first aid , would the Dr not provide assistance and then sort out the paperwork later? This is analogous to a problem with the voters records and some states not allowing for a provisional ballot and just sending the voter away.

 

2. If the birth certificate shows the name of the mother as Mary Kathy-Anne  Smith but the mothers drivers license shows Mary Kathy Anne or Mary Kathy-Ann Smith would you send them away? No. This was the level of scrutiny in the Texas law that was struck down by the court.

 

3. Would you arbitrarily purge your patient records based on certain parts of town that had less desirable patients  and then force those parents to re-register and deny them service because they did not respond to your letter sent to an old address. No. This is occurring even today.

 

Would you tolerate someone sending your patients a letter saying that their appointment was on Thursday when it was in fact on Wednesday?

 

In all of these cases you would work for the interest of the patient and child to resolve these and other barriers to providing care. You would protect the child despite the letter if the law.

 

The lawsuits to protect the voters right have shown that there was intent in depressing the vote in many of the examples that I provided earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Huge difference between the Hippocratic Oath and instructions given to a poll guard.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

47 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Huge difference between the Hippocratic Oath and instructions given to a poll guard.

Deadlines are so suppressing! Even worse, verification, ugh. So awful. If only society got rid of those suppressing things.