stop whining about voter ID requirements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need ID to cash a check.
You need ID to buy alcohol.
You need ID to buy tobacco.
You need ID to buy a gun.
You need ID to get into many govt buildings.
You need ID to get onto secure federal property.
You need ID to rent or buy an apartment or home.
You need ID to get on a plane.
You need ID to get a library card.
You need ID to buy a fishing license.
You need ID to open a bank account.
You need ID to receive govt benefits like WIC and EBT.
You need ID to apply for a job.
You need ID to buy or rent a car.
You need ID to go into any school building in the country.
You need ID to get medical treatment.
You need ID to apply to colleges.
You need ID to get into a many bars/clubs.
You need ID to get into many community centers / pools


But voting doesn’t require an ID.




If you oppose a law requiring showing an ID in order to vote, then you are for voter fraud. There is no other plausible reason.

Voting is a right, not a privilege. Furthermore, where is any evidence that there is even voter fraud to begin with? This is just a new way to disenfranchise black people.

It is a right for CITIZENS. Presenting an ID proves you have the right (well, it did, until leftists started issuing driver's licenses to illegals)

Those licenses cannot be used to meet voter ID requirements. They are a different kind of license and are marked as such.

[Anonymous]

If it was just about voter fraud they wouldn't have banned giving water to people waiting in line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it was just about voter fraud they wouldn't have banned giving water to people waiting in line.

Agree. Also, they wouldn't have the provision allowing statewide officials (read: GOP) take over country (read: dems) functions in order to award elections, which could be state, county or federal, including for electoral college votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was just about voter fraud they wouldn't have banned giving water to people waiting in line.

Agree. Also, they wouldn't have the provision allowing statewide officials (read: GOP) take over country (read: dems) functions in order to award elections, which could be state, county or federal, including for electoral college votes.

Are you speaking about what Nancy is doing to Iowa-2?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need ID to cash a check.
You need ID to buy alcohol.
You need ID to buy tobacco.
You need ID to buy a gun.
You need ID to get into many govt buildings.
You need ID to get onto secure federal property.
You need ID to rent or buy an apartment or home.
You need ID to get on a plane.
You need ID to get a library card.
You need ID to buy a fishing license.
You need ID to open a bank account.
You need ID to receive govt benefits like WIC and EBT.
You need ID to apply for a job.
You need ID to buy or rent a car.
You need ID to go into any school building in the country.
You need ID to get medical treatment.
You need ID to apply to colleges.
You need ID to get into a many bars/clubs.
You need ID to get into many community centers / pools


But voting doesn’t require an ID.




If you oppose a law requiring showing an ID in order to vote, then you are for voter fraud. There is no other plausible reason.

Voting is a right, not a privilege. Furthermore, where is any evidence that there is even voter fraud to begin with? This is just a new way to disenfranchise black people.

It is a right for CITIZENS. Presenting an ID proves you have the right (well, it did, until leftists started issuing driver's licenses to illegals)

Those licenses cannot be used to meet voter ID requirements. They are a different kind of license and are marked as such.

Hey, it happens. These are situations where illegal immigrants were automatically registered to vote when they got a driver's license.
And, if this were in Iowa, where the Republican won by 6 votes, or VA a few years ago when the race was decided by a flip of the coin - it could turn an election.

Becker says the number of noncitizens who end up on the rolls is relatively small and the number who actually vote is even smaller. Pennsylvania officials estimated that the noncitizens they identified cast 544 votes from 2000 through 2017, out of 93 million overall votes cast.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/26/697848417/some-noncitizens-do-wind-up-registered-to-vote-but-usually-not-on-purpose

Jacobs claims the concern about voter fraud from the Green Light Law is real, as other states that have instituted similar laws have seen increases in fraud. In California officials estimated that as many as 1,500 non-citizens were incorrectly registered to vote. In Pennsylvania, the fraud problem was much more severe. Officials there confirmed that over 11,000 non-citizens became voters through their department of Motor Vehicles. These statistics confirm the great potential for fraud locally as more than 50% of new registrations in Erie County come through the State Department of Motor Vehicles.

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/chris-jacobs/jacobs-introduces-reforms-prevent-voter-fraud-due-green-light

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was just about voter fraud they wouldn't have banned giving water to people waiting in line.

Agree. Also, they wouldn't have the provision allowing statewide officials (read: GOP) take over country (read: dems) functions in order to award elections, which could be state, county or federal, including for electoral college votes.

Are you speaking about what Nancy is doing to Iowa-2?

What "Nancy is doing" is actually within the scope of the law, though I personally feel that the election has been certified and she shouldn't bother. It does raise the question as to why the votes were not counted. Same thing happened in NY-22, and that cost the Dems a seat as well. This is why we need the Lewis Act to become law. Thanks for making my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was just about voter fraud they wouldn't have banned giving water to people waiting in line.

Agree. Also, they wouldn't have the provision allowing statewide officials (read: GOP) take over country (read: dems) functions in order to award elections, which could be state, county or federal, including for electoral college votes.

Are you speaking about what Nancy is doing to Iowa-2?

What "Nancy is doing" is actually within the scope of the law, though I personally feel that the election has been certified and she shouldn't bother. It does raise the question as to why the votes were not counted. Same thing happened in NY-22, and that cost the Dems a seat as well. This is why we need the Lewis Act to become law. Thanks for making my point.

Votes were counted, then recounted. Then, certified by a bipartisan team of electors.
And, instead of going to the courts, like she is supposed to do, the loser went crying to Nancy. Probably because she knew she had a sympathetic audience with her and the courts would have thrown it out.
The last thing we need is this House bill to become law. It is not "for the people" at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was just about voter fraud they wouldn't have banned giving water to people waiting in line.

Agree. Also, they wouldn't have the provision allowing statewide officials (read: GOP) take over country (read: dems) functions in order to award elections, which could be state, county or federal, including for electoral college votes.

Are you speaking about what Nancy is doing to Iowa-2?

What "Nancy is doing" is actually within the scope of the law, though I personally feel that the election has been certified and she shouldn't bother. It does raise the question as to why the votes were not counted. Same thing happened in NY-22, and that cost the Dems a seat as well. This is why we need the Lewis Act to become law. Thanks for making my point.

Votes were counted, then recounted. Then, certified by a bipartisan team of electors.
And, instead of going to the courts, like she is supposed to do, the loser went crying to Nancy. Probably because she knew she had a sympathetic audience with her and the courts would have thrown it out.
The last thing we need is this House bill to become law. It is not "for the people" at all.

22 votes were not counted. The race was won by 6 votes. I have no idea whether those votes should have been counted but since they are difference making they should find out whT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was just about voter fraud they wouldn't have banned giving water to people waiting in line.

Agree. Also, they wouldn't have the provision allowing statewide officials (read: GOP) take over country (read: dems) functions in order to award elections, which could be state, county or federal, including for electoral college votes.

Are you speaking about what Nancy is doing to Iowa-2?

What "Nancy is doing" is actually within the scope of the law, though I personally feel that the election has been certified and she shouldn't bother. It does raise the question as to why the votes were not counted. Same thing happened in NY-22, and that cost the Dems a seat as well. This is why we need the Lewis Act to become law. Thanks for making my point.

Votes were counted, then recounted. Then, certified by a bipartisan team of electors.
And, instead of going to the courts, like she is supposed to do, the loser went crying to Nancy. Probably because she knew she had a sympathetic audience with her and the courts would have thrown it out.
The last thing we need is this House bill to become law. It is not "for the people" at all.

22 votes were not counted. The race was won by 6 votes. I have no idea whether those votes should have been counted but since they are difference making they should find out whT

The bipartisan group of electors seemed to think everything was proper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need ID to cash a check.
You need ID to buy alcohol.
You need ID to buy tobacco.
You need ID to buy a gun.
You need ID to get into many govt buildings.
You need ID to get onto secure federal property.
You need ID to rent or buy an apartment or home.
You need ID to get on a plane.
You need ID to get a library card.
You need ID to buy a fishing license.
You need ID to open a bank account.
You need ID to receive govt benefits like WIC and EBT.
You need ID to apply for a job.
You need ID to buy or rent a car.
You need ID to go into any school building in the country.
You need ID to get medical treatment.
You need ID to apply to colleges.
You need ID to get into a many bars/clubs.
You need ID to get into many community centers / pools


But voting doesn’t require an ID.




If you oppose a law requiring showing an ID in order to vote, then you are for voter fraud. There is no other plausible reason.

I lean towards the left side of the political spectrum and wholeheartedly agree. More in the sense that it adds validation to the process. Seriously, it's just logical.

+1
I'm not saying there is rampant voter fraud, but you don't know what you don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need ID to cash a check.
You need ID to buy alcohol.
You need ID to buy tobacco.
You need ID to buy a gun.
You need ID to get into many govt buildings.
You need ID to get onto secure federal property.
You need ID to rent or buy an apartment or home.
You need ID to get on a plane.
You need ID to get a library card.
You need ID to buy a fishing license.
You need ID to open a bank account.
You need ID to receive govt benefits like WIC and EBT.
You need ID to apply for a job.
You need ID to buy or rent a car.
You need ID to go into any school building in the country.
You need ID to get medical treatment.
You need ID to apply to colleges.
You need ID to get into a many bars/clubs.
You need ID to get into many community centers / pools


But voting doesn’t require an ID.




If you oppose a law requiring showing an ID in order to vote, then you are for voter fraud. There is no other plausible reason.

I lean towards the left side of the political spectrum and wholeheartedly agree. More in the sense that it adds validation to the process. Seriously, it's just logical.

+1
I'm not saying there is rampant voter fraud, but you don't know what you don't know.

Except we do know. Don’t you remember President Trump’s voter fraud commission? They’ve never been able to find a major incident of voter fraud, except for the occasional local election where a Republican does it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need ID to cash a check.
You need ID to buy alcohol.
You need ID to buy tobacco.
You need ID to buy a gun.
You need ID to get into many govt buildings.
You need ID to get onto secure federal property.
You need ID to rent or buy an apartment or home.
You need ID to get on a plane.
You need ID to get a library card.
You need ID to buy a fishing license.
You need ID to open a bank account.
You need ID to receive govt benefits like WIC and EBT.
You need ID to apply for a job.
You need ID to buy or rent a car.
You need ID to go into any school building in the country.
You need ID to get medical treatment.
You need ID to apply to colleges.
You need ID to get into a many bars/clubs.
You need ID to get into many community centers / pools


But voting doesn’t require an ID.




If you oppose a law requiring showing an ID in order to vote, then you are for voter fraud. There is no other plausible reason.

This is so not true especially when the ID required for voting they make it hard to get for a number of citizens who then end up being disenfranchised.
They require a drivers license or state ID and then close all of those outlets except for one or two in a county.

Do you want to require something for everyone that’s fine then make sure everyone has equal opportunity to get that what you are requiring.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-In-clack-counties.html%3fAMP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the thought that poor folks don’t have IDs?

Or only black people somehow can't make it to the DMV, but white people can?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-In-clack-counties.html%3fAMP

[Anonymous]

Since most Americans, including Democrats and black Americans, are in favor of voter ID requirements, what is it that those who are pushing against voter ID requirements are angling for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Voting is a right, it’s in the Constitution. Should be no limits, just like you don’t want limits on gun control. If you are an originalist or abide by Constitution you should be against voter ID. Just like you are against any rules on guns.

Except there are many, many limits on guns. And I’m generally ok with the ones we have now. So they can stay.

Now, let’s have some similar rules for voting.


Thank you for making the argument for me.