2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Requiring Photo ID’s. You need photo ID’s for just about everything... like buying alcohol, opening a bank account, applying for food stamps, applying for welfare, applying for medicare and social security, applying for unemployment benefits, applying for a mortgage, driving a car, getting on an airplane, getting married, getting a hotel room, getting a cell phone. BUT TO VOTE! OMG... GRAB THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS AND LETS STORM GOP HEADQUARTERS!!!!.

Except that while people try to fraud banks, insurance companies, businesses everyday, cases of voter fraud exploiting the lack of ID laws are beyond rare. Out of ~1billion votes case between 2000-2014 there were 31 cases of attempted voter fraud which would've been prevented by these laws, as identified by this legal expert here

Now call me cynical, but do you not think there are more pressing matters which require immediate legislation, than this? Even the most conservative of republicans have to see this.

jank wrote: »

I have to agree. When I hear talk about voter suppression I just hear people wanting to make the system easier to swindle.

Nobody has ever had a problem with this and I have never heard that requiring ID is one of the reasons why poorer Irish people are being disenfranchised. Even by those who have a soft Democractic bais in Ireland, yet they pull this stunt in an effort to show how 'evil' those republicans are...
If they are so concerned about this, then why not campaign for this in Ireland? Nah, don't think.

Of course people who cannot even organise an ID for themselves are exactly the type of voters Democratics want and exploit for pure political gains. Just look at Baltimore, a city run by Democrats for 50 years.... it must be paradise!

Except that when 0.0000031% of voters are attempting to 'swindle' an election, maybe it's just a little bit less important an issue than, maybe, gun laws, public surveillance laws, environmental laws etc.

Ireland has many different variables which you ignored. Firstly, the average Irish person owns a car and has travelled abroad, while the average American does/has not. Why would the 14.5% of Americans below the poverty line need a passport or drivers license when they can barely muster enough money to survive?

Blah, blah, blah, typical conservative gutter talk, it's not even worth responding to.

PopePalpatine

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Why would the 14.5% of Americans below the poverty line need a passport or drivers license when they can barely muster enough money to survive?

Blah, blah, blah, typical conservative gutter talk, it's not even worth responding to.

Don't you get it? Dem minorities welfare-spongers are less likely to have ID than good honest white working folk. :rolleyes:

ebbsy

I am glad Bush is running, just for the fact that the last couple of elections have not been that competitive and this could be close enough.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, I'm subscribed to the thread, and you're not on 'ignore' just yet, so it tends to... just happen.

If someone, for some reason, finds the need to say something like this, than I say just do it, and get it over with. It’s a rather juvenile statement if you ask me.

What's the differential diagnosis here, if any? Mostly your take seems to just be "never saw a Republican candidate I didn't like, or a Democrat I did". Which is going to make for a distinctly dull season of primaries, from your angle.

Unless the GOP are in total meltdown and panic on the "OMG, cod-feminist Republicans are defecting en masse to Hillary, we need a woman! Even of any kind!" front, Fiorina is a complete non-starter. But who knows, maybe some slice of the electorate will buy the head-fake, and decide the party's not quite as woman-unfriendly as... well, it is, basically.

Is this a case of the kettle calling the teapot black? From your posts in US Politics, I could just as easily tag you with "never saw a Democrat candidate I didn't like, or a Republican I did".

Democratic/Liberal ideology runs counter to my Republican/Conservative ideology. With the liberal hold on Democratic politics, especially in the primaries, I don’t see myself getting behind any Democrat running. And that sounds about right for the majority of people here aligning themselves with a particular party. There are a number of Republicans I won’t get behind either, but by the time the primary gets to my state (late voting in the election season) there is usually only one left standing. And when it comes to the general election, yes, I will vote for the Republican over the Democrat.

Right now it’s the political silly season, and I treat it as such. Most of the Republicans running (and to a lesser extent a few Democrats) realize they have no chance at becoming president. They are running right now in hopes of obtaining a cabinet position or a powerful committee nomination if their party wins, all geared towards their political futures.

From the polls I've seen, many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. It makes no sense to me but I have never been able to figure out the reasoning of women anyway . If Fiorina stays strong and on message, it will make the GOP think twice of possible tagging her for the VP spot to counter the women vote. And Fiorina is a mega-genius compared to Hillary.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's posts like this which just p*ss me off.

I'm not American, and I don't live there so I have nothing to gain from programs like these, but I find it baffling that you would live under this notion that the majority of those in poverty are there by choice, and rather than not being able to get a well-paying job, they choose to be lazy. This notion is complete bs and is why I've no time for the majority of conservatives in America, because they are either blind to the facts, or are so rich they have the potential to lose a lot of wealth under a welfare state.

If you don't believe me, look at the facts;(according to the Fed) the top 10% own 84.5% of assets in America, while the bottom 50% own a grand total of 0.8% of assets. There are far more statistics than this, but all show the disgusting state of the country insofar as the richest of the rich control almost all of the wealth in the country, and manage to get away with it by creating total bs notions that welfare programs would only cause laziness among the masses.

You can believe what you want to believe, and clearly you do that a lot, but I do hope that someday you'll open your eyes and realise that everything Karl Rove created was designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

And I'm not a European, so socialistic ideals have no appeal to me. And those top 10% pay how much of our taxes? Something like 90% I believe.

Sounds to me like you are in favor of throwing out all the illegal aliens from the country and building a border fence; oh, and installing protectionism for the labor force from businesses bringing in people from other countries at lower wages. Because you do know those low wages do as much to keeping our citizens in poverty as the evil rich do.

And don't lecture me about people on welfare and assistance. I see it every day. Yes, there are many that wish they were gainfully employed, but I think many also have adjusted to the lifestyle, and would rather sit at home typing away on their computer and receive government assistance equal to what a real job would pay. And the breakdown of the family structure ensures this mentality continues through generations. Cutting back on government assistance is the only cure for the sins. Bill Clinton did it and it was a huge success. Obama devastated Clinton's legislation and see what we have to show for it... one in four children on food stamps.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Don't you get it? Dem minorities welfare-spongers are less likely to have ID than good honest white working folk. :rolleyes:

No, they already have ID's because they need ID to receive all those government assistance programs. :rolleyes:

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Blah, blah, blah, typical conservative gutter talk, it's not even worth responding to.

Then don't.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

And I'm not a European, so socialistic ideals have no appeal to me. And those top 10% pay how much of our taxes? Something like 90% I believe.

Sounds to me like you are in favor of throwing out all the illegal aliens from the country and building a border fence; oh, and installing protectionism for the labor force from businesses bringing in people from other countries at lower wages. Because you do know those low wages do as much to keeping our citizens in poverty as the evil rich do.

And don't lecture me about people on welfare and assistance. I see it every day. Yes, there are many that wish they were gainfully employed, but I think many also have adjusted to the lifestyle, and would rather sit at home typing away on their computer and receive government assistance equal to what a real job would pay. And the breakdown of the family structure ensures this mentality continues through generations. Cutting back on government assistance is the only cure for the sins. Bill Clinton did it and it was a huge success. Obama devastated Clinton's legislation and see what we have to show for it... one in four children on food stamps.

Well clearly they don't pay enough when 14.5% of the population lives below the poverty line, and the top 0.1% own as much as the bottom 90%. Surely you must accept there is something wrong with wealth inequality when you see statistics like these?

Or maybe you could just raise the minimum wage so that even the worst paying jobs can help support families. But I guess that would be too much for those poor corporations who wouldn't be able to pay their employees a bit more.

I accept that there are some who like to scrounge off of welfare and benefits, but these type of people are a very, very small minority in every society. An overwhelming majority of those in poverty are there not by choice, but by circumstances out of their control. Welfare and benefits should be designed to be enough to provide the minimum amount required to have a roof over your head, and enough food to live. But unfortunately the wage levels are disgracefully low; so low that a minimum wage job can't support a family anymore. I would much rather a system raising wages rather than benefits, but unfortunately the corporations control Washington, and as such it is almost impossible to raise the wages on a national scale. If you want to cutback on welfare benefits, fine, but make sure that there wages are high enough to support the poorest earners.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Well clearly they don't pay enough when 14.5% of the population lives below the poverty line, and the top 0.1% own as much as the bottom 90%. Surely you must accept there is something wrong with wealth inequality when you see statistics like these?

Or maybe you could just raise the minimum wage so that even the worst paying jobs can help support families. But I guess that would be too much for those poor corporations who wouldn't be able to pay their employees a bit more.

I accept that there are some who like to scrounge off of welfare and benefits, but these type of people are a very, very small minority in every society. An overwhelming majority of those in poverty are there not by choice, but by circumstances out of their control. Welfare and benefits should be designed to be enough to provide the minimum amount required to have a roof over your head, and enough food to live. But unfortunately the wage levels are disgracefully low; so low that a minimum wage job can't support a family anymore. I would much rather a system raising wages rather than benefits, but unfortunately the corporations control Washington, and as such it is almost impossible to raise the wages on a national scale. If you want to cutback on welfare benefits, fine, but make sure that there wages are high enough to support the poorest earners.

Raise the minimum wage? Higher unemployment via reductions in the workforce or businesses closing and higher costs for goods and services. What does it net you?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-saltsman-the-unappetizing-effect-of-minimum-wage-hikes-1427240817

But I do agree with you that I would like to see standard of living increase for the middle and lower class. And the best way this could be done is through education, training, hard work and a commitment to better ones position in life.

When I graduated from High School I was a C & D student from a hick school in a hick town. I barely scored above a 1,000 on my SAT's. I was married and raising a family when I was 18 years old. I got a manual labor job that didn't pay well. But I was bound and determined to change my stars and I felt if I was to better myself it had to come from within me. Working full time I enrolled in a community college, who only took me on a provisional basis because of my bad grades. I worked full time in a factory, went to school full time in evenings, and took on odd jobs on weekends to make ends meet. I applied myself for the first time in my life. After I got a 2 year Associates Degree in Business Management I improved my working position and went on to achieve a BS degree at a 4 year college, also working full-time and going to school full-time. I again improved my working position and went on get a dual Masters Degree at a university. I received no special help because of my race or income level. If I can do it... anybody can.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Raise the minimum wage? Higher unemployment via reductions in the workforce or businesses closing and higher costs for goods and services. What does it net you?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-saltsman-the-unappetizing-effect-of-minimum-wage-hikes-1427240817

But I do agree with you that I would like to see standard of living increase for the middle and lower class. And the best way this could be done is through education, training, hard work and a commitment to better ones position in life.

When I graduated from High School I was a C & D student from a hick school in a hick town. I barely scored above a 1,000 on my SAT's. I was married and raising a family when I was 18 years old. I got a manual labor job that didn't pay well. But I was bound and determined to change my stars and I felt if I was to better myself it had to come from within me. Working full time I enrolled in a community college, who only took me on a provisional basis because of my bad grades. I worked full time in a factory, went to school full time in evenings, and took on odd jobs on weekends to make ends meet. I applied myself for the first time in my life. After I got a 2 year Associates Degree in Business Management I improved my working position and went on to achieve a BS degree at a 4 year college, also working full-time and going to school full-time. I again improved my working position and went on get a dual Masters Degree at a university. I received no special help because of my race or income level. If I can do it... anybody can.

Here we go again the poor are poor because they are lazy. It's their own fault. If they would only show some commitment and work hard it would all be ok.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Here we go again the poor are poor because they are lazy. It's their own fault. If they would only show some commitment and work hard it would all be ok.

In many cases it would help. And reducing single parent homes would also help.

But let me guess... Increasing welfare state generosity through higher taxes is the most effective way to reduce poverty and working poverty, right?

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

If someone, for some reason, finds the need to say something like this, than I say just do it, and get it over with. It’s a rather juvenile statement if you ask me.

I "felt the need" to say it because of your odd statement construing it was somehow remarkable that I was seeing your posts. Your surprise, to quote an illustrious (if fictional) American thinker, confuses me.

Is this a case of the kettle calling the teapot black? From your posts in US Politics, I could just as easily tag you with "never saw a Democrat candidate I didn't like, or a Republican I did".

I'm not the person offering the putatively case-by-case "this Democrat is terrible!" and "this Republican is great!" commentary, as if it were some novel observation each time. If I had the misfortune to be voting in a US election, then I'd be voting the straight Democrat ticket in almost any circumstance, yes. Possibly through gritted teeth. Heaven knows I've voted for enough idiots here. I'm not a huge fan of the "he represents a party whose every policy I loathe, but he's done a lot of good for the area!" school of politics. (Granted Presidential elections have no direct comparator here.)

From the polls I've seen, many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. It makes no sense to me but I have never been able to figure out the reasoning of women anyway .

Stay classy, there, 'Ka, stay classy. Going some way to explain the nature of your own perplexity...

Gendered issues are pretty live in US politics. In These Islands, the left/right gendered split has often been the other way around from the way it has recently worked in the States. Having a female candidate either betokens a strong statement about those, or acts to neutralise being seen on the wrong side of those. And clearly there's the whole "last glass ceiling" aspect, too.

jank

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Ireland has many different variables which you ignored. Firstly, the average Irish person owns a car and has travelled abroad, while the average American does/has not. Why would the 14.5% of Americans below the poverty line need a passport or drivers license when they can barely muster enough money to survive?

Say what? The US has more cars per 1,000 people than Ireland. Which would indicate higher levels are car usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Raise the minimum wage? Higher unemployment via reductions in the workforce or businesses closing and higher costs for goods and services. What does it net you?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-saltsman-the-unappetizing-effect-of-minimum-wage-hikes-1427240817

But I do agree with you that I would like to see standard of living increase for the middle and lower class. And the best way this could be done is through education, training, hard work and a commitment to better ones position in life.

When I graduated from High School I was a C & D student from a hick school in a hick town. I barely scored above a 1,000 on my SAT's. I was married and raising a family when I was 18 years old. I got a manual labor job that didn't pay well. But I was bound and determined to change my stars and I felt if I was to better myself it had to come from within me. Working full time I enrolled in a community college, who only took me on a provisional basis because of my bad grades. I worked full time in a factory, went to school full time in evenings, and took on odd jobs on weekends to make ends meet. I applied myself for the first time in my life. After I got a 2 year Associates Degree in Business Management I improved my working position and went on to achieve a BS degree at a 4 year college, also working full-time and going to school full-time. I again improved my working position and went on get a dual Masters Degree at a university. I received no special help because of my race or income level. If I can do it... anybody can.

What a surprise, a link to a Rupert Murdoch paper :rolleyes:. Anyway, raising the min. wage may raise unemployment, but this would be more likely to occur if the wages were already high. But they're not; in fact they're very, very low, so I imagine the Wal Marts and Targets should be able to cut a little bit of their multi-billion dollar profits if the Govt. forced them to pay their workers a little more.

Unfortunately this is no longer true. Degrees are not as valuable anymore, because there are simply too many colleges out there. Colleges are now business-oriented, and operate with the intention of churning out as many graduates as possible in order to increase their endownment. Therefore a degree, or even a masters, is not automatically a ticket to a better life because so many others out there hold the same qualifications. This was not the case 20+ years ago. So this means that low earners may have had a good education, but that didn't mean they got a high-earning job, so where are they left now? And don't tell me they 'didn't try hard enough' or other useless excuses; a poor child born in a sh*tty area with average/poor grades has almost no chance of ever rising far up the wealth scale.

You're a typical 'American dream' story, and fair play to you for doing well, but the opportunities you got cannot be gotten by the poor today; the 'American dream' is nothing but a fantasy these days.

MightyMandarin

jank wrote: »

Say what? The US has more cars per 1,000 people than Ireland. Which would indicate higher levels are car usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

I said the average Irish person owns 'a car'. The average millionaire owns significantly more than one, and America has by far the largest amount of them in the world, so your stats are skewed.

jank

MightyMandarin wrote: »

But unfortunately the wage levels are disgracefully low; so low that a minimum wage job can't support a family anymore. I would much rather a system raising wages rather than benefits, but unfortunately the corporations control Washington, and as such it is almost impossible to raise the wages on a national scale. If you want to cutback on welfare benefits, fine, but make sure that there wages are high enough to support the poorest earners.

Wages will only rise when there is inflation to justify it. Also one cannot just look at this in isloation. Two things have happened in the past 30 years which have put a brake on wages in Western countries.

1) Women entering the workforce especially educated women. More demand for good jobs means wages will stagnate across the board.

2) Globalisation. Where wages are noncompetitive they will be shipped over seas. Now before you blame the big bad corporation, this has created middle classes in other countries. Over 650 million people are now no longer living in absolute poverty in China as they were 20 years ago. This is because of inward investment from these corporations (as well as internal reforms). So, in essence you want to protect western workers at the expense of really really poor people elsewhere, who are living on $1 a day.

You talk of inequality solely in the US, but the world as a whole is getting richer and more prosperous where rates of absolute poverty are decreasing all the time, because of globalisation. In the last twenty years over 1 billion people have been lifted out of poverty because of Capitalism. Unfortunately there will be some losers and these are unskilled and uneducated western workers. Poverty traps need to be looked and of course the key is education, yet reform of the public school sector is impossible because of the teacher unions who are quite a force politically.

It just annoys me that people pick and chose figures as if the US exists in some vacuum away from the rest of the world. It as if people are deliberately ignoring what is going on in the world.

jank

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I said the average Irish person owns 'a car'. The average millionaire owns significantly more than one, and America has by far the largest amount of them in the world, so your stats are skewed.

Ireland has no millionaires? Last time I was home we had 3 cars in the driveway and we are no where near millionaires.

Of course, when the stats prove you are wrong,you are free to ignore them (it still makes you wrong), much easier to blame some conservative conspiracy instead.

jank

MightyMandarin wrote: »

What a surprise, a link to a Rupert Murdoch paper :rolleyes:. Anyway, raising the min. wage may raise unemployment, but this would be more likely to occur if the wages were already high. But they're not; in fact they're very, very low, so I imagine the Wal Marts and Targets should be able to cut a little bit of their multi-billion dollar profits if the Govt. forced them to pay their workers a little more.

If the state dictates wages, then a company will be sure to look at alternative cost cutting methods. If it cheaper to put in a robot or a machine to do the job then this is what will happen. In fact it is already happening. The rate of automation will increase more so then before pushing more unskilled people out of jobs, so one should be careful to ask what they wish for in relation to a higher min wage. The statistics are quite clear on this.

alaimacerc

jank wrote: »

When I hear talk about voter suppression I just hear people wanting to make the system easier to swindle.

Then you're not "hearing" what I just said at all, quite clearly.

I'd be completely fine with measures to further reduce or eliminate the miniscule amount of "swindling". Make issuing the required ID automatic and at public expense, for example, if it's such a profound and urgent concern. Just not to do so by increasing the already vast amount of disenfranchisement. It's not a complicated distinction. It's a well-documented issue.

Take for example people who need ID.

In Ireland, you HAVE to have ID to vote.

In theory you do. Not sure I've ever actually been asked for it. I quoted you the rate of Texans who lack the form of ID proposed to be required. Do you have evidence the rate of Irish people who lack a passport, a driving licence ... and an employee identity card containing a photograph, a student identity card issued by an educational institution containing a photograph, a travel document containing your name and photograph, a bank or savings or credit union book containing your address in the constituency or local electoral area, a public services card, a temporary residence certificate, or a Garda national immigration bureau card?

Pretty sure it's not 7.5%.

Of course people who cannot even organise an ID for themselves are exactly the type of voters Democratics want and exploit for pure political gains.

So in other words, you favour ID laws not to bear down on the documentedly tiny rate of fraud... but as a form of "voter qualification" in and of themselves?

You've just stipulated to the entire voter suppression case. Merely added your own commentary about what a great idea you think it is.

alaimacerc

jank wrote: »

Of course, when the stats prove you are wrong, [...]

Yes, the stats proving you wrong. Please get back to us on that at your earliest convenience.

jank

alaimacerc wrote: »

In theory you do.

Which means I am correct, you need to have an I.D

Personal identification
You must bring a valid form of personal identification, such as a passport or driving licence, with you when you go to vote.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/referenda/voting_in_a_referendum.html

jank

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, the stats proving you wrong. Please get back to us on that at your earliest convenience.

How so?

Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
USA: 809
Ireland: 513

The argumenet put forward was

the average Irish person owns a car and has travelled abroad, while the average American does/has not.

Which was in a lose reference to Americans requiring a drivers license.
It is up to the original poster to prove these claims now as I have provided data to show that not only does the average American have a car but they are MORE likely than an Irish person to have a car, thus more likely to have a drivers license...

Are you claiming that an 'average' american will not have a car?

A Primal Nut

The Republicans have a big problem with opportunistic candidates who know they won't win or don't want to. But they are going for it anyway in order to get the benefits to write a book, after dinner speeches and just attention and fame in general.

Donald Trump is an example. Given how important the Hispanic vote is in this election, particularly in key States like Florida; there is no way he would insult Mexicans like he did in his announcement speech if he was serious about winning.

The problem for the Republican party is they become guilty by association and this damages their chances even if an Hispanic-friendly Jeb Bush wins the primary.

20Cent

Notable that Jeb Bush has dropped his second name from his logo. The exclamation mark is weird too.

lochderg

jank wrote: »

Wages will only rise when there is inflation to justify it. .

unless you're a CEO or a banker or a lawyer or a .........

K-9

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The "Obamaphone" urban legend sounds like classic "welfare queen" bollocks. There's a real whiff of "DEM DARKIES BE STEALIN MUH MONEY!!1!!" off it.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Don't you get it? Dem minorities welfare-spongers are less likely to have ID than good honest white working folk. :rolleyes:

Mod: We allow a certain element of satire but repeating it isn't clever. Try and add something to the posts rather than derisive comments.

Amerika wrote: »

Then don't.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Blah, blah, blah, typical conservative gutter talk, it's not even worth responding to.

Yep, please don't if that's what ye are both going to say. Play nice folks!

eire4

If those who pretend that the various different voter ID laws were all about preventing voter fraud which is not a problem currently there is one very simple way of doing so.
Each state could issue a voter ID card and send it to each voter at no cost to that individual. But that is not going to happen because the voter ID laws are about stopping people from voting not preventing voter fraud which simply is not a serious problem at all.

To help with increasing voter turnout I would also suggest making election day a national holiday so it would be much easier for most people to vote.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

If those who pretend that the various different voter ID laws were all about preventing voter fraud which is not a problem currently there is one very simple way of doing so.
Each state could issue a voter ID card and send it to each voter at no cost to that individual. But that is not going to happen because the voter ID laws are about stopping people from voting not preventing voter fraud which simply is not a serious problem at all.

To help with increasing voter turnout I would also suggest making election day a national holiday so it would be much easier for most people to vote.

Here in Pennsylvania we enacted a voter ID law in 2012, which required voters produce a state-approved photo ID at the polls.

So as not to disenfranchise anyone the State set up means to get a FREE state approved photo ID.
http://www.pasenate.com/need-a-photo-id-i-can-help#apply

Last year a judge struck down Pennsylvania’s 2012 voter ID law.

Being as we have one of the most corrupt and powerful cities when it come to voting, in Philadelphia (which in fact dictates at the polls how the state goes -- due to it’s massive population), I guess you'd have to rationalize that the law was not struck down because it unreasonably burdened the fundamental right to vote, but rather to protect voter fraud.

Anyone remember this from Philadelphia in the 2008 election?

Our US DOJ determined the investigation (which was about concluded and a slam dunk that voter laws were violated) was to be dropped and no charges filed... Nothing to see here, please move along. I guess that's one of the type of unproven things that don't ever get into the statistics everyone likes to bandy about.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Here in Pennsylvania we enacted a voter ID law in 2012, which required voters produce a state-approved photo ID at the polls.

So as not to disenfranchise anyone the State set up means to get a FREE state approved photo ID.
http://www.pasenate.com/need-a-photo-id-i-can-help#apply

Last year a judge struck down Pennsylvania’s 2012 voter ID law.

Being as we have one of the most corrupt and powerful cities when it come to voting, in Philadelphia (which in fact dictates at the polls how the state goes -- due to it’s massive population), I guess you'd have to rationalize that the law was not struck down because it unreasonably burdened the fundamental right to vote, but rather to protect voter fraud.

Anyone remember this from Philadelphia in the 2008 election?

Our US DOJ determined the investigation (which was about concluded and a slam dunk that voter laws were violated) was to be dropped and no charges filed... Nothing to see here, please move along. I guess that's one of the type of unproven things that don't ever get into the statistics everyone likes to bandy about.

Again I said an easy way to deal with this issue if those who claim it is about voter fraud even though that is not a serious issue would be simply to send ID's to voters at no cost to the voters.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Here in Pennsylvania we enacted a voter ID law in 2012, which required voters produce a state-approved photo ID at the polls.

So as not to disenfranchise anyone the State set up means to get a FREE state approved photo ID.
http://www.pasenate.com/need-a-photo-id-i-can-help#apply

Last year a judge struck down Pennsylvania’s 2012 voter ID law.

Being as we have one of the most corrupt and powerful cities when it come to voting, in Philadelphia (which in fact dictates at the polls how the state goes -- due to it’s massive population), I guess you'd have to rationalize that the law was not struck down because it unreasonably burdened the fundamental right to vote, but rather to protect voter fraud.

Anyone remember this from Philadelphia in the 2008 election?

Our US DOJ determined the investigation (which was about concluded and a slam dunk that voter laws were violated) was to be dropped and no charges filed... Nothing to see here, please move along. I guess that's one of the type of unproven things that don't ever get into the statistics everyone likes to bandy about.

Have you a link to that investigation?