Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To repeat, South Carolina did prove voter fraud occurred.
Some facts to inject into the discussion: Our state has any voter type of laws reviewed by the Justice Dept due to the Voting Rights Act. Holder blocked this new voter ID law in SC. The Justice Dept asked SC to prove that voter fraud occurred since the Justice Dept's rationale for blocking this law was that no voter fraud occurred. The state were able to show 900 dead people voted in the last election. The Justice Dept is still blocking the law, claiming it disenfranchises minorities even after SC proved voter fraud has indeed occurred.
As to whether Holder is trying to incite racial tension, I guess that's up to interpretation.
Well, clearly, it takes a "conservative" like you to believe in government bureaucrats working efficiently and responsibly to ensure rights of citizens are protected. And cost is chump change as well. I guess, like many other "conservative" ideas, it ought to be left unpaid.
How about a National ID instead? Are you up for it?
What is the investigation about, if the results are already out? And was this the first time such investigations were demanded? Now, what is your take on a National ID?
The investigation is because, with the current laws in place, this is huge loophole problem. That's why SC wanted the voter ID law. This would make the DMV the "official" gatekeeper of the data (e.g. dead or not) for the elections. Additionally, SC was asked to supply concrete data of voter fraud to the Justice Dept. It did so. As it stands, we cannot change any of our voting laws without Justice Dept signing off. So, with the current laws in place, this loophole will continue to exist unless the state can figure out a solution working within the current laws.
I don't know how I feel about National ID. I'm whatever about it. Kinda like SSN right? But just with a picture? Not that big of deal.
Why are some people so eager to rely on outright lies rather than taking a few minutes to go to the source and perhaps risk learning the truth? This thread is mindboggling.
Well, clearly, it takes a "conservative" like you to believe in government bureaucrats working efficiently and responsibly to ensure rights of citizens are protected. And cost is chump change as well. I guess, like many other "conservative" ideas, it ought to be left unpaid.
I guess my attempts at sardonic tongue-in-cheek humor have failed. I will be more obvious next time so you can catch it.
The point is that there is no widespread chronic inability for "the poor" to get an ID. If there is such a problem, perhaps, on the state or local govt level, we should consider mobile DMV registrars.
How about we take the grant money that ACORN used to get and use it to actually do something positive for voters, instead of using it for fraud.
There it is paid for. Any other objections?
Quote:
How about a National ID instead? Are you up for it?
I dare you...no,...I DEFY you to show me in those remarks where Holder even IMPLIED the things this thread accuses him of, let alone where he actually said it.
Well who in the hell did you think he was talking about? Little green men from Mars? If the object of his imaginary attacks are minorities and Its an MLK day speech I am sure he is not talking about the Aztecs enacting voter ID laws to suppress the Black and minority vote. So much for you challenge.
1. He is absolutely correct that the recent upsurge of voter ID laws has been motivated to make it more difficult for minorities, who tend to support Democrats, to vote.
2. I'll only even consider any of the other points in your post or in the article if you provide the actual text of his remarks that demonstrates he "vilified white people".
So, who's the racist?
Why do the left automatically assume that minorities can't or don't have ID?
But, but..."what about the poooooooooooor!!!!!!111!!"
To tell you the truth, most people here in South Carolina just do not understand this argument. It's been used but not proven. The law did take into account the nominal ($5) fee that is needed for an ID. If you cannot afford that $5, the state will pay. If you cannot drive, the state will drive you. Thus, we are somewhat scratching our heads down here trying to understand this national level argument that has arisen and seems to have been supported by the Justice Dept. I believe South Carolina will prevail here but unfortunately after a long protracted legal battle. An unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars since we supplied the data required by the Justice Dept.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
