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.


Eric Holder: Attorney General of the United States PWNED =)

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:10 AM
reply to post by Hugues de Payens

Go read this:

What you'll see is that voter ID laws do drive down voting rates, esp among the very poor, people that vote Democrat and that the only people, barr from a few exceptions, pushing this, are Republicans, who would benefit from it politically.

You'll also see a study conducted that shows NO EVIDENCE of systematic voter fraud caused by lack of voter ID laws.. and you'll see proof that Republicans have been manipulating the voter ID laws that have been passed to further disenfranchise would-be Democrat voters.

One example is that in TX the Republicans passed a law allowing voters to use Gun Licence IDs to vote, but disallowing official Student IDs... guess which party that benefits?

You can believe what ever you want, but remember, the DOJ under GWB spent millions (go check) investigating voter fraud and after 8 years weren't able to prosecute a single person who was shown to be trying to engage in the sort of fraud these laws were meant to protect against. Not one in eight years, after spending millions.

edit on 14-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

The point of this whole video was people trying to engage in voter fraud, deliberately. Not foreign nationals using the fake IDs they use for work to register to vote. Thus the whole, "dead people voting" malarkey.

I have no problem, if the cost of IDs is reduced to zero, having to provide state IDs to vote. None at all.

But, if you think about it for just two seconds, the only legal American voters a ID law would disenfranchise are really poor people. This would essentially remove the poorest of the poor from he voter rolls. That would be the outcome.

I also find is very ... cynical... of all the right wingers yammering on about voter ID laws when none of them raise any alarm over all the right wing robocalls and other dirty tricks that are also being used to rig elections. There's right-wing political operatives sitting in jail for these sorts of dirty tricks and none of you care... however, propose a law which would disenfranchise the poor and everyone jobs on board... it's very cynical... and pretty disgusting.

Hey Obvious...

The first thing I noticed in reading the information on Wiki was what I would suggest are flaws in the Brennen study.
First was the assumption that because 11% of the voting population which had no photo IDs would in fact vote IF they had the ID. I noticed the study failed to mention one of the single largest historic issues with the poor and elderly in voting, transportation.
Statistically there is likely to be more than 1 to 3% which would have not voted regardless.
The US has historically recorded a large % of the voting age public just don't vote regardless of status, party affiliation, etc.
Add the fact that the poorest of the poor, ID or not would not have voted for George Bush even if hell had of frozen over. The next affect I noticed was in the Heritage study where it was shown that in 2009 there were in fact 19 million more people with photo IDs than voted.
Now, having said that, anyone familiar with this topic would submit to there will always be a few people which will either honestly, or dishonestly swear to having not voted due to a voter ID law.
Given this, I see requirng an ID to vote having little or no impact on the outcome of any election and in fact little different from the purported voter fraud.
IF we were to believe this were even a substantial issue then I would suggest just 'issue' a free photo ID to any person furnishing 'proof' of the inability to purchase a $15 identification.
I still stand with my opinion, as far as affecting voter turnout, its a moot point.

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Hugues de Payens
I have a question for the union members on the board, or those knowledgable of union matters.

I live/work in an open shop state. Meaning a union eligible employee is not compelled to join the union which represents the work force. They are, however covered by the same union agreement as the dues paying union members. The local where I work held its general election for its officers this week, and as I drove past the union hall, and saw all of the folks in line to vote, I wondered if the election was open to all union eligible employees or if it was just for the dues paying members. So, the question is......(This question is not off topic. There is a point)

Does one have to provide proof of dues paying membership to a union local to vote for that local's officers when its elections are held?

Didnt think I would get an answer to the question I posed.


Because the answer would be that you have to prove union membership to vote in a union election..... kinda flies in the face of the liberal position on voter ID laws. Funny how that works aint it? Just say'n.
edit on 4-5-2012 by Hugues de Payens because: (no reason given)

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in