you have to pay $13.50 to vote in pennsylvania

[Red1966]

Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner said. “About 10 percent of otherwise eligible Pennsylvanians are disenfranchised by the Voter ID law. That’s not an acceptable number of people to tell that they can’t vote.” Disenfranchised groups, Wagner said, include older residents, students and the poor.

You keep repeating OPINIONS as tho they prove your point. They do not.

 

[Red1966]

At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature. “Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.” There is a video floating around here of Turzai's words. Beenthere - I have answered all of your questions and will continue to do so. Kindly answer mine. What did Turzai mean when he said "Voter ID, which is gonna allow governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."? Was this statement somehow taken out of context and caused to mean something other than it seems? And, you have not yet addressed why Ohio has sharply curtailed extra voting time, why did they do that Beenthere?​

Turzai doesn't represent the Republican party any more than you represent the Democratic Party. He answered your question as well as you did his. Ohio reduced the number of days, but increased the hours, because people were complaining they weren't open at convenient hours.

 

[Red1966]

"Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable requirements" Now how has it been misused here Beenthere? in any case, if a group of people who are otherwise eligible to vote are no longer due to laws enacted by Republicans, there is a real problem, one that you are squirming to avoid. Unless, of course, you really don't think that the poor, the elderly, students and minorites should no longer be able to vote. that isn't the case, is it?

What part of "unreasonable requirements" do you not understand? Those people you claim are no longer eligible to vote are still eligible.

 

[Red1966]

Good question. I can only presume that one of the methods used to arrive at that number were the voter rolls. Even if it is not, a fraction of that 10 percent is too much. The only reasoning that would make sense is if the numbers of voter fraud predicted were even higher than this number. The fact is that in PA at least, it was stipulated that no incidence of voter fraud had been encountered - none at all, by those who were defending the voter ID law.

" The only reasoning that would make sense is if the numbers of voter fraud predicted were even higher than this number." I reject that argument. Your "standard" of sense is irrelevant. The court rejected your argument, also.

 

[Red1966]

It is, and the topic of the Black Panthers is a legitimate one. It winds up, however, being more of a weak "yeah but" rebutal. Even if the Panthers did what was claimed and intimidated voters - what were there? 10 of them? what could the total number of voters be? a couple of hundred? a thousand?

Yet you claim if only one voter is "disenfranchised", it is too many. Double standard.

 

[Red1966]

Our rights are most often infringed by good people being willing to suffer inconvenience in order to make it easier for government to do a thing.

This from you? ROTFLMAO!

 

[Red1966]

Where is the straw man Beenthere? You are intentionaly depriving voters of their right in order that you might prevent something that you only have some vague belief exists. What you are saying is that all through history until this election, voter fraud has been so rampant that it has affected every election. Now, let us look at numbers for a moment. the Brennan center for justice is a non-partisan organization and it estimates that as many as 5 MILLION people will not be able to vote because of voter ID requirements. The studies may be flawed, it could well be twice that number but we won't go in that direction. Let us rather go in the other direction. Let us be safe and say that one fifth of that number is correct. I can't believe that you will contend that the organization is 100 percent wrong and that nobody will be deprived. So in order for your voter ID laws to be reasonable, there will have to be 999,999 cases of voter fraud stopped. Now you maintain that voter fraud esists but we just can't detect it or convict. Are you maintaining that we can neither convict nor detect almost a million cases of voter fraud? In short, as I say, you are doing what I have speculated, you are ignoring fact and study and logic and clinging to naked supposition which is devoid of either logic or evidence, that there are more cases of unknown, unseen, undetectable voter fraud than there are cases of actual, predictable, obvious legitimate voters being rendered unable to vote. All of this to justify an untenable position.

Nothing said above is true.

"What you are saying is that all through history until this election, voter fraud has been so rampant that it has affected every election."

He didn't say that.

"the Brennan center for justice is a non-partisan organization"

doubt it

" and it estimates that as many as 5 MILLION people will not be able to vote because of voter ID requirements."

doubt that, too.

"So in order for your voter ID laws to be reasonable, there will have to be 999,999 cases of voter fraud stopped."

Your "standard" is irrelevant, I didn't say it, the courts did.

"Now you maintain that voter fraud esists but we just can't detect it or convict. Are you maintaining that we can neither convict nor detect almost a million cases of voter fraud?"

Again, irrelevant.

 

[UncleBuck]

You keep repeating OPINIONS as tho they prove your point. They do not.

they compared the voter rolls to the PennDOT ID rolls, and about 9% of registered voters do not own the needed ID, 758,000 voters overall.

i've posted the link in post #425. it is not opinion so you would be best served by shutting the fuck up.

 

[UncleBuck]

Turzai doesn't represent the Republican party any more than you represent the Democratic Party. He answered your question as well as you did his. Ohio reduced the number of days, but increased the hours, because people were complaining they weren't open at convenient hours.

turzai, house republican leader in PA, said this:

"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

 

[UncleBuck]

What part of "unreasonable requirements" do you not understand? Those people you claim are no longer eligible to vote are still eligible.

"those people" may only vote IF if they pay money to the government first, which is unconstitutional.

that's about as good as your sarah bachmann argument that gays are equal if they just don't be gay.

 

[UncleBuck]

" The only reasoning that would make sense is if the numbers of voter fraud predicted were even higher than this number." I reject that argument. Your "standard" of sense is irrelevant. The court rejected your argument, also.

so do you agree with disenfranchising 758,000 people in order to prevent ZERO documented cases of in person voter fraud?

that would be redtarded.

 

[Red1966]

Typical. obscure the point and ignore the facts, it is all one can do in the face of voter surpression. This battle has already been adjudicated, poll taxes are illegal. Anything that forces a voter to pay for the express purpose of voting is a poll tax.

This battle has already been adjudicated, ID requirements are legal.

 

[canndo]

Who's forcing them to get an ID?

Republicans in the states in question Red. Either they get ID or they do not vote.

 

[canndo]

That statement is backed with enough evidence to convince anyone who operates according to a partisan agenda.

The Brennan Center for Justice and SCOTUS both offer figures Red, when enough birds walk like ducks and quack like ducks you are going to have to believe that you are looking at a flock of ducks.

 

[canndo]

You're making those numbers up.

No Red I am not. there are legitimate ways of determining who does not have ID. What numbers would you prefer? Tell me Red,, what would it take to convince you that:

1. A significant number of voters do not have ID
2. Changing voting times in states inhibit voters from voting
3. There is little if any voter fraud in this country

 

[canndo]

Wow, a whole page of bullshit.

That's great, you offer no rebuttal, just "that's a whole page of bullshit". I suspect you can't support that particular contention.

 

[canndo]

Don't take that bet!!! When you when Canndo will just say your proof isn't "credible", and demand payment. You can't prove anything to a "true believer".

Try me Red. Show us the hundreds of thousands of cases of Voter fraud commited each election cycle in the U.S. Show me that. I see a case of projection brewing here.

 

[canndo]

You keep repeating OPINIONS as tho they prove your point. They do not.

Here again is a case of equality of opinions. IS your opinion equal to the Allegheny County Controler in this matter Red?

 

[canndo]

Turzai doesn't represent the Republican party any more than you represent the Democratic Party. He answered your question as well as you did his. Ohio reduced the number of days, but increased the hours, because people were complaining they weren't open at convenient hours.

No, he is just the house majority leader in the state of Pa, that's all, he doesn't represent all republicans, just the republicans in power in a swing state. You don't manage to explain what he said, did you Red? I put what he said in context. "gonna allow governor Romney to win the state of PA - DONE" If he does not mean that they enacted the rules in order to give Romney the state, what did he mean Red?

 

[Ringsixty]

voter suppression is common sense for republicans, they can't win when more people come out to vote.

so you support unconstitutional poll taxes then?

Uncle buck I'm calling you out on this one. Your full of it.