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.

 

House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting

page: 9
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

We are prepared to act.  We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in. 

He did say this.

No need for your english to english translation.

How disingenuous of you mighty phage.




posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The only confirmed instance of election fraud that has swayed an election and it is by guess who....


Why North Carolina's Election Fraud Hurts American Democracy




It was an embarrassing setback for Republican candidate Mark Harris, who had maintained for months that he had no real-time knowledge of a campaign consultant’s shady — and perhaps illegal — efforts to submit absentee ballots to sway the vote in his favor.


GOP Finally Has Documented Case of Election Fraud — Committed by Republicans




So tighter voter-ID laws or voter-roll purges or more closely scrutinized voter-registration drives, the most frequent GOP prescriptions for “election security,” wouldn’t have mattered at all.


Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth




A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.

edit on 9-3-2019 by Dr4c0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah. Some people are good at ignoring context.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr4c0n




The only confirmed instance of voter fraud that has swayed an election and it is

That would be election fraud, not voter fraud.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah. Some people are good at ignoring context.

Cause we cant understand the words without your spin?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Dr4c0n




The only confirmed instance of voter fraud that has swayed an election and it is

That would be election fraud, not voter fraud.


Oops my bad. Changed it.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Can't you understand this?


In my heart of hearts, I believe we have a moral responsibility to restore access for all citizens, who desire to participate in the democratic process. Many people marched and protested for the right to vote. Some gave a little blood, and others gave their very lives.



johnlewis.house.gov...



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Guyfriday








Currently it is not that simple, but in the bill in question it is.



The wording is vague but the bill only states that an affidavit is acceptable, it does not specify the contents of that affidavit.



How is this "in favor of illegal immigrants voting?"


How does it prevent illegals or others from criminally voting? Why wasn't photo ID made a requirement instead of a written statement? Seems like it would have made better sense in a bill that is being touted as, "For the People Act of 2019", and dedicates a whole section for ethics? One would be lead to believe that the people that this bill is for isn't really the voters, but rather possible voters who, may not be eligible to vote under the current and accepted laws.

The question you once again have asked is about illegals voting, and since this has been answered by me as to how this bill opens up that possibility, I am still at an impasse with you over the question of; " how do you feel about only needing a written statement as verification for proving who you are for voting purposes?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Can someone quote the text from HR 1 that talks about letting illegals vote?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sure
Doesn't take away the lines I highlighted.
I just didn't add your spin.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah. I forgot. Context means nothing.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

There has always been a possibility of "illegals" voting. It's always been illegal to break voting laws. In fact, it happens sometimes. I just don't happen to think it happens nearly often enough to make it more difficult for legal voters to vote. No reason to think so.

It's already illegal to impersonate someone, for any number of reasons. Including voting. Rightfully so.

I see nothing in this bill which changes that.

edit on 3/9/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Is this clear enough?

johnlewis.house.gov...

Rep. Lewis does not support and did not say that he supported voting rights for those who are not eligible to vote.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr4c0n

Yea but the Republicans keep preaching like its a major issue.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

You can spin all you like.
It does not change what he said.
Mr Lewis can withdraw his statement if he did not mean what he said.

What he said and what his people say are not the same.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

He said that he wants illegals to vote?

Can you quote that? Or are you just spinning a single out of context quote?
edit on 3/9/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday




How does it prevent illegals or others from criminally voting?
How does anything prevent anyone from breaking the law?


I am still at an impasse with you over the question of; " how do you feel about only needing a written statement as verification for proving who you are for voting purposes?
I dislike repeating myself, but you're special. I think the problem of preventing qualified persons from voting outweighs the small chance that someone might commit a felony by impersonating someone in order to vote.


edit on 3/9/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


A. Thank you for repeating yourself. I know that you dislike doing so, but I wasn't sure if you had answered the question.

B. Sure, laws don't really do anything but provide guidelines for people to follow so that it limits the harm to society as a whole. This is why asking people to show a photo ID seems like a better option than providing a written summery of who you claim to be. The photo ID can be summerly checked with some reason at the location, while the written paper stating who you are can not.

Nothing really prevents others from breaking the law, but having checks in place does deter the those who are likely to violate the law from doing so. The simpler and most verifiable the checks are (photo IDs) the less a person is likely to try and take advantage of the system. If banks allowed everyone to walk in to the safe and grab whatever they wanted, most people will be honest and only take what is theirs or what can be reasonably referred to as theirs. Some people will take whatever they can despite if it their or not. This is why safes can be locked, and why there are security measures for who can go in, and who can not. Although this is getting into the philosophy of laws and why they work and don't work, we should just stick to the topic (yes, I know I'm the one that drifted off topic).

Outside of having a national voters database that would store everyone's fingerprint, a state or federal issued photo ID is better than the written paper that this bill is stating would be needed for voter ID. A state or federal ID most people already have, or can easily get. To think that someone would be burdened with providing that to vote would lead one to wonder if that person should be voting to begin with?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The Dems were saying that they had no illegals voting for Hillary or for their candidates. So they decided they wanted to take away rights of our citizens and give them to people just sneaking here from who knows where so the Democrats can justify the votes from these illegals. They are changing the rules of our country, so maybe Russians should sneak in here illegally and vote too.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday


A state or federal ID most people already have, or can easily get.
Most, apparently. All, apparently not. So screw 'em. Probably Democrats anyway.


To think that someone would be burdened with providing that to vote would lead one to wonder if that person should be voting to begin with?
I wonder if women should have gotten suffrage too. And you probably know that whole landowner thing. The fewer who are allowed to vote the better for everyone.


edit on 3/9/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)







 
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join