Republicans Jam Through 'Voter ID' Bill In Wisconsin Senate

  • metta

    Posts: 39079

    May 20, 2011 7:26 PM GMT
    Republicans Jam Through 'Voter ID' Bill In Wisconsin Senate

  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    May 20, 2011 7:48 PM GMT
    So

    Sad
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2011 7:57 PM GMT
    One thing is for sure.
    These out-of-control radical Repubs in WI have definitely got more shit up their sleeves.
    Stay tuned!
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 20, 2011 8:19 PM GMT
    Oh ....and let's not forget Florida icon_cool.gif

    where the voter ID fraud is just runnin rampant I tell you RAMPANT

    Republicans. How is that job thing com in huh? LOL

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2011 8:41 PM GMT
    It seems to me that the most this accomplishes is disenfranchising the very poor and the elderly shut ins. Seems to me that the far righters are running scared, with all this sudden push for their extreme right. initiatives, and like GQ rightfully keeps pointing out, where's all the repub jobs? where's all their efforts on that front?

    But we should count our blessings because these far righters have taken it so far that they are losing credibility and I'll bet that the Pendulum will be swinging back to the center on 2012.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2011 9:27 PM GMT
    A few years ago when the voter ID law was proposed in Georgia, the Democrats balked, claiming the poor could not get IDs and would be unfairly prevented from voting. The bill supporters amended to bill to provide for teams of state government employees to go to the home of any resident requesting an ID. It would be provided at no cost. The Democrats still balked.

    This shows the Democrats are all about corruption and voter fraud. They want multiple voting and voting of those not eligible to continue. They want the practices of community organizing groups to continue to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes.

    The Georgia law was just upheld in March by a 6-1 vote in the Georgia Supreme Court.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261537/georgia-voter-id-law-upheld-hans-von-spakovsky

    Just amazing how corrupt this party is, and how its supporters cheer them on.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2011 10:28 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidA few years ago when the voter ID law was proposed in Georgia, the Democrats balked, claiming the poor could not get IDs and would be unfairly prevented from voting. The bill supporters amended to bill to provide for teams of state government employees to go to the home of any resident requesting an ID. It would be provided at no cost. The Democrats still balked.

    This shows the Democrats are all about corruption and voter fraud. They want multiple voting and voting of those not eligible to continue. They want the practices of community organizing groups to continue to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes.

    The Georgia law was just upheld in March by a 6-1 vote in the Georgia Supreme Court.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261537/georgia-voter-id-law-upheld-hans-von-spakovsky

    Just amazing how corrupt this party is, and how its supporters cheer them on.



    Please cite just one single example of multiple voting or the voting of those ineligible in the the last 30 years. Just one. Not voter registration fraud, but actual voter fraud.

    Because I can cite ample evidence of electronic voting machines manipulating elections in 2004 that are well-documented by engineers and programmers at MIT.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 20, 2011 10:50 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidA few years ago when the voter ID law was proposed in Georgia, the Democrats balked, claiming the poor could not get IDs and would be unfairly prevented from voting. The bill supporters amended to bill to provide for teams of state government employees to go to the home of any resident requesting an ID. It would be provided at no cost. The Democrats still balked.

    This shows the Democrats are all about corruption and voter fraud. They want multiple voting and voting of those not eligible to continue. They want the practices of community organizing groups to continue to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes.

    The Georgia law was just upheld in March by a 6-1 vote in the Georgia Supreme Court.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261537/georgia-voter-id-law-upheld-hans-von-spakovsky

    Just amazing how corrupt this party is, and how its supporters cheer them on.



    Please cite just one single example of multiple voting or the voting of those ineligible in the the last 30 years. Just one. Not voter registration fraud, but actual voter fraud.

    Because I can cite ample evidence of electronic voting machines manipulating elections in 2004 that are well-documented by engineers and programmers at MIT.


    Yeah, good luck getting a logical response out of socalfitness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2011 10:51 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidA few years ago when the voter ID law was proposed in Georgia, the Democrats balked, claiming the poor could not get IDs and would be unfairly prevented from voting. The bill supporters amended to bill to provide for teams of state government employees to go to the home of any resident requesting an ID. It would be provided at no cost. The Democrats still balked.

    This shows the Democrats are all about corruption and voter fraud. They want multiple voting and voting of those not eligible to continue. They want the practices of community organizing groups to continue to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes.

    The Georgia law was just upheld in March by a 6-1 vote in the Georgia Supreme Court.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261537/georgia-voter-id-law-upheld-hans-von-spakovsky

    Just amazing how corrupt this party is, and how its supporters cheer them on.



    Please cite just one single example of multiple voting or the voting of those ineligible in the the last 30 years. Just one. Not voter registration fraud, but actual voter fraud.

    Because I can cite ample evidence of electronic voting machines manipulating elections in 2004 that are well-documented by engineers and programmers at MIT.

    We've been through this a few times already, most recently in the discussion about ACORN. I provided several links showing voter fraud convictions in several states. You claimed it could not be attributed to ACORN because the convictions involved volunteers not employees. I didn't bother checking the employment status of those convicted, but relative to your comment today, there were definite convictions. (BTW - subsequently read that some of the voter fraud convictions - not registration, but actual voting - involved ACORN employees. easy google search)
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2929

    May 21, 2011 12:10 AM GMT
    A stupid law for a non-problem. But at least it keeps them from addressing real issues like unemployment, the economy, the war, etc. Keep people distracted....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 5:29 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidA few years ago when the voter ID law was proposed in Georgia, the Democrats balked, claiming the poor could not get IDs and would be unfairly prevented from voting. The bill supporters amended to bill to provide for teams of state government employees to go to the home of any resident requesting an ID. It would be provided at no cost. The Democrats still balked.

    This shows the Democrats are all about corruption and voter fraud. They want multiple voting and voting of those not eligible to continue. They want the practices of community organizing groups to continue to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes.

    The Georgia law was just upheld in March by a 6-1 vote in the Georgia Supreme Court.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261537/georgia-voter-id-law-upheld-hans-von-spakovsky

    Just amazing how corrupt this party is, and how its supporters cheer them on.



    Please cite just one single example of multiple voting or the voting of those ineligible in the the last 30 years. Just one. Not voter registration fraud, but actual voter fraud.

    Because I can cite ample evidence of electronic voting machines manipulating elections in 2004 that are well-documented by engineers and programmers at MIT.

    We've been through this a few times already, most recently in the discussion about ACORN. I provided several links showing voter fraud convictions in several states. You claimed it could not be attributed to ACORN because the convictions involved volunteers not employees. I didn't bother checking the employment status of those convicted, but relative to your comment today, there were definite convictions. (BTW - subsequently read that some of the voter fraud convictions - not registration, but actual voting - involved ACORN employees. easy google search)


    Incorrect.

    http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=6500
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    May 21, 2011 5:38 AM GMT
    Maybe it's just me, but if you don't have something as simple as legal I.D., whether it be a birth certificate, driver's license, state I.D. card, etc, then you have no business voting. They are not that hard to get. I don't think it is all that much to ask of someone to show proper I.D. before you vote. In fact, it seems ridiculous to me to NOT require it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 4:30 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said It seems to me that the most this accomplishes is disenfranchising the very poor and the elderly shut ins.


    How?



    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It makes it hard for them to vote because they don't have the money to spend on ID's when its all they can do to eat and afford their medicine, there's a lot of elderly who never leave home, so they don't need nor do they have ID, Working with the low income Public Housing this was frequently the case with the very poor and the elderly.

    I've also worked as a local election official taking and counting votes on election days, previous to these laws we knew our elderly then and should now be able to vouch for our elderly citizens by personal knowledge instead of totally relying on documentation ID's only. Good god do they really think they need to save us from the poor and elderly by these unecessary rules?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    May 21, 2011 4:47 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    It makes it hard for them to vote because they don't have the money to spend on ID's



    Seriously? How much does an I.D. actually cost? Sorry, but I think this is a cop out excuse. It's simply not that hard, or expensive, to get an I.D. Regardless, the I.D. requirement is not designed to keep old and/or poor people from voting, but rather it is designed to keep people who are not allowed to vote from voting. If we are not allowed to board a plane without proper I.D., why in the hell should we expect to be allowed to vote without one?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 8:31 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidAnd, if they can't cough up the money to pay the fee for the ID, then the state should provide one at no charge. But really, how many people "can't afford" to pay the fee (if there even is one, it probably varies from state to state). Without any data, you can't just make the statement that this discriminates against the poor.

    If you see my message above about what happened in Georgia, the real motive is clearly not the cost of the ID or the inconvenience in getting one. The state offered to send state employee teams to any residence to provide the IDs at no cost, but Democrats still balked. Wonder why? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said
    It makes it hard for them to vote because they don't have the money to spend on ID's



    Seriously? How much does an I.D. actually cost? Sorry, but I think this is a cop out excuse. It's simply not that hard, or expensive, to get an I.D. Regardless, the I.D. requirement is not designed to keep old and/or poor people from voting, but rather it is designed to keep people who are not allowed to vote from voting. If we are not allowed to board a plane without proper I.D., why in the hell should we expect to be allowed to vote without one?



    People who live on SSI and very small SS incomes often under $700 a month, those people do well to survive, rarely leave home and are uneducated so just don't get or need ID's, other than their SS card, and those are not accepted as ID's for voting purposes. There's probably millions that fall into this class in the US. But I do see where your coming from, that to most people who are out and about daily, that it seems hard to understand that there are people so out of the mainstream of networking in society. but there are a lot of them. I think SS cards should be accepted, that would take care of a lot of the problem right there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 8:52 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    metta8 saidRepublicans Jam Through 'Voter ID' Bill In Wisconsin Senate


    Sounds good to me. Bad for Democrats who count on illegals and felons for their votes.


    Well you do know if the illegals said they were going to vote republican, Obama would have that fence up tomorrow.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    May 21, 2011 9:28 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said
    It makes it hard for them to vote because they don't have the money to spend on ID's



    Seriously? How much does an I.D. actually cost? Sorry, but I think this is a cop out excuse. It's simply not that hard, or expensive, to get an I.D. Regardless, the I.D. requirement is not designed to keep old and/or poor people from voting, but rather it is designed to keep people who are not allowed to vote from voting. If we are not allowed to board a plane without proper I.D., why in the hell should we expect to be allowed to vote without one?



    People who live on SSI and very small SS incomes often under $700 a month, those people do well to survive, rarely leave home and are uneducated so just don't get or need ID's, other than their SS card, and those are not accepted as ID's for voting purposes. There's probably millions that fall into this class in the US. But I do see where your coming from, that to most people who are out and about daily, that it seems hard to understand that there are people so out of the mainstream of networking in society. but there are a lot of them. I think SS cards should be accepted, that would take care of a lot of the problem right there.



    I think its reasonable for the "many" without ID's, therefore a SS card and or a birth certificate could be used in those cases of not having a ID.
    Even 2 utility bills, etc.

    But millions? I am not sure that could be accurate. But even in that case they have provisional ballots. If you happen not to have your ID at the time, you can fill out an absentee ballot, so if the election is close and needs to be challenged your ID could be verified.

    This is the boiler plate to about every ID voter requirements . There is always a fail-safe.
    Considering Democrats pushed for Motor Voter. Why wouldn't they require the same ID for voting?
    And even if someone just happens to have his ID eaten by the Dog on election day, he or she could fill out a provisional ballot.

    [
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121682314.html
    jsonlineThose living in nursing homes and the like would be exempt from the law, as would victims of stalking and those opposed to having their photos taken on religious grounds.

    A voter who forgot to bring a photo ID could cast a provisional ballot, which would be counted if the voter presented a clerk with a photo ID by the Friday after the election.

    Whats wrong with that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 9:33 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    realifedad said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said
    It makes it hard for them to vote because they don't have the money to spend on ID's



    Seriously? How much does an I.D. actually cost? Sorry, but I think this is a cop out excuse. It's simply not that hard, or expensive, to get an I.D. Regardless, the I.D. requirement is not designed to keep old and/or poor people from voting, but rather it is designed to keep people who are not allowed to vote from voting. If we are not allowed to board a plane without proper I.D., why in the hell should we expect to be allowed to vote without one?



    People who live on SSI and very small SS incomes often under $700 a month, those people do well to survive, rarely leave home and are uneducated so just don't get or need ID's, other than their SS card, and those are not accepted as ID's for voting purposes. There's probably millions that fall into this class in the US. But I do see where your coming from, that to most people who are out and about daily, that it seems hard to understand that there are people so out of the mainstream of networking in society. but there are a lot of them. I think SS cards should be accepted, that would take care of a lot of the problem right there.



    I think its reasonable for the "many" without ID's, therefore a SS card and or a birth certificate could be used in those cases of not having a ID.
    Even 2 utility bills, etc.

    But millions? I am not sure that could be accurate. But even in that case they have provisional ballots. If you happen not to have your ID at the time, you can fill out an absentee ballot, so if the election is close and needs to be challenged your ID could be verified.

    This is the boiler plate to about every ID voter requirements . There is always a fail-safe.
    Considering Democrats pushed for Motor Voter. Why wouldn't they require the same ID for voting?
    And even if someone just happens to have his ID eaten by the Dog on election day, he or she could fill out a provisional ballot.

    Whats wrong with that?

    What's wrong is the objections presented to having IDs are just smoke screens. Those objections have been addressed but to no avail. The real intent is to have minimal enforcement so those who are not qualified to vote can vote, or those who are qualified to vote can vote multiple times.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    May 21, 2011 9:38 PM GMT
    so in Wisconsin, the ID's will be for FREE
    Nursing home patients are exempt.

    No id, means you can vote with everyone else using a provisional ballot.

    On point, I would like someone to explain what the problem with this is?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 10:41 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    musclmed said
    On point, I would like someone to explain what the problem with this is?



    It was done by the Republicans.


    The primary problem is that it's based on a logical fallacy that voting fraud on the part of Democrats is even a problem in the US, which it is not.

    The actual issue of voting fraud is that the people who create the voting machines in most counties and states are huge Republican donors. The instances of voting fraud via machine manipulation date back to Florida in 2000 and have always benefited Republicans and always been swept under the rug.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 10:55 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidA few years ago when the voter ID law was proposed in Georgia, the Democrats balked, claiming the poor could not get IDs and would be unfairly prevented from voting. The bill supporters amended to bill to provide for teams of state government employees to go to the home of any resident requesting an ID. It would be provided at no cost. The Democrats still balked.

    This shows the Democrats are all about corruption and voter fraud. They want multiple voting and voting of those not eligible to continue. They want the practices of community organizing groups to continue to stuff the ballot boxes with illegal votes.

    The Georgia law was just upheld in March by a 6-1 vote in the Georgia Supreme Court.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261537/georgia-voter-id-law-upheld-hans-von-spakovsky

    Just amazing how corrupt this party is, and how its supporters cheer them on.



    Please cite just one single example of multiple voting or the voting of those ineligible in the the last 30 years. Just one. Not voter registration fraud, but actual voter fraud.

    Because I can cite ample evidence of electronic voting machines manipulating elections in 2004 that are well-documented by engineers and programmers at MIT.

    We've been through this a few times already, most recently in the discussion about ACORN. I provided several links showing voter fraud convictions in several states. You claimed it could not be attributed to ACORN because the convictions involved volunteers not employees. I didn't bother checking the employment status of those convicted, but relative to your comment today, there were definite convictions. (BTW - subsequently read that some of the voter fraud convictions - not registration, but actual voting - involved ACORN employees. easy google search)


    Incorrect.

    http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=6500


    thanks for the links. The whole "voter fraud" thing has been totally debunked, yet socal still repeats it as true.

    The strategy was calculated,cynical, dishonest, and it clearly has worked with socal exactly as its designers planned.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    May 21, 2011 11:07 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    musclmed said
    On point, I would like someone to explain what the problem with this is?



    It was done by the Republicans.


    The primary problem is that it's based on a logical fallacy that voting fraud on the part of Democrats is even a problem in the US, which it is not.

    The actual issue of voting fraud is that the people who create the voting machines in most counties and states are huge Republican donors. The instances of voting fraud via machine manipulation date back to Florida in 2000 and have always benefited Republicans and always been swept under the rug.


    Voter machine issue aside, simply this proposed law doesn't institute Jim Crow or any of the claims that some are saying it does.

    as to the voting machine issue , I am aware of what you are talking about. However MIT is not a court of law. And is not a nonbiased reviewer, as early as late 1999 it had launched a caloborative effort to develop voting technologies.

    Unfortunately until recently, these projects had been rejected by many municipalities ( both Dem/Republican). They clearly are making alot of noise and maybe they will develop something good.

    But when MIT/Caltech picks apart a voting machine it doesn't benefit from, that is hardly a non-biased observer.
    Although I think they could develop a more fool-proof voting system. I don't think any of there conclusions are provable.

    I am aware of the so called 2004 claim. Maybe you want to cite the finding of fact of a court case involving any Republican "stealing " of votes using machines. Rather than a report from Caltech/MIT , who is also trying to sell its own technology/ methods.

    Its like Ford taking apart a GM and saying its a bad car.
    ( they are currently licensing voting technology.)
    Actually they were thrown out of court in multiple instances.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 11:23 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    musclmed said
    On point, I would like someone to explain what the problem with this is?



    It was done by the Republicans.


    The primary problem is that it's based on a logical fallacy that voting fraud on the part of Democrats is even a problem in the US, which it is not.

    The actual issue of voting fraud is that the people who create the voting machines in most counties and states are huge Republican donors. The instances of voting fraud via machine manipulation date back to Florida in 2000 and have always benefited Republicans and always been swept under the rug.


    Voter machine issue aside, simply this proposed law doesn't institute Jim Crow or any of the claims that some are saying it does.

    as to the voting machine issue , I am aware of what you are talking about. However MIT is not a court of law. And is not a nonbiased reviewer, as early as late 1999 it had launched a caloborative effort to develop voting technologies.

    Unfortunately until recently, these projects had been rejected by many municipalities ( both Dem/Republican). They clearly are making alot of noise and maybe they will develop something good.

    But when MIT/Caltech picks apart a voting machine it doesn't benefit from, that is hardly a non-biased observer.
    Although I think they could develop a more fool-proof voting system. I don't think any of there conclusions are provable.

    I am aware of the so called 2004 claim. Maybe you want to cite the finding of fact of a court case involving any Republican "stealing " of votes using machines. Rather than a report from Caltech/MIT , who is also trying to sell its own technology/ methods.

    Its like Ford taking apart a GM and saying its a bad car.
    ( they are currently licensing voting technology.)
    Actually they were thrown out of court in multiple instances.


    You prove, as always, intellectually incapable of engaging in these conversations.

    I can find not a single reference to CalTech or MIT selling voting machines. Not one. In fact, CalTech began it's voting technology project in the wake or the 2000 election.

    http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000273

    As for 2004, who was going to investigate the claims of voting machine manipulation? The company that made them, whose CEO declared his intent to "deliver votes for Bush?" Or maybe the Bush Justice Department that spent much of that time defending its use of torture? Or maybe the DOJ lawyers they fired because they refused to assist in election fraud?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2011 11:31 PM GMT
    Wow, how could anyone even conceive this as a bad thing? It will prevent any potential voter fraud.

    This is a wonderful bill!