There are an estimated 12-13 million illegal aliens/undocumented workers living among us in the United States. The left is claiming that basically none of them vote in our elections...not that we'd know, cause we don't check citizenship or even identity at the polls. It strains credulity...to say the least. WaPo and Poltifact....two DNC mouthpieces used as sources. LOL 1. WaPo -- Does "secret" fundraisers in conjunction with the DNC (source: Wikileaks). 2. Politifact -- Just do a Bing Search for Politifact. (Hint: The top result for a Politifact search is...POLITIFACT BIAS) Meanwhile: Virginia Supreme Court cut down Virginia Governor Terry McAauliffe's Executive Order to give 206,000 convicted felons the right to vote. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/virginia-supreme-court-voting-rights-felons/ Notice the wording here. The ruling is a POLITICAL SETBACK TO DEMOCRATS...not for (convicted felon) citizens. Also notice, that Tim Kaine wanted to do the same thing. Also notice, that instead of looking at things on a case by case basis, the Democrats wanted to do a "Sweeping Action" by Executive Order rather than through the legislature of the state. One last thing. Who is Terry McAuliffe? <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is what dauntless leadership looks like. Thank you, <a href="https://twitter.com/GovernorVA">@GovernorVA</a>—proud to call you a friend. -H <a href="https://t.co/c72c0HUSyw">https://t.co/c72c0HUSyw</a></p>— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/756860753668440064">July 23, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It affects the people that are statistically more likely to lack ID, who are also more likely to vote for Democrats. Seems like Bobby is perfectly OK with passing laws with the intent to discriminate.
Better than your fantasy land, where it is perfectly OK to pass laws with the express intent to discriminate against certain voters.
No, it strains credulity to claim that people who are here illegally will engage in behaviors that might actually get them caught and deported in order to have a minuscule effect on an election in a country of which they aren't even citizens. LOL at your use of the genetic fallacy. I guess fallacies are all you have, go suck on one next time instead of spouting it all over the board. Is there a federal law which eliminates the right to vote for felons? I thought that was a state issue. Who gives a flying f*** about any of this? Oh, that's right, only brain dead, biased partisans who are perfectly OK with laws that discriminate against people who vote for Democrats. The courts found that it is wrong, why don't you take time off of sucking fallacies and suck on that for a bit?
To answer your question...Democrat candidates care, including Hillary Clinton. They want convicted criminals to vote. ALL of em. Fortunately, so did the Virginia Supreme Court.
"Citizens" All Convicted Felons are now...just "Citizens". Murderers. Rapists. Kidnappers. Just "Citizens". Well, at least according to Clinton friend and supporter, Terry McAuliffe and Gladiator Rowdy. What a great ad this will make in Virginia for ...well...any other candidate but Clinton.
In a country with over 15 million cases of identity theft a year, of course there's no voter fraud. I mean, why would someone pretend to be someone they are not?
I'm not terribly concerned about rednecks out in the sticks honestly. If they want to head to "the big city" and vote, then they should get an ID. If they are capable of making it to a polling station, they are capable of making it to get an ID. If they don't care about voting, they can stay in the sticks with no ID and I'm fine with that.
You think they'd care about this if they hadn't realized these would be primarily Democratic voters? Of course not. There is politics being played on both sides of this. Requiring identification as part of our voting process only makes sense. There isn't an reasonable argument against it. How else, for example, could we even verify that one IS a citizen when voting? We couldn't...we couldn't even definitely identify who they were, much less their citizenship status. It is ONLY an issue because of the demographics. So, why not implement a plan that helps those without ID to get one, rather than be against preventing voter fraud? I believe we need voter ID (I'm really pretty amazed it hasn't been a requirement all along). I also believe we should take steps so that implementing it doesn't disenfranchise people. But arguing that we shouldn't be able to properly identify people when they vote is just ridiculous...and without an ID, we can't. I know back in your day, old-timer, no one had IDs (or even cars or phones), but here in the present, they're pretty common. You can't write a check without ID, why should the standards be even lower for voting?
We could use the system we have now, which has worked great. You register. Your name is on the list at your polling place. You give your name. They look it up. If it's on there you can vote. If it's not on there you can fill out a provisional ballot, and they check to make sure you're a registered voter. No need to show an ID.
The benefit of stopping potentially tens of voters on the very high side in an election with 70 million votes cast is heavily outweighed by the risk of disenfranchising potentially millions of people who have been intentionally targeted for political reasons. Furthermore, absentee ballots, which are more likely to be fraudulent, aren't subject to this ID requirement and intentionally so because absentee voters are overwhelmingly white. The whole thing is a well orchestrated red herring by Republicans and that's why multiple states have had these ID laws overturned. Personally, I find it absurd that someone loses the right to vote if they commit a crime and serve their time but that's a different issue.
Not if they come at the cost of disenfranchising many legitimate voters in order to address a problem that the GOP invented in order to have an excuse to suppress the votes of people who generally vote for Democrats.
You think the GOP would have cared about this if the voters whose rights they were infringing on were GOP voters? There is a reason that student IDs are not acceptable under these laws, but CHL licenses are. We require voter registration already, that is enough of an impediment. Yes, there is, the fact that the intent of the legislation is to suppress the votes of people who vote for Democrats. Voter registration takes care of this. Registrations can be compared to citizenship databases to verify that the people registering are citizens, which is exactly what the Bush administration did when they studied the issue. They found that it is more likely to be struck by lightning than to actually see a case of in-person voter fraud. This was an administration that was highly motivated to find anything wrong, which spent millions of dollars looking, and found zero substantive problems with in person voter fraud. Yes, we can, it is called voter registration. Yes, it is an issue because Republicans desperately want to reduce the number of Democrats who are able to vote. Most likely, the court wouldn't have found the law discriminatory if it had contained a mechanism for citizens to get free and easy access to the necessary ID, but that would have gone against the intent of the law. Yes, your echo chamber has drummed it into you enough that it would be more surprising if you didn't believe it. Good to hear you are against the Voter ID laws, as currently constructed. Yes, we can. We require them to register, to provide their names when they show up at the polls, and to sign the book. We then have the ability to compare registrations to citizenship rolls and their signatures, year after year. According to various studies and the facts discussed by the courts, there are still significant numbers of people who lack ID, which is the reason the laws were created. The people who lack ID are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, so the GOP saw an opportunity to suppress the voters of their rivals, which is the entire reason the laws are being struck down in state after state. They aren't lower. You don't have to register in advance with the person or business to whom you are writing the check, you don't have to sign a separate register every time you write a check. The check analogy just isn't accurate, which you would realize if you had the ability to look at this issue objectively.
