If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   If you plan to vote this fall, just hope your name isn't Juan of those on this list   (denverpost.com) divider line 73
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

1676 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2012 at 10:16 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-15 10:18:24 AM
What you did there I see it.jpg
 
2012-07-15 10:18:54 AM
If you plan to vote this fall, just hope your name isn't accidentally or "accidentally" purged because it is similar to Juan of those on this list

Fixed for accuracy.
 
2012-07-15 10:25:45 AM
Seeing it was the Denver Post, I expected to see this article: Colorado Secretary of State Gessler has found 85 potential illegal voters

Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked - maybe not a huge problem, but still much bigger than those crying "racism!" would ever admit.
 
2012-07-15 10:26:54 AM
Clearly the safeguards Florida has put in place to protect their registration process are completely inadequate.
 
2012-07-15 10:27:33 AM
Republicans stealing a Presidential election by stealing Florida's electoral votes?

I've never heard of such a thing.
 
2012-07-15 10:28:38 AM

Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far


FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.
 
2012-07-15 10:30:21 AM

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.


Bush vs. Gore was determined by around 300 if memory serves...
 
2012-07-15 10:30:58 AM

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

Bush vs. Gore was determined by around 300 if memory serves...


You mean 5-4?
 
2012-07-15 10:32:23 AM
Because voting for who is the puppet-leader of this great country of ours really matters. Enjoy your popularity contest, folks. I'm staying home.
 
2012-07-15 10:33:37 AM

Alphax: cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

Bush vs. Gore was determined by around 300 if memory serves...

You mean 5-4?


www.sundriesshack.com
 
2012-07-15 10:34:15 AM

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.


You can argue about whether 0.85 is close to 1 if you want, but percentages do not work the way you calculate them.
 
2012-07-15 10:35:36 AM

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

Bush vs. Gore was determined by around 300 if memory serves...


But still not 89. And according to the article only 29 of those were active votes.

The only proof of voter fraud on that kind of scale is small town elections that no one outside of that small town gives a shiat about. It hasn't impacted a Federal or State election in any way shape or form no matter how butthurt either side is about "the other side stealing the election".
 
2012-07-15 10:37:31 AM

Alphax: cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

Bush vs. Gore was determined by around 300 if memory serves...

You mean 5-4?


537 vote difference out of 5,825,043 cast.

It's too bad Gore didn't want to recount all the votes. Bush would have won by more!

/That poor chicken...
 
2012-07-15 10:37:31 AM

Happy Hours: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

You can argue about whether 0.85 is close to 1 if you want, but percentages do not work the way you calculate them.


Yeah, I caught my mistake after posting. But in reality only 29 of those were active votes so really it's only .0029 or .29%.
 
2012-07-15 10:41:14 AM

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

You can argue about whether 0.85 is close to 1 if you want, but percentages do not work the way you calculate them.

Yeah, I caught my mistake after posting. But in reality only 29 of those were active votes so really it's only .0029 or .29%.


537 out of 5,825,043 is 0.00009 percent.

And enough to change history.
 
2012-07-15 10:41:30 AM

Happy Hours: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

You can argue about whether 0.85 is close to 1 if you want, but percentages do not work the way you calculate them.


Read your article again, this time more carefully.
 
2012-07-15 10:42:39 AM

cabbyman: Alphax: cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

Bush vs. Gore was determined by around 300 if memory serves...

You mean 5-4?

537 vote difference out of 5,825,043 cast.

It's too bad Gore didn't want to recount all the votes. Bush would have won by more!

/That poor chicken...


IIRC, the AP determined that Gore would have won the recount had the Supreme Court not halted it.
 
2012-07-15 10:43:21 AM

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

You can argue about whether 0.85 is close to 1 if you want, but percentages do not work the way you calculate them.

Yeah, I caught my mistake after posting. But in reality only 29 of those were active votes so really it's only .0029 or .29%.


And point .29% of a specific set, not the general population.
 
2012-07-15 10:43:24 AM

Gone In 26 Minutes: Because voting for who is the puppet-leader of this great country of ours really matters. Enjoy your popularity contest, folks. I'm staying home.


Don't worry. RON PAUL will be back next election.
 
2012-07-15 10:44:24 AM

farkityfarker: cabbyman: Alphax: cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

Bush vs. Gore was determined by around 300 if memory serves...

You mean 5-4?

537 vote difference out of 5,825,043 cast.

It's too bad Gore didn't want to recount all the votes. Bush would have won by more!

/That poor chicken...

IIRC, the AP determined that Gore would have won the recount had the Supreme Court not halted it.


Negative.
 
2012-07-15 10:45:55 AM
Sorry, but I'm positive that was the case.

Why do you think the Supreme Court stopped the recount?
 
2012-07-15 10:47:49 AM

farkityfarker: Sorry, but I'm positive that was the case.

Why do you think the Supreme Court stopped the recount?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

"In 2001, a consortium of news organizations, assisted by professional statisticians (NORC) , examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting all the Florida ballots. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected. Under some methods, Al Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, George W. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Bush. Under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount - filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties - Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium. If Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.[1][2]"
 
2012-07-15 10:51:30 AM

Ed Finnerty: Gone In 26 Minutes: Because voting for who is the puppet-leader of this great country of ours really matters. Enjoy your popularity contest, folks. I'm staying home.

Don't worry. RON PAUL will be back next election.


Oh, you're mistaking me for one of his flock. No. I don't think he would do a better job. In fact, I hope he dies before the next election so I don't have to hear about him anymore and how I should write-in vote for him. He's old enough that he just might.

I really think voting on the presidential election (and really, any election) is pointless. Money is too strong a motivator to keep people honest. Besides, VERY few people go into politics because of some conviction that they can make the nation/world better. When we're able to start limiting how much money and how much in the way of 'favors' our politicians can get from big businesses and other interest groups (an essentially impossible task,) let me know and it'll start mattering more.
 
2012-07-15 10:53:26 AM

Mrtraveler01: The only proof of voter fraud on that kind of scale is small town elections that no one outside of that small town gives a shiat about. It hasn't impacted a Federal or State election in any way shape or form no matter how butthurt either side is about "the other side stealing the election".


I live in a small town. Quite a few people live in small towns.

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

You can argue about whether 0.85 is close to 1 if you want, but percentages do not work the way you calculate them.

Yeah, I caught my mistake after posting. But in reality only 29 of those were active votes so really it's only .0029 or .29%.


Active voters since 2010. Like these people bothered to register, but don't worry - they totally won't vote in a presidential election.

So what's your answer? We should just leave all 85 on the list of eligible voters because most of them won't bother to vote anyway, based on the fact that they haven't voted in the last 2 years?

And these are just the ones they found (immigrants with arrest records who were identified as illegal immigrants).
 
2012-07-15 11:00:30 AM

Happy Hours: Mrtraveler01: The only proof of voter fraud on that kind of scale is small town elections that no one outside of that small town gives a shiat about. It hasn't impacted a Federal or State election in any way shape or form no matter how butthurt either side is about "the other side stealing the election".

I live in a small town. Quite a few people live in small towns.

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

You can argue about whether 0.85 is close to 1 if you want, but percentages do not work the way you calculate them.

Yeah, I caught my mistake after posting. But in reality only 29 of those were active votes so really it's only .0029 or .29%.

Active voters since 2010. Like these people bothered to register, but don't worry - they totally won't vote in a presidential election.

So what's your answer? We should just leave all 85 on the list of eligible voters because most of them won't bother to vote anyway, based on the fact that they haven't voted in the last 2 years?

And these are just the ones they found (immigrants with arrest records who were identified as illegal immigrants).


Exactly, you think the number is going to be much much bigger than .29% when it's all done but I really doubt it because that's what you want to believe. And that's fine and dandy and all but the reality is that I doubt that it's going to be much higher than .29% when it's all said and done.

My question is that is it worth inconviencing the lives of millions of law abiding voters just to prevent 29 voters from voting in an election that will be determined by a margin higher than 29 votes?

Like someone said, one side wants to disenfranchise and inconvienence millions of voters to stop a few from fraud while the other would rather have the millions have easy and convienent access to voting at the risk a few would vote fraudualently in an election that will be determined by more than a few votes.

That's just how I see things.
 
2012-07-15 11:00:42 AM

Gone In 26 Minutes:
Oh, you're mistaking me for one of his flock. No. I don't think he would do a better job. In fact, I hope he dies before the next election so I don't have to hear about him anymore and how I should write-in vote for him. He's old enough that he just might.

I really think voting on the presidential election (and really, any election) is pointless. Money is too strong a motivator to keep people honest. Besides, VERY few people go into politics because of some conviction that they can make the nation/world better. When we're able to start limiting how much money and how much in the way of 'favors' our politicians can get from big businesses and other interest groups (an essentially impossible task,) let me know and it'll start mattering more.


I'm glad you're not advocating Paul.

I understand and empathize with your points, but giving up entirely would seem to feed the basis of your complaint.

What's your plan for getting things back on track? Waiting around and doing nothing?

I'm not trying to bust your balls, here. Just curious what solutions you see.
 
2012-07-15 11:08:30 AM
Because I have a little compassion for you libtards, I donate this to the thread. Use as much as you feel necessary.

cdn2.mamapop.com
 
2012-07-15 11:09:07 AM

cabbyman: Under some methods, Al Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, George W. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Bush.


While Gore won the nationwide popular vote by over half a million but Bush was selected by a vote of one.
 
2012-07-15 11:13:28 AM

Happy Hours: 85 potential illegal voters


Ah, the dreaded 'Potential illegal voter' . Why is it whenever the vote deniers try to play up this supposed terrible epidemic of illegal voting, all they ever come up with is 'potential' or 'alleged' or phony names on registrations that would never allow someone to actually vote. It's almost as if the 'epidemic' is as large as they can imagine... and is all in their imagination.
 
2012-07-15 11:16:45 AM

Brick-House: Because I have a little compassion for you libtards, I donate this to the thread. Use as much as you feel necessary.

[cdn2.mamapop.com image 850x351]


I'm guessing the ramifications of the Bush's theft of the election are still affecting you negatively, even if you're too stupid to realize it.
 
2012-07-15 11:17:37 AM

Mrtraveler01: Exactly, you think the number is going to be much much bigger than .29% when it's all done but I really doubt it because that's what you want to believe. And that's fine and dandy and all but the reality is that I doubt that it's going to be much higher than .29% when it's all said and done.

My question is that is it worth inconviencing the lives of millions of law abiding voters just to prevent 29 voters from voting in an election that will be determined by a margin higher than 29 votes?

Like someone said, one side wants to disenfranchise and inconvienence millions of voters to stop a few from fraud while the other would rather have the millions have easy and convienent access to voting at the risk a few would vote fraudualently in an election that will be determined by more than a few votes.

That's just how I see things.


Well, it's interesting that you take the extreme position that "one side wants to disenfranchise and inconvenience millions of voters" in respose when I haven't taken any position on what measures should be taken to counter voter fraud.

You say you're certain the number of fraudulent votes cast in the upcoming presidential election will not be more than 0.29% based on this small study which only looked at people who were arrested and identified as non-citizens, but that ignores the flip side of the coin that there are valid eligible voters who also will not vote and that there are plenty of illegal aliens who never get arrested.

How can you say millions would be disenfranchised (I don't care if you're inconvenienced) if the CO sec'y of state is taking such a conservative approach to identifying illegal voters?

Let's require a picture ID - hand them out for free to avoid any objection to a "poll tax" (how many people don't have a picture ID anyway???).

Let people taken off the rolls cast a provisional ballot in case their name was struck from the rolls in error.

What's your objection to that approach?

The Presidential election is not the only one that matters either. Often local elections can be very close too and they matter just as much to the people in those localities.
 
2012-07-15 11:19:00 AM

farkityfarker: IIRC, the AP determined that Gore would have won the recount had the Supreme Court not halted it.



Nope.

Ironically, of the 4 recounts that were done, Bush only lost when they used the most exclusionary, strictest criteria possible -- and by a mere 3 votes -- and Bush won by the most votes when using the criteria that Gore was championing.
 
2012-07-15 11:19:49 AM

Dinki: Happy Hours: 85 potential illegal voters

Ah, the dreaded 'Potential illegal voter' . Why is it whenever the vote deniers try to play up this supposed terrible epidemic of illegal voting, all they ever come up with is 'potential' or 'alleged' or phony names on registrations that would never allow someone to actually vote. It's almost as if the 'epidemic' is as large as they can imagine... and is all in their imagination.


You could read it in his posts.

He recognizes they've only found 85 voters or 29 active voters but as he insists "That's only what they've found so far!"

He knows deep down in his heart, Colorado is going to find thousands more cases of illegitimate voters and in the end that number is going to shoot up to somewhere near 50% if not more!

As you said there are cases of illegitimate voters and voter fraud, but the grand scale that right-wingers keep dreaming about are only in their dreams.

Which is why I'd find the whole thing so comical if it didn't impact so many people's lives.
 
2012-07-15 11:21:46 AM
The agreement will prevent Florida from using only a name and birthdate to seek federal data about a suspected noncitizen on voter rolls. It's unlikely to catch illegal immigrants who might have managed to register to vote because such people typically would not have an alien number.

Scott, whose administration had sued Homeland Security for access to the SAVE list, said the agreement "marks a significant victory for Florida and for the integrity of our election system."


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-15 11:21:52 AM

Happy Hours: Let's require a picture ID - hand them out for free to avoid any objection to a "poll tax" (how many people don't have a picture ID anyway???).


Do they make it known that they hand them out for free or is that a DMV secret. If people need to get a birth certificate or some other paperwork from the state, is that free as well?

If the answer to either of those two questions is no, then CO is not doing enough to address my concerns.
 
2012-07-15 11:23:36 AM

Mrtraveler01: He recognizes they've only found 85 voters or 29 active voters but as he insists "That's only what they've found so far!"


And if you read the article, those 85 or 29 numbers are bogus also -

The office then ran the names and birth dates of people on the lists - about 10,000 so far - against the state's voter-registration database.



Because we all know that 1. there is no way that someone could have the same name and birth date as someone else. and 2. There is no way that the name and birth date are incorrect.
 
2012-07-15 11:24:22 AM

Happy Hours: Let people taken off the rolls cast a provisional ballot in case their name was struck from the rolls in error.


Let's be serious, when was a provisional ballot ever worth something in an election?

Happy Hours: The Presidential election is not the only one that matters either. Often local elections can be very close too and they matter just as much to the people in those localities.


And you think voter ID laws were created with these sorts of elections in mind. Excuse me while I laugh at the derptard who insist that the MN US Senate election in 2008 was stolen from Norm Coleman.
 
2012-07-15 11:25:27 AM

Ed Finnerty: Gone In 26 Minutes:
Oh, you're mistaking me for one of his flock. No. I don't think he would do a better job. In fact, I hope he dies before the next election so I don't have to hear about him anymore and how I should write-in vote for him. He's old enough that he just might.

I really think voting on the presidential election (and really, any election) is pointless. Money is too strong a motivator to keep people honest. Besides, VERY few people go into politics because of some conviction that they can make the nation/world better. When we're able to start limiting how much money and how much in the way of 'favors' our politicians can get from big businesses and other interest groups (an essentially impossible task,) let me know and it'll start mattering more.

I'm glad you're not advocating Paul.

I understand and empathize with your points, but giving up entirely would seem to feed the basis of your complaint.

What's your plan for getting things back on track? Waiting around and doing nothing?

I'm not trying to bust your balls, here. Just curious what solutions you see.


Ron Paul is a moon bat. He has some okay ideas and a lot of crazy ones. Maybe one or two of the less crazy ideas would actually come to fruition if he was lucky and could convince enough people to vote for it.

Short of some massive, miracle movement involving a huge bulk of politicians suddenly becoming honest, ethical and convicted people, people in power developing a conscience for those 'beneath' them or some similar extremely unlikely scenario, there isn't much of a plan to be had, honestly.

Revolution wouldn't help, because you'd be replacing one group of assholes with a different group of assholes that are also assholish (see virtually ANY independence movement in the world, including the US' own.)

It would involve a change to our societal values as a whole to produce the mystical people required to really make a government by and for the people. It requires more than just token demonstrations or civil disobedience to change something so deeply entrenched - the best you can do is convince people not to shiat on you AS much... usually by adopting their practices and being 'one of them' so they notice you less (right, African Americans?) That isn't change. That's assimilation and that leads into a different rant.

tl;dr answer: There is no 'plan' that would change our system outside of us developing different values as a society.

/White, for the record. As the driven snow. And a male, too. How much luckier can a person be, honestly?
 
2012-07-15 11:26:52 AM

Alphax: cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Running close to 1% of registered voters of those they checked out of 10,000+ so far

FTFY

85/10,000=.0085%

Tell me an election that was determined by 85 votes or .0085% and you might have something there.

Bush vs. Gore was determined by around 300 if memory serves...

You mean 5-4?


Win
 
2012-07-15 11:31:40 AM

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Let's require a picture ID - hand them out for free to avoid any objection to a "poll tax" (how many people don't have a picture ID anyway???).

Do they make it known that they hand them out for free or is that a DMV secret. If people need to get a birth certificate or some other paperwork from the state, is that free as well?

If the answer to either of those two questions is no, then CO is not doing enough to address my concerns.


I know that in Ohio, you had to to pay for a picture ID. You could, however, just show a utility bill as a backup if you didn't have a state ID or driver's license but also had to have a student ID or a work ID (If I recall).

The thing that worries me is some states require ID but don't issue the plastic card the day you get it. New Hampshire issues a paper ID until you get the real one in the mail. It'll say on the back that it cannot be used for identification. What happens if you don't get your ID back in time for election day?
 
2012-07-15 11:34:48 AM

Dinki: Because we all know that 1. there is no way that someone could have the same name and birth date as someone else. and 2. There is no way that the name and birth date are incorrect.


Republicans are notoriously shoddy when it comes to data quality for stuff like this, likely intentionally. They come up with a horribly matched list to get a big number that they trumpet all over the news. That of course sticks in peoples' minds instead of the follow-up investigation that turns out only a handful of the hundreds of names they insisted were illegitimate voters were actually illegitimate.
 
2012-07-15 11:35:38 AM

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: Let's require a picture ID - hand them out for free to avoid any objection to a "poll tax" (how many people don't have a picture ID anyway???).

Do they make it known that they hand them out for free or is that a DMV secret. If people need to get a birth certificate or some other paperwork from the state, is that free as well?

If the answer to either of those two questions is no, then CO is not doing enough to address my concerns.


I don't even know where my birth certificate is. I haven't needed it in 30 years and yet I've held a picture ID in all that time.

How many people over the age of 18 do you imagine don't have a picture ID anyway?

Millions????

I know if I were a legal immigrant and a citizen it would be something I would gladly spend $20 to get and yet you think that's too much to ask of someone who cares enough to cast a ballot in an election.

As with many political issues, it seems there can be no middle ground. I'm not claiming there are millions of people voting illegally, but I'm accused of thinking that. On the other hand people against verifying voter eligibility are claiming it's only a few people so it doesn't really matter.

I don't really understand that mentality.

If I get pulled over for speeding, should the officer just take my word that my name is really Benjamin Franklin and that I really do have a valid driver's license? While he's at it, he should probably take my word that I wasn't actually speeding.

And FWIW, I've already decided that I'm not voting for Romney. Whether or not Obama gets my vote depends on how close the race looks before the election. I'll vote for him if it's likely to be close in my state (and it probably will be), but otherwise both major parties can fark off.
 
2012-07-15 11:36:21 AM

Aar1012: I know that in Ohio, you had to to pay for a picture ID. You could, however, just show a utility bill as a backup if you didn't have a state ID or driver's license but also had to have a student ID or a work ID (If I recall).


Missouri has that too, although the state GOP is trying as hard as they can to make it where only a State Drivers License would be acceptable.

This is the hardest they ever tried to push for something that didn't directly screw St. Louis or KC over.
 
2012-07-15 11:38:41 AM
NON-citizens aren't allowed to vote? What is this country coming to?
 
2012-07-15 11:39:48 AM

Happy Hours: I know if I were a legal immigrant and a citizen it would be something I would gladly spend $20 to get and yet you think that's too much to ask of someone who cares enough to cast a ballot in an election.


You think it's ok to pay in order to vote for an election, I don't. I don't think we can come to a compromise when it comes to this.

Happy Hours: If I get pulled over for speeding, should the officer just take my word that my name is really Benjamin Franklin and that I really do have a valid driver's license? While he's at it, he should probably take my word that I wasn't actually speeding.


What a lousy comparison. If you have a utility bill or some other collection of paperwork with your name on it, I don't see how that's any less valid than a drivers license. Although the GOP keeps insuring me that it is.
 
2012-07-15 11:41:35 AM

LargeCanine: People whose name is extremely close to that ofNON-citizens aren't allowed to vote? What is this country coming to?


FTFY

That's the issue people have with this. The fact that it's being done this close to an election to the point where anyone who was accidentally crossed off the list has to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops just to get back on the rolls is something I'm not cool with.
 
2012-07-15 11:44:13 AM
Aar1012

Aar1012: What happens if you don't get your ID back in time for election day?


Election day has been on the calendar all year. Get your license in July, there's plenty of time left.

This is the one point that sticks in my craw regarding the voter ID issue. If you're planning to vote, don't wait until November 1 to figure out what's going on. American politics is not a once every four years deal. If you're not paying attention now, perhaps you shouldn't take part at all.
 
2012-07-15 11:50:56 AM

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: I know if I were a legal immigrant and a citizen it would be something I would gladly spend $20 to get and yet you think that's too much to ask of someone who cares enough to cast a ballot in an election.

You think it's ok to pay in order to vote for an election, I don't. I don't think we can come to a compromise when it comes to this.


No - in fact I even said hand out IDs for free in an earlier comment, but you're still dodging the question. How many people do you imagine don't have photo IDs anyway?

Millions?
 
2012-07-15 11:58:57 AM

Happy Hours: How many people do you imagine don't have photo IDs anyway?

Millions?




Yeah, Millions As many as 11% of US citizens- more 21 million people do not have a government issued photo ID
 
2012-07-15 12:02:37 PM

Happy Hours: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: I know if I were a legal immigrant and a citizen it would be something I would gladly spend $20 to get and yet you think that's too much to ask of someone who cares enough to cast a ballot in an election.

You think it's ok to pay in order to vote for an election, I don't. I don't think we can come to a compromise when it comes to this.

No - in fact I even said hand out IDs for free in an earlier comment, but you're still dodging the question. How many people do you imagine don't have photo IDs anyway?

Millions?


Yeah it's well known that about 1/10 of voters don't have an ID which tend to be heavily leaned towards elderly folks as well as lower-income people who tend to be minorities who can't afford to drive.

I thought you were just being rhetorical.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report