Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-29-2014, 06:47 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,920,524 times
Reputation: 17863

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post

The problem is the hoops Republicans are creating to tackle a problem that doesn't exist. It is an artificially created "concern" to mask their cheating agenda.
You can no more prove the extent of voter fraud than I can because neither of us has the means to measure it. We can look at indicators like this for the potential:

Quote:
http://www.pewstates.org/research/re...nt-85899378437
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
  • About 12 million records have incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved, or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2014, 06:47 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,389,327 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Wait, what if my 96 year old Grandma doesn't have a Social Security card. Now she has to get one and the cost of her to go get one (the ride down there, the gas, the whatever else you have tried to argue) now constitutes a poll tax. See how absurd your argument is?
Don't be silly. She doesn't have to drive to a polling station (even if they are close). That is why votes can (and should) be mailed.

There's nothing absurd about a cut and dry statement:

If voting ain't free, it is unconstitutional.

24th Amendment:

Quote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
You can put any logical spin on it you want. The text is what it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2014, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,996,345 times
Reputation: 6191
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
no its not. Again, we disallow all segments of society the ability to bear arms... EVERY SINGLE DAY...
Plus, every state that has a law about "may" instead of "shall" for a permit for machine guns, for example, would be a perfect example of how that right is not absolute. SCOTUS considers that a reasonable requirement. Just like they considered Voter ID a reasonable requirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2014, 06:49 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,389,327 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Plus, every state that has a law about "may" instead of "shall" for a permit for machine guns, for example, would be a perfect example of how that right is not absolute. SCOTUS considers that a reasonable requirement. Just like they considered Voter ID a reasonable requirement.
We can debate guns in another thread.

While I stauchly agree guns are 100% protected under the Second Amendment... it is a primitive Amendment that should be changed on account of common ****ing sense. That is why most aren't up in arms over blatantly unconstitutional gun laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2014, 06:50 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Again, it doesnt say its a right to vote, it says it cant be denied based upon paying a tax.

One can be denied the ability to vote if a state says only property owners can vote and you happen to rent.

The fact that it can be denied, makes it NOT A RIGHT..

Its called a right in the same manner again, that I have a right to eat. That doesnt mean food will be provided for me, it means that if I go out and acquire the means to get food then you cant stop me from eating it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2014, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,996,345 times
Reputation: 6191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Don't be silly. She doesn't have to drive to a polling station (even if they are close). That is why votes can (and should) be mailed.

There's nothing absurd about a cut and dry statement:

If voting ain't free, it is unconstitutional.
Do some reading on the subject of voting and voting ID first before commenting. Your comments, as have been shown, are woefully ignorant of the current law and our rights.

Yet again - free Voter ID is not a poll tax. The documents to get a free Voter ID are not considered too much a burden, per SCOTUS (in other words, they said it isn't a poll tax). Only SCOTUS can overrule SCOTUS. They do and have allowed reasonable restrictions on rights as they did with Voter ID.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2014, 06:56 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Whats funny is these left wing kooks all running around suggesting that obtaining voter ID is racist and only being passed by Republicans because they need to somehow fix the votes so they can win.

Hey Democrats.. If Republicans wanted to fix the vote, all they'd have to do is pass a law which says welfare recipiants couldnt vote.

It would be completely constitutional and also knock out a large segment of the country that votes Democratic non stop without thinking about it, thus ensuring a Republican victory probably forever..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2014, 06:57 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 6,389,327 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Again, it doesnt say its a right to vote, it says it cant be denied based upon paying a tax.

One can be denied the ability to vote if a state says only property owners can vote and you happen to rent.

The fact that it can be denied, makes it NOT A RIGHT..

Its called a right in the same manner again, that I have a right to eat. That doesnt mean food will be provided for me, it means that if I go out and acquire the means to get food then you cant stop me from eating it.
English scholars would disagree with you... as they do on the opening phrase of the Second Amendment. The first phrase of these Amendments assumes we already have the right. They articulate the conditions by which the established right is upheld.

Let's try this again:

Quote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Try reading it slowly:

Quote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote
Now, repeat (we learn with repetition):

Quote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Quote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Quote:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2014, 07:00 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
English scholars would disagree with you... as they do on the opening phrase of the Second Amendment. The first phrase of these Amendments assumes we already have the right. They articulate the conditions by which the established right is upheld.

Let's try this again:

Try reading it slowly:

Now, repeat (we learn with repetition):
yes yes yes, we can not deny someone the ability to vote because they are black, or because of ones sex, or on account of age..

But once again, what if we deny welfare recipiants the ability to vote?

Stop and get that fact through that thick head...

It would be COMPLETELY constitutional. We CLEARLY restrict voting already and the Constitution allows each state the ability to establish what standards they have to allow voting to take place, provided its not based upon race, sex, or account of age. Thats the ONLY limits placed upon the states, and the fact that they call it a right, doesnt mean we cant restrict its usage, which makes it not really a right at all, at least not in the manner you are using it.

The right to vote, exists provided you FOLLOW THE LAWS and standards established. That was the reason they passed the amendments to begin with that you keep quoting.

Last edited by pghquest; 04-29-2014 at 07:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2014, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,064 posts, read 26,024,198 times
Reputation: 15527
Since when do we pass legislation based on fictitious problems, there are boards of election in place that have no idea that there is any issue yet these states felt the need to make it even more difficult for people to vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top