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.

 

Why Does Mitt Romney Want To Restrict Voting Rights For More Than 900,000 Ohio Veterans?

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Then explain why the left is so against voter ID?

You need ID to register to vote
You need voter ID to vote in union elections
You need ID to go to a book signing
You need ID to get state aid
You need ID for beer
You need ID for cigarettes
You need ID to get utilities
You need ID to purchase a home or rent an apartment

Yet, for some reason (cheating at voting time) voter ID is not accepted.

Just because you refuse to see the smoke doesn't make it any less real.




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
If 900,000 vets are restricted from voting, then that's 900,000 people that he won't have to worry about NOT voting for him



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm not against the voter ID issue at all, it makes sense to me. I just think the republican motivations behind it are more than obvious. The majority of the people that do not have ID's are democrats, if it were the other way around you wouldn't hear them say anything about it. Voter fraud rarely ever happens, it is a non-issue.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm not against the voter ID issue at all, it makes sense to me. I just think the republican motivations behind it are more than obvious. The majority of the people that do not have ID's are democrats, if it were the other way around you wouldn't hear them say anything about it. Voter fraud rarely ever happens, it is a non-issue.


Do you have a source for that?

An explanation, perhaps?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





An analysis of state data related to Pennsylvania's new voter ID law suggests that minority voters in Philadelphia will have a tougher time than white voters in getting the credentials to vote in November.

The study found that voters in the city's most heavily African American voting divisions are 85 percent more likely to lack PennDot credentials than voters in predominantly white divisions.

And voters in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods are more than twice as likely to lack PennDot ID, the study showed. Manik-Perlman said there was a similar pattern in heavily Asian neighborhoods.


articles.philly.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Good thread, and I don't have an explanation except for grimy party politics, but I heard something today and I had to go check it out and it is almost true!! I heard that the state of Missouri has more registered voters than it does residents.


Turns out that it is kind of true. They have 4.1 million registered voters, and only 6.1 million residents. It isn't technically "more," but it is an unbelievably high percentage!!

Maybe Obama, and Romney, and our Governor Scott here in Florida are all correct, and they need to be restricting voter access as much as possible to make sure everyone is who they say they is!

I wonder what other states look like?


Hi, apologies if you covered this later in the thread, but if there are 4.1 million registered voters and 'only' 6.1 million residents... doesn't that mean there is a delta of 2.1 million that aren't registered voters? have you got your numbers the wrong way around? If not I don't see the problem



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I want to apologize for abandoning the thread! Last night I developed a migraine headache and I am just now (after lots of aspirin, coffee, an ice compress and a hot shower) able to address the thread. I will do my best to read it today and respond to the issues... but I'm afraid I can't make any promises because I still feel like there's a balloon blown up inside my head, ready to burst.

Secondly, I must confess that I posted this thread, not to represent my thoughts, but to illustrate the craziness of the two sides of this issue, and in this campaign as a whole. I had great plans to expand on that thought, but alas, my freaking head exploded...


In short, I DON'T believe that Romney wants to restrict voting for veterans. That's ridiculous. It's as untrue as the headline that Obama wants to restrict voting for active military. My aim is to encourage people to look past sensational headlines and get the real scoop... I'm afraid that having this thought on page 6 instead of early in the thread, as I had planned, means my thread is a fail, at least in my eyes... I only hope that as I read through it, I will see that this isn't true and that some meaningful discussion has taken place...

Take care, everyone... Later.


reply to post by something wicked
 


I think the point is that some of those residents are not eligible to vote, like the under 18 crowd. It is an extremely high percentage for registered voters, I agree... Strange.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
In my opinion, this legal back-and-forth precedence was set by GW in 2000. However, it wan't just GW. See, Algore was trying to use the courts to win as well. At the end of the day, the election was settled in court. Some say that Bush lost the election; no, he won. As I recall, he was in office for 8 years sooooo, to me that means he won.

Gore tried to play a similar game and only have recounts in democrat heavy counties. They were both to blame for the whole debacle. I also believe the correct solution would have been to recount the entire state but they were too stupid to think of that.

In my opinion, that is when our elections changed. From then on, everybody started looking at a legal angle to win elections and tilt the scale toward themselves. It's incredibly cynical but that's how I see it. Obama took the shenanigans of 2000 and stepped them up about 100 notches with Acorn and illegal, small contributions from overseas that can't be tracked. All of that was premeditated, long before the election. Probably the worst part of that election is how John McCain was nothing more that a prop. He knew he'd lose and had no intention of winning. He "threw the game" as they say and anybody who can't see that is blind.

It is clear that these games will be played so Romney is probably thinking, he can either play by Obama's corrupt rules or take his ball and go home. This is what our elections have come to.

As far as the idiots throwing "Voter ID" into this issue, anybody who thinks voter ID laws are a bad things simply doesn't care about clean elections. As somebody else said, the majority of voters without ID's are democrats. Yes, perhaps that is true. But I can also argue, the majority of ILLEGALS vote democrat, so how does that bolster your argument? The bottom line is, if you can have these thug groups like ACORN going out and registering tens of thousands of voters, why in the HELL can't they put their effort into getting ID's for those folks who can't get around?

According to your argument, you'd rather let 10,000 people vote illegally, (probably democrat) than to keep those 10,000 people from voting illegally and perhaps "disenfranchising" 1 or 2 who don't have IDs. Face it, your motive is to get as many votes as possible, legal or illegal; you don't care and you've already proven that. The last I knew, you had to have a driver's license to register to vote, or at least a state ID, so how have these people been voting all these years without them? I had to show ID to register to vote and I had to pay for that ID. It's a responsibility. If your right to vote isn't worth the effort of obtaining ID, then you don't deserve that right. If your'e talking about Grandma who is poor and can't get out, then send over some of your compassionate friends to assist her in doing so. You ARE the party of compassion, right? Inclusion? Diversity? Well, put your money where your mouth is and help all of the old grandmas who are 97 years old and to this day still don't have any ID. Please.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by axslinger
 


Ah, you must have posted in the wrong thread. This thread is about the early voting laws being changed in Ohio, which is not mentioned in your post.



According to your argument, you'd rather let 10,000 people vote illegally, (probably democrat) than to keep those 10,000 people from voting illegally and perhaps "disenfranchising" 1 or 2 who don't have IDs.


Where are you getting these numbers from?



Face it, your motive is to get as many votes as possible, legal or illegal; you don't care and you've already proven that.


No... voter fraud is very rare and is an impractical way to steal an election, even if your assessment were true.



If your right to vote isn't worth the effort of obtaining ID, then you don't deserve that right.


Nice of you to decide that for us.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
U.S. population in 1787 est. 155,600.

U.S. population in 2012 est 314,110,671.

Maybe having the polls open for three days for everybody is not such a bad idea.

I don't have a problem with voter ID. However the state must supply it free of charge or you are being charged to vote.

Still have seen no proof that voter fraud is a real problem. Statistically more people die in car accidents on the way to the polling station than commit fraud.

Just smoke and mirrors to keep the poor from voting.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 



Originally posted by Domo1
Someone explain this gently to me. Why is it an issue if only active military is allowed an extra few days? I thought the point in allowing that was so that they had time to get the votes in from wherever they are.


Active military doesn't need extra days. Those stationed overseas have access to absentee voting, which is, in essence, early voting.

The reason this is an issue is that every resident on the state used to have early voting available. Military, veterans, and civilians, alike. The GOP restricted that for the residents of Ohio, in an effort to make it harder for low income residents to vote (not everybody can get off work on Tuesday and wait in line all day).

My question is: Why is it an issue if everyone is allowed an extra few days?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by axslinger
In my opinion, this legal back-and-forth precedence was set by GW in 2000. However, it wan't just GW. See, Algore was trying to use the courts to win as well. At the end of the day, the election was settled in court. Some say that Bush lost the election; no, he won. As I recall, he was in office for 8 years sooooo, to me that means he won.

Gore tried to play a similar game and only have recounts in democrat heavy counties. They were both to blame for the whole debacle. I also believe the correct solution would have been to recount the entire state but they were too stupid to think of that.


That wasn't a game. Requesting only those counties wouldn't have won gore the election.
en.wikipedia.org...
Scroll down for the table.
Gore was doomed.

Anyway, what did I tell you guys earlier-By hook or by crook Romney is gonna win. All his worshipers on ATS will hate him within 6 months and try to convince us they never voted for him lol.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Thank you for fleshing this out.
It's what I had intended to do early in the thread, but life had other plans.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Originally posted by getreadyalready
They have 4.1 million registered voters, and only 6.1 million residents. It isn't technically "more," but it is an unbelievably high percentage!!


That seems like an extremely high percentage. According to your link, 23% of residents are under 18 and ineligible to vote. That would mean a total of ~4.6 million eligible voters. of which 4.1 million are registered. If my math is correct, that's about 89%

Ohio's population is 11 million.
Registered voters - 8 million...
Under 18 - 23%. (1.8 million)
83% of adults are registered... Not very different than Michigan.

My suspicion is that most states are like this because people register when they're 18, whether they ever vote or not. So, the numbers probably aren't that surprising.

Source 1
Source 2



Maybe Obama, and Romney, and our Governor Scott here in Florida are all correct, and they need to be restricting voter access as much as possible to make sure everyone is who they say they is!


How would restricting early voting accomplish that? Seems to me they should extend it if anything, so they can take the time to check every single voter and see if they are who they say they are... Wouldn't that be more effective than arbitrarily restricting the voting window of its citizens?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Good thread, and I don't have an explanation except for grimy party politics, but I heard something today and I had to go check it out and it is almost true!! I heard that the state of Missouri has more registered voters than it does residents.


Turns out that it is kind of true. They have 4.1 million registered voters, and only 6.1 million residents. It isn't technically "more," but it is an unbelievably high percentage!!

Maybe Obama, and Romney, and our Governor Scott here in Florida are all correct, and they need to be restricting voter access as much as possible to make sure everyone is who they say they is!

I wonder what other states look like?


Hi, apologies if you covered this later in the thread, but if there are 4.1 million registered voters and 'only' 6.1 million residents... doesn't that mean there is a delta of 2.1 million that aren't registered voters? have you got your numbers the wrong way around? If not I don't see the problem


That's why I said almost true.

I was riding with someone else at lunch, and they had conservative talk radio on, and the claim was that Missouri has more registered voters than it does residents. When I checked it out, it wasn't true, but it is true that Missouri has an extremely high percentage of registered voters compared to residents, and it looks a little suspicious. The numbers I posted are correct, the talk radio host was exaggerating, but there is something going on in Missouri because the percentage is about double that of other states, so it doesn't appear to be legitimate voters.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by wwiilliiaamm
 


I love it when I learn something! Thank you. Great post.



Originally posted by wwiilliiaamm
Besides the generalities, please give the readers a source for the number of "VOTER FRAUD" over the last twenty years. The reason why I ask for this information is simple. On this thread, we see several videos, quotes, etc. which explain "ELECTION FRAUD" which was a benefit to the GOP.


The Truth about Voter Fraud



Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. ... Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. ... Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud. ... In Missouri in 2000, for example, the Secretary of State claimed that 79 voters were registered with addresses at vacant lots, but subsequent investigation revealed that the lots in question actually housed valid and legitimate residences. Similarly, a 1995 investigation into votes allegedly cast in Baltimore by deceased voters and those with disenfranchising felony convictions revealed that the voters in question were both alive and felony-free.


This imagined idea that voter fraud is rampant is ENTIRELY fabricated and I want to also mention that it's FEAR-BASED! I have become extremely suspicious of ANY fear-based statement made during elections. Thinking critically about every every situation and carefully spotting the talking points on FOX and MSNBC has been a great education for me!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


89% of residents being registered voters seems extremely high to me, and I was just repeating what was said on conservative radio (see my post just above this one), but that statement from the radio host was overly exaggerated.

It would be interesting to see how all the states stack up for percentage of registered voters. Perhaps they are legit, and they just have a streamlined process, or perhaps a few states stand out as anomalies and need looked at more closely?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
How does Mitt Romney pass a law in Ohio? Oh that's right, he doesn't. Everyone can go back to MSNBC and Facebook now.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 




Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.


Source



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



Ohio republicans and Romney are terrorists that want to limit voting access to all citizens.
You also forgot to mention that they're racist too, or did I somehow miss that post....

edit on 7-8-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)







 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join