VABills Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Virginia being a big toss-up state is a large toss-up state and therefore the focus of a lot of campaign events. For example, FLOTUS will be speaking locally and event tickets are available starting today. POTUS and Rhomney both are spending a lot of time in state at stumps as well. What I don't understand is that POTUS and the Democrats want to reject the notion that you need ID at the polls to vote, as they say it is difficult for old, poor and black people to get proper ID. If that's true, then why do they require ID to get tickets to these events and then ID again at the event to get in. I understand especially for POTS and FLOTUS that they are doing a quick pre-lim security screening on everyone in attendance, but why can't they just state their name and address, and the secret service believe them? We do the same for our election workers. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Virginia being a big toss-up state is a large toss-up state and therefore the focus of a lot of campaign events. For example, FLOTUS will be speaking locally and event tickets are available starting today. POTUS and Rhomney both are spending a lot of time in state at stumps as well. What I don't understand is that POTUS and the Democrats want to reject the notion that you need ID at the polls to vote, as they say it is difficult for old, poor and black people to get proper ID. If that's true, then why do they require ID to get tickets to these events and then ID again at the event to get in. I understand especially for POTS and FLOTUS that they are doing a quick pre-lim security screening on everyone in attendance, but why can't they just state their name and address, and the secret service believe them? We do the same for our election workers. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me. Sounds like Homeland Security/Secret Service bureaucracy/ass-covering to me. I doubt it's the Democratic Party's bidding... But, I've been wrong before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 Sounds like Homeland Security/Secret Service bureaucracy/ass-covering to me. I doubt it's the Democratic Party's bidding... But, I've been wrong before! So if I am poor, old or black I cannot go see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 So if I am poor, old or black I cannot go see them. No. We stopped issuing licenses to people like you years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Virginia being a big toss-up state is a large toss-up state and therefore the focus of a lot of campaign events. For example, FLOTUS will be speaking locally and event tickets are available starting today. POTUS and Rhomney both are spending a lot of time in state at stumps as well. What I don't understand is that POTUS and the Democrats want to reject the notion that you need ID at the polls to vote, as they say it is difficult for old, poor and black people to get proper ID. If that's true, then why do they require ID to get tickets to these events and then ID again at the event to get in. I understand especially for POTS and FLOTUS that they are doing a quick pre-lim security screening on everyone in attendance, but why can't they just state their name and address, and the secret service believe them? We do the same for our election workers. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me. The poor exist solely to vote for Democrats, they don't have any money to donate to the campaign funds. Therefore, there is no discrimination. Edited July 18, 2012 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Sounds like Homeland Security/Secret Service bureaucracy/ass-covering to me. So they're doing it for security? What about the security of poll workers and voters? Haven't you heard the Republicans are waging war on women and minorities? They might start drawing crosshairs on Democratic areas on a map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 So they're doing it for security? What about the security of poll workers and voters? Haven't you heard the Republicans are waging war on women and minorities? They might start drawing crosshairs on Democratic areas on a map Right, and I've said many many many times: I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for ID at polling stations. I'm sure you understood my original comment differently from your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 So they're doing it for security? What about the security of poll workers and voters? Haven't you heard the Republicans are waging war on women and minorities? They might start drawing crosshairs on Democratic areas on a map Not to mention all the white guys standing at polling booths holding billy clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Not to mention all the white guys standing at polling booths holding billy clubs. Well voters need to be educated in how to vote "correctly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Right, and I've said many many many times: I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for ID at polling stations. I'm sure you understood my original comment differently from your response. Yes, but then you would go on and say that you didn't think there was a need for it. After I posted three links showing the need for it you sort of disappeared from that thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Yes, but then you would go on and say that you didn't think there was a need for it. After I posted three links showing the need for it you sort of disappeared from that thread. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Ha! Well, you sure nailed me with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well, you sure nailed me with that one. I'm unconcerned with his lack of belief that there is any significant problem because he argees with the implementation of a system which would work to detect and eliminate fraud were it to occur. He's being reasonable in his position and I can respect that. This argument has become silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I'm unconcerned with his lack of belief that there is any significant problem because he argees with the implementation of a system which would work to detect and eliminate fraud were it to occur. He's being reasonable in his position and I can respect that. This argument has become silly. Well, you argued against him in the voter fraud thread. This is what he said in post # 71 of that thread: Saying there's no photo voter fraud is like saying there's no spontaneous combustion. Issuing laws to protect against voter fraud is similar to making everyone walk around with a fire extinguisher strapped to their backs in case they happen to burst into flames. I'm not saying the laws aren't sensible--they are--but the circumstances under wich we're being sold the necessity for the laws is completely bogus. This post has been edited by The Big Cat: 12 July 2012 - 12:02 PM All I said is that I gave him enough reasons why voter fraud could be serious and he dissappeared from that thread. He then proceeded to post in this thread as if he never argued against the need to have voter I.D. laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well, you argued against him in the voter fraud thread. This is what he said in post # 71 of that thread: Saying there's no photo voter fraud is like saying there's no spontaneous combustion. Issuing laws to protect against voter fraud is similar to making everyone walk around with a fire extinguisher strapped to their backs in case they happen to burst into flames. I'm not saying the laws aren't sensible--they are--but the circumstances under wich we're being sold the necessity for the laws is completely bogus. This post has been edited by The Big Cat: 12 July 2012 - 12:02 PM All I said is that I gave him enough reasons why voter fraud could be serious and he dissappeared from that thread. He then proceeded to post in this thread as if he never argued against the need to have voter I.D. laws. Look, you uncompromising dolt, voter registration fraud is NOT voter fraud. Why is this so !@#$ing hard for you to grasp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Look, you uncompromising dolt, voter registration fraud is NOT voter fraud. Why is this so !@#$ing hard for you to grasp? No, you got your ass handed to you in the other thread and disappeared just to pop up in this thread to misrepresent your position. You were claiming that you didn't have a problem with voter I.D. but felt that since voter fraud wasn't a problem it was unnecessary to have a law requiring it. Now you are trying to go back to voter registration fraud to confuse the issue. I can see why other people on this board have basically said you aren't worth having a discussion with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 No, you got your ass handed to you in the other thread and disappeared just to pop up in this thread to misrepresent your position. You were claiming that you didn't have a problem with voter I.D. but felt that since voter fraud wasn't a problem it was unnecessary to have a law requiring it. Now you are trying to go back to voter registration fraud to confuse the issue. I can see why other people on this board have basically said you aren't worth having a discussion with. "Got my ass handed to me?" Is there scoreboard somewhere that nobody told me about? I haven't changed my !@#$ing position once, so let me put it in bullet points for you: Requiring ID's is not unreasonable. There is no evidence to suggest voter fraud (that's when people cast fraudulent votes, just so we're clear) is stifling the democratic process. This will result in fewer people voting, and that's the whole !@#$ing point. The add-on that I wrote this morning suggests that IF YOU HAVE TO PAY TO GET AN ID, THEN AN POLLING ID REQUIREMENT BECOMES A POLLING TAX. Why is this so !@#$ing hard for you to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 "Got my ass handed to me?" Is there scoreboard somewhere that nobody told me about? I haven't changed my !@#$ing position once, so let me put it in bullet points for you: Requiring ID's is not unreasonable. There is no evidence to suggest voter fraud (that's when people cast fraudulent votes, just so we're clear) is stifling the democratic process. This will result in fewer people voting, and that's the whole !@#$ing point. The add-on that I wrote this morning suggests that IF YOU HAVE TO PAY TO GET AN ID, THEN AN POLLING ID REQUIREMENT BECOMES A POLLING TAX. Why is this so !@#$ing hard for you to understand? Did you pay for an I.D. that would allow you to vote, or did you pay for a driver's license that not only would allow you to vote, but allow you to drive? I linked in the other thread examples enough to show voter fraud. Remember, that's why you momentarily shut up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Did you pay for an I.D. that would allow you to vote, or did you pay for a driver's license that not only would allow you to vote, but allow you to drive? I linked in the other thread examples enough to show voter fraud. Remember, that's why you momentarily shut up? HA! Don't hurt yourself patting your own back. I "shut up" more so out of exasperation, not defeat, big man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 "Got my ass handed to me?" Is there scoreboard somewhere that nobody told me about? I haven't changed my !@#$ing position once, so let me put it in bullet points for you: Requiring ID's is not unreasonable. There is no evidence to suggest voter fraud (that's when people cast fraudulent votes, just so we're clear) is stifling the democratic process. This will result in fewer people voting, and that's the whole !@#$ing point. The add-on that I wrote this morning suggests that IF YOU HAVE TO PAY TO GET AN ID, THEN AN POLLING ID REQUIREMENT BECOMES A POLLING TAX. Why is this so !@#$ing hard for you to understand? Voter ID's are free. I still haven't heard any valid reasons why requiring voter ID will result in fewer people voting, outside of laziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts