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.
QUESTION #2 – “VOTER FRAUD” – 1,298 ANSWERS
How serious a problem is voter fraud in America today?
• Very Serious – 513 answers; 39.5%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Somewhat Serious – 368 answers; 28.4%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Very Serious – 207 answers; 15.9%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not At All Serious – 110 answers; 8.5%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Sure – 100 answers; 7.7%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
QUESTION #3
“IDENTITY REQUIREMENT” – 1,274 ANSWERS
Should all voters be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote?
Press One for Yes.
Press Two for No.
Press Three for Not Sure.
• Yes – 1,001 answers; 78.6%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• No – 182 answers; 14.3%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Sure – 91 answers; 7.1%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
QUESTION #2 – “VOTER FRAUD” – 1,298 ANSWERS
How serious a problem is voter fraud in America today?
• Very Serious – 513 answers; 39.5%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Somewhat Serious – 368 answers; 28.4%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Very Serious – 207 answers; 15.9%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not At All Serious – 110 answers; 8.5%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Sure – 100 answers; 7.7%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
QUESTION #3
“IDENTITY REQUIREMENT” – 1,274 ANSWERS
Should all voters be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote?
Press One for Yes.
Press Two for No.
Press Three for Not Sure.
• Yes – 1,001 answers; 78.6%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• No – 182 answers; 14.3%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Sure – 91 answers; 7.1%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge in Texas struck down the state’s voter ID law on Thursday, calling the measure an “unconstitutional poll tax” that creates “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote” intended to discriminate against Hispanic and African-American citizens. In a 147-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an appointee of President Barack Obama confirmed to the bench in 2011, ruled that the law passed by Texas legislators and signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R) took an “unorthodox” approach they knew would have a disparate impact on minority voters. The law requires voters to produce government-issued identification before casting a ballot.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: charles1952
Charles:
The situation with GMOs is simply not analogous to the question of in-person voter fraud. Why? Because the most extensive research (investigations, commissions, inquiries) has been conducted by the most ardent researchers (Republicans looking for justification) over the space of almost a decade and a half and the results are that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent.
Just a thought.
originally posted by: Logarock
This decision is CLEARLY an effort to get voters in the booth that have no business being there. Its not about past voting figures.
ID Voter law doesn't need to show cause here. Only needs to address clear and present danger. 1000s of non-citizen status voters with no fear that they will be discovered as ineligible to vote.
Mike Turzai bragged about how Voter ID laws in Pennsylvania were created to deliver the state to Romney and have nothing to do with voter fraud. In fact, Republican insiders are so pleased with their voter suppression activities, many are predicting that they will be able to shave 10-15% of Democratic voters off of the role
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Great, except, since I'm not "a Progressive," you just look silly and your ridiculous overreaction is about as obviously grounded in reality as the rest of your spew.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Even though you apparently don't realize it, the Heller decision is the one you're quoting from about the interpretation of what the militia is and isn't. You see, throughout most of our history, reasonable Americans knew that the right to bear arms was obviously directed primarily toward militia service and personal protection and did not license ordinary citizens to do whatever whenever with however many weapons they wanted to.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
The fact that you apparently hate the Constitution and the structure that it created for us, by setting up the Supreme Court for example, shows just how much respect you truly have for our country and our traditions.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
As far as the rest of your spiel, you're not making any point other than "I don't' have to answer your question, nyah nyah" and that's fair enough, but the question is a simple and direct one, as opposed to the edifice of silliness and much ado over nothing that you're building here.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
You want to pick and choose how to define commonly understood words and phrases and speech patterns and tell me what I mean and what I believe in your own little twisted scenario, go ahead! But beyond this simple correction of your misstatements, it's really, REALLY not worth my time.
Argue some issues, not your personal beef with me.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Second Amendment was "put in place" to acknowledge (1) the English Common Law right to protect oneself and property and (2) to serve in the militia to put down invasion and rebellion in the young USA. It was not put in place to allow for massive private arsenals, automatic weapons, or concealed weapons without reasonable restrictions.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I've never read Alinsky myself and had never heard of him before Glenn Beck et. al. got obsessed with his work, however, you seem to be an expert. Does that make you "Progressive"?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
An ACTIVIST SCOTUS ??? Wow, are you out of touch. The Roberts Court is one of the most Conservative in Decades! The Heller decision is generally considered landmark IN FAVOR OF GUN RIGHTS! But you repeat the same wingnut sing-song about "activist judges" when it's obvious you really have no idea of what you're talking about.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Read some current events.
The rest of your post is merely more personal crap, and I told you I'm not going to respond to that childishness.
Make some actual arguments based in fact rather than your Beckistanian jingoism. We're still waiting.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, you're in favor of convicted felons and the mentally ill and disabled having no limits on firearms? Kids should be able to pack going to school? No limits, right?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Shall not be infringed." Right?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Wrong. Did you go back and do any historical research to find out what the substance of the 2nd Amendment was? It was both a protected privilege AND a responsibility in English Common Law. It was intended to prevent any government from disarming the People, i.e. taking all their firearms away. But silly English history or the English Bill of Rights of 1689 doesn't have anything to do with what the Americans did in 1791 does it? That's just more Ivory Tower nonsense, eh?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Caught you out on Heller though ... Did you actually finally go back and read the decision? LOL
originally posted by: Gryphon66
You persist in calling me "Progressive" because you say that's what my words and beliefs reflect ... but you can't stand for me to call YOU out on your wingnuttery??? If you talk like a Beck and squawk like a Beck then ... *shrug*
originally posted by: Gryphon66
You're merely being combative.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Anytime reality doesn't agree with your beliefs, you imply that reality is wrong.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Anytime a poster doesn't kowtow to your reinterpretation of them or of the facts for your argumentative purposes, well, they're obviously lying.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
And yet you STILL post NOTHING about the topic at hand which is the Federal Court blocking the suppression of the Texas Voter ID law and want to try to muddy the water by bickering about gun rights.
I'm quite sure you have an opinion on the matter of the Voter ID, why don't you favor us with it?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm quite sure you have an opinion on the matter of the Voter ID, why don't you favor us with it?
If that's not to much to ask and not try to inflict my personal will on yours from Progressive Communist Central.
/eyeroll
originally posted by: whyamIhere
If you don't have an ID...
You shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Only the cheaters are fighting against proving who you are.