Bill Clinton urges adding photos to Social Security cards for voter identification

  • topathlete

    Posts: 882

    Apr 16, 2014 2:06 AM GMT
    Also civil rights leader Andrew Young. Question... is this something everyone will agree on or will those who claim IDs are for voter suppression take issue? If so will many see their real goal as perpetuating voter fraud?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/04/09/7bc3b490-c044-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 2:18 AM GMT
    Great idea. Make voting more personal and maybe more people will vote.

    Also open up the voting process so that it's more convenient.
    More early voting and absentee voting.

  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 16, 2014 10:41 AM GMT
    good idea, I bet voter fraud is a bigger issue than we care to admit, especially in state/local elections

    I think we should have to show ID before voting now, voter suppression is just bullshit - who the fuck doesn't have some form of ID? Show a valid photo ID or 2 forms of non-photo ID (electric bill, social security card, birth certificate, phone bill, credit card, etc for instance)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 12:07 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidgood idea, I bet voter fraud is a bigger issue than we care to admit, especially in state/local elections

    I think we should have to show ID before voting now, voter suppression is just bullshit - who the fuck doesn't have some form of ID? Show a valid photo ID or 2 forms of non-photo ID (electric bill, social security card, birth certificate, phone bill, credit card, etc for instance)


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

    Apr 16, 2014 1:28 PM GMT
    no need for a plastic card
    they send the ballot in the mail to the house.
    would vote on-line if they would allow it.


    voter fraud is not an issue.

    could ??? the real issue be:
    -get the population between the destitute to the average Joe to vote and be informed.
    -Get more young voters out there.
    -get election results where a win is more than 66.6 vote counts.
  • topathlete

    Posts: 882

    Apr 16, 2014 4:17 PM GMT
    pellaz saidno need for a plastic card
    they send the ballot in the mail to the house.
    would vote on-line if they would allow it.


    voter fraud is not an issue.

    could ??? the real issue be:
    -get the population between the destitute to the average Joe to vote and be informed.
    -Get more young voters out there.
    -get election results where a win is more than 66.6 vote counts.

    Voter fraud is an issue. Google voter fraud convictions. This is the first link:
    http://www.truethevote.org/news/did-you-know-there-are-voter-fraud-convictions-and-prosecutions-in-46-states
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 10:06 PM GMT
    fraud is .00075% of the population
    like $100,00 in fines and 10years in prison
    none issue

    just another layer of government

    reference:
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/17/3074691/voter-fraud-iowa/

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2014 11:45 PM GMT
    topathlete saidAlso civil rights leader Andrew Young. Question... is this something everyone will agree on or will those who claim IDs are for voter suppression take issue? If so will many see their real goal as perpetuating voter fraud?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/04/09/7bc3b490-c044-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html

    It would be much more efficient if they would just implant a microchip into everyone when they were born. It would be so much easier to track them in so many ways.
  • topathlete

    Posts: 882

    Apr 17, 2014 12:32 AM GMT
    pellaz saidfraud is .00075% of the population
    like $100,00 in fines and 10years in prison
    none issue

    just another layer of government

    reference:
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/17/3074691/voter-fraud-iowa/

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376

    It doesn't matter about the pct of the total population. In close votes like in Florida a few years back a few votes made the difference. The excuse to ignore it doesn't hold water.
  • B71115

    Posts: 482

    Apr 22, 2014 2:17 AM GMT
    Why are Bill Clinton and Andrew Young so hateful?

    icon_eek.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Apr 22, 2014 2:20 AM GMT
    topathlete said
    It doesn't matter about the pct of the total population. In close votes like in Florida a few years back a few votes made the difference. The excuse to ignore it doesn't hold water.


    Yeah, we Democrats know that all too well after the 2000 election. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • topathlete

    Posts: 882

    Apr 22, 2014 3:43 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    topathlete said
    It doesn't matter about the pct of the total population. In close votes like in Florida a few years back a few votes made the difference. The excuse to ignore it doesn't hold water.


    Yeah, we Democrats know that all too well after the 2000 election. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Anything to promote honest elections is a step in the right direction.

    Speaking of the 2000 election, especially in Florida, far left zealots like to call it a selection rather than an election and claim the election was "stolen" by a Supreme Court decision. Why don't far left zealots like to admit what a study found out later, that Bush would have won regardless and under most scenarios in question (and all scenarios seriously considered and feasible) his lead was even wider? Here is something from PBS that the far left zealots can't claim is like Fox. BTW - are you a far left zealot or are you someone who has the capacity to see both sides of arguments and form a rational opinion? Just wondering. Your brief comment did raise some doubts. icon_lol.gif

    Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03/
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Apr 23, 2014 11:45 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    coolarmydude said
    topathlete said
    It doesn't matter about the pct of the total population. In close votes like in Florida a few years back a few votes made the difference. The excuse to ignore it doesn't hold water.


    Yeah, we Democrats know that all too well after the 2000 election. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Anything to promote honest elections is a step in the right direction.

    Speaking of the 2000 election, especially in Florida, far left zealots like to call it a selection rather than an election and claim the election was "stolen" by a Supreme Court decision. Why don't far left zealots like to admit what a study found out later, that Bush would have won regardless and under most scenarios in question (and all scenarios seriously considered and feasible) his lead was even wider? Here is something from PBS that the far left zealots can't claim is like Fox. BTW - are you a far left zealot or are you someone who has the capacity to see both sides of arguments and form a rational opinion? Just wondering. Your brief comment did raise some doubts. icon_lol.gif

    Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03/


    That's not true! Your own source ends by saying:

    Another recount of all Florida votes — including both under- and overvotes — is still in the works under the eye of a consortium of media organizations, including The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and CNN. That review, conducted by the Chicago-based National Opinion Research Center, is due out next month.

    So the Washington Post reported in November 2001:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

    The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.

    Nevertheless, we Democrats know all too well after the 2000 election that "in close votes like in Florida a few years back a few votes made the difference."
  • topathlete

    Posts: 882

    Apr 24, 2014 3:34 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    topathlete said
    coolarmydude said
    topathlete said
    It doesn't matter about the pct of the total population. In close votes like in Florida a few years back a few votes made the difference. The excuse to ignore it doesn't hold water.


    Yeah, we Democrats know that all too well after the 2000 election. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Anything to promote honest elections is a step in the right direction.

    Speaking of the 2000 election, especially in Florida, far left zealots like to call it a selection rather than an election and claim the election was "stolen" by a Supreme Court decision. Why don't far left zealots like to admit what a study found out later, that Bush would have won regardless and under most scenarios in question (and all scenarios seriously considered and feasible) his lead was even wider? Here is something from PBS that the far left zealots can't claim is like Fox. BTW - are you a far left zealot or are you someone who has the capacity to see both sides of arguments and form a rational opinion? Just wondering. Your brief comment did raise some doubts. icon_lol.gif

    Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03/


    That's not true! Your own source ends by saying:

    Another recount of all Florida votes — including both under- and overvotes — is still in the works under the eye of a consortium of media organizations, including The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and CNN. That review, conducted by the Chicago-based National Opinion Research Center, is due out next month.

    So the Washington Post reported in November 2001:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

    The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.

    Nevertheless, we Democrats know all too well after the 2000 election that "in close votes like in Florida a few years back a few votes made the difference."

    The primary issue that caused angst for the Democrats was the Supreme Court decision. The Democrats did not call for a state-wide recount but instead a recount of counties they thought were favorable to them. The Supreme Court denied that. The point is even if the court had ruled in favor of the Democrats request, Bush would still have won. All the rantings about the Supreme Court selecting the President aren't consistent with the facts.

    The overall takeaway by both sides should be the need for fair accurate elections.