Thanks for your opinion.
Well tell you the truth it is about perspective. Maybe to you getting strike by lightening, which is about the same as voter fraud occurring, is "alot" to you.
Upvote
0
Thanks for your opinion.
Your opinion on lightning strikes re voter fraud is also appreciated.Well tell you the truth it is about perspective. Maybe to you getting strike by lightening, which is about the same as voter fraud occurring, is "alot" to you.
Your opinion on lightning strikes re voter fraud is also appreciated.
Your speculation on the matter has been noted ... and appreciated.My opinion, strike that, the fact is they share the same frequency.
Your speculation on the matter has been noted ... and appreciated.
Yet, we see here a large number of voter fraud cases identified ...
Now, assuming that as many as 10% of fraud cases were actually identified ...
[img]http://cdn.phillymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/voter_id_homepage-940x540.jpg[/img]
1. So's Law.
2. What does the information SnowCal presented have to do with your questions?
3. What does SnowCal's opinion with regard to your question have to do with the information he provided regarding the facts in the 5 cases?
You apparently read about a different case: Iowa voter fraud investigation concludes; 80 additional cases referred to prosecutors | Des Moines RegisterA fantasy appealing to the reality impared parhaps, but we see nothing of the sort. Of 10 so far 5 have been dismissed. Of the remaining 5 only 1 constituted voter fraud and that was a case of a guy committing identity theft.
Cartoons communicate effectively.Oh grow up and stop with the cartoons already.
You apprently missed that of the previous 16 cases only about 1/3 led to a plea or a guilty verdict, only 1 was intentional voter fraud and that incident would not have been stopped by voter ID laws.You apparently read about a different case: Iowa voter fraud investigation concludes; 80 additional cases referred to prosecutors | Des Moines Register
It's much more than dishonesty is an issue with the right.
Since the question was being asked of Veritas, your response is a non sequitur.
How Voter ID Laws Are Being Used to Disenfranchise Minorities and the Poor
Texas voter ID law may disenfranchise a third of female voters
Voter ID Laws Could Disenfranchise 1 Million Young Minority Voters: Study
Study: Voter ID law would exclude up to 700,000 young minorities
Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters
Don Yelton (R-NC) If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks so be it, Yelton said. The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt.
Mark Turzai (R-PA) Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done
Judge Richard Posner (appointed by Reagan) Lets not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID Law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.
These two articles discuss the same topic and present the same conclusions in the same chicken-little fashion, the usual claim that requiring an ID to vote burdens blacks and minorities more than white people. But neither article bothers to delve into why getting an ID is so much harder for their victim classes, which is the question perennially ignored. I think the left should explain why they believe and promote the notion blacks are less capable to achieve anything, to do anything, without benevolent liberal help.
Lo and behold the CBS News article provides an answer:
"They have to find the appropriate office, bring the needed paperwork and pay the required fee, all to get an ID many don't know they need," she said. "It turns out that significant numbers of young people don't even know about these new photo ID requirements."
They have to find the appropriate office...my God...how can we as a society live with ourselves when we require someone to find the appropriate office? And pay a fee? Where is Sarah Mclachlan when you need her?
From the article, quote:
"And the particular restrictions imposed by Republican lawmakers...certainly do appear aimed at Democratic voters."
Of course it appears that way to someone against any form of voter ID law. This is a pointless article.
Yes, sometimes that is very difficult. I live in the Boston area. Care to guess how many RMV offices are in Boston, a city of over 600,000 people? 2
There are two RMV offices in the city of Boston. If you expand that to include the immediate surrounding towns, there are a total of five. Five RMV office for a couple million people. A typical wait at the RMV is at least an hour. If you have to take public transportation (as many people in the city do), you could easily be looking at a 1-hour transit each way (especially if there's a bus involved). I live in the burbs and I drive, and I'm a solid half-hour drive from the closest branch.
So, a person who wants to go to the RMV in Boston via public transportation is looking at a minimum three hour commitment, during regular business hours. Not everybody can afford to take that much time off work. Not everyone can afford the fees, either. Do you know anybody who's working & poor? I do. $25 is a lot to them.
Pointless because it eats away at your argument?
Then they shouldn't be that hard to find.
Do you go to RMV every day? I don't know the law in every state, but in my state renewing a license or a photo ID is a once every two year requirement. A requirement imposed on employers as well as employees. However if the system is as inconvenient as you say it is inconvenient for everyone and not just the specified victim class.
DMV/RMV offices have Saturday hours.
You are making the argument the government system crafted and imposed by the government targets certain groups by being inconvenient. Even if true it is a system which is imposed on everyone.
Just for kicks, I looked at NY and couldn't find any Saturday hours there, either: DMV Offices | New York State DMV
Shoot. I thought Veritas was talking about felons, not people convicted of voter fraud. Her question doesn't even make sense.
Many cases in which vote fraud is charged involve felons voting when their voting rights have not been restored. Restoration of voting rights became automatic upon release in 2005 following an executive order by former Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, but in 2011 an application process was reinstated under Branstad.
The parties don't do the prosecuting. Please carefully read what I wrote before twisting.
No it hasn't and certainly not by you.
So, do you think if someone is convicted of vote fraud they should have their voting rights restored after serving time?
You apparently read about a different case:
Cartoons communicate effectively.
And this is important to you why? Do you actually believe I am the only member of these forums who has responded to a post not directed to them? Do you follow those people around the forums and point every time they respond to a comment?
Forgive me your majesty.