No, really you don’t.
Democrats = Bad
Republicans = Good.
It’s that easy.
It certainly would! It would be even better if you had proof! In your haste, you have neglected to provide such proof, which is, no doubt, at your very fingertips.
Bring it! Or meditate on the value of silence.
I vote by mail (essentially an absentee ballot). I don’t think I can register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day in my county.
To register and vote the same day, I would have to travel to the County Registrar of Voters, fill out the registration card, and then fill out a “Provisional Ballot”. ID is required.
I do not know how my county checks to ensure that I did not fill out multiple ballots.
I was merely trying to say that, in regards to the Nevada story, I think merely filing bogus registration forms, in of itself, won’t tilt an election. It would require a second seperate act (on a different day), wherein a person steps up and actually votes using that name and/or voter registration number.
Even in the case of Ohio, where a person can register and vote the same day, one would hope that the county concerned would do “spot checks” to ensure that multiple votes are not cast under the same name, etc, on different days.
“You lefty”? Me? I am not a “lefty”, and I said that I don’t think there is a conspiracy. You have me whooshed.
Why is it that I’ve never heard of this evil pseudo-terrorist organization until now, when it was pointed out to me by extreme right-wing pundits?
An opinion piece by a right wing hack does not constitute a “fact”. Sarcasm and ridicule is better than this deserves. You got proof, you bring it, you ain’t, you stuff it, its that simple.
“Far more often than not”? Cite, please?
There have been quite a few Republicans caught with their hands actually in the cookie jar of vote suppression efforts (and, as noted above, it’s a hell of a lot easier for a single dishonest Republican election official to singlehandedly suppress thousands of legitimate votes than it is for a single dishonest Democratic voter registration organizer to singlehandedly rig thousands of fraudulent votes). So I’d like to see some substantive evidence supporting your claim here.
Oh. I get it now. I was trying to “downplay” any concern for voter registration fraud. That’s what makes me a “lefty”, correct?
The way I look at it, Florida 2000 (where the election was decided on a 500 vote margin) is the exception, not the rule, in national level elections.
While I want voter fraud eliminated as much as practical (so that I can have faith in the Democratic process), I am trying to look at this story reasonably: 300 votes probably won’t tip that county (it has a pop of 1.3 million), or state, one way or another.
I was only born with “x” amount of outrage in me, I try to spend it wisely.
I could send you a picture of me in my pearls and little black cocktail dress, upon assurance that you are not subject to attacks of projectile vomiting…
You haven’t been paying attention? I know I first heard of them about 10 years ago, and they first got in trouble for fraudulent voter registration in 2004. This isn’t even the first time this election cycle. They’re under investigation for the same submitting of fraudulent registrations in Michigan.
And they aren’t an “evil peudo-terrorist organization”. They’re a left wing community activist group that advocates better housing and living conditions for the urban poor, and who aren’t afraid to use aggressive pressure tactics to get what they want.
Nope, because you had to show ID to register to vote. And there were a broad range of things that were acceptable as ID, not just a photo ID that cost money and required time off of work to get. From the Indiana Voter Registration Form: “Identification may include a current and valid photo id, current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or government document that shows the
name and address of the voter.”
There are a hell of a lot more voting places than BMV branches. There are hundreds of places to vote in my county and 1 BMV branch. Some people live an hour drive from a BMV branch. Technically, workplaces are supposed to let people leave work to vote. They do not have to let people leave work to go to the BMV.
And besides, the fact that there is some effort required to vote does not mean it is OK to impose lots more effort disproportionately on poor people.
Still waiting for some evidence of voter fraud too.
Those bastards!
Mr Kurtz painted quite a more “evil” picture.
My point, beyond all the hyperbole, is that this organization, while certainly fervent in their goals and methods can hardly be set up as the target for fault for the sub-prime housing problems. Nor can they be accused of actually disenchanting any voters by the virtue of the petulant tactics.
It’s fickin’ little league compared to actual scandals and malfeasance that has gone on.
It’s a ridiculous stretch that is nothing more than deflecting blame toward those “liberals who want to take down the system.”
ACORN? Really? They’re the problem with everything. Give me one break over here.
What you characterize as “voter suppression” may be more fairly characterized as enforcing the law.
You may, to pick an example, feel that keeping felons from voting is suppression, or that requiring ID to vote is suppression.
But both of those are legal, and cannot fairly be called “suppression.”
So if anyone’s going to provide cites, perhaps a clear definition of terms would be of value.
If you can show a paycheck stub to identify yourself, I’m going to say that’s effectively useless. A person with a printer and fifteen minutes can phony up a paycheck, especially knowing it doesn’t ever have to be cashed. That’s a useless “requirement” that gives virtually no solidity to the identification requirement.
Yes, there are hundreds of places – but you can only vote in one of them. You can’t pick whichever station you happen to be near that day.
Yes, it does.
I mean, you can keep claiming it doesn’t, but frankly, the argument is over; the practice has been declared constitutional. You’re wrong, the courts agree, and that’s that.
Um… the link in the OP?
Well, Mr Kurtz he dead.
Obviously, the subprime housing crisis is too complex to say it’s all the fault of one group. But Kurtz isn’t wrong in the article. Acorn did push for relaxed credit and for expanding home ownership among the poor. Its actions lowered credit standards, helped people with bad credit get mortgages, and made it harder to forclose on people who couldn’t pay their mortgages, and these actions helped contribute to the economic problems we’re facing right now.
Nobody’s saying they did it out of maliciousness. They didn’t sit around, rub their hands, and cackle, “Let’s ruin the economy.” It wasn’t an Evil Plan, and it was done, in large part, for good motives. But nevertheless, it still contributed to the problem.
He established his identity and his relationship with a government agency which had dealings with ACORN. He made claims about public events which should be easily verifiable by any journalist choosing to investigate. At the very least, the police and other local authorities ought to have some record of these things. If he’s lying, he’s taking an awfully big chance of being exposed. Now, can you give me any specific reasons to believe that he’s lying?
A snide dismissal isn’t an argument; but I’m not surprised lefties can’t tell the difference.
Then it should be too hard for you to impeach his facts. Can you present some facts of your own in this matter?
Tell me, can you meet the same standard of evidence that you’re demanding of Sam?
Now that’s interesting, Bricker, because Pejman Yousefzadeh of RedState made a strikingly similar argument, in a story about Ohio ACORN efforts:
Well, that’s all and good except for one teeny problem. Ohio, you see, doesn’t bar felons from voting.
So, therefore, your blanket claim that “keeping felons from voting” is legal is simply not true everywhere. But, why, I wonder, is it a constant concern of yours? And why, I also wonder, having started this thread on manifestly false pretenses, you continue to post more false pretenses? Honestly, I’m starting to see the mentality that’s causing this.
Bricker:
Then let’s compromise. We on the left will accept a rigorous voter id, so long as every effort is made to provide such voter ID without cost and without any undue hindrance. And by “undue hindrance”, I mean damn near any inconvenience whatsoever. I base this on my assertion that voting rights are as close to sacred as we get in a secular republic, and that we are obliged by duty to foster and encourage voting by any and all citizens.
In return: a nationwide program to ensure that all voting citizens have equal access to voting. That a voter in a less advantaged neighborhood may expect to endure no more inconvenience and hassle than his richer suburban counterpart. The wealthy man nips over to his polling place, and is in and out in thirty minutes, the same standard should apply to his working class counterpart.
That this scheme will entail a massive influx of Democratic voters has not escaped my attention, nor should it escape yours. There are probably legal and Constitutional difficulties here which are above my ken, and I expect you will hasten to advise.
See, its really about that. Its not about preventing lefty voters, its about making it so inconvenient and bothersome that they are discouraged. But I stone guarantee you that if voting in the poor parts of town were as easy as voting in the suburbs. the axis of power would be sharply altered.
Deal? Or no deal?