SC Voter-ID Law: Justice Dept Blocks Legislation

LadyJazzer wrote:

LLIB wrote: So LJ, what requirements should there be to vote...a pulse? Would you be ok with illegals voting?

Illegals AREN'T voting... Did you miss the part about SC doesn't have a SINGLE CONFIRMED CASE of voter fraud?

Did you miss the part about honestly answering LLIB's question... instead of avoiding it. He/She didn't ask you if there were any cases of voters fraud in SC. Your answer is a deflection. Not even near the ball park. Why don't you give us a simple Yes/No answer... "Would you be ok with illegals voting"?

Do you know anyone personally without photo ID? They cost like $2 or are free in South Carolina. If I am required to show ID to drink a beer, shouldn't it be much more important that a voter have proper ID?

It would be interesting if it was Republicans who were voting early and often, if the Dems would finally see the light on this?

Like the way Dems care that one in a million people who might vote is denied but then could care less about actual documented cases of thousands of sevicemen not getting absentee ballots in time because our military tends to vote Republican.

As usual, you miss the point... (Why am I not surprised...) It's not the $2-$10 for the cost of the license...It's the HUNDREDS of dollars, in many cases, to obtain the documents for the elderly who don't have them for whatever reason, in order to be able to qualify for the $2-$10 license. Multiple examples have been presented, and are easily found on the 'Net... So, be happy in your willful ignorance...

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

LLIB wrote: So LJ, what requirements should there be to vote...a pulse? Would you be ok with illegals voting?

Illegals AREN'T voting... Did you miss the part about SC doesn't have a SINGLE CONFIRMED CASE of voter fraud?

Did you miss the part about honestly answering LLIB's question... instead of avoiding it. He/She didn't ask you if there were any cases of voters fraud in SC. Your answer is a deflection. Not even near the ball park. Why don't you give us a simple Yes/No answer... "Would you be ok with illegals voting"?

LLIB wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

LLIB wrote: So LJ, what requirements should there be to vote...a pulse? Would you be ok with illegals voting?

Illegals AREN'T voting... Did you miss the part about SC doesn't have a SINGLE CONFIRMED CASE of voter fraud?

Did you miss the part about honestly answering LLIB's question... instead of avoiding it. He/She didn't ask you if there were any cases of voters fraud in SC. Your answer is a deflection. Not even near the ball park. Why don't you give us a simple Yes/No answer... "Would you be ok with illegals voting"?

Yes or no?

No.. And since they aren't, it's an irrelevant question.... I guess you still missed the part about : "SC doesn't have a SINGLE CONFIRMED CASE of voter fraud"

I'm not interested in your far-fetched hypotheticals....

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, since it's not YOUR vote that's being denied, I guess YOU "can trust that the local government agencies can get those problems solved." How nice of you.

Yes, I can trust the Wisconsin legislature to find a way to solve the minor problem faced by elderly people who were born back in the day when most children were born on the family farm and records of births and deaths were not as precise as they are in the here and now with the general government requiring all new births to be issued a Social Security number on the spot. It affects a small minority of the citizens of Wisconsin, so a waiver for that demographic can't be too difficult to draft and implement. No one, certainly not I, would say that the existing law can't be improved upon to address minor incidents like the one you eluded to, but neither are the existence of such isolated incidents sufficient reason not to require proof of eligibility to vote in our modern era. Gone are the days when those casting their ballots were recognized by all at the place where their vote was cast and we need to make use of the available technology to retain the integrity that was present in those earlier days.

We already have documented instances of signatures being forged by partisans in order to get candidates on primary ballots, are we to take it on faith alone that such instances were limited to a single state or are not also part of the general election process that have yet to be discovered? An ineligible candidate appeared on a state primary ballot, and that ineligible candidate now sits in the Oval Office perhaps as a result of the fraud not being discovered until after the election and inauguration of that ineligible candidate to the highest elected office in our union. Might history be different if our current president had been absent from that primary election? Is it possible that our current president would not have had the opportunity to hold his current office if the election laws had not been violated as they were? Impossible to say what might have happened had circumstances been as they ought to have been instead of how they were, isn't it.

That is why the integrity of the vote has to be protected on the front end, not the back end. We can't know what frauds have been perpetrated until after the fraud has occurred. It is too late, after the formal inauguration of the President, to say that the primary election process was tainted and thus all that occurred afterwards was also tainted and must be undone or that results would have been different under circumstances as they should have been instead of the fraudulent circumstances that were present at the time. By the time we found out about the liberality of the fraud that ACORN had engaged in leading up to the 2008 elections, Obama was firmly seated behind the Resolute Desk. Is it possible that Obama won some primary or caucus battles as a result of ACORN's fraud? We have no way of knowing if he did or didn't at this point, do we?

I'm shocked, I tell you...Shocked... that a state that has no record of ANY voter fraud, suddenly feels the need to jump on board the Koch Brothers/ALEC project and pass a voter-suppression law...

[yawn]....

PrintSmith wrote: minor incidents like the one you eluded to,

Or the ones I alluded to either... They aren't minor, and there are a lot more than the examples given... But don't let that worry your little head... As long as it's likely Democrat voters, I'm sure you're okay with it. But, hey, you got to use ACORN in a sentence.

What was Indiana's record on voting fraud prior to candidate Obama being found to have qualified for that state's primary election on the back of forged signatures? That no fraud has been found to date is not an indicator that no fraud currently exists. Sometimes frauds continue for years, decades even before they are found out.

Yes... And the fact that we haven't seen any Martians copulating with teabaggers doesn't mean it hasn't happened... Why, we should pass another law that outlaws it! Yes! That's it!! Like a law to stop penalties on farmers for "too much dust"--(that didn't exist.)

By golly, I think you've cracked the code P.S.!