Is the GOP Suppressing Democratic Votes?

[Assuredcw]

He's not going to, it will take getting him and Obama out of office. The federal government has virtually unlimited funds (borrowing from our grandkids) to continuously challenge anti-fraud cases over and over, no matter how many times the courts decide against the DOJ. If Holder is willing to corrupt justice - and he is - he has a long leash.

To show you the real goal of Democrats, consider what one Democratic mayor is wanting to do: New Haven Mayor Wants Illegals To Vote In Local Elections « CBS New York

Never doubt it, Democrats WANT voter fraud, and will fight any attempt to stop it. They know it works to their advantage.

Uh, no. It's just that with all of these voting law changes, guess what kicks in? The Voting Rights Act, that's what. So now, are you saying, "How DARE Atty General Holder enforce the Voting Rights Act!" I mean, what did you think he would do? Read my link above, and see all of the things the Atty General has to check out now. The GOP is certainly keeping him busy - LOL!

 

[oliverb]

Uh, no. It's just that with all of these voting law changes, guess what kicks in? The Voting Rights Act, that's what. So now, are you saying, "How DARE Atty General Holder enforce the Voting Rights Act!" I mean, what did you think he would do? Read my link above, and see all of the things the Atty General has to check out now. The GOP is certainly keeping him busy - LOL!

I'm already familiar with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That act wouldn't have been necessary, BTW, if Democrats hadn't been so busy undermining the 15th Amendent (that's where voting rights for blacks comes from, not the 1965 legislation) up to, and including, the 1960s, with their twisted machinations. They can't give up their voter manipulation tactics, so they choose, once again, to twist the interpretation of the laws.

 

[Assuredcw]

I'm already familiar with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That act wouldn't have been necessary, BTW, if Democrats hadn't been so busy undermining the 15th Amendent (that's where voting rights for blacks comes from, not the 1965 legislation) up to, and including, the 1960s, with their twisted machinations. They can't give up their voter manipulation tactics, so they choose, once again, to twist the interpretation of the laws.

If Democrats produced the Voting Rights Act (now that I wouldn't know - I certainly wasn't around back then), fine. I'm just trying to say that Holder is interpreting and enforcing laws that he played no role in creating. He is just doing his job.

 

[stamperben]

I'm already familiar with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That act wouldn't have been necessary, BTW, if Democrats hadn't been so busy undermining the 15th Amendent (that's where voting rights for blacks comes from, not the 1965 legislation) up to, and including, the 1960s, with their twisted machinations. They can't give up their voter manipulation tactics, so they choose, once again, to twist the interpretation of the laws.

And after the amendment the states imposed poll taxes for the sole reason of suppressing black votes. Hence the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Granted, it was racist southern Dems who imposed the suppression, those same Dems who align more with the GOP and the Tea Drinkers Association™.

 

[Assuredcw]

Happy Holidays, Stamperben! And thanks again!

 

[stamperben]

Happy Holidays, Stamperben! And thanks again!

Nice to see ya!

 

[lordbt]

So a picture ID is the new Poll Tax? So the same government that can demand a picture ID to buy beer or board a plane is discriminating if it requires one at the voting booth? Maybe just once a liberal will surprise me with a rationally consistent argument.

 

[mathetes123]

I don't see how laws which are applied equally to everyone can be considered voter suppression. I believe these laws are put there to prevent voter fraud and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would object to laws which reduce voter fraud, unless they thought such laws would reduce their votes through fraud.

 

[Assuredcw]

So a picture ID is the new Poll Tax? So the same government that can demand a picture ID to buy beer or board a plane is discriminating if it requires one at the voting booth? Maybe just once a liberal will surprise me with a rationally consistent argument.

Only if the ID isn't free, if you read between the lines on the Supreme Court decision in favor of an ID requirement. I believe Oliverb posted it a page or two back.

 

[stamperben]

So a picture ID is the new Poll Tax? So the same government that can demand a picture ID to buy beer or board a plane is discriminating if it requires one at the voting booth? Maybe just once a liberal will surprise me with a rationally consistent argument.

Buying beer or boarding an airplane are not rights guaranteed by an amendment to the Constitution however, are they?

 

[Assuredcw]

Nice to see ya!

You too!

 

[oliverb]

Buying beer or boarding an airplane are not rights guaranteed by an amendment to the Constitution however, are they?

But the right to own and carry guns is, and it isn't even a penumbra of an emanation. So, I'm glad to see you support no ID required for owning and carrying firearms.

 

[Assuredcw]

But the right to own and carry guns is. So, I'm glad to see you support no ID required for owning and carrying firearms.

Huh? The ID is because, um, guns are DANGEROUS and maybe people would like to know exactly who is properly licensed for owning one? The public safety factor is kind of an extra.

But anyway, as it stands right now (thanks for the link!), the precedent that I think has been set by the Supreme Court is ID's can be required, but free is best if you're going to require one. Charging a fee probably would put a state in danger of having their voting changes blocked, as South Carolina's just were, because poll taxes are basically discriminatory.

 

[stamperben]

But the right to own and carry guns is, and it isn't even a penumbra of an emanation. So, I'm glad to see you support no ID required for owning and carrying firearms.

I own guns and do not need a license to do so. *shrugs shoulders* So what's your point?

 

[Assuredcw]

I own guns and do not need a license to do so. *shrugs shoulders* So what's your point?

Oops! (This might be different in different states.)

 

[oliverb]

Huh? The ID is because, um, guns are DANGEROUS and maybe people would like to know exactly who is properly licensed for owning one? The public safety factor is kind of an extra.

Yeah, and it's a Constitutional right, which the poster implied is the reason that having no ID required to vote is OK. So, which is it, Constitutional rights can still require ID, or not? And a gun owner has to pay for his ID, BTW.

 

[oliverb]

I own guns and do not need a license to do so. *shrugs shoulders* So what's your point?

I look forward to Holder suing the states that do.

 

[Assuredcw]

Yeah, and it's a Constitutional right, which the poster implied is the reason that having no ID required to vote is OK. So, which is it, Constitutional rights can still require ID, or not? And a gun owner has to pay for his ID, BTW.

I just think gun ownership is different than voting, because not everyone is going to be allowed to own a gun. You have to pass a background check first. They have to license you (in my state), which means there's a fee. They are dangerous things to own, so when the state gives you permission to own a gun, they monitor you and it, and if the gun is involved in a crime, they contact the person the gun was licensed to. It's this whole big, complicated thing. Voting isn't dangerous and doesn't require a background check or a special license.

 

[MachZer0]

On the contrary, Illinois is probably OK. Atty Gen Holder probably isn't going to bother to review Illinois, because they provide free ID's. I'm betting South Carolina doesn't, which would make it an illegal poll tax. It's not capability that appears to be at issue, it's money.

Yes, at the beginning of this thread, I was aghast that people without transportation would have to get themselves to the DMV for something STUPID. But I'll admit that getting the ID for free would probably help some.

South Carolina does indeed provide free ID's, so my point stands

 

[oliverb]

I just think gun ownership is different than voting, because not everyone is going to be allowed to own a gun. You have to pass a background check first. They have to license you (in my state), which means there's a fee. They are dangerous things to own, so when the state gives you permission to own a gun, they monitor you and it, and if the gun is involved in a crime, they contact the person the gun was licensed to. It's this whole big, complicated thing. Voting isn't dangerous and doesn't require a background check or a special license.

Owning and carrying a gun is a Constitutional right, is it not? Given that Stamper is so supportive of Holder's making sure that our Constitutional rights aren't violated by requiring an ID, I wondering when he's going to be suing the states that require an ID. Any insights on when? I'm sure Holder has it on his list of priorities.