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

[nontheist]

Who is "They" that can afford the latest iPhone? And what are you talking about? Putting a monetary requirement on voting in the form of forcing people to present an ID which has a monetary cost, is in essence a de-facto poll tax. And whether someone is poor or not, the fact is that taxing someone to exercise their rights is wrong. Should they require an ID to attend a church? What about to write on these message boards? Should there be an ID which must be presented to an official before you are allowed to post on Rollitup.org or another website? What about to write a book? Or to purchase a Bible? How about before you speak, you must show the other person your ID? Is that OK?

But please explain who is "They" that can afford an iPhone.

LOL another Unclebuck sockpuppet?

 

[ginwilly]

Who is "They" that can afford the latest iPhone? And what are you talking about? Putting a monetary requirement on voting in the form of forcing people to present an ID which has a monetary cost, is in essence a de-facto poll tax. And whether someone is poor or not, the fact is that taxing someone to exercise their rights is wrong. Should they require an ID to attend a church? What about to write on these message boards? Should there be an ID which must be presented to an official before you are allowed to post on Rollitup.org or another website? What about to write a book? Or to purchase a Bible? How about before you speak, you must show the other person your ID? Is that OK?

But please explain who is "They" that can afford an iPhone.

people misrepresenting themselves on an internet forum does not affect me in the least. People misrepresenting themselves at the voting booth shits all over the sanctity of democracy. I'd like to protect that sanctity as much as possible while also ensuring any eligible voter is allowed to do so.

If you have better ideas I'm all ears.

Nobody sped on my road again today because the cops weren't here to write tickets.... So there shouldn't be a speed limit and cops should never be on my road, they have no proof of traffic violations here.

 

[ChesusRice]

people misrepresenting themselves on an internet forum does not affect me in the least. People misrepresenting themselves at the voting booth shits all over the sanctity of democracy. I'd like to protect that sanctity as much as possible while also ensuring any eligible voter is allowed to do so.

If you have better ideas I'm all ears.

Nobody sped on my road again today because the cops weren't here to write tickets.... So there shouldn't be a speed limit and cops should never be on my road, they have no proof of traffic violations here.

Yes but last week your neighbor thought a car was going too fast. A shiny blackcar. She reported it to the police. So now they are going to outlaw shiny black cars. If you own a black car have it painted blue. So you can drive on public roads

 

[Red1966]

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.

Your contention that vote fraud must be widespread to be effective is totally false and you should know that. Your attempts to frame the argument on a false precept is dishonest.

 

[Red1966]

[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]

I don't know where you got this quote but it is inaccurate. Felons in Florida can have their voting rights restored by appearing before a judge and asking. The restoration is always granted unless they have violated the conditions of their parole. Few do, because they usually are uninterested in voting.

 

[ChesusRice]

I don't know where you got this quote but it is inaccurate. Felons in Florida can have their voting rights restored by appearing before a judge and asking. The restoration is always granted unless they have violated the conditions of their parole. Few do, because they usually are uninterested in voting.

In Florida, individuals convicted of a felony are stripped of their civil and voting rights, even after completion of their sentences. Loss of civil rights takes away not only the right to vote, but also the right to hold public office, serve on a jury, and qualify for certain types of state licenses necessary for many jobs, such as those in the construction and medical fields.
In order to restore those rights, a person with a past felony conviction must apply for Restoration of Civil Rights (RCR). Only the Governor and the Executive Clemency Board have the power to restore those rights. The entire process is complicated and takes years. Even then, there is no guarantee an individual's rights will be restored.
Florida is one of only three states that strip all citizens with past felony convictions of their civil and voting rights for life. In Florida, this voting and civil rights ban dates back to the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War when newly-freed slaves were granted the right to vote. Florida officials responded by enshrining this policy into the state constitution, leaving African Americans with little voice in their government for years to come. Today, nearly one in three African-American men in Florida cannot vote because of this system.

http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/florida_voting_ban.cfm

WHY IS IT YOU ARE ALWAYS SO FULL OF SHIT I CAN SMELL YOU THRU MY MONITOR?

 

[Red1966]

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.

Your studies were neither transparent nor factual. I have witnessed voter fraud, so you can not convince me it doesn't exist. Once again, your claim voter fraud must be widespread to matter is bullshit. You know it's not true, but you keep stating it. So you are a LIAR. Everyone born in the USA has a birth certificate. Naturalized citizens have the paper work from that process. That should cover anyone who is eligible to vote. Your 11% figure is a complete fabrication. You haven't shown ANY evidence at all, just one-sided conjecture. Trying to present it as fact is dishonest. Even the courts dismissed your fabrications.

 

[Red1966]

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.

Projection? Using pseudo-scientific terms doesn't make them true. I could just as easily dismiss your statement by stating you're a pathological liar. Oh, wait, you are a liar, maybe not pathological. Accusations of criminal activity with no evidence what so ever. You're making an argument that only the already convinced will accept. First you claim there is no vote fraud, then claim Republicans are doing it. All the while claiming it doesn't matter.

 

[Red1966]

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

Robert Byrd got plenty of love. Can you say "racist" another thousand times? Oh, you're already working on it.

 

[Red1966]

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

The Chicago Machine is historically documented in many, many publications. Pretending it doesn't exist is dishonest. You seem to lie in every post you make.

 

[Red1966]

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.

Once again, the "widespread abuse" misdirection. Your "verifiable studies" are just a collection of opinions presented as facts. Anecdotal evidence is not supposition. Labeling it so is dishonest. LIAR!!!

 

[Red1966]

No Desert Dude, I object to it because it inhibits citizens from voting and I see no evidence that fraud is a bigger threat. You are unable to show that evidence. It is easy to ignore evidence and continue simply to polarize a particular issue by crediting my stance as a "tribal" one but you see, I don't do tribes, I go where the truth or the evidence or the facts take me. I am wondering why you do not.

There's been plenty of evidence presented, you just pretend it doesn't count for some reason. " I go where the truth or the evidence or the facts take me." is bullshit. You ignore or dismiss anything counter to your viewpoint, then claim to be impartial. lol

 

[Red1966]

I lived in a second floor rear walkup at 2711 W Ogden, from about 1960 to 1968. My family immigrated to Chicago in 1956 from Kentucky. We "moved" to Chicago on a Greyhound bus. Your idea of "rich" is a bit bizarre.

He never said you were rich. LIAR!!!

 

[Red1966]

Who is "They" that can afford the latest iPhone? And what are you talking about? Putting a monetary requirement on voting in the form of forcing people to present an ID which has a monetary cost, is in essence a de-facto poll tax. And whether someone is poor or not, the fact is that taxing someone to exercise their rights is wrong. Should they require an ID to attend a church? What about to write on these message boards? Should there be an ID which must be presented to an official before you are allowed to post on Rollitup.org or another website? What about to write a book? Or to purchase a Bible? How about before you speak, you must show the other person your ID? Is that OK? But please explain who is "They" that can afford an iPhone.

ID charges no tax. It charges a fee.

 

[ChesusRice]

He never said you were rich. LIAR!!!

Actually I did
I called him a rich south side pussie

 

[Red1966]

In Florida, individuals convicted of a felony are stripped of their civil and voting rights, even after completion of their sentences. Loss of civil rights takes away not only the right to vote, but also the right to hold public office, serve on a jury, and qualify for certain types of state licenses necessary for many jobs, such as those in the construction and medical fields. In order to restore those rights, a person with a past felony conviction must apply for Restoration of Civil Rights (RCR). Only the Governor and the Executive Clemency Board have the power to restore those rights. The entire process is complicated and takes years. Even then, there is no guarantee an individual's rights will be restored. Florida is one of only three states that strip all citizens with past felony convictions of their civil and voting rights for life. In Florida, this voting and civil rights ban dates back to the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War when newly-freed slaves were granted the right to vote. Florida officials responded by enshrining this policy into the state constitution, leaving African Americans with little voice in their government for years to come. Today, nearly one in three African-American men in Florida cannot vote because of this system. http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/florida_voting_ban.cfm WHY IS IT YOU ARE ALWAYS SO FULL OF SHIT I CAN SMELL YOU THRU MY MONITOR?

The smell must be coming from your mouth since smell can't be transmitted electronically. Are you upset that your arguments are so easily proven false? Stop lying so much and it won't happen. The process has been streamlined and takes six months at most. Claiming one in three African-American males is a felon sounds RACIST. How being an ex-slave constitutes being a felon escapes me. I think the last ex-slave died several years ago.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

The smell must be coming from your mouth since smell can't be transmitted electronically. Are you upset that your arguments are so easily proven false? Stop lying so much and it won't happen. The process has been streamlined and takes six months at most. Claiming one in three African-American males is a felon sounds RACIST. How being an ex-slave constitutes being a felon escapes me. I think the last ex-slave died several years ago.

i like how you question the validity of his copy and paste info, without providing a single article of proof of your own that he is lying. . . . . .. instead of making accusations maybe you should provide the proof that he is lying

statistics are not racist . .the racism part comes when people put them into a racists context,or use them to discriminate

what exactly has been streamlines about that process ? if he is right and just a conviction takes away your civil rights . .then that only takes a few minutes for the papers to be signed . . . . . a conviction is immediate . . . .

 

[Red1966]

i like how you question the validity of his copy and paste info, without providing a single article of proof of your own that he is lying. . . . . .. instead of making accusations maybe you should provide the proof that he is lying statistics are not racist . .the racism part comes when people put them into a racists context,or use them to discriminate what exactly has been streamlines about that process ? if he is right and just a conviction takes away your civil rights . .then that only takes a few minutes for the papers to be signed . . . . . a conviction is immediate . . . .

It's up to him to prove his claims, not me. His claim that voter fraud must be widespread to count is obviously false. An election can be decided by just one vote. Logic proves he's lying. He put it into a racist context, not I. The appeal must be decided within 6 months or the appeal is automatically granted. There's a lot more to a conviction than signing a piece of paper. Convictions take years sometimes, even a guilty plea will take several weeks for a conviction.

 

[Red1966]

Oops. Made a mistake. Not eligible for restoration of civil rights until 5 years have passed without a conviction. I don't care if criminals can't vote anyway.

 

[Red1966]

Quicker if you have record expunged, but usually not feasible.