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.

(JSOnline)   Federal Judge Strikes down Wisconsin GOP's attempt to pre-stuff the ballot box in 2014 and 2016 ruling that "it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes"   (jsonline.com) divider line 211
    More: Spiffy, Republican Party of Wisconsin, Voter ID Laws, Pre, Wisconsin, ballot stuffing, ballot boxes, federal judges, Wisconsin Supreme Court  
•       •       •

2535 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2014 at 9:12 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-30 08:20:30 AM

FnkyTwn: It's too bad that the GOP doesn't spend as much of an effort getting people signed up for Photo ID as they do on preventing people from actually voting. It would be really simple for them to corner this issue if they started campaigns to get everything in place before they slammed the door shut on the millions of American's without Photo ID.

Spending a few years getting people ready to vote would make harsher ID laws easily acceptable, but once again it seems like the GOP wants to make it harder to get the ID, and harder to vote. Which is a bit like making sex education and birth control harder to get, as well as making abortion illegal.


This is part of the GOP platform too.
 
2014-04-30 08:22:02 AM

FnkyTwn: Spending a few years getting people ready to vote would make harsher ID laws easily acceptable, but once again it seems like the GOP wants to make it harder to get the ID, and harder to vote.


Although I'm a late comer to the thread... What's wrong with making it harder to vote? Do you really want someone who doesn't know a single name of one of their state representatives voting? Or who can't name a single branch of government?

You need a license to drive a car, why not pass a citizenship test to get a voting license (renewable every 10 years). It could come with an ID # that lets you vote electronically.
 
2014-04-30 08:27:29 AM

Destructor: FnkyTwn: Spending a few years getting people ready to vote would make harsher ID laws easily acceptable, but once again it seems like the GOP wants to make it harder to get the ID, and harder to vote.

Although I'm a late comer to the thread... What's wrong with making it harder to vote? Do you really want someone who doesn't know a single name of one of their state representatives voting? Or who can't name a single branch of government?

You need a license to drive a car, why not pass a citizenship test to get a voting license (renewable every 10 years). It could come with an ID # that lets you vote electronically.


Because there will come a point when the "no morons" rule applies to you.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-30 08:30:31 AM

Destructor: bikerific: It's just so simple and totally plausible.

And apparently foolproof, since there have never been any reports of someone showing up to vote and discovering that an impersonator has already voted using their name.

Here's your damned proof! ;-)

[viz.cwrl.utexas.edu image 500x335]


Much smarter than most Wisconsin voters...
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-30 08:31:14 AM

moothemagiccow: Destructor: FnkyTwn: Spending a few years getting people ready to vote would make harsher ID laws easily acceptable, but once again it seems like the GOP wants to make it harder to get the ID, and harder to vote.

Although I'm a late comer to the thread... What's wrong with making it harder to vote? Do you really want someone who doesn't know a single name of one of their state representatives voting? Or who can't name a single branch of government?

You need a license to drive a car, why not pass a citizenship test to get a voting license (renewable every 10 years). It could come with an ID # that lets you vote electronically.

Because there will come a point when the "no morons" rule applies to you.


plus this has been tried before...
 
2014-04-30 08:32:11 AM

moothemagiccow: Destructor: FnkyTwn: Spending a few years getting people ready to vote would make harsher ID laws easily acceptable, but once again it seems like the GOP wants to make it harder to get the ID, and harder to vote.

Although I'm a late comer to the thread... What's wrong with making it harder to vote? Do you really want someone who doesn't know a single name of one of their state representatives voting? Or who can't name a single branch of government?

You need a license to drive a car, why not pass a citizenship test to get a voting license (renewable every 10 years). It could come with an ID # that lets you vote electronically.

Because there will come a point when the "no morons" rule applies to you.


Yeah, but people who propose those sorts of things never believe that's possible.
At any rate, you aren't going to repeal the voting rights act - that's about as politically feasible as repealing the second amendment.
Not gonna happen.
 
2014-04-30 08:33:10 AM

moothemagiccow: Because there will come a point when the "no morons" rule applies to you.


Probably sooner than we think.

I'm okay with that. But you know, I'd actually try and study to pass it; trying not to be a moron. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter: a voter in full possession of what makes government government, would be a better voter.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-30 08:37:30 AM

UNC_Samurai: fusillade762: DeltaPunch: floor: Mrtraveler01: BSABSVR: you are a puppet: Why is my ID required to prove my age to bartenders?

Why is my ID the best way to crush and snort lines?

Why is ID software no longer releasing Doom games?

Why do I need life insurance?

Why do I have to register before I can post on FARK?

Why does James Bond need a license to kill?

Why I laugh?

Why do liberals not complain about Paula Zahn's show on ID?

Why do Freudian liberals think black people can only possess ego and superego?

Why does Taco Bell think their Breakfast Taco was actually a good idea?

Why is getting drunk not a right?

Why do kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Why ask why?

[i.imgur.com image 660x501] Why are estuaries suddenly a trending topic?


Is Elvis alive?
 
2014-04-30 08:41:07 AM

Destructor: moothemagiccow: Because there will come a point when the "no morons" rule applies to you.

Probably sooner than we think.

I'm okay with that. But you know, I'd actually try and study to pass it; trying not to be a moron. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter: a voter in full possession of what makes government government, would be a better voter.


And what happens when your Board of Elections gets taken over by fundamentalist Christians who think a sound knowledge of the Bible is a prerequisite for voting? Or feminists who think a knowledge of "womyn's" issues should be required? Or whoever?
When are people going to learn that you shouldn't extend powers to governemnts you like that you wouldn't want in the hands of one you don't like?
Anyway - again: unless you really think it's politically feasible to overturn the Voting Rights Act, what's the point of dicussing it? Or, is that, in fact, what you are proposing?
 
2014-04-30 08:41:22 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: If Republicans are so concerned about ensuring that we're able to accurately identify people for the purpose of exercising their constitutional rights, they should make some effort to ensure that everyone has a god damned ID.


At this point I'm ready for federal legislation requiring that everyone get either a bar code tattooed on their wrist or an RFID chip implanted.

The guys at the NSA reading that post probably fall asleep fapping to that thought


/hi NSA GUYS and GIRLS
 
2014-04-30 08:42:17 AM

jso2897: Yeah, but people who propose those sorts of things never believe that's possible.


Actually, I think it would be kind of funny to watch a number of sad Republicans find out they flunked the test.

jso2897: At any rate, you aren't going to repeal the voting rights act - that's about as politically feasible as repealing the second amendment.
Not gonna happen.


See? This is why I might flunk the first time I take the test. I don't see any reason why the voting rights act would prohibit a national test for the privilege of voting. And even if it did, no problem: you're going to have to pass a law anyway. That would necessarily supersede and amend earlier laws.

But in general (*sigh*) you're right. People will get all "uppity" at the very notion of having to actually "know something" before they go and vote...
 
2014-04-30 08:46:33 AM

jso2897: And what happens when your Board of Elections gets taken over by fundamentalist Christians who think a sound knowledge of the Bible is a prerequisite for voting? Or feminists who think a knowledge of "womyn's" issues should be required? Or whoever?


Then we will have found out what Lincoln wondered allowed in the Gettysburg address: "testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Times up.

jso2897: When are people going to learn that you shouldn't extend powers to governemnts you like that you wouldn't want in the hands of one you don't like?


What's wrong with not liking people who don't understand what the country's about from voting? Honestly, isn't that something everyone can get behind?

jso2897: Anyway - again: unless you really think it's politically feasible to overturn the Voting Rights Act, what's the point of dicussing it? Or, is that, in fact, what you are proposing?


What part of the voting rights act would have to be overturned?
 
2014-04-30 08:47:13 AM

Destructor: jso2897: Yeah, but people who propose those sorts of things never believe that's possible.

Actually, I think it would be kind of funny to watch a number of sad Republicans find out they flunked the test.

jso2897: At any rate, you aren't going to repeal the voting rights act - that's about as politically feasible as repealing the second amendment.
Not gonna happen.

See? This is why I might flunk the first time I take the test. I don't see any reason why the voting rights act would prohibit a national test for the privilege of voting. And even if it did, no problem: you're going to have to pass a law anyway. That would necessarily supersede and amend earlier laws.

But in general (*sigh*) you're right. People will get all "uppity" at the very notion of having to actually "know something" before they go and vote...


The real problem is: Who get's to decide? It's all well and good to say that some generic, imaginary "citizenship test" would be a good thing. But in the real world, it would have to be an ACTUAL, CONCRETE test. Created by human beings - and, hence biased.
Now, we don't necessarily know who it would be biased for, or against - but simple logic informs that it could not NOT be biased. They always have been in the past. That's why the Voting Rights Act does, in fact, ban them.
There's the rub - who gets to write the test?
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2014-04-30 08:49:02 AM

Delay: meat0918: Wow.  Another win.

Temporarily, don't relax. These farkers are vigilant and wait to strike.
[themoderatevoice.com image 280x294]


Ok, I laughed.
 
2014-04-30 08:49:12 AM

Destructor: What part of the voting rights act would have to be overturned?


All of it. "Citizenship Tests" were attempted in the Jimcrow South. Courts threw them out.
This is old, settled law.
 
2014-04-30 08:51:59 AM

jso2897: The real problem is: Who get's to decide? It's all well and good to say that some generic, imaginary "citizenship test" would be a good thing. But in the real world, it would have to be an ACTUAL, CONCRETE test. Created by human beings - and, hence biased.


I was thinking something along the lines of the current citizenship test. Which is sort of interesting, because that would mean that immigrants who passed it would also be issued a voting ID card.

jso2897: There's the rub - who gets to write the test?


That would be a constant worry and probably the second greatest problem to overcome (first one is gaining popularity to actually be considered). I don't know; but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just very difficult. Blue ribbon bipartisan commission? With emphasis on the blue ribbon? BLUE... RIBBON...

jso2897: That's why the Voting Rights Act does, in fact, ban them.


If that's the case, it would just have to be "adjusted" . Third biggest hurtle. I admit it, I'm dreaming big.
 
2014-04-30 08:57:18 AM

jso2897: All of it. "Citizenship Tests" were attempted in the Jimcrow South. Courts threw them out.
This is old, settled law.


All of those tests were deliberate attempts to segregate based on color (both repulsive and disgusting). I couldn't google anything specifically regarding a citizenship test, but literacy was easy to find. Clearly, that could NOT be made a barrier. But that would fall under the heading of "disability", all of which would have to be accommodated to make this sort of thing legit.
 
2014-04-30 08:58:12 AM

Destructor: jso2897: The real problem is: Who get's to decide? It's all well and good to say that some generic, imaginary "citizenship test" would be a good thing. But in the real world, it would have to be an ACTUAL, CONCRETE test. Created by human beings - and, hence biased.

I was thinking something along the lines of the current citizenship test. Which is sort of interesting, because that would mean that immigrants who passed it would also be issued a voting ID card.

jso2897: There's the rub - who gets to write the test?

That would be a constant worry and probably the second greatest problem to overcome (first one is gaining popularity to actually be considered). I don't know; but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just very difficult. Blue ribbon bipartisan commission? With emphasis on the blue ribbon? BLUE... RIBBON...

jso2897: That's why the Voting Rights Act does, in fact, ban them.

If that's the case, it would just have to be "adjusted" . Third biggest hurtle. I admit it, I'm dreaming big.


Good.
As long as you understand that your views have no context in the real world, you won't give yourself false expectations.
Those of us who insist that all citizens have the opportunity to vote are not going to quit, or forget, or get bored, or go away. You have always lost this fight, and will always lose it.
And I say that without the least trace of hostility - I merely state a fact. I respect your opinion, but I think it is wrong, and won't ever concede the issue.
I hope you have a great day.
 
2014-04-30 09:11:48 AM

jso2897: Good.
As long as you understand that your views have no context in the real world, you won't give yourself false expectations.
Those of us who insist that all citizens have the opportunity to vote are not going to quit, or forget, or get bored, or go away. You have always lost this fight, and will always lose it.
And I say that without the least trace of hostility - I merely state a fact. I respect your opinion, but I think it is wrong, and won't ever concede the issue.
I hope you have a great day.


Well, thank you for allowing me to vet one of my crazier ideas to the general public to see what kind of reaction it would get. The good news: It wasn't openly hostile, so there is a glint of hope. But, clearly, it is a long shot.
 
2014-04-30 09:14:15 AM

Destructor: FnkyTwn: Spending a few years getting people ready to vote would make harsher ID laws easily acceptable, but once again it seems like the GOP wants to make it harder to get the ID, and harder to vote.

Although I'm a late comer to the thread... What's wrong with making it harder to vote? Do you really want someone who doesn't know a single name of one of their state representatives voting? Or who can't name a single branch of government?

You need a license to drive a car, why not pass a citizenship test to get a voting license (renewable every 10 years). It could come with an ID # that lets you vote electronically.


I understand your point, but the 'low information' voter thing cuts both ways. Sure, there's lots of people who are overall ignorant of who's on a ballot, but they are likely to know which party tends to vote in their interest. And simply 'knowing' who's on the ballot is a pretty low bar considering how much money outside groups are spending on local elections.

When some PAC or lobbying group spends millions on advertising in a state, not because it helps the state, but because it helps their interests in Washington, that's not really a "well informed" voter either, it's just somebody who believes what they see and hear in a commercial. So my argument is that most people are 'low information' voters overall, and probably only focus on specific issues that effect them directly, but they understand that voting more for one party probably helps them with their specific issues. Gerrymandering factors heavily into this issue too then.

It could be easily argued that Fox News viewers are the lowest information voters out there, because there are tons of lower and middle income American's who directly vote against their best interests in favor of what they're being spoon fed as "news".

cdn.crooksandliars.com
 
2014-04-30 09:19:13 AM

Mrtraveler01: Either we allow Voter ID and issue National ID cards free of charge or we don't have any Voter ID at all. That's my view on the whole thing. Seems like a sensible one to me.


it has nothing to do with voting but this seems like it would make sense to me. skip birth certificates, ss cards, drivers licenses, passports and all that non sense. issue a passport style book/card at birth. have it get renewed every 5 years or something. when you start driving you can get a state dmv stamp on it. want to travel? it doubles as your passport. hell have a customs page in it for things like a stamp denoting you are a student of a university. you could get rid of like a dozen things if they did it right. make it free. then in 18 years when everyone should already have this we can talk about using it to vote.
 
2014-04-30 09:43:04 AM
The lesson learned: Quickly ram through a voter ID law right before the election, so no challenge can be brought against it in time.

The GOP plan always boils down to "do illegal stuff until someone stops you".
 
2014-04-30 09:44:13 AM

Destructor: FnkyTwn: Spending a few years getting people ready to vote would make harsher ID laws easily acceptable, but once again it seems like the GOP wants to make it harder to get the ID, and harder to vote.

Although I'm a late comer to the thread... What's wrong with making it harder to vote? Do you really want someone who doesn't know a single name of one of their state representatives voting? Or who can't name a single branch of government?

You need a license to drive a car, why not pass a citizenship test to get a voting license (renewable every 10 years). It could come with an ID # that lets you vote electronically.


"What's wrong with making it harder to vote?" -- The GOP
 
2014-04-30 09:45:29 AM

FnkyTwn: I understand your point, but the 'low information' voter thing cuts both ways. Sure, there's lots of people who are overall ignorant of who's on a ballot, but they are likely to know which party tends to vote in their interest. And simply 'knowing' who's on the ballot is a pretty low bar considering how much money outside groups are spending on local elections.


The only real positive affect I see doing something like this, is to make the entire matter of voting weightier. Someone who goes through all the trouble of voting is necessarily likely to spend more time figuring out who to vote for. That's the kind of person you want to vote. Not someone easily swayed by some glitzy ad either scaring them or promising them something. I want voters to be policy wonks. Smart people who know the issues and consequences. (Doesn't everyone?)

jso2897 is right, it's incredibly unlikely to ever happen. At least now. And I don't know how you can sell something like this. It would take a ton of political capital by people who have nothing to gain by making it happen.

FnkyTwn: It could be easily argued that Fox News viewers are the lowest information voters out there


And it would be hilarious to see them discover that.

NickelP: then in 18 years when everyone should already have this we can talk about using it to vote.


Oh, and no age discrimination. Anyone of any age who could pass the citizenship test would get a voter id card.
 
2014-04-30 09:49:56 AM

NickelP: Mrtraveler01: Either we allow Voter ID and issue National ID cards free of charge or we don't have any Voter ID at all. That's my view on the whole thing. Seems like a sensible one to me.

it has nothing to do with voting but this seems like it would make sense to me. skip birth certificates, ss cards, drivers licenses, passports and all that non sense. issue a passport style book/card at birth. have it get renewed every 5 years or something. when you start driving you can get a state dmv stamp on it. want to travel? it doubles as your passport. hell have a customs page in it for things like a stamp denoting you are a student of a university. you could get rid of like a dozen things if they did it right. make it free. then in 18 years when everyone should already have this we can talk about using it to vote.


-Forbes Disagrees with a National ID (wants current system improved)
-The Washington Post Supports National ID
-The ACLU Disagrees with a National ID (Nazis and it's easy to get fake IDs)

ACLU list of reasons against National ID:
Reason #1: A national ID card system would not solve the problem that is inspiring it.
Reason #2: An ID card system will lead to a slippery slope of surveillance and monitoring of citizens.
Reason #3: A national ID card system would require creation of a database of all Americans
Reason #4: ID cards would function as "internal passports" that monitor citizens' movements
Reason #5: ID cards would foster new forms of discrimination and harassment

Alan Dershowitz NYT opinion quote: "...there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same."
 
2014-04-30 09:53:19 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: "What's wrong with making it harder to vote?" -- The GOP


First, I'll complete that thought you started, "What's wrong with making it harder for Democrats to vote?"--The GOP.

Well, that is wrong.

But in general, what's wrong with making it harder to vote when any timid idiot easily swayed by a TV ad can cast a ballot? Is that how you want to leave the fate of the country? How's it working out so far?

I don't want to make it a herculean effort to vote, but it should require a little sacrifice and demonstrable knowledge that you do, in fact, know what you're voting for.
 
2014-04-30 09:59:03 AM

KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?

Why is my ID required to open a bank account?


you don't need an ID for either one of those.  Don't believe me about the bank account?  Go to your bank's website and look.
 
2014-04-30 10:00:03 AM

Destructor: LouDobbsAwaaaay: "What's wrong with making it harder to vote?" -- The GOP

First, I'll complete that thought you started, "What's wrong with making it harder for Democrats to vote?"--The GOP.

Well, that is wrong.

But in general, what's wrong with making it harder to vote when any timid idiot easily swayed by a TV ad can cast a ballot? Is that how you want to leave the fate of the country? How's it working out so far?

I don't want to make it a herculean effort to vote, but it should require a little sacrifice and demonstrable knowledge that you do, in fact, know what you're voting for.


Military members stationed overseas get Absentee Ballots and they don't get a lot of campaign ads. Traditionally people in the military and their family understand that Republicans are very pro-defense/pro-military, and that Democrats are not, so traditionally, military members and their family can be counted on to vote Republican because it's in their best interests as a "union".

Why are you trying to deny the men and women who serve this country their right to vote?
 
2014-04-30 10:01:44 AM

Destructor: I don't want to make it a herculean effort to vote, but it should require a little sacrifice and demonstrable knowledge that you do, in fact, know what you're voting for.


Um no. It would be nice but the only thing I would say they should remove is the straight ticket option.  You should have to physically select each person you want.
 
2014-04-30 10:01:46 AM
The Ohio GOP can't even get the voter fraud myth correct. They also cut early voting and mail in ballots. It's so painfully obvious what these sleazebags are trying to pull that everybody, the right included, should say something. But they're so goddamn seized with "stick it to the libs" that they refuse to think about what this means for politics as a whole.
 
2014-04-30 10:04:53 AM
What amuses me is the overlap between people screaming the loudest about imaginary voter fraud and the people who wouldn't accept the President of the United States of America's birth certificate even if it were notarized by God. You know... Freep.

It's almost like they have an agenda, and will biatch and moan regardless until they get what they want.
 
2014-04-30 10:09:07 AM

maxheck: What amuses me is the overlap between people screaming the loudest about imaginary voter fraud and the people who wouldn't accept the President of the United States of America's birth certificate even if it were notarized by God. You know... Freep.

It's almost like they have an agenda, and will biatch and moan regardless until even after they get 98% of what they want.


FTFM
 
2014-04-30 10:11:57 AM
I'll be out of the country for all of November, so I'll have to cast my constitutionally guaranteed (free, white and over 21) ballot through either early or absentee voting. I'm wondering if this will be a problem...

Oh wait. No I'm not. I live in Maryland, a sane state with sane politicians. Why you people let this shiat happen is beyond me.
 
2014-04-30 10:14:04 AM
Hudson county is really good an "pre-stuffing" the ballot box

Subby has no idea what that really means

Voter ID is something that we need. And we need it ASAP!
 
2014-04-30 10:14:40 AM

gingerjet: KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?

Why is my ID required to open a bank account?

Why do I need an ID / license to drive?

Why do I need proof of insurance?

Why do I have to register for W-9s at work?

Why do people need licenses to do particular jobs?

Papers please.


http://store.steampowered.com/app/239030/
 
2014-04-30 10:17:07 AM

Mrtraveler01: Or we could do what every other country does and have an ID card issued free of charge on the national level.

But that would make too much sense.


Under the US constitution, details on implementing how voting occurs happen by the states, not the Federal government.  Obviously, state and Federal courts as well as state and Federal laws dictate what states can and can not do, but there still is a lot of leeway as to how the specifics of voting are carried out.
 
2014-04-30 10:19:23 AM
If voter ID stops dead people from voting, I am all for it
 
2014-04-30 10:24:11 AM

Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?


Because, as the judge ruled if you'd bothered to read TFA voter fraud is a non-problem , the state could point to zero cases of it happening in recent memory,  therefore the "compelling state interest" in preventing voter fraud was far too small to justify the infringement on people's right to vote.

Now felons and other ineligible people attempting to Purchase guns DOES happen, and that state has a very large compelling interest in protecting its citizenry from harm done by people deemed too dangerous to own a weapon.  Moreover, the scenario in which you would be too poor to afford an ID but had the resources to spend $500 on a gun is highly unlikely.  Making the infringement on this right vanishingly small, while the state's compelling interest high, making it essentially the reverse of this situaion
 
2014-04-30 10:26:16 AM

dantheman195: If voter ID stops dead people from voting, I am all for it


But what is stopping zombies from applying for voter IDs?
 
2014-04-30 10:29:00 AM

xria: Triple Oak: KIA: Triple Oak: The process of obtaining a gun is not a constitutional right.

Fascinating.  So, your right to free speech is conditional on not having your mouth glued shut?

Speech comes in more forms than just the words that come from your mouth. Stop being obtuse or show me where the Constitution says your right to vote is dependent on having an ID.

It doesn't have to - voting rights can be curtailed without being unconstitutional, and Voter ID laws could be valid, or other ways of regulating voting to ensure votes cast could be legitimate. However to be constitutional there would have to be a compelling government interest to have the law (i.e. proof of significant amounts of voter fraud) and the law would have to be the narrowest feasible way of fixing it (which could be debatable even if evidence of voter fraud in large numbers was found).


You're right in that it doesn't have to... but this exact situation will happen if they can't. A judge will see the proposed "solution", find no reasonable evidence to support it, and throw it away. And that's the Voter ID debate problem: everyone understands that fraud is a bad thing, but there's no solutions related to what's being offered that doesn't disenfranchise way, way more people than prevent fraud.

I find it fascinating that Voter ID and marriage equality laws that seek to take away those rights are being shot down left and right. Combine that with Congress' obstruction and constant ACA-related bill votes, and you can clearly see a certain group spinning their tires and failing to keep all these rights-denying laws.
 
2014-04-30 10:35:07 AM

dantheman195: If voter ID stops dead people from voting, I am all for it


It won't, the lazy states need to clean up their ledgers to stop dead people from voting. Seems like a much simpler fix.
 
2014-04-30 10:39:08 AM
dantheman195:

Hudson county is really good an "pre-stuffing" the ballot box

Subby has no idea what that really means

Voter ID is something that we need. And we need it ASAP!


Care to provide any details to your hyperventilating?
 
Bf+
2014-04-30 10:43:31 AM

UNC_Samurai: fusillade762: DeltaPunch: floor: Mrtraveler01: BSABSVR: you are a puppet: Why is my ID required to prove my age to bartenders?

Why is my ID the best way to crush and snort lines?

Why is ID software no longer releasing Doom games?

Why do I need life insurance?

Why do I have to register before I can post on FARK?

Why does James Bond need a license to kill?

Why I laugh?

Why do liberals not complain about Paula Zahn's show on ID?

Why do Freudian liberals think black people can only possess ego and superego?

Why does Taco Bell think their Breakfast Taco was actually a good idea?

Why is getting drunk not a right?

Why do kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Why ask why?

[i.imgur.com image 660x501] Why are estuaries suddenly a trending topic?


Why does God let bad things happen to good people?
 
2014-04-30 10:47:01 AM

JosephFinn: Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer.

Buying a gun is not a constitutional right, unlike voting.


2/10
 
2014-04-30 10:47:39 AM

Bf+: UNC_Samurai: fusillade762: DeltaPunch: floor: Mrtraveler01: BSABSVR: you are a puppet: Why is my ID required to prove my age to bartenders?

Why is my ID the best way to crush and snort lines?

Why is ID software no longer releasing Doom games?

Why do I need life insurance?

Why do I have to register before I can post on FARK?

Why does James Bond need a license to kill?

Why I laugh?

Why do liberals not complain about Paula Zahn's show on ID?

Why do Freudian liberals think black people can only possess ego and superego?

Why does Taco Bell think their Breakfast Taco was actually a good idea?

Why is getting drunk not a right?

Why do kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Why ask why?

[i.imgur.com image 660x501] Why are estuaries suddenly a trending topic?

Why does God let bad things happen to good people?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
Bf+
2014-04-30 10:49:33 AM
The best part?  Since the law was found unconstitutional in a state court, the state would have to reverse both the federal and state decisions in order to put the voting restrictions back in place before this fall's election - even if the (extraordinarily partisan) Wisconsin Supreme Court finds the law complies with the state constitution, the Walker crowd would also have to win in a federal appellate court.
 
2014-04-30 10:50:35 AM

UNC_Samurai: Bf+: UNC_Samurai: fusillade762: DeltaPunch: floor: Mrtraveler01: BSABSVR: you are a puppet: Why is my ID required to prove my age to bartenders?

Why is my ID the best way to crush and snort lines?

Why is ID software no longer releasing Doom games?

Why do I need life insurance?

Why do I have to register before I can post on FARK?

Why does James Bond need a license to kill?

Why I laugh?

Why do liberals not complain about Paula Zahn's show on ID?

Why do Freudian liberals think black people can only possess ego and superego?

Why does Taco Bell think their Breakfast Taco was actually a good idea?

Why is getting drunk not a right?

Why do kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Why ask why?

[i.imgur.com image 660x501] Why are estuaries suddenly a trending topic?

Why does God let bad things happen to good people?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x225]


Can somebody please tell me what "Diddy wah diddy" means?"

/ if you don't know by now, don't ask.
 
Bf+
2014-04-30 10:51:11 AM

UNC_Samurai: Bf+: UNC_Samurai: fusillade762: DeltaPunch: floor: Mrtraveler01: BSABSVR: you are a puppet:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x225]


Why many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
 
2014-04-30 11:18:20 AM

Nemosomen: JosephFinn: Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer.

Buying a gun is not a constitutional right, unlike voting.

2/10


2/10 for the truth? Interesting scale you got there. Owning a gun (well-armed militia) is a Constitutional right just like voting is, buying a gun is not. That discussion was earlier in the thread.
 
2014-04-30 11:29:57 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: However, I disagree about Roberts. Seems to me he wants a legacy as much as anything else. Also seems to me that he wants the swing role Kennedy once had. A true swing justice wields a lot of power.


Roberts is willing to throw the critics a bone once in a while so long as he is able to push through his pro-corporate agenda (which his ObamaCare ruling was part of).  He successfully gutted the Voting Rights Act, so he could potentially draw the line there.  I wouldn't hold my breath though.
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report