Republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters?

[rgraham666]

Unfortunately, Bel, that may not be true.

The truth might not set you free.

 

[DesertPirate]

I hear the MI state GOP is going to sue the Soros-funded website that created this for libel.

That would be justice. Use that idiots money to finance Republican candidates.

 

[cloudy]

That would be justice. Use that idiots money to finance Republican candidates.

Just what the repugs need: more money.

Haven't they stolen enough of mine and YOURS already?

 

[Belegon]

Unfortunately, Bel, that may not be true.

The truth might not set you free.

Rob, no amount of research can ever prove to me that the fight is futile... only that it is difficult.

 

[rgraham666]

Never futile. But not as easy as we hope.

 

[DesertPirate]

Just what the repugs need: more money.

Haven't they stolen enough of mine and YOURS already?

For some reason I have trouble with the thinking of a Billionaire who seems to be socialist. There is something very wrong with that picture. He is also the money that keeps flame sites like MoveOn and the DaileyKos alive.

 

[Belegon]

I keep seeing the Daily Kos mentioned places and I've never even looked at it. Maybe I should, just to satisfy my curiousity.

 

[rgraham666]

And here I thought freedom of speech, conscience and association were the cornerstones of America.

I guess I was wrong.

 

[Belegon]

For some reason I have trouble with the thinking of a Billionaire who seems to be socialist. There is something very wrong with that picture. He is also the money that keeps flame sites like MoveOn and the DaileyKos alive.

Your flaw is in the word.

We don't have any fascists or socialists or communists in this election. Not really. Those have just become words we throw at politicians we disagree with.

 

[cloudy]

For some reason I have trouble with the thinking of a Billionaire who seems to be socialist. There is something very wrong with that picture. He is also the money that keeps flame sites like MoveOn and the DaileyKos alive.

Continued willful ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Just who do you think is responsible for the current economic meltdown we're experiencing? (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehmann Bros, AIG....any of that sound familiar?)

And McCain says (as lately as yesterday, ffs) that our economy is "sound." Please explain that one.

 

[DesertPirate]

Your flaw is in the word.

We don't have any fascists or socialists or communists in this election. Not really. Those have just become words we throw at politicians we disagree with.

Just the Billionaire pushing and financing the far left agenda. That's all. He has said he would spen $500 million to get a Dem President this time. The 200 he wasted on Kerry didn't work.

And some think it's the Republicans that always buy an election.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just what the repugs need: more money.

Haven't they stolen enough of mine and YOURS already?

Unless things have changed very recently, Obama has more money in his campaign chest than McCain. He definitely spent more in the primaries.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Your flaw is in the word.

We don't have any fascists or socialists or communists in this election. Not really. Those have just become words we throw at politicians we disagree with.

I agree there are no Communists or Fascists. I'm not so sure of the lack of Socialists, though. Of course, that is pretty much a matter of degree.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I keep seeing the Daily Kos mentioned places and I've never even looked at it. Maybe I should, just to satisfy my curiousity.

Probably, but you probably wouldn't like it. It's the fever swamp of the loony left.

 

[Liar]

Just the Billionaire pushing and financing the far left agenda. That's all. He has said he would spen $500 million to get a Dem President this time.

Dude, if you call the american Democrats "far left", you need a new political map.

I agree there are no Communists or Fascists. I'm not so sure of the lack of Socialists, though. Of course, that is pretty much a matter of degree.

Erm. No. Socialism, like Communism, is a quite well defined political philosophy. Most left-leaning political movements of today, the Democrats included, have adopted selected socialist ideas into their own direction, but far far from the whole package. In fact, there are parts of the old-school socialist program (parts that deals with limiting individuals' rights to privacy and personal integrity), that the RIGHT have been adopting lately, both in the US and in Europe.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I keep seeing the Daily Kos mentioned places and I've never even looked at it. Maybe I should, just to satisfy my curiousity.

Probably, but you probably wouldn't like it. It's the fever swamp of the loony left.

 

[cloudy]

Just who do you think is responsible for the current economic meltdown we're experiencing? (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehmann Bros, AIG....any of that sound familiar?)

And McCain says (as lately as yesterday, ffs) that our economy is "sound." Please explain that one.

I'm waiting.

Anyone? Bueller?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Sorry. There are a whole bunch of federal laws controlling the federal part of any election. This is not controlled by state law and the federal laws, not any state laws set forth who can vote--and how--in a federal election. When you go to the polls you are voting in either a state-only balloting or you are voting in a combined federal and state balloting. It's all transparent, but there are two sets of election laws in play. And for the federal part of the election, it is the federal law that prevails.

It's nonsense to think that everything we do is controlled either in the wording of the U.S. Constitution or it flips down to the state level. There have been two hundred years worth of federal law building up since the U.S. Constitution was inked, and its all just as binding as the Constitution is (until/unless the U.S. Supreme Court abrogates it as not compatible with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution).

Bottom line: You are absolutely wrong that state law controls voting in a federal election.

There is no guarantee to vote in the constitution or in any federal laws. It's up to the states to who has the right to vote in any election held within the boarders of that state. The federal laws only limit the amount of discrimination that can be applied.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

True. I've got a driver's license and I definitely shouldn't be able to vote. And I can't think of anything similarly obvious that a citizen could use as proof he/she's a citizen that I don't have.

A birth certificate comes to mind. Or a US Passport.

 

[sr71plt]

There is no guarantee to vote in the constitution or in any federal laws. It's up to the states to who has the right to vote in any election held within the boarders of that state. The federal laws only limit the amount of discrimination that can be applied.

As I posted, you are wrong. Federal elections are controlled by federal law. No matter how many times to say it, you will be wrong.

I am an election official and have been for ten years. I know who controls what in an election.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I know. Green card holders are routinely issued dirvers' licenses. I don't remember now what is required to get ne, outside of being old enough and passing the driving test. I also don't know what is equired to get a state ID, but there has to be more than just asking for one.

ETA: I ind your AV to be exceptionally hot also.

To get an original Drivers licenses, at state run facilities that aren't selling them, you need a birth certificate, a social security card, and proof of where you are living. Only then will they issue a state drivers license, of course you have to past the tests first. That's for US citizens...I don't know about permanent residents. I assume Naturalized Citizens have to produce their naturalization papers.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

As I posted, you are wrong. Federal elections are controlled by federal law. No matter how many times to say it, you will be wrong.

I am an election official and have been for ten years. I know who controls what in an election.

What law or amendment in the constitution provides the guarantee to vote?

 

[colddiesel]

As I posted, you are wrong. Federal elections are controlled by federal law. No matter how many times to say it, you will be wrong.

I am an election official and have been for ten years. I know who controls what in an election.

You & Zeb Carter seem to be arguing different points. If the State law controls who gets to vote (through registration and the like) how can federal law overcome that.

Similarly if the states control the voting methodology what can the feds do about it - count the hanging chads!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

You & Zeb Carter seem to be arguing different points. If the State law controls who gets to vote (through registration and the like) how can federal law overcome that.

Similarly if the states control the voting methodology what can the feds do about it - count the hanging chads!

Exactly!

 

[sr71plt]

You & Zeb Carter seem to be arguing different points. If the State law controls who gets to vote (through registration and the like) how can federal law overcome that.

Similarly if the states control the voting methodology what can the feds do about it - count the hanging chads!

The states don't get to determine that a U.S. citizen cannot vote in a federal (presidential/vice presidential) election. Federal laws exist that say they can--and states cannot fail to register a voter for a federal election. If they try, the voter can sue in federal court--and win.

And again, Zeb, not every scrap of federal law we have to follow can be found, word for word, in the Constitution. We've had 200 years of clarifying and applifying federal law that continues in effect until/unless the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down as not being compatible with the Constitution based on a lawsuit brought to the court.

The problem here--other than a hard head and little knowledge--is that (A) states do control state and local elections and (B) every four years the federal and state elections are combined. (and, thus, every four years election officials have to keep straight in their minds what set of laws to follow in relation to what the voter is trying to vote.)

The chads issue was on how to read/count votes, not who had a right to vote in a federal election.

Last time I'll try to post on this. You Yahoos can believe whatever your hard heads tell you to. I work the elections, and have no trouble discerning who gets to do what in them.