Fedral judge lol's at Obama Florida voter purge is legal

[JustAnotherHead]

So according to the left once must be rich now to get an ID? Hahahaha

They can afford the latest iPhone, but can't swing an ID.

 

[ChesusRice]

In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[SUP][


So let me get this straight. You did your time. You are a law abiding citizen. And a Republican Govenor decides you are too dangerous to vote this year?
is it becuase you might vote against republicans?
[/SUP]

 

[canndo]

Are those 11% of voters normally distributed across the political spectrum, i.e. is it only (or mostly) Democrats who don't have supporting documentation? If it is normally distributed then the net effect is essentially zero and no problem in determining outcome.

I can already hear you and Buck: "Poorest hardest hit...".

My proposed solution for the democrats is to get out ahead of the elections that they want to rig and help all of their voters dig through the couch cushions and other crafty hiding places where their IDs have been hiding.

Isn't it embarrassing to you guys to have to get on here and admit that your party is filled with a bunch of nincompoops so dumb that a large percentage of them can't find their driver's license? And to further the embarrassment, nobody ever accuses the other party of having such a problem?

And further, if you are an independent voter trying to decide who to vote for, who are you going to favor, the side that does everything in their power to protect and embrace voter fraud, or the side that tries to do something about it?

Ok, let's play. If, (and it is a big if as I will demonstrate) the disenfranchised are evenly spread across the political landscape, indeed there will be no net difference. But the alternate argument is that voter fraund must certainly be as evenly spread - resulting in no net difference in either preventing it or not.

Now of course, those with the most trouble in their lives are most willing to vote for the party that at least claims to be for the little guy. However. I can not think of a situation where anyone who receives any sort of government support doesn't have an acceptable form of ID. Thus, for the most part we see a pool of non-ID toting people being the poor who don't work or get paid above the table, the old, the infirm, and the young and generaly outlier people - you figure those types are going to vote Republican?

Now, given that no one can come up with examples of widespread voter fraud, your other statements lack weight. Dems aren't promoting voter fraud if no voter fraud exists - or at least they are not being very sucessful.

Finally, are we embarassed? well, I suppose some of us are... But then again, we all have family members we are a bit ashamed of, but it rarely necessitates our changing our last names.

 

[nontheist]

In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[SUP][


So let me get this straight. You did your time. You are a law abiding citizen. And a Republican Govenor decides you are too dangerous to vote this year?
is it becuase you might vote against republicans?
[/SUP]

Most states don't allow convicted felons to vote, stupid argument.....

 

[ChesusRice]

[SUP]

Most states don't allow convicted felons to vote, stupid argument.....

I get it
You are a very stupid person and and sad sad excuse for a troll

United States
As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a life-long denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can now be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[SUP][3][/SUP] In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[SUP][4][/SUP] In July 2005, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision.[SUP][3][/SUP] On October 31, 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of ex-convicts. Nine other states disenfranchise ex-felons for various lengths of time following the completion of their probation or parole. Except Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.[SUP][3][/SUP][/SUP]

 

[canndo]

whereas the GOP did steal the election with their voter purge in 2000.

funny how you leave that out, and telling.

Not proven to my satisfaction at any rate,and we will never know, there are instances of election fraud (as distinct from voter fraud) in 2000, 2004, 2008 in various states but we cannot know that any election results were altered to the point of no return. I did a pretty intensive study of election fraud some time ago, the process is nasty, and well dominated by Republicans. The curious thing is that so few Republicans know anything at all about it. Where the left does not dispute that there are local elements of election fraud on their behalf (though rarely orchestrated).

 

[JustAnotherHead]

In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[SUP][


So let me get this straight. You did your time. You are a law abiding citizen. And a Republican Govenor decides you are too dangerous to vote this year?
is it becuase you might vote against republicans?
[/SUP]

So you're ok with the Sex Offender living next to your child? He did his time.

 

[canndo]

I paid 5 dollars for my ID
I paid for the gas in my car to take me to vote.
God damn unconstitutional tax! We must do somthing about this madness! Where do they get off making ME pay a tax to vote!

Be careful, your logic is showing.

Most polling places in most precints are within walking distance. Furthermore you may vote absentee. There is no need currently to pay any money specificaly in order to vote (except for ID states of course)

 

[canndo]

Funny, all I saw was opinions trying to wear the cloak of facts.. Just because they agree with you doesn't make them correct. You're not viewing them objectively. Your premise has a terrible flaw. You're assuming the "disenfranchised" voters would all vote the same way. That is pure conjecture. However, an organized group committing voter fraud would be absolutely be voting the same way. The 11% percent figure you quote is just not believable. Borrowing UnclePartisanHack's method of attempting to define the issue so that it favors your viewpoint is disingenuous and dishonest. Frankly, following the lead of person who won't work and still is unable or unwilling to control his bodily functions is unwise. Showing a photo ID to vote is not an undue burden. I think you would be hard pressed to find any substantial number of people that are legal voters who don't have have ID. You can even use a food stamp ID. Poor people have no trouble providing ID to get on welfare, food stamps, or other government entitlements. Those claiming that "the poor" can't provide ID are being dishonest. Having witnessed, and reported, voter fraud personally, I was disgusted to see election officials REFUSE to investigate. I gave them the plate number of the bus, a description of the driver (who entered the booth with the disabled people and cast the vote "for" them), the names and address of three of the people (out of over 100) whose vote was bought or stolen (several were mentally retarded), the address of the polling place, the address of the store where they bought the beer and cigarettes, and the location where the bus was parked prior to and after the vote fraud. So when people say there's no proven record of voter fraud, I know that voter fraud is seldom prosecuted. While I will not deny Republicans have engaged in vote fraud, the vast majority of it has been by Democrats, the same people claiming voter suppression. This "win at any cost" mentality is immoral and threatens the democratic principles this country was founded upon.

Opinions? not hardly, studies with transparent methodology is more the truth in the links I posted. I am concerned that so many are unaware of the difference between fact, opinion and evidence. The studies are not fact per se, but they are solid evidence. as to the 11 percent, your incredulity does not represent fact or impossibility, simply your opinion of the evidence. Showing ID is not an undue burden, aquiring it is (but again, I am arguing principle as SCOTUS agrees with you). Now I am uncertain as to how you arrived at your conclusion that Dems perpetrate the most voter fraud and again, you are unable to show by way of any study, widespread voter fraud. You might have an argument if you were able to do so. Until you are, my evidence happens to be the only evidence that has been put forth, the rest, as you already objected to - is merely opinion.

 

[canndo]

. It's obvious that you have an agenda that has only one purpose, to elect Democrats. You don't give a fuck about the poor, the disabled, or anyone else. It's your party first, last, and always. The party that defended slavery, that fought the Civil Rights Bill, that welcomed the KKK into their fold. The law, the constitution, the people be damned, you want to win. You'll utter any lie needed to empower the government at the expense of the people. And stop pretending to not be UncleShitBritches, you worthless parasite.

This is what is known as projection - the presumption that another is practicing the same acts as oneself. There is ample evidence that Republicans have put their party first to the exclusion of all other interests. I believe it was clearly stated that Republicans want Obama to be a one term president - above all other considerations and they have gone ahead and proven this to be the case in 4 long years of their blocking even legilsation that they previously were for. Oh let alone all the instances of election fraud they have been engaged in.

 

[canndo]

1 the democrats got civil rights passed
2 the democrats kicked out the KKK and the racist southern dixiecrats
3 I will vote for a republican and have when they have what it takes
A love for America and it's citizens

I am sorry your saviour Ronny the Paul failed so miserably. But maybe if he hadnt had so many crazy ideas he would of stood a chance

Not quite accurate, it seems that the Dixicrats gravitated all by themselves... to the Republican party.

 

[canndo]

If IDs are so easy to get that even illegal immigrants can get them, why are you in here complaining about the poor souls who cannot acquire one? If all you need is a bill to vote, what's to stop someone from just bringing in a bill I tossed in the trash without opening it and claiming to be me?

And if ID is so easy to get, even illegaly, then how will requiring one in order to vote guarantee against fraud?

 

[nontheist]

[SUP]

I get it
You are a very stupid person and and sad sad excuse for a troll

United States
As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a life-long denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can now be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[SUP][3][/SUP] In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[SUP][4][/SUP] In July 2005, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision.[SUP][3][/SUP] On October 31, 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of ex-convicts. Nine other states disenfranchise ex-felons for various lengths of time following the completion of their probation or parole. Except Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.[SUP][3][/SUP][/SUP]

As you can read from your little copy and paste snippet, they disenfranchise them but they cannot vote before making the criteria. I didnt say anything about life long restrictions.

 

[canndo]

[SUP]

I get it
You are a very stupid person and and sad sad excuse for a troll

United States
As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a life-long denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can now be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[SUP][3][/SUP] In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[SUP][4][/SUP] In July 2005, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision.[SUP][3][/SUP] On October 31, 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of ex-convicts. Nine other states disenfranchise ex-felons for various lengths of time following the completion of their probation or parole. Except Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.[SUP][3][/SUP][/SUP]

No need for insults Che, we will know the poster's intelligence by the posts they present, I doubt that he is a troll.

 

[desert dude]

Ok, let's play. If, (and it is a big if as I will demonstrate) the disenfranchised are evenly spread across the political landscape, indeed there will be no net difference. But the alternate argument is that voter fraund must certainly be as evenly spread - resulting in no net difference in either preventing it or not.

Now of course, those with the most trouble in their lives are most willing to vote for the party that at least claims to be for the little guy. However. I can not think of a situation where anyone who receives any sort of government support doesn't have an acceptable form of ID. Thus, for the most part we see a pool of non-ID toting people being the poor who don't work or get paid above the table, the old, the infirm, and the young and generaly outlier people - you figure those types are going to vote Republican?

Now, given that no one can come up with examples of widespread voter fraud, your other statements lack weight. Dems aren't promoting voter fraud if no voter fraud exists - or at least they are not being very sucessful.

Finally, are we embarassed? well, I suppose some of us are... But then again, we all have family members we are a bit ashamed of, but it rarely necessitates our changing our last names.

OK. Assume that is true. What's the harm in requiring ID to vote. It will make people have a bit more faith in the process, and costs next to nothing. Is it a poll tax? I think it's not. Would it stand up to a SCOTUS challenge? I think it would, it's a narrowly tailored response to a potential problem that is foundational to the US republic.

In that pool of non-ID toting people are, by estimates, something like 10 to 20 million aliens here illegally. Do you think Obama's presidential order implementing part of the DREAM act was meant as a craven political move with the sole intent to garner the hispanic vote? Do you think some of those 20 million illegals will be tempted, or coerced to vote in the upcoming elections, especially when there is no requirement to show any kind of ID to do so?

As far as examples of voter fraud, several people have offered them up. My own experience in Chicago as a kid is one such. I saw boxes of little manila envelopes each with a five dollar bill inside, and each destined to buy a vote for the Democrats. You dismiss those examples as "anecdotes".

 

[ChesusRice]

Not quite accurate, it seems that the Dixicrats gravitated all by themselves... to the Republican party.

Ok
Let me rephrase that

The Democrats didnt give the dixecrats the Racist love they needed so they went to the Republicans who gave them all the Hate BJs the desired

 

[canndo]

OK. Assume that is true. What's the harm in requiring ID to vote. It will make people have a bit more faith in the process, and costs next to nothing. Is it a poll tax? I think it's not. Would it stand up to a SCOTUS challenge? I think it would, it's a narrowly tailored response to a potential problem that is foundational to the US republic.

In that pool of non-ID toting people are, by estimates, something like 10 to 20 million aliens here illegally. Do you think Obama's presidential order implementing part of the DREAM act was meant as a craven political move with the sole intent to garner the hispanic vote? Do you think some of those 20 million illegals will be tempted, or coerced to vote in the upcoming elections, especially when there is no requirement to show any kind of ID to do so?

As far as examples of voter fraud, several people have offered them up. My own experience in Chicago as a kid is one such. I saw boxes of little manila envelopes each with a five dollar bill inside, and each destined to buy a vote for the Democrats. You dismiss those examples as "anecdotes".

What is the harm - given the suppositions we both gave? nothing at all, but our suppositions don't hold up to evidence. Would it stand up to SCOTUS challenge? it did and SCOTUS finds that it is not an undue burden - EVEN though descenting opinions listed solid evidence that in the state that was disputing the law, 40,000 people would be likely to be disenfranchised.

Now, as to your illegal aliens - do you really think that none of them have ID? Perhaps some of them will attempt to vote - although it is unlikely given the temperment of illegals, but again, we must use that same equation - will we prevent more fraud then we will prevent legitimate voters from voting? all of the evidence I have presented says we will not. Mostly, again, because everyone fails to show this widespread abuse.

I do dismiss those examples as anecdotes just as you will dismiss my examples of old people who are unable to get supporting documents because their hall of records burned down in the 50's. That is the point. I gave you actual, verifiable studies indicating that a significant number of people will be made ineligable to vote. Nothing corresponding to that, no studies, no projections have been offered in response, only anecdotal, only supposition.

 

[canndo]

By the way, I will not dispute that voter fraud happens and I will not dispute that it is entirely possible that it happens more on the Dem side. But until I see some real evidence that it is even half the problem the Republicans seem to think it is, And I show evidence that it is as bad as We think it is, then I will not agree that voter ID is a wise move.

 

[ChesusRice]

What is the harm - given the suppositions we both gave? nothing at all, but our suppositions don't hold up to evidence. Would it stand up to SCOTUS challenge? it did and SCOTUS finds that it is not an undue burden - EVEN though descenting opinions listed solid evidence that in the state that was disputing the law, 40,000 people would be likely to be disenfranchised.

Now, as to your illegal aliens - do you really think that none of them have ID? Perhaps some of them will attempt to vote - although it is unlikely given the temperment of illegals, but again, we must use that same equation - will we prevent more fraud then we will prevent legitimate voters from voting? all of the evidence I have presented says we will not. Mostly, again, because everyone fails to show this widespread abuse.

I do dismiss those examples as anecdotes just as you will dismiss my examples of old people who are unable to get supporting documents because their hall of records burned down in the 50's. That is the point. I gave you actual, verifiable studies indicating that a significant number of people will be made ineligable to vote. Nothing corresponding to that, no studies, no projections have been offered in response, only anecdotal, only supposition.

Hall of records burned down?

Most immigrants who came here in the last century

Didnt provide a birth certificate. It wasnt needed for becoming a citizen

 

[desert dude]

You sir are totally full of shit
What neighborhood did you live in?
Who was your local street gang
What school did you go to
Who was your alderman
Did you ever get the shit beat out of you by Ed Burke
Who was mayor at the time you lived there

Bridgeport at the time.

Satan's Disciples on 18th and California, this was before Bridgeport

Harrison High for a time and Tilden for a time.

I was a kid so I could not have given a fuck less who the Alderman was.

No, Ed Burke never beat the shit out of me.

Richard J Daley.

Now, refute those statements if you can.