Summations Only

There is zero evidence that that in-person voter fraud happens on any significant scale and even less evidence that this is a tactic employed Democrats rather than the fraudulent voter. Why in the world you would bother to post something like that without offering any support is beyond ridiculous. Can you offer any? Why is it that the registration practice we are talking about are in just about every state and not just California. Do you understand that the requirements are part of the federal guidelines, or are you just mouthing off? And you are comparing this to what tactic currently in use here?

The only possible reason you can surmise? Is that supposed to be some kind of support for your assertion? Your limited thought processes and willingness to impugn motives and cast aspersions is some kind of proof? This is the marc9000 method of arguing a point. Since it is the first time that I've seen this from you, I'll assume that your intent was not malicious.The reason voter ID can be a bad idea, is because for the sake of preventing fraud that you have no evidence exists, you want to implement a solution that causes difficulty for a group of voters. If instead you came up with a scheme for identification that does not create those difficulties voters then put me down for supporting it.In NC where I live, we have documented evidence that the Republicans sought to require methods for identification that they thought Democrats were less likely to have. According to the court record, legislatures reviewed voting information and then put in features that hampered voting for democrats. For example, gun permits are legitimate identification, but state issued college identifications are not. Please note that federal law is that students are allowed to vote in local elections and that requirements that they have NC state IDs and drivers licenses when many of them are not even allowed to have cars on campus serve no purpose other than making it difficult for students to vote.Fix up the politics and the issues I care about, and you've got a new supporter for voter ID. But I think the impacts are deliberate. I think Republicans are deathly afraid of college students, homeless folks, and the elderly minorities becoming motivated to vote and then going out and doing so. And in some cases, for example Pennsylvania, the GOP is on record of expressing their intent to suppress the vote, so I don't have to rely on paranoid thinking or limited imagination to come up with my rationale.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, they are not necessarily available to everyone. But make the id easily available to everyone, and then let's talk. Don't play games like they have in some states where they shut down the DMV in strategic areas.

Really? How often does this happen? I have heard of dead people not being unregistered, but what is the prevalence of fraud of the type you are describing? And why wouldn't the person committing that fraud just use an absentee ballot to vote?There is an issue with not purging dead people off of the voter registration list, but you are talking about something else. And that is not fraud. That deals with the fact that dead people cannot unregister themselves. You easily can receive benefits without an ID that is suitable for use to vote. SSI, SSDI, retirement checks, etc. are deposited directly into your bank account. Even if your ID expires, then you can still use an ATM to get your funds. You appear to be deliberately avoiding reality.

Thank you. The claim I am rebutting includes the idea that California is somehow doing something different than what other states like, for example, Oklahoma are doing. This is pretty good evidence that such claims are full of crap.

Did you mean "it is obvious that you don't need proof of citizenship"?Beyond that permanent residence is not a requirement for voting anyway at least to the extent that it would include college students. College students are allowed to vote without meeting whatever requirements are needed to establish permanent residency. I think some issues are getting confused here, and I am not completely sure how to straighten them out.

Immigrants cannot vote until they become citizens. The only reason that former immigrants would have an incentive to vote for Democrats would relate to their treatment by Republicans. Cubans, for example, tend to vote for Republicans, yet I don't note any move by Democrats to attack their voting rights.Let's be real about what is going on. Why would a bunch of Catholic immigrants support Democrats? Whose fault is that anyway? And what about groups of immigrants that support Republicans?

No, it is not. The real problem is that brown people don't vote for Republicans in large numbers. So there is a fear that any illegal voting or even legal former immigrant voting will go to Democrats. The fear is there even if actual fraudulent voting is not a problem. That fear by Republicans is attributed to Democrats as some malicious intent.There is nothing more democratic (with a small 'd') than a voting drive to get a bunch of disaffected, currently non-voting, people registered to vote. How do you do that? Well, one way in my state is to go to college campuses and disaffected areas and make efforts to get people registered. What Republicans really want is to force all of those folks to make an unnecessary trip to the DMV or to some county registration office before they can vote. They don't want it to be something you can do online. They don't want college students voting. How do we know this is not just me making up stories about Republicans the way Hyro makes up stories about Democrats? We know because the Republicans tell us their intentions publicly.Don’t Blame Black Voters If Roy Moore Wins. Blame Alabama’s Secretary of State. – Mother Jones

quote:

---

If you’re too sorry or lazy to get up off of your rear and to go register to vote, or to register electronically, and then to go vote, then you don’t deserve that privilege, Republican John Merrill said in an interview with documentary filmmaker Brian Jenkins. Jenkins had asked why he opposed automatically registering Alabamians when they reach voting age, and his response sizzled with anger toward people who think they deserve the right because they’ve turned 18. So he made a pledge: As long as I’m secretary of state of Alabama, you’re going to have to show some initiative to become a registered voter in this state.

---

SENATORS APPROVE A BILL THAT EASES VOTE REGISTRATION - The New York Times

quote:

---

But the Republicans were incensed by the Democrats' zeal to register the jobless and welfare recipients, who would have been added to the voter rolls more or less automatically in the original bill. And the Republicans were equally dismayed by the Democrats' omission, at first, of any plan to register members of the military.

---

CQ Almanac Online Edition

quote:

---

In addition to their concerns about costs and fraud, critics of the bill argued that the existing registration process was not complicated and that making it too easy to register might dilute the quality of the national electorate by including more people who knew little about the issues or the candidates.

---

In my opinion, there is a clear high road in this debate. Encouraging citizen participation is the high road and blocking both citizen participation and naturalization out of fear of how folks might vote is clearly the low road. I don't give a crap if the two opposing goals are partisan, the path of disenfranchising voters is clearly the non-democratic path.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Uh, no. I don't trust anyone to hold that kind of power. We have plenty of historical evidence about how tests to allow people to vote will work out. There is no reason that even folks who cannot read and write, or who speak poor English, cannot become informed about the issues, but tests of the nature you propose will weed those folks out unnecessarily unless extreme care is taken.No thank you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I believe that the test results would be manipulated by whoever is in power. I get the joke, but I ain't laughing.

[1] I think you've jumped the gun a bit. Marc9000's comment is addressed to the observation that a southern wall is directed to folks south of the border.That said, his comment does demonstrate an amount of ridiculousness that is, in fact, encapsulated by the fact that immigration is primarily about folks overstaying their authorized stay, and not about folks who enter the country illegally. Even if the later is a separate and attackable problem, a southern wall is a boondoggle of an approach that can easily be identified as irrational on a cost vs benefit analysis.But that won't happen amongst voters whose fears are simply irrational and tribal. Yes, there is some racism involved. Some of it has been on display in these forums. But to date, I am not aware of marc9000 espousing those beliefs. That particular armament (accusation) ought to be drawn slowly because once pointed it is difficult to reholster.

No, he did not give an exhaustive list of continents, which does leave the door open to interpreting his comments as racist. I personally prefer to have a bit more explicit evidence before using the "r" word, but that is, of course, my own preference. There is plenty wrong with 9k's thinking.

Does RealID change that? To get the regular ID, I don't have to do show citizenship either. But I do recall that the very first time I got a learner's permit, that I did have to bring my birth certificate. So I think my citizenship is not an issue anymore.

This, in my opinion, is the weak point of your argument. I don't think this particular element is a slam dunk, and in fact, I believe it is a legally losing argument.But either way, I stand by my original statement about this meeting. No patriotic American would have been at that meeting unless he was wearing an FBI wire. If Trump Jr. et al. were not involved in espionage, it is pretty clear that the Russians at the meeting were engaged in exactly that.

What stopped you from getting a copy of your birth certificate? When I needed to apply for a passport the first time, I was in DC and needed my birth certificate from Massachusettes. Obtaining my birth certificate did cost me some money, but I was able to get a certified copy fed-exed to my house in about two days. I had my passport in a week or less.Now I understand that my situation is not the same as that of everyone else. At the time I had plenty of other identification, plenty of money, a phone, a place to live, a way to travel, and I could take off from work when needed as long as I could figure out how to make up the time. I've also worked with homeless folks who lost all of their documents and for whom getting them back was a major effort that took months.I don't know what your circumstances were, but perhaps the circumstances surrounding your inability to vote would shed some light for the more skeptical folks here.