It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


La Raza Promotes Washington Post Guide On Where People Can Vote Without An ID

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:58 AM

edit on 2Fri, 31 Oct 2014 02:07:08 -050014p0220141066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:42 AM
Voter ID laws... because you can't redistrict Senate elections.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:18 AM

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Interesting note: Even after blacks were given the right to vote, the haters imposed literacy tests and poll taxes to stop them from voting....poll taxes-ID requirements? Hmmmm.

Interesting note: IDs are required for everything, from picking up prescriptions to driving to buying a beer to getting into a rated-R movie (in theory). It is specified in the Constitution that only citizens are allowed to vote--an ID is one of the easiest ways to prove that you are a citizen. If you feel you don't need to prove that in order to vote, then I would posit that you truly don't care if non-citizens vote. Not everything in American life that has to do with our rights is handed to us on a silver platter. Sometimes we actually have to take a few steps in order to exercise that right.

Fraud does exist, just not at the level you believe. Studies conducted state that what little fraud does occur does not happen by mass, in-person voting. It's done by poll workers and machines.

Even under Bush's DOJ between 2002 and 2005, only 38 cases of fraud were ever brought up and a third of them were dropped.

Look, I spent my entire military career as a paralegal, so I know how the legal system works when it comes to drafting up and preferring charges based on evidence. Your constant citing of this or that study doesn't prove what you think it does--those studies can only look at those cases where indictments happened. If you don't have enough deductive reasoning within you to understand that these types of crimes (all voter fraud--I don't care about only in-person issues) happen exponentially more times than what are discovered and indicted, then there's no reason for you to continue talking about it because you're being willfully ignorant to the realities of human activity and the "justice" system as a whole.

Once again, I've never claimed it's not happening. I'm saying it's rare. You are claiming it's a major issue WITHOUT any real facts or evidence. Show me the real facts and evidence to support your claim...and spare me the YT videos. I was able to give a source written by an actual Lawyer that specializes in this field to show this issue is rare. Can you find something comparable?

Again, either you're just not paying attention, you're being willfully ignorant, or you're being intellectually dishones--I suspect in any case, it's on purpose.

You're misconstruing what I've said--my point all along is that it's a big enough issue to take simple measures like mandating proof of ID. If you disregard the declining faith in our voting system, that's up to you, but I see it as a major issue, and if we don't stop the problem before it gets out of control (remember that leaking-boat analogy I made? [that has nothing to do with restricting freedoms]), we'll find ourselves having to play catch-up, and that's no way to run anything. If you disagree, I'll have to assume you've never been in any sort of leadership position. If you disagree and you have, I would absolutely question your leadership skills.

Also, look around you in this thread, as there has been plenty of evidence posted that voter fraud is a big enough issue to stand up and take notice. If you disregard something just because it's posted on YouTube, you have already forfeited your intelligence before we even started this discussion. "Spare me the YT videos," you say. Disregard the messenger and just look at the facts of the message--that's how you learn.

This is the same argument used by the anti-2nd amendment crowd that tries to put more restrictions on our right to bear arms. They claim that gun violence is such a huge problem, when it's statistically a small problem. If we were to be consistent in your way of thinking, should we apply that to guns as well? See where I'm going with this?

You're advocating for the same sort of restrictions to be placed on our "right" to vote.

Terrible analogy. Advocating someone shows ID to prove their identity during a function that specifies you can only do said act IF you are a citizen is not tantamount to "advocating for the same sort of restrictions to be placed on our 'right' to vote." Your thought process in this entire discussion follows no logic. Funny thing is, I concealed carry every day, and in order to do that legally, I have to have my CCDW permit, with my photo and information on it--a state-issued ID card. Big damn deal.

I'm exposing partisan politics in order to put a squash to the disinformation...People are fed the false idea that this is a real problem and they are whipped in to an outrage...just so that the people up top can find another way to take us back to the 1800's.

You say this is a huge problem.....prove it. Otherwise you are only advocating more government interference and control over our democratic process, and that is bad for the republic.

You're not exposing anything--you suffer from delusions of grandeur on this issue. You're "exposing"...your "job is to"'re "squashing disinformation." Get off your high horse for a second and come join us back in reality.

The only thing that is really whipping people "into an outrage" over this issue is people like you who blabber on and on about it being a non-issue, and that it disenfranchises people, and that it takes us "back to the 1800s." Seriously, do you know how absolutely insane your arguments are?

At any rate, this entire argument is a moot point as long as the Electoral College is in existence (at least for federal elections). I'm really done discussing this with you this time. Reply if you must (and I'm sure you must complete your job of squashing my 'disinformation'), but I will disregard and move.

Best Regards.
edit on 31-10-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

(post by Kalikiller removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:34 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You know what else is illegal? Suppressing votes. When I hear the folks who are obsessed with setting up special ID requirements show as much concern about American citizens NOT being able to vote, I'll give the whole thing a bit more credence.

When the DOJ takes seriously the instances like the New Black Panther Party intimidating voters at a polling station, maybe I'll take your argument about necessitating IDs being voter supression a bit more seriously (no I won't). Of course, you talk about providing evidence for things--you can not, in any way, provide evidence that necessitating an acceptible form of ID to vote in person suppresses their vote. There are other ways to vote instead of in-person, and if mailing in an absentee ballot because you can't get to a polling station is too much of a hassle every 2 years, then maybe voting isn't for that individual--voting is a right, not a necessity.

Stop implying that every person should have a way to vote that caters to their specific need or else it's voter suppression. That's simply ridiculous.

All voter fraud is an issue, regardless as to the degree to which it happens. An ID is a simple step to take in efforts to limit the ability to vote illegally. If you have to show an ID to pick up a prescribed narcotic--or even some Sudafed for your allergies--you can show a damn ID to vote. It's not the voting system's fault if someone can't get an ID in time to vote, especially with all of this talk in the news about it. They've had two years since the last election to get one if they were worried they'd need one. If it's not done yet, that's just irresponsibility on their part, regardless of what they need to do in order to get it--two years is plenty of time.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:35 AM
a reply to: Kali74

Voter ID laws...because some of us are concerned with preserving (or renewing) the integrity of the system.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:19 AM

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:54 AM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So let's recap here. You don't care about the studies that real experts have conducted that show fraud is as rare as being struck by lightening and shows that ID requirements above and beyond what is already in place will not have an affect on fraud, rather it would more likely disenfranchise millions of LEGAL voters.

You disregard that EXPERT opinion in favor of YT videos (without any context) and stories of isolated fraud to come to the conclusion that it must be happening in mass....but we don't know about it, don't see it and it is happening on a much bigger scale.(conspiracy)

You couldn't understand the simple analogy of gun ownership and the massive additional restrictions some would want to place on LEGAL gunowners, placing their individual liberty in a choke hold.....just in an attempt to stop the rare occurrence of gun violence or illegal ownership. But want to place more restrictions on LEGAL voters, placing their individual liberty in a choke hold, in an attempt to stop the rare occurrence of voter fraud?

And you cannot see that this voter ID business is tantamount to actions taken by the racists in the late 1800/1900's that wanted to require literacy tests and poll taxes to stop poor blacks from voting...after they were given that right by the 15th amendment.

Yet, my logic is flawed?

Forgive me if I want to form my opinion around known facts and not go based on what I feel or believe is happening and cannot be proven. I see no logic in burdening the citizenship with more restrictions on what should be a free and easy process, just to stop something that is statistically rare, yet has been blown into grand conspiracy proportions by a political party that is known for playing the system to help them win elections (redistricting).

So if I am to believe your take on this, I have to believe in a massive, unseen conspiracy that goes beyond the rare occurrence of fraud that we do notice. Sorry, can't do. I don't do nutbag conspiracies.

Good day.
edit on 10/31/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:14 PM
La Raza means the race. Right there is the problem. They took themselves out of the human race. They have only their best interests at heart. I find it hard to get behind anyone who wants to be segregated from the human race.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:24 PM
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

1. Groups that facilitate voter registration cannot remove forms, period. You don't like it that New Georgia is following the law; I get that. If they held somthing back you'd screaming "they only turn in the ones they want to."

2. Please provide your evidence that New Georgia is criminal or scamming folks. If not your claim is libelous.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 03:45 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

1. Groups that facilitate voter registration cannot remove forms, period. You don't like it that New Georgia is following the law; I get that. If they held somthing back you'd screaming "they only turn in the ones they want to."

2. Please provide your evidence that New Georgia is criminal or scamming folks. If not your claim is libelous.

Gryphy, I said that working hard does not mean one is innocent. You seem to believe that just because the group worked hard they must be righteous. Perhaps in your world hard work equals righteous, but criminals do work very hard at scamming people too. The group has been caught turning in fraudulent registration forms. While they may say they are not responsible, we do not know all the details. There is an investigation now. So we will see.

The Democrats have become very good at race-baiting and stirring up racial issues where there ought not to have been. Why Eric Holder didn't prosecute the New Black Panthers for hate speech and for intimidating people at the polls? It is because the admin is as racist as anyone.

It is just plain tiring hearing over and over that we cannot oppose the wrongdoing of an errant President....and it's completely bs and they know it.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:12 PM
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You conveniently ignore the fact, again, that agencies that help voters register are required by law to turn in every registration received.

You also ignore that your own article linked in the matter stated very clearly that New Georgia had worked with the boards of elections to facilitate verifying the registrations.

Common sense would tell most of us that if someone wanted to fake a registration that the last thing one would write on it is Mickey Mouse.

I think you think you're being subtle or coy here, when what you really want to say is that any successful registration effort that does not produce more Rpublicans is illegitimate. You're trying to disparage the name of this organization merely because they're bringing voters to the polls.

And beyond any of that what evidence do you have that the New Georgia group is criminal? Because to make that claim when you have no evidence is libel.

And please don't call me Gryphy, you don't know me that well.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:54 PM
What is this world coming to? When wholesome white, fundamentalist Christians cannot dictate the personal lives of every person in the country, there is a huge problem and we must do anything and everything we can to make sure we win these elections. The idea that two gay men residing together 4 states over call their "union" a "marraige" has such a negative impact on my marraige that I can barely even manage to get an erection anymore, I mean there are GAY PEOPLE HAVING SEX and I just can't get that image out of my head! We absolutely have to ignite our base of pure, End-Times Christian votes to stem this tide of Demonic infiltration, so let us bring out the bulldozers, earthmovers and dumptrucks to build us a mountain from this mole hill!

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:24 PM
And, before anyone goes there again with the "but they're under investigation" BS ...

Records at odds with voter fraud probe claim WXIA ATLANTA

Bold Emphasis Mine

ATLANTA - Documents obtained from Secretary of State Brian Kemp's office appear to contradict Kemp's claim that a voter fraud probe was based on numerous complaints from counties across Georgia.

For weeks, Democrats have hinted that Secretary of State Brian Kemp is trying to keep newly registered Democrats off the voters rolls. Kemp, a Republican, makes no apologies for investigating the New Georgia Project -- which has focused on registering Democratic-leaning minority voters. Last week, Kemp said again that reports of potential voter fraud led to the probe.

"I know it's up over a hundred now. May have been more like 125" complaints, Kemp said.

But records obtained by 11Alive News tell a different story. An October 9 Open Records Act request shows a total of seven voter registration complaints made in 2014 to the Secretary of State's office. Only one of them, from Butts County, complains about "individuals canvassing voters."

"There was only one complaint related to the New Georgia Project," said Rep. Stacey Abrams, who leads the New Georgia Project. "The rest were related to people who had tried to vote."

How could Secretary Kemp could have confused the numbers "1" and "over a hundred maybe 125 now"?

He's lying through his dmnd teeth, that's how.

Here's the explanation:

A spokesman for the Secretary of State says there are more records of complaints, but they are exempt from the Open Records Act because they are part of an ongoing investigation. He claims the investigation spans 14 counties -- but can't document them now.

Yet, when asked merely to simply supply the actual number (not the documents themselves) of complaints about the New Georgia Project the same "spokesman" for the SOS(OB) refused to answer.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:44 PM

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

The Democrats have become very good at race-baiting and stirring up racial issues where there ought not to have been. Why Eric Holder didn't prosecute the New Black Panthers for hate speech and for intimidating people at the polls? It is because the admin is as racist as anyone.

This garbage deserves special attention.

From GOP Spokesman Rush Limbaugh two days ago (Limbaugh and the GOP Reliance on Race Baiting:

Here you have five white women seeking reelection, they desperately need the black turnout. We just had a story today that in New Orleans only 5% of the black vote’s voted in early vote for [Louisiana Sen.] Mary Landrieu…if that’s all they get then it’s sayonara. And yet here’s the first black president, Barack Hussein Obama, and none of these white women want him anywhere near their campaign.

So how do we explain this? The explanation is the guy is toxic and will cause others who might want to vote for these white women to stay home. So they don’t want him anywhere near their campaign. And he said, “I don’t care, I don’t blame ‘em. They just gotta do what they gotta do to get elected.” In the meantime, the irony is the first black president is an albatross around the necks of five white women who need the black vote because he will hurt.

Yeah, that's just a lot of racially neutral language from one of the most outspoken Cons in the country.

50 Years of GOP Race Baiting -

Leading Republicans who know better have demeaned the president with a long list of racially coded slurs. Obama is “the food stamp president,” Newt Gingrich told us. He wants to help “black people” (or was it “blah people”?) “by giving them somebody else’s money,” Rick Santorum said. Even his so-called GOP “friend” Sen. Tom Coburn insists Obama is spreading “dependency” on government because “it worked so well for him as an African-American male.”

US News and World Report - Republican Race Baiting Will Come Back to Haunt Them

The Republican race baiting filtered down through the ranks. An official of the Orange County Republican Party in California sent out an E-mail that showed the president of the United States as the child of chimpanzees. A Republican mayor in California sent an E-mail that depicted the White House lawn as a watermelon patch.

The dream ended for me when I watched a Tea Party rally in Washington where several of the protestors carried posters that pictured the president of the United States as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. Then there was the infamous incident when white Tea Party protesters at the Capitol hurled racial epithets at black members of Congress.

So, yeah, then when Democrats have to answer this kind of racist garbage (OH THE RACE CARD!!!) then they're the ones that are race-baiting.

The whole situation is not at all dissimilar to the Republican tendency to accuse a rape victim of causing the crime ... or did that not happen either?

edit on 18Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:45:00 -050014p0620141066 by Gryphon66 because: Double L

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:53 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

La Raza is equal in stature to the KKK or the Black Panthers imho, and is as subversive an organization as I can imagine.

It mean "The Race" and determined to prmote 'brown dominance.'

To hear of them possbly promoting illegals to vote does not surprise me in the slightest.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:05 PM
The Washington Post published the article, not "La Raza."

Here's a link:

Voter ID Laws By State

Guess where the Post got this heinous information???

DAA DAA DAAN - The National Conference of State Legislatures

But the Post and the NCSL aren't racist ... but La Raza is?

Pretty evident here who the racists are IMHO.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:43 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm just curious ... had you heard of "La Raza" before yesterday?

What's your source of information about "La Raza" that helped you form your opinion?

Can you quote anything from anywhere that anyone might agree upon as a non-biased source that states that The National Council of La Raza has announced that it's promoting "brown dominance"?


posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:52 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well we both know he hasn't, but he'll say he has

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:21 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I've grown up and lived in the greater Houston area for my whole life. I was born the same year we landed on the moon, so it's up to you to assume you know how long I've known about La Raza.

My source of information as to their promotion of 'brown dominance' comes from years of working with immigrants, legal and illegal, in restaurants and as day laborers from every country south of the Texas border.

They're public enough an organization that you'll never see anything too terribly controversial from them, so I highly doubt any links can be found that will satisfy your desire for "a non-biased source."

I am currently one of very few caucasians in a Mexican restaurant that I help manage and daily see discrmination against myself. Nothing overt, but there is a very definite feeling that they considered me an outsider.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in