ibshame is right. The Constitution refers three times to a right to vote and that it shall not be infringed.
Degage, I have no idea what you base any charge that I have been disrespectful to any elder.
You're clearly confused.
Any problem I have is with the Republican Party and it's not my fault if it happens to be run by a bunch of old, out-of-date idiots.
Oops!! NOW you can offer that I was disrespectful.
Re: Maryland, the "crowd" that left was probably trying to beat the impending traffic jam after the gathering. People leave ball games all the time early to do the same thing.
$390 million and counting. There isn't a politician out there that can make that claim, for this election year anyway.
Jack wrote: "Not worried, Alps. Amused."
Amused people don't post bitches about other people's posts.
You're a bitch.
Jack, are you paid to worry about my posts?
Fairmon wrote: "I don't know you and would not trust you as far as I could throw a car."
I'm deeply hurt by that remark. You don't know me, have never met me, and yet you offer that you don't trust me at all?
That's a shame, for I have established a fine reputation for being trustworthy.
"I bet you lock all doors, own a gun and probably have or have had an alarm system?"
Well...let's examine why that may be. After living in my town for 40 years, I suffered my first home break-in while I was in the hospital in June. My guns were all stolen, as well as a great many other things.
"What level of trust does that indicate?"
Sir, we're getting off-track.
Trust that thieves will not steal your possessions and a trust that people are being honest when registering to vote are two very different lines of trust.
"Will you accept a promise to pay or do you require a contract if you sell something on credit?"
A contract does not assure that a person to whom you extend credit, will actually repay or pay what you have extended to them.
It still requires trust to offer one any amount of credit.
About a third of the people repay perfectly. Most repay without needing extensive amounts of prodding but have difficulties being on time infrequently to frequently. Then there are a small few who just don't rise to any level of trust whatsoever and you have to reign in their collateral.
A contract allows a lienholder to protect his or her interests, because there are those who are untrustworthy.
But again, I digress. The issue of trust, involves a declaration that we are who we claim to be, and that we are eligible to vote. If all is in order, a voter card is issued, telling you where to report for voting and you must be crossed off the list when you do.
Photographic I.D. will not change a thing in that regard. Registering to vote will not change do to any new Photo I.D. laws.
Trust is still the way the game will be played.
Fairmon wrote: "There are instances where someone votes for someone else on the voter list."
Sir, you making that statement and backing it up with evidence are two different things. Studies have proved that it was not in evidence that there was any widespread voter impersonation ever going on.
Did it ever occur? Yes. How often? Negligible and not in any numbers high enough to alter an election.
"There are examples of dead people still being on the eligible voters list."
And that will not change. People die every day of the week. Photo I.D. requirements will not change this either.
"There was a 60 minute special where people could register to vote with no check for eligibility or identification."
Fairmon, for 220+ years, people signed those registration cards, attesting that under the penalty of law, that they were eligible to vote and who they claimed to be.
Poll workers verified each person and either added them to the approved list to be allowed to vote, or contacted them for proof if they felt their statements needed to be challenged.
It was not a system where people were allowed to grab a handful of cards, make up names, and send them in to be automatically approved to vote. Every name was contrasted with information on file to verify that they were indeed real and a resident of the polling district where they were approved to vote.
Is it possible that there were instances of what "60 Minutes" alleged in their report? Sure, it's possible, but that is not how things were done in 99.9% of all states and all districts.
Fairmon wrote: "The reaction by both parties is not limited to the voter ID issue. It is almost automatic that when one proposes the other opposes."
Please...don't muddy the issue.
The subject on the table is a clear Republican initiative to require photographic I.D. to be allowed to cast a vote.
The reason this requirement came about was to fight instances of alleged voter fraud that Republicans referred to.
Several studies have been published, proving that there was no voter fraud in evidence. The old honor system worked VERY well and was not plagued with fraud.
Not one photographic I.D. has prevented any instance of voter fraud that the Republican Party has raised.
The reason Democrats opposed it was because it was a solution to a problem that never existed and it was designed to suppress votes from people least likely to vote for a Republican candidate.
The good news is that despite their efforts, the suppression tactics do not appear to be working.
Republicans are going to have to appeal to people if they want to win elections, and that means they will have to change their ways or be shut out of power in Washington.
There is no other way.
There will never be a conservative majority in this nation.
Reardon wrote: "The emotionalism on full tilt regarding verifying identity is beyond belief."
The old system was just as good as this new voter I.D. system. One man, one vote. You registered to vote. You appeared on a list. When you appeared to vote, your name was crossed off the list. No one could reuse your name.
Where was the fraud?
"Does anyone think the "honor" system still exists in this world?"
Oh I think it does. The day when there is absolutely no trust left, is the day this world should come to an end.
"Trust, but verify."
The old system did just as well.
"Six months for 95% of people to get their sh*t together enough to head down and verify themselves is HARDLY a challenge, much less anything to attempt political leverage with."
Do you know how many people in this nation never pick up a newspaper or watch a newscast?
"I'd even work in special exceptions in circumstances where that cannot be done."
The unfortunate thing is, that there were/are several states who made no such exceptions.
I still want to get back to this alleged voter fraud that all this crap was supposed to fix. Where did it happen and how has photographic I.D. addressed any instance of voter fraud that has happened in the last 100 years?
Fairmon wrote: "There is nothing in the amendment violated by requiring a photo ID. You and others keep leaping to the conclusion it impedes by race, color or having been in servitude (a slave). It does not and anyone that desires to vote can obtain a qualifying photo ID."
There are still those who cannot qualify for an I.D. as the states have set forth the requirements. Those states have had their I.D. laws thrown out.
The honor system was good enough for all for 220+ years. There has never been any instance of voter fraud that could begin to sway an election in this nation.
Republican tactics are spawned to suppress votes...period.
"Do you really think requiring a photo ID will change the results of a single national election in the entire U.S.?"
Not anymore. That does not mean that it was not instituted with that goal in mind.
"The chances of that are essentially nil."
It all depends on what kind of election we are discussing. A national election, no. A very local election, most certainly.
"It may deter someone from attempting to vote that is not eligible or from those few that vote for someone else."
A voter I.D. card did the same damn thing. Your name was crossed off a list when it was presented to vote. Ineligible voters do not appear on approved voter lists, now do they?
"Democrats, liberals are against photo ID because they consider it a republican initiative the same way republicans have a knee jerk reaction to democrats initiatives."
Such as? I know of no Democratic initiative that could begin to be considered an act of voter suppression.
"Frankly I don't give a damn if photo ID's are required or not. Those in office have more critical issues they should be reconciling but they like busy work with low consequences. There is a tax (penalty) for not buying healthcare insurance, should there be a tax (penalty) for failure to vote?"
I'd love it if there were. Do you believe that the Republicans would ever in a million years propose such a penalty?
Connie on his way to church this evening;