Featured Texas' Restrictive Voter ID Law Stops A Former U.S. House Speaker From Getting A Vote

You telling me to be honest ?


:laugh::laugh::laugh:

No, C.T.Boy. You and your friend are wrong. You're hatred of me is causing you to assign motives that are not there. You hate me so much you will not even consider looking into the issue. But a little research will show you a high-ranking official has resigned over blocking get-out-the-vote measures on the conservative side. You can pretend it doesn't matter, but the real thinkers here, in other words, everyone but you and Zaac, know where the voter fraud really is.

Jerome, thanx for the good news.

 

Y'all like to claim "let's follow the constitution". Show me where the constitution requires an ID to vote.

 

States write their own voting laws. It not be in the constitution.

 

This is not voter fraud. Voter fraud is when someone ACTUALLY CASTS A VOTE that they are not legally empowered to do. I also question how anyone could know the precise number of invalid voter registrations. Invalid registrations are not necessarily indicative of bad intent, probably more like government inefficiency.

This is not voter fraud. Voter fraud is when someone ACTUALLY CASTS A VOTE that they are not legally empowered to do.

"Ninety-nine case of potentially interstate voter fraud." Well, did they commit voter fraud or not. And, whew, 99 cases out of over 120 million ballots cast, yep that there is a CRISIS! Never let a crisis go to waste.

The Voting Dead?

This is not voter fraud. Voter fraud is when someone ACTUALLY CASTS A VOTE that they are not legally empowered to do. Invalid registrations are not necessarily indicative of bad intent, probably more like government inefficiency.

So popularity is the new benchmark? How popular is abortion?

I do not understand why conservatives, who claim to be for less government, less government intrusion, less regulations, less spending, would endorse a new unfunded government mandate that voters must have photo IDs to vote. <SMH>

 

Ask Lois Lerner. I put up the link for you. all the information is there. You obviously don't want to read it.

If you will take the time to read it, i will attempt to debate it with you.

 

Even votes for President and Vice President?

 

I don't think the problem is Texas deals with federal laws.

 

I stand by it, even if you cannot fathom the info in it. I cannot help you. You don't think there was fraud. I do, and my evidence is a resigned federal official.

Where's your evidence of racism ? What laws are being broken ?

 

Zaac said racism. A bunch of times.

In post #24 Zaac accuses the law of targeting minorities. If you don't call that racism, I'm sorry. I do.

In post 35, Zaac calls the law "discriminatory".

Again, in post 42.

54, and 55.

In post 74 you call the law "evil", yet can't provide any evidence of disenfranchisement.

I already told you why I support the law. Why do you hate people who disagree with you so much you have to assign evil motives ?

 

Because then his posts wouldn't make any sense at all -- and they barely do anyway (unless you happen to be a neo-socialist who drank the Great Pretender Kool-Aid).

 

I am an absolute fool for attempting to debate either one of them. It is a sin to waste time with such deceivers. I hereby repent.

 

They have to assign, falsely, evil motives to cover up for their own evil motives. That is the nature of a liberal. The reality of what they want would never be accepted up front by the public in general. In this case they want illegals to vote so as to create a larger democrat base. Talk abiout evil motives.

 

That's your confusion as I haven't said anything about any racism. Just because something targets minorities doesn't make it racist.

Discrimination does not equate to racism. So don't try to use what I said .

 

You sound like the very thing conservatives claim to dislike so much. Can't come up with a real answer, so you start screaming that somebody hates you. You sure you not a card carrying member of the ACLU, NAACP, feminist or some LGBT group? :laugh:

 

:applause::applause: Thank you. We have the same type of inefficiency with church rolls. You can have a 20,000 person membership on paper, but only 6000 of them actually attend because a large number have moved and didn't move their membership, but are on another church's membership rolls.

 

As long as the names remain on the rolls, someone can vote the name, even if they aren't that person. That is, of course, unless valid ID is required to cast a vote, and it is not a hardship for anyone to acquire a valid ID. Even if they can't afford it -- and I don't buy that someone can't afford to pay for a state ID -- the state will pay for it. The state shouldn't have to, though. I'd be willing to guess that some of those people whining "I can't afford it" don't have any trouble buying cigarettes, lottery tickets and fast food. Not to mention alcohol and illegal drugs. So yeah, they can afford it. They just don't want to, and then try to make it a point of contention that it's "discrimination." Hogwash.

Quite true. But as mentioned, if the names are on the rolls for whatever reason, someone can vote the name, even if they aren't the person.

Quite true. But as mentioned, if the names are on the rolls for whatever reason, someone can vote the name, even if they aren't the person.

What do you suppose 24 million illegal votes would do to an election? Let me give you a hint: There were only 126 million votes cast in the Great Pretender's corona ... uh, reelection event last year. Before you make the claim that "No one could manage to illegally vote all 24 million names" let me point out to you, they don't have to try to vote 24 million. They only need to get a few people to vote a few names illegally in each precinct. Kennedy "beat" Nixon by the equivalent of slightly more than one vote per precinct nationwide. It isn't hard. And I'm certain it's been done -- and I don't mean by Kennedy supporters in the Chicago machine back in 1960, either.

No. Voter fraud.

And yet, names on the voter registration rolls were used by someone, even though the person was dead. Don't tell me that's not voter fraud, because that is exactly what it is, your denial aside.

Yes, it's called "majority rule." Ever hear of it?

One has nothing to do with the other -- but nonetheless, it's not. A Gallup poll in May 2012 showed that only 41% favored abortion. This year, it's down to 26%. So you got snookered by your own illogical and unrelated question.

So you think that 74% of Americans overall and 71% of Hispanics in the U.S. are conservative?