It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christie says GOP gubernatorial candidates need to win so they control 'voting mechanisms'

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Hay before I answer I just want you to know I lived about a block from that Voting station in Ohio that got all that flap from the Democrats back during Obamas first election. If you don't remember you can look it up. In fact I voted there over a 10/12 year span.

I brought this up several years ago and was flat out called a liar. I offered to prove it but no one took me up on it. My point is that it was a manufactured lefty staged voter flap that accused the republicans of trying to keep numbers down and rig that particular voting place. It got national news.....but I was there.

You may have a very hard time getting me to believe anything that a lefty or progressive says about republicans fixing elections ect ect. This thing in Texas is certainly and purposely geared up to make it possible for illegals to swing elections for the Dems. Hasn't got sh*t to do with the poor really. If fact that term is a red flag for me when I hear it.




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

So, we're not talking about Christie any longer?

If you have a link to something specific, just post it. I'll be glad to look at any evidence. You're claiming special knowledge but not really saying what that knowledge is. I can't comment on something that's not presented.

Okay, now I'm a bit confused. You've stated that you have no partisan political commitments, but you're certain that it's always "the leftys" that are wrong, lying, misleading, etc.

"This thing in TX"? What thing?

Texas has very specific rules for identification, as does the majority of US states. As in most states, voters are logged in and can be referenced against voter registration records. After 15 + years and millions of dollars in investigations, Republicans have turned up a handful of in-person voter fraud cases.

Base your reality on any notions you prefer; I do my best to stick to proven facts.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I'm totally down with the idea of using biometrics for voting, but its much easier to get an ID than a thumb. I can already hear Jaun Williams echoing complaints from the Rainbow Coalition arguing that the probably less than 1000 vets who lost a thumb would be disenfranchised.

Honestly though, I dont know a single person that does not have an ID and is eligible to vote. Its hard for me to believe 600,000 adults out there have no form of identification. When I see this argument come up, I seem to hear the same record playing. "Retired people in nursing homes whose next of kin have Power of Attorney do not have ID's." You need to have some form of ID to apply for social security. Surely any retired person who subscribes to SS benefits has an ID then, right? And although I am very patriotic, I must also respond to that; We dont let people who are mentally incompetent own a firearm. Why would we let them vote?

-d
edit on 24-10-2014 by drewlander because: typo.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think this was ever about Chris Christie, rather his opinions on voting mechanisms. Let's be serious here for one moment. Can you explain in as few words possible why requiring identification to vote would not benefit both parties? It seems to me based on the arguments you have posted that it would only ensure neither party is cheating the election.

Also I would like to ask if for some reason you believe there is a substantially larger population of identification-less people who we can safely surmise would vote for one party over the other. If that is the case, then I think we need to focus on that issue. We should find a way to get identification in the hands of those people to maintain the security and honesty of the election.

-d
edit on 24-10-2014 by drewlander because: typo



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander


Voter-identification laws, in particular, act as new form of poll tax. After Texas passed its voter-ID law, a study found that Texans who earned less than $20,000 per year were more than 10 times more likely to lack the necessary identification than Texans who earned more than $150,000. On the surface, this discrepancy might seem possible to remedy, since courts have generally demanded that the states that require voter identification provide some form of ID for free. But there’s a catch. Acquiring that free ID requires showing another form of identification—and those cost money.


source

I still say a thumb print scan might be better than another ID.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Democrat controlled election officials in my county last election choked off the Republican vote by drastically cutting the number of voting machines in heavily Republican precincts. They created gigantic lines and wait times and many voters gave up or refused to wait six to eight hours to vote. They got away with vote manipulation. Eventually the scapegoat Democrat official was fired but the damage to the voting process was done.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
If 'they' can not reveal the 'formula' as to how 'they came to those numbers'...

Talk about blind faith




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

The topic is Christie's bald-faced statement that Republicans must retain control over State governorships in order to maintain control over elections. It's not exactly a subtle statement.

Since you're asking my personal opinion, I have posted several times that as long as the State assures that each individual can get one of the new required IDS without any cost at all, without an burdensome process of establishing identity, and without having to travel to only one or two locations statewide, I'm fine with one of the new photo IDs.

The point has always been, it's an unnecessary change targeted at a non-existent problem. Voting is arranged into smaller local precincts for the precise purpose of insuring that not only is there opportunity to register each voter properly, but that election officials monitoring the process can actually recognize individuals and whether they were who they say they are.

Secondly, every local election board (usually county-wide) takes steps to register voters, provides voter lists to the poll workers, and at the polling place uses different methods to make certain that individuals are certified and identified before they are allowed to enter the polling area.

Aside from the easily accessible information on the almost non-existent occurrences of in-person voter fraud, the Republican side of the argument always presents the idea that before these new laws there was absolutely no attempt to certify or protect the process, which is ludicrous and untrue.

Problems with the voter registration process, the problem of illicit poll workers abusing it, etc. (which are always tossed up) constitute election fraud not voter fraud. IDs do nothing to address fraud on the part of the registration process, the actual voting process, etc.

In addition, the tactics being used at the state level by Republican-controlled or dominated governments are multifaceted in addition to blocking the ID process, changing the days that early voting can happen, targeting specific areas favored by minority voters ...

... like this from my own backyard, Georgia State Senator complains that Voting is too Convenient for Black People.

Ohio Cuts Early Voting Method Used by Blacks

There's plenty more examples easily found.

There's just really no need for the posturing any longer; too many Republican "leaders" are on the record.

There are several ways to overcome any problem with the ID process. A Federal National ID is one, and personally favored by me. Of course, at that point, the hue and cry will be "big government interference" ... because of course, Republicans only like more laws and more government control when it favors their agenda.


edit on 15Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:34:56 -050014p0320141066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The next President of The United States has already been hand picked and groomed by the puppet masters. The rest is all for show so that the herds stay herded.

Oh and the next President of the United States will with be Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Foreign Policy will be business as usual no matter which of the two is inserted.

The only difference will be a hand full of media fabricated domestic issues that are needed to keep the sheople squabbling with one another, while the usual suspects continue their looting of the U.S Treasury. ~$heopleNation



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I truely think it's a fabulous idea as well. I can imagine it would take a great deal of effort to fake tons of thumbprints, whereas getting an ID seems to be no problem, even for illegal immigrants.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand your position and might even partially or wholly agree some of your points. However even illegal immigrants can get some form of ID in most of the southwest without too much trouble. I hate to burden American citizens with something they really need anyway, and can even be obtained by immigrants regardless of their immigration status. That's an OUTRAGE, right?


www.nilc.org...


You bring up some interesting points for whether or not it could or would be an effective method to ensure the integrity of the election results, but its hard to really conclude whether or not voters are misidentifying themselves or election officials are gaming the polls. I'm not convinced that voter fraud does not exist based on your references. It's my opinion that you are overstating the difficulty in obtaining some form of identification, and that the availability of identification is the only legitimate argument against id requirements. ID's would help isolate whether or not voter or election fraud occurred, at the very least.

How about with all this money pouring into campaigns, they set some of that aside to help citizens get ID that they probably could use anyway? Then everyone wins. That would be the true American spirit, right?

And btw, early/absentee ballots should only be for people who will be out of the country or deployed military personnel. I dont even care to hear your reasons for early voting, so in fairness, I will not state mine against it.


-d



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I was thinking about the reference you cited, and I would be curious to see the number of people in Texas in the over 150K and under 20K demographic, and all the real numbers to support their claim. What is it they say... "statistics always lie, and liars always use statistics"? Im not saying its wrong. Just that I don't trust numbers unless I can see all of them.

I also read the entire article and cracked up when they revisited the old Ted Yoho "only property owners should vote" thing. If property was all that was at stake, then I guess no one else would have any skin in the game. That's not the state of things today though, Ted. LOL!

thx
-d



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

So, we're not talking about Christie any longer?

If you have a link to something specific, just post it. I'll be glad to look at any evidence. You're claiming special knowledge but not really saying what that knowledge is. I can't comment on something that's not presented.

Okay, now I'm a bit confused. You've stated that you have no partisan political commitments, but you're certain that it's always "the leftys" that are wrong, lying, misleading, etc.

"This thing in TX"? What thing?

Texas has very specific rules for identification, as does the majority of US states. As in most states, voters are logged in and can be referenced against voter registration records. After 15 + years and millions of dollars in investigations, Republicans have turned up a handful of in-person voter fraud cases.

Base your reality on any notions you prefer; I do my best to stick to proven facts.



Jee Wiz. Anyway what I said is that I am not registered with a party. Good to see that you are all in with yours. And you may stick to facts, maybe not, but you certainly don't look like the sort that would point out voter fraud or machinations such as Christies in your own party. You wouldn't. You don't. You have a lop sided deal going on there.

Its amazing how Christie gets the rail here but you lovingly defended the Texas ruling. Your failure to see that this ruling was a promotion of voter fraud is simply a demonstration of the famous warning against partisan politics which you are neck deep it. Everything that irritates you about Christie you posses for yourself.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: drewlander


There are several ways to overcome any problem with the ID process. A Federal National ID is one, and personally favored by me. Of course, at that point, the hue and cry will be "big government interference" ... because of course, Republicans only like more laws and more government control when it favors their agenda.



Dems only raise hell and toss around accusations about "government control" when they lose control.

At Obamas first election there was a large turn out at our local voting station. This had to do primarily with demographics, the area being about 98% black. Blacks showed up in record numbers. Well they had to stand in line. Someone came up with the idea that the "man" was at work here. Agitators ginned it up all the more. Someone had to be blamed so the locals blamed the "man" for not having enough voting machines in the place. It was a diabolical plot to keep folks down even though there were always plenty of voting machines there before. Same amount as there had always been.

Result.....poor planning and foresight of the large turnout was blamed on the "man". And the locals just sopped it up. National press got involved and it was all very hilarious. This was typical "never let a thing go to waste" lib bullslick.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: drewlander



The point has always been, it's an unnecessary change targeted at a non-existent problem. Voting is arranged into smaller local precincts for the precise purpose of insuring that not only is there opportunity to register each voter properly, but that election officials monitoring the process can actually recognize individuals and whether they were who they say they are.

......
Problems with the voter registration process, the problem of illicit poll workers abusing it, etc. (which are always tossed up) constitute election fraud not voter fraud. IDs do nothing to address fraud on the part of the registration process, the actual voting process, etc.



Now look at this. You talk about the problem being with the registration process and that IDs wouldn't address this problem? Its the poll workers?

But then you say above that same can be trusted to identify locals as being who they say they are ect. You have got to be kidding. Maybe in Mayberry RFD! LOL. Only the dozy headed would trust their rights to a level of nonsense like this.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Right, so ... your entire point here is that we're supposed to take your word for your political beliefs but you get to tell me what mine are? Yeah, that seems equitable.

How utterly boring.

There is no "lop-sided deal" anywhere but in your own mind. I have never claimed anywhere not even one time that Democrats are blameless, now have I? What have I claimed? That the incidence of in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent. Both I and others, in this discussion and others, have offered citation after reference after source of very clear, direct and provable evidence of this fact, MOST of it gathered by various Republican Secretaries of State. Yet, neither you nor any other right-winger has proven even once this massive, universal, Democratic voter fraud that you claim baselessly is happening. Not once. Not even close.

Christie "gets the rail" because he openly admitted that his party is desperately trying to control and manipulate the voting process. As have many other Republicans. But, that's not good enough for you in your all-seeing all knowing stance that all lefties all progressives all liberals all Democrats are ALL dishonest. For real?

Show us a Democrat who has said anything like what Christie or Turzai or Millar have said. Show us actual evidence that proves your phantom massive voter fraud. Show us where I or anyone else has said that Democrats must control State governments so that they can control elections.

And if you can't show any of that, you can either admit that you're just blowing partisan smoke, or look like a dishonest fool.
edit on 4Sat, 25 Oct 2014 04:23:57 -050014p0420141066 by Gryphon66 because: Period.

edit on 4Sat, 25 Oct 2014 04:28:59 -050014p0420141066 by Gryphon66 because: Deleted period.

edit on 4Sat, 25 Oct 2014 04:43:05 -050014p0420141066 by Gryphon66 because: Changed "are" to "or"



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Okay, let's assume your local personal anecdote is a correct summary. Benefit of the doubt in your "analysis."

That's one precinct in one state viewed through the eyes of someone who is on record as believing evil Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and now apparently African Americans are always operating in a dishonest manner. That's your summation, surely such a miscarriage of justice was reported on? You know, that objective evidence thing?

Or are you the only one that detected this problem?



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Look I saw how you defended the Texas decision on another thread. Your direction is partisan. Christie rankles you but a judge that says folks don't need ID and to ask for one is racist doesn't bother you. What other conclusion is there but that you are not approaching this issue free of bullshizzel.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

There's your amazing objectivity and lack of partisanship at work again!

First of all you're merely mistating what I said. I didn't say there was a problem with the registration process.

Nor did I claim that all poll workers were either trustworthy or untrustworthy.

You and the wingnuts are the ones who make absolute claims about "all" Democrats et. al.

You and the other wingnuts are the ones who regularly conflate election fraud or voting machine fraud or polling fraud with in-person ID fraud.

And only someone who's shooting blanks or can't find their bullet makes silly personal remarks. Can't find your bullet, Barney?



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Look, I've seen how you defend every nutty right wing position in virtually every thread I see you post in.

My direction seems partisan to you because the party "you are not a part of but always seem to be defending" is one of two.

Anyone who doesn't throw in with defending the indefensible looks partisan to you.

Your summary of the Texas decision is typical of your mistating the facts. The judge DID NOT say there is no need for ID and DID NOT say that to ask for one is racist. That's not what the decision said and you know it. Why don't you quote from her decision and prove your point?

Because you can't; you're merely talking through your "bullshizzel depositor."



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join