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.
In how many states do people have to pay to get photo IDs? Just Tuesday the first photo ID election, a local one, was held in Kansas with their new law and people had no trouble producing IDs and many of those I saw pictures of were in wheel chairs and probably didn't have driver licenses. Also, there was a place handy to the voting places where you could get that picture if you didn't have one. I wonder how long before some liberal judge calls us on that one.
So let's see... You do think that voters should have to register and present a photo ID to vote, but you don't think gun purchasers should have to do the same. Why not? They're both constitutional rights. If you want to be consistent, then you should be arguing for the same requirements for each activity.
Here are some outstanding examples of it, I think. Admittedly this was only New Hampshire in a primary but so many zombies could have voted in the Democrat primary if one man had taken the so easy to get ballots for the Dem party. Oh yes, you will find that in every case he was offered a Democrat ballot when he claimed to be a dead person.
Maybe the best example of why we need IDs, these days, is exhibited at the end of the video. The man says that there are people scanning obits from all over the state to see when people die and expunge their names from the registered rolls. He says it only takes about a month and yet some of the people who the "zombie" said he was died back as early as last October.
Count how many times this man could have voted for dead people in the video. I was amazed at it all.
Tighter safeguards for voter fraud make it a lot tougher to elect democrats.
I consider proof of voter ID as a way to prevent some slob from going from precinct to precinct pretending to be other people, and committing voter fraud by voting in their place.
I apologize if this has already been proposed, but I cannot be bothered to read the entire thread, but if you voting fraud advocating democrats really are against showing an ID, how about we do as the Iraqis do and stain your finger purple after you vote.
It comes off eventually, but not in one day. A quick check of the finger and busloads of Acorn criminals can't go from polling place to polling place voting "Mickey Mouse" and "Tony Romo".
While this won't stop all voting fraud, I think it is a good start.
Now, what possible argument do you criminal democrats have to offer against staining your finger purple after you vote? What "right" does that infringe upon?
Now, what possible argument do you criminal democrats have to offer against staining your finger purple after you vote? What "right" does that infringe upon?
I call BS on this--sorry. All they would have to do is run a computer check to purge the rolls to fix this--most states (and maybe every state) requires that you list your drivers license number, or the last 4 digits of your SS number to register to vote. Everyone in the US has a SS number. They should be able to match that to the existing voter rolls at the time that they enter the data to approve your new registration, so the old one can be deleted. They probably already do that. That makes it next to impossible to vote multiple times at different locations. This isn't 1960 anymore--everything is computerized now. You have to be on the voter roll to get a ballot.
MD doesn't.
The problem is that many in many states voter registration is done at the County level and the various jurisdictions don't talk to each other. Most, like MD, do have a State Election Board which is the custodian of statewide voter roles but there is very little cross checking done. The reason is that it costs money to do and the budget isn't there.
It's almost impossible to purge voters from the roles, a result of Motor Voter. In order to do so, at least here, 3 separate registered letters must be sent to the last known address and returned. You can't even purge people you know have moved or even died without going through the letter route first. So, purging of the roles is rarely done, you just lett the registration sit through 3 general election cycles and it self-purges eventually, although that has been challenged a couple time with mixed results.
I apologize if this has already been proposed, but I cannot be bothered to read the entire thread, but if you voting fraud advocating democrats really are against showing an ID, how about we do as the Iraqis do and stain your finger purple after you vote.
It comes off eventually, but not in one day. A quick check of the finger and busloads of Acorn criminals can't go from polling place to polling place voting "Mickey Mouse" and "Tony Romo".
While this won't stop all voting fraud, I think it is a good start.
Now, what possible argument do you criminal democrats have to offer against staining your finger purple after you vote? What "right" does that infringe upon?
Excellent point!
However the rebel rouser in me prefers RED ink and BLUE ink so recounts will be honest. And if any purple fingers show up they can be sure someone is playing the system.
The same reason you need a photo ID for anything else. To prove you are who you say you are. To prove your age. To prove the State you live in and your address. With any luck, it will say USA and not be a deceased person.
The same reason you need a photo ID for anything else. To prove you are who you say you are. To prove your age. To prove the State you live in and your address. With any luck, it will say USA and not be a deceased person.
It is all those dead people I worry about. Too many union members can vote under their own name and then vote as a dead person. I really like the suggestion about staining the fingers of those who vote. I am sure that some prog will come on wondering which finger they should use but any finger or thumb would surely indicate that the person had voted.
It is all those dead people I worry about. Too many union members can vote under their own name and then vote as a dead person. I really like the suggestion about staining the fingers of those who vote. I am sure that some prog will come on wondering which finger they should use but any finger or thumb would surely indicate that the person had voted.
There you go again worrying about those unions again. It seems the only people having a problem with an election are the Repub. who cant seem to get the count in Iowa right.
There you go again worrying about those unions again. It seems the only people having a problem with an election are the Repub. who cant seem to get the count in Iowa right.
I heard it was due to "dangling chads"
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.
