It's Still A Poll Tax, Part Trois.

You can, but you'd have to drive all across Missouri. Illinois is across the Mississippi River from St. Louis. You would also have to be on the registration books in both states. To register and vote more than once is against the law.

 

There are lots of people who are registered in multiple states (the New York/Florida registrations have been discussed here before). Cases like, they moved, and their old state never bothered to take them off the rolls there. Whether enough are voting in two places to swing elections is another question.

Here's an analogy involving a constitutional right: 2nd amendment. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but if you choose to exercise that right, you're going to have to show some ID, and in most states, submit to a criminal background check.

 

N_W, you left off the aspect of being part of well regulated militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

N W... when I moved to California, I was on New Jersey's rolls. You generally go off the rolls in New Jersey if you don't vote for four years. But to vote in California and in New Jersey would have been a crime in New Jersey because I didn't live in California. If you transfer within a county, that would get the old registration off the rolls. If you moved within a state but outside a county, I'm not so sure.

 

But for people who entered this country illegally, who then fail to file income tax returns, who fail to appear at immigration hearings, what is another law to break?

 

Voting is our most precious and sacred tenet in a democracy.

And it's being taken away a lot more often by the fact that your vote is being cancelled out by a fraudulent vote than it is by people not being able to vote.

This "An ID is too stringent a measure" crap is complete and utter bullshit. Who the hell doesn't have some sort of ID now. You need an ID to cash a check (elderly folks on Soc Sec, welfare folks) ... you need an ID to get a job ... for crying out loud, you need an ID to buy cold or allergy medicine nowadays. Everyone has an ID of some sort.

So there really has to be another reason for this anti-ID to vote BS, and we all know what it is.

The reason dems are against an ID to vote is because it would go a long way toward eliminating vote fraud. And dems are the ones who engage in it most and benefit most by it.

You should have to prove you are who you say you are to vote.

Poll tax my ass.

 

Yea what he said. Grow up people poll tax. Seriously if you don't have some form of ID you shouldn't be allowed to vote because it means you are worthless and don't do anything in your life to make you worthy of deciding our future.

 

I renewed my license a few years ago so I forget how much it was, $25-40? But it's good for 5 years. Hard to consider something you need to have to get a job, cash checks and basically say, hey, I'm who I say I am, $5-8/year a lot of money.

 

Let me make this simple for you, since the slightest complexity seems to leave you dumbfounded and posting ignorant shit like the above:

Nobody has a problem with a system that decreases voting fraud. But this isn't the only way to ensure that. Nobody's arguing that we shouldn't come up with a decent way to ID voters. We're saying that charging them for an ID isn't right.

And if you don't know anyone who doesn't have ID, you've obviously never spent any time whatsoever around the poverty-stricken people in this country. Take a stroll through any housing project in any city and you'll discover that it's not as uncommon as you seem to think. This proposal would damn near guarantee that those people never vote again.

That's not right. And there are other alternatives to reach the same goal.

If you want to break it down into what each political party wants out of this, we can do that too. Republicans don't mind at all if the poverty-stricken, many of which are black, never make it to the polls, since the Republican approval rating among those people is somewhere around 0%. The Democrats want those people there and are willing to allow some voter fraud to take place until a better idea is presented.

After the 2000 elections, that any Republican anywhere in this country could bitch about Democratic voter fraud with a straight face is astounding.

 

That post is so full of it, but at least you do admit that Democrats "are willing to allow some voter fraud." Now if you would just admit that they also encourage it. And the reaston they "are willing to allow some voter fraud" is because they know that the fraudulent votes will be for them.

Now tell me, dog, why don't the poor have some kind of ID. If they're poor, they must be cashing some kind of government check. Are you telling me they have absolutely no income?

As to your point that about free IDs, there have been many Republican proposals to offer free IDs around the country, and the dems always vote against them anyway. They don't want IDs period, free or not, because the dems know they depend on vote fraud. Period.

As for the 2000 election, Gore tried to cheat in Florida to steal the election with the help of the SCOFLA changing the rules after the votes were cast. Gore got stopped and the SCOFLA got bitch-slapped by SCOTUS. Eeal with it.

 

Tony, arguing with dog is a waste of your breath. He's the poster boy for the Lobotomy Society of North America.

Vote fraud? Ask him about Wisconsin 2004.

 

I can't believe people even want to vote for any of the jackasses that run for office these days.

Anybody that wants to use my ID, be my guest.