Democrats Plan To Win Elections With Illegal Alien Votes

[Fresh]

Sorry fresh you didn't link to any story you linked to an opinion piece from a batshit insane lady just a few weeks ago she was saying Obama was spreading ebola in the us.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/phyllis-schlafly

If you want to have an adult discussion cite a proper source.

Yeah fresh, Alex Jones and Phyllis Schlafly are "just right of center" with super constitutional policy's like religious tests for office, immigration and outright bans on religion. Don't mention their views on those "foreign people and ideas"

 

Let's get the government out of our lives and into our pants. Defenders of marriage, Defending the institution against people who want to get married, And have their insurance carried, And be beneficiary'd, And be next to the ones they love when they are buried!

 

Listen, some do have crazy ideas with that said, this topic is not way out there at all.  I object not on religious grounds but logical ones.  So what, i am entitled.  I think some of the stuff you say is way out there and I am sure you think the same of me.  I would like common sense approaches to things. I believe power and money have tendency to corrupt.  People on the right want amnesty for cheap labor reasons....they want to pay lower wages....shhhh....is that a conspiracy?  Democrats know that minorities typically vote for which party?  Shhhhh....conspiracy theory...really. Sheesh!

 

I don't know enough about him and I do not know where he would be in an executive position. I'm assuming he's not a right winger based on your statements.

Self proclaimed (I) openly socialist. 

[TPreston]

Sorry fresh she's a nutter that makes these types of claims on a daily basis, if you want to have an adult conversation make a new thread with a proper source. Regardless of the claims of the eagle forum about immigrants being subhuman dependants

 

The only people to blame for the the republican party's popularity with minorities is the Republican party;

 

I could go on for hours about minority outreach confrences that nobody bothered their ass to attend, Or that rancher who republicans idolised for weeks as the new rosa parks who just happened to be a humongous racist but I don't think I need to instead ill just post one shining example and that is

 

In 2015 CPAC banned GOProud while yet again allowing an anti-immigrant headed by an honest-to-goodness white nationalist.

 

https://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/race-racism-and-white-nationalism/item/399-what-about-bob?-robert-vandervoort-and-white-nationalism

https://www.proenglish.org/about-us/meet-the-staff.html

https://www.proenglish.org/events/conferences-menu.html

 

What message does that give minority's ? And how is this Obamas fault ?

 

As a bonus lets listen to schlafly's latest nugget of wisdom

 

TOTALLY NOT OFFPUTTING TO MINORITYS /s

Lets be honest here, This all comes down to the fear conservatives have that the population of Americans both racially and politically have drifted away from the GOPs base. Immigration or no Immigration;

[fusi0n]

people trust the government way too much.. they've done much worse than this.. This is normal practice for either party.. They both are a bunch of liers.. and.. Taxes are a joke and it looks like Obama is going to use his shiney pen to enforce it. Even came straight out of his mouth..  

[theyarecomingforyou]

Phyllis Schlafly

[Memphis]

Voter fraud is statistically irrelevant, yet the voter disenfranchisement caused by Voter ID is certainly not. It's a calculated attempt by conservatives to alter the political landscape by suppressing votes, particularly amongst minority and youth demographics which typically vote Democrat. Please read up about the matter, as you're seriously misinformed.

If the GOP really cared about voter fraud it would provide free government ID to all those affected. I mean the GOP obviously cares about the integrity of the voting system, right? The reality is that it's an outrageously cynical power grab and it saddens me that there are people that fall for it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a state implementing voter ID must make the basic ID free in order to avoid being considered a poll tax and unconstitutional. If this isn't currently the case I will have to side with you on voter ID, otherwise I don't see the problem.

[Radium]

Phyllis Schlafly

[Fresh]

Sorry fresh you didn't link to any story you linked to an opinion piece from a batshit insane lady just a few weeks ago she was saying Obama was spreading ebola in the us.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/phyllis-schlafly

If you want to have an adult discussion cite a proper source.

Yeah fresh, Alex Jones and Phyllis Schlafly are "just right of center" with super constitutional policy's like religious tests for office, immigration and outright bans on religion. Don't mention their views on those "foreign people and ideas"

 

Let's get the government out of our lives and into our pants. Defenders of marriage, Defending the institution against people who want to get married, And have their insurance carried, And be beneficiary'd, And be next to the ones they love when they are buried!

Changing it based on emotion, I just disagree, it just makes no sense. It would makes sense if anyone could call anything a marriage. Well just about anything

 

I listen and read and welcome all opinions, Tolerance of others views.  I try my best not to call people names because I do not like what they say or believe. It t is undeniable it would help one political party.  

[Mockingbird]

Seems to me like OP's source is a fan of vote rigging

 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/phyllis-schlafly-s-totally-coherent-defense-north-carolina-s-voter-suppression-lawhttp://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/10-worst-arguments-eagle-forums-anti-immigrant-plan-save-gop

The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama

[theyarecomingforyou]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a state implementing voter ID must make the basic ID free in order to avoid being considered a poll tax and unconstitutional. If this isn't currently the case I will have to side with you on voter ID, otherwise I don't see the problem.

The Voter ID laws being propose don't include any provisions for free or subsidised IDs. Several reports have found that Voter ID laws have led to lower turnouts.

 

I said ID! A general ID card not an ID specific for voting. We get a voting card in Sweden too, which tells you what district you belong to and you need both that card and your ID to be allowed to vote. They make sure you're in the list. My post was more about ID itself and not specifically voter ID or voter fraud. It's not a government overreach either since an ID is a way for you to show who you really are which will allow the government to that you are OK but the guy next to you make claims but can't prove ######. ID cards aren't some piece of paper you get in the Kelogg's box but a proper ID with electronic verification built in.

The previous UK government tried to introduce ID cards but they were widely opposed and the proposal was dropped. We have some forms of government ID (driving licence, passport, etc) but don't have any general ID (people can be denied a driving licence or passport). I oppose any legislation that impacts legitimate voters more than the fraudulent votes it prevents (if any), hence why I oppose the Voter ID laws being proposed in the US.

 

Voter ID laws seem like a great idea in principle, as everybody opposes voter fraud, but they disproportionately impact legitimate voters and result in disenfranchisement.

[Fresh]

The above is BS. Rationalize and justify. You want and support voter fraud. The ends justify the means.

[TechJunkie81]

Once again CONservatives show they need managed care.

[Tews]

Once again CONservatives show they need managed care.

 

Thanks for your useless drivil...

[TechJunkie81]

Ok time to teach some history.

 

In 1776 when the American Revolution began guess who fought for the King of England ?  CONservatives.

 

In 1787 after the victorious Revolutionaries wrote up a new Constitution with the words "All men are created equal", guess who changed that ?  CONservatives.  They needed to own people so they had it written that the black man is only 3/5ths of a person.

 

Fast forward to 1860 when the majority of the American people decided they had enough of slavery and wanted it gone who committed Treason and Sedition and formed their own Fake America called the CSA ? CONservatives. They claimed it was "States' Rights" but we all know they just wanted to own people.

 

The CONservatives lost that war and were forced back into the Union and still somehow made the black man a non-slave slave, because Freedom.

 

Fast forward to the 1960's and CONservatives fought till the bitter end (never did stop fighting) to keep the black man from having his true civil rights given to him.

 

Fast forward to today and the CONservatives are fighting till the bitter end to keep the Gay Man from having the equal rights that are owed to him as well.

 

Let this be clear.  The CONservatives are the real enemies of America.  Have been since 1776.  Their claimed love of this country is an utter joke and a complete lie. 

Thanks for your useless drivil...

 

Truth hurts eh.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The above is BS. Rationalize and justify. You want and support voter fraud. The ends justify the means.

Voter ID laws would hinder and/or prevent millions of people from voting in order to stop a few hundred fraudulent votes. I oppose voter fraud but am willing to tolerate a few hundred fraudulent votes if it protects the voting rights of millions. Your position is intellectually and morally void.

 

The problem you have

[Memphis]

Voter ID laws would hinder and/or prevent millions of people from voting in order to stop a few hundred fraudulent votes. I oppose voter fraud but am willing to tolerate a few hundred fraudulent votes if it protects the voting rights of millions. Your position is intellectually and morally void.

 

The problem you have

[+DoctorD Subscriber²]

In NY when you go to vote you have to sign the book next to your name and then they look at your signature to see if it matches the one on file in the very same book.  My question is how can all these folks vote without being registered to vote?

[theyarecomingforyou]

I've been thinking about how little sense this makes more and more. When I register to vote, I have to identify myself already. Then when I get to the polling booth, if my name is not on the voter list I cant vote. I'm not exactly sure why we need another step there the more I think about it. You could say that someone could vote in your stead with your name but that also makes no sense or very quickly we would see people being denied vote because they already voted. Unless i'm missing something here, I'm not sure I see the problem with the current system.

Exactly. If voter fraud was a significant issue then you'd see people turning up to vote and being denied or being caught trying to vote after the ballot has already been cast legitimately. To vote fraudulently a person needs to know that someone is on the electoral register, that they don't plan to vote and which district they'll be voting in. Any individual trying to vote multiple times would be spotted if using the same polling station, meaning they'd need to travel constantly from one to another. That would require massive coordination just to be able to cast a few votes that would be statistically meaningless in 99.9% of races.

 

The problem is that Voter ID sounds like a great idea on paper. I mean, who doesn't want to reduce or eliminate voter fraud? However, when you look at the motivations of those proposing such legislation it becomes all too clear why it is being done. If you can suppress the vote of the opposition if gives you a better chance of winning, hence why we see conservatives pushing Voter ID and both parties resorting to gerrymandering.

 

As for the idea that the Democrats are planning to allow millions of illegal immigrants to vote, the article itself points out that the social security numbers provided make them ineligible to vote. However, if done through legitimate channels there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote. We're talking about people who have lived in the country for decades, have jobs and children, are part of their local community, etc. For all intents and purposes they're American. If they're to be deported then they should be but if not they should be granted the right to vote.

[Clirion]

Exactly. If voter fraud was a significant issue then you'd see people turning up to vote and being denied or being caught trying to vote after the ballot has already been cast legitimately. To vote fraudulently a person needs to know that someone is on the electoral register, that they don't plan to vote and which district they'll be voting in. Any individual trying to vote multiple times would be spotted if using the same polling station, meaning they'd need to travel constantly from one to another. That would require massive coordination just to be able to cast a few votes that would be statistically meaningless in 99.9% of races.

 

The problem is that Voter ID sounds like a great idea on paper. I mean, who doesn't want to reduce or eliminate voter fraud? However, when you look at the motivations of those proposing such legislation it becomes all too clear why it is being done. If you can suppress the vote of the opposition if gives you a better chance of winning, hence why we see conservatives pushing Voter ID and both parties resorting to gerrymandering.

 

As for the idea that the Democrats are planning to allow millions of illegal immigrants to vote, the article itself points out that the social security numbers provided make them ineligible to vote. However, if done through legitimate channels there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote. We're talking about people who have lived in the country for decades, have jobs and children, are part of their local community, etc. For all intents and purposes they're American. If they're to be deported then they should be but if not they should be granted the right to vote.

There are laws on the books that do not allow them to vote, even in local elections. (Except for 3 cities that I am aware of). 

A vast majority of Voter Registration laws allow you to register when you get a Drivers License and the Social Security card is a valid second form of ID for Voter ID registration.  That piece should be looked at to, especially since there is State Law in elections as well as Federal Law.

 

This is one of those situations that the US is closer to the EU than one individual country comes into play do to the political system.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

<Thread cleaned>

Please stick to the topic at hand rather than going off-course.

[TrevorLahey]

They've already used dead people, and bus in other idiots that can't name any other president other the bush and Obama, so why not use illegal aliens?

[Mockingbird]

They've already used dead people, and bus in other idiots that can't name any other president other the bush and Obama, so why not use illegal aliens?

 

It's cheap!

 

Illegal aliens can use their own spaceships to get themselves to polling places!

 

Digging up dead people is expensive!

[webdev511]

First and foremost, there is NOTHING in the US Constitution that explicitly guarantees citizens the right to vote. PERIOD. It's all implicit via language about elections.

They've already used dead people, and bus in other idiots that can't name any other president other the bush and Obama, so why not use illegal aliens?

Because the dead people in question were already on the voter rolls (Mayor Daily's Chicago). It doesn't matter what your immigration or citizenship status is, these days when one registers to vote one must present proof of who you are AND local specific residency. So no one is going to sneak millions of people on to voter rolls without a single person noticing.

 

On the broader issue of Voter ID laws (almost exclusively proposed & backed by conservatives), they put a lot of money toward "fixing" a problem that statistically speaking is all but non-existent, but do a great job of suppressing voters that are unlikely to vote for those that backed the law in the first place.

[libertas83]

Voter ID laws would hinder and/or prevent millions of people from voting in order to stop a few hundred fraudulent votes. I oppose voter fraud but am willing to tolerate a few hundred fraudulent votes if it protects the voting rights of millions. Your position is intellectually and morally void.

 

The problem you have

[Mockingbird]

Why would Voter IDs necessarily have to disenfranchise minority voters? I can't speak to all the laws proposed for it so I can't say if someone did put something in there that makes it harder, but that doesn't mean that having a Voter ID will prevent minorities or any other group from voting.

 

Let's break down the logic of how improbable it is that minorities can't vote because of a Voter ID requirement shall we:

• Smokers must have valid ID to prove they are 18+ when purchasing cigarettes
• You must have a valid ID to prove you are 21+ when going to a strip club (more likely to get carded)
• You must have a valid ID to prove you are 21+ when purchasing alcohol
• You must have a drivers license to drive a certain class of vehicle. More strict guidelines needed for truck driving and other class vehicles
• You must have a license in many states to fish, hunt, or participate in other recreational activities
• You must have a background check and ID to purchase firearms
• In order to vote, you must stay up-to-date on your voter registration
• In order to vote, you must show up to a voting poll which is often not in a convenient place and requires taking off time from work

I don't know enough about medical marijuana but I would think they would have similar requirements like alcohol and in a legal marijuana system like Colorado, I would expect it even more.

 

I have never seen a minority group not participating in one of these activities because they couldn't get identification or the license to do so. That eliminates the systematic logic that requiring a voter ID means it is a Jim Crow law to prevent minorities from voting.

 

Now, recognizing some individuals due to circumstances may be in a rough patch and not able to get an ID and doesn't drive, smoke, fish, drink... Though I wonder, if you don't drive how do you go vote? There needs to be a method, a way for them to get an ID. That can be solved in many simple ways. For example, if people are getting bused in to the polls, why don't they do that to bus them into an ID center to get verified?

 

Some people just don't need government issue IDs.

 

Think of an 18 year old student who live in a densely populated city and gets around by bus because the traffic is so bad.

 

What do you propose him do? Skip school so he can go to the DMV and get his ID?

[libertas83]

Some people just don't need government issue IDs.

 

Think of an 18 year old student who live in a densely populated city and gets around by bus because the traffic is so bad.

 

What do you propose him do? Skip school so he can go to the DMV and get his ID?

 

An 18yr old college student has a College ID. That could be made to work as a valid ID. While I'm at it, same can be done for military IDs as well.