H.R. 1 And The Fight For Voting Rights -- We The People!

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, Unforgiven said:

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/nearly-9-in-10-call-voter-photo-id-common-sense-most-back-limits-on-mail-in-ballots

 

Nearly nine-in-10 call voter photo ID 'common sense,' most back limits on mail-in ballots

 

Slow down the giddiness tibs...cheating might not be as easy next time after all.

 

 

No one objects to this but the political class...........ask yourself why.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

18 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No one objects to this but the political class...........ask yourself why.

 

 

 

 

 

We are the political class. The people want easy access to voting. But keep lying. That's all you have are lies. 

[Tiberius]

These people claim voter fraud 

 

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

We are the political class. The people want easy access to voting. But keep lying. That's all you have are lies. 

 

 

No we are not.  That is the problem for both Left and Right.

 

 

I dare you to ACTUALLY read that article about what "people want"

 

 

9 out of ten  

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No we are not.  That is the problem for both Left and Right.

 

 

I dare you to ACTUALLY read that article about what "people want"

 

 

9 out of ten  

 

 

 

 

We the People! 

[Unforgiven]

 

[B-Man]

People cannot take part in today’s society without an ID, and pretending minorities are too stupid to get an ID is real racism.

 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[Tenhigh]

On 3/21/2021 at 1:33 PM, Tiberius said:

These people claim voter fraud 

 

Jesus man, be better than this. 

[oldmanfan]

I have said before and will say again that I don’t have a problem with required IDs so long as every voter can easily obtain one.  But, I do have a problem with actively trying to take away people’s constitutional right to vote.  That is reprehensible and cannot be tolerated in this country. 
 

I am assuming some of these moronic laws that are trying to be passed will end up being overturned in court.  But if through some bizarre reason they aren’t then I will stand up and fight.  And I’ll start by filling my car with cases of water and traveling to Georgia when they have their next election.

Think about this: a state is saying you cannot give a thirsty person water.  If any of these people in support of such actually profess to being Christian while actively pursuing anti-Christlike behavior, they should burn in hell.

[snafu]

Would H.R.1 even pass a Constitutional challenge?

Seems like Congress is passing a law for matters it has no power over.

 

[BillStime]

When the voters don’t pick you - you pick the voters!

 

Michigan GOP leader reveals plans to go around Whitmer for voting law overhaul

 

Georgia’s Republican-led legislature passes sweeping voting restrictions

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

Would H.R.1 even pass a Constitutional challenge?

Seems like Congress is passing a law for matters it has no power over.

 

Will denying people their constitutional right to vote pass a challenge?  Will saying I can’t give someone a bottle of water?

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Will denying people their constitutional right to vote pass a challenge?  Will saying I can’t give someone a bottle of water?

 

Is anyone actually denied their right to vote, or is that a narrative?

I'd bet that a national law passed to correct voter suppression would be fine, and I have no problem with that.  I think there are aspects of this particular bill that go beyond.  The States have historically been allowed to make their own voting laws.  The reason why there's no uniform national law by now is because that's probably beyond the powers granted to Congress.

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 3/21/2021 at 12:43 PM, Tiberius said:

We are the political class. The people want easy access to voting. But keep lying. That's all you have are lies. 

I’m definitely not a corrupt politician or ally of one enriching myself stealing from working taxpayers, I mean part of the political class. 
 

You may be part of the political class, that would make a lot of sense. 

 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Is anyone actually denied their right to vote, or is that a narrative?

I'd bet that a national law passed to correct voter suppression would be fine, and I have no problem with that.  I think there are aspects of this particular bill that go beyond.  The States have historically been allowed to make their own voting laws.  The reason why there's no uniform national law by now is because that's probably beyond the powers granted to Congress.

 

Some of the states are trying to deny people’s rights.  That is my opinion.  As for HR 1 and it’s constitutionality I think you’d have to compare to the Voting Rights Act back in the 60’s.  That indicates there is a role for the federal government.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

9 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Is anyone actually denied their right to vote, or is that a narrative?

I'd bet that a national law passed to correct voter suppression would be fine, and I have no problem with that.  I think there are aspects of this particular bill that go beyond.  The States have historically been allowed to make their own voting laws.  The reason why there's no uniform national law by now is because that's probably beyond the powers granted to Congress.

 

 
Absolutely.
 

The fundamental fear that underpinned the founding fathers thinking was that powerful central governments equated to the tyranny of the British empire. And thus much of the constitution and the structure of government as outlined was to systematically resist all powerful tyrannical central governments. 

[snafu]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Some of the states are trying to deny people’s rights.  That is my opinion.  As for HR 1 and it’s constitutionality I think you’d have to compare to the Voting Rights Act back in the 60’s.  That indicates there is a role for the federal government.

 

Yes, I was considering the Voting Rights Act, and I have no problem with that law.  I'm not sure it was ever challenged (it is before my time).  I don't think any state is trying to take away someone's right to have the opportunity to vote.  Voters aren't baby birds with their mouths open to the sky.  If someone wants to vote then who's stopping that person?  I believe that codifying the rules and regulations put in place during a government-mandated shutdown of vast parts of our country during a pandemic isn't really the example or standard to measure "normal" voting cycles.  Plus, to my other point, I believe that H.R.1 adds other provisions not having to do with actual voting -- like trying to govern gerrymandering (a State right).

 

They could have made this pretty simple: (A) voter ID, (B) make Election Day a holiday.  They could have pushed States to open polls up to the weekend prior to Election Day through that Tuesday.  H.R.1 seems to go far beyond that.

 

 

Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 
Absolutely.
 

The fundamental fear that underpinned the founding fathers thinking was that powerful central governments equated to the tyranny of the British empire. And thus much of the constitution and the structure of government as outlined was to systematically resist all powerful tyrannical central governments. 

 

 

Looks a lot like sliding from Republic toward Empire.

 

 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Yes, I was considering the Voting Rights Act, and I have no problem with that law.  I'm not sure it was ever challenged (it is before my time).  I don't think any state is trying to take away someone's right to have the opportunity to vote.  Voters aren't baby birds with their mouths open to the sky.  If someone wants to vote then who's stopping that person?  I believe that codifying the rules and regulations put in place during a government-mandated shutdown of vast parts of our country during a pandemic isn't really the example or standard to measure "normal" voting cycles.  Plus, to my other point, I believe that H.R.1 adds other provisions not having to do with actual voting -- like trying to govern gerrymandering (a State right).

 

They could have made this pretty simple: (A) voter ID, (B) make Election Day a holiday.  They could have pushed States to open polls up to the weekend prior to Election Day through that Tuesday.  H.R.1 seems to go far beyond that.

 

 

I agree there are things in HR 1 that don’t belong

[B-Man]

Democrats (with help from their friends in the media) have set the narrative on Republican voter ID bills in several states, which Democrats claim are actually attempts to prevent people from voting.

 

I agree with Mollie.

 

 

[Tiberius]

16 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Democrats (with help from their friends in the media) have set the narrative on Republican voter ID bills in several states, which Democrats claim are actually attempts to prevent people from voting.

 

I agree with Mollie.

 

 

Well, no reason to pass laws that make it harder to vote. So why are Republicans trying to reduce the opportunities for people to vote? Because they can’t win otherwise? Yup 

[daz28]

I think everyone should have to present ID when they enter a store.  There's 10 million times more shoplifting than their is proven voter fraud.

[keepthefaith]

15 hours ago, daz28 said:

I think everyone should have to present ID when they enter a store.  There's 10 million times more shoplifting than their is proven voter fraud.

 

We don't prosecute that either at least not in the city of Chicago. 

 

 

On 3/26/2021 at 11:40 AM, BillStime said:

 

 

Well I guess that settles it

Edited March 28, 2021 by keepthefaith

[SoCal Deek]

16 hours ago, daz28 said:

I think everyone should have to present ID when they enter a store.  There's 10 million times more shoplifting than their is proven voter fraud.

Huh?  You do to have to show ID to legally buy just about ANYTHING these days.

[daz28]

I would have thought that the 5 year prison sentence for voter fraud would have been a better deterrent than showing ID.  Kids get cigarettes and alcohol with fake ID.  

[SectionC3]

On 3/8/2021 at 8:57 AM, Wacka said:

GFY

 

That response is ineloquent even for you. 

[oldmanfan]

A standard federal voter ID should be made available to all over the age of 18.  And it needs to be a uniform way to get it that allow those in rural areas, or inner cities where travel is difficult, or for the elderly to have equal access.

[daz28]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

A standard federal voter ID should be made available to all over the age of 18.  And it needs to be a uniform way to get it that allow those in rural areas, or inner cities where travel is difficult, or for the elderly to have equal access.

Exactly.  Why should you even have to register in a country that has no trouble finding you if you owe taxes.  If voting is a RIGHT, then I should be sent 5 voter ID cards in case I lose the first 4.

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

A standard federal voter ID should be made available to all over the age of 18.  And it needs to be a uniform way to get it that allow those in rural areas, or inner cities where travel is difficult, or for the elderly to have equal access.

That might work but States have some leeway in how they handle elections so it might be at that level.  But I am still not clear on what fact based and objective concerns people have against the requirement of people identifying themselves as "valid" voters?  What is so difficult or such a big imposition of having to show some form of valid ID?  What keep citizens, specifically objections about how it impacts minorities, from acquiring a valid voter registration ID?  Many of us are "proofed" almost daily and I'd expect those same objections should apply to these other requirements but I hear no objections to those situations.  

[daz28]

9 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

That might work but States have some leeway in how they handle elections so it might be at that level.  But I am still not clear on what fact based and objective concerns people have against the requirement of people identifying themselves as "valid" voters?  What is so difficult or such a big imposition of having to show some form of valid ID?  What keep citizens, specifically objections about how it impacts minorities, from acquiring a valid voter registration ID?  Many of us are "proofed" almost daily and I'd expect those same objections should apply to these other requirements but I hear no objections to those situations.  

My issue is that Georgia loses bigly(and Trump spreads the big lie), and then decides it's time for voter law changes.  The end game of being "proofed" is keeping substances out of the hands of children, because it's a FACT that they will try to obtain them illegally.  These laws were passed based on LIES about voter fraud.  Huge difference.  I'm all for voter ID if the federal government recognizes voting as a RIGHT, and provides them for everyone.  Trust me, the government knows who each and every citizen in this country is.  if you thinks it's easy to get lost in the shuffle, try not paying your taxes.  If you'd like to show me "fact based" reasoning FOR voter ID, then I'd appreciate that.  1.000 cases of voter fraud out of billions of votes doesn't show a need for voter ID.

Edited March 28, 2021 by daz28

[oldmanfan]

9 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

That might work but States have some leeway in how they handle elections so it might be at that level.  But I am still not clear on what fact based and objective concerns people have against the requirement of people identifying themselves as "valid" voters?  What is so difficult or such a big imposition of having to show some form of valid ID?  What keep citizens, specifically objections about how it impacts minorities, from acquiring a valid voter registration ID?  Many of us are "proofed" almost daily and I'd expect those same objections should apply to these other requirements but I hear no objections to those situations.  

Because some people, especially those in lower socioeconomic circumstances, may not have either a photo ID currently, nor have the ability to access one.  When I am asked for an ID I either have to show my driver’s license or a passport.  Some people have neither.

 

I suggest a federal form of ID as they already do thus with a Social Security card. Maybe that’s the answer, show your SS card and say an electric bill or something to verify.

 

My point is simple: I can see the point of an ID but then the corollary is that there should be no state laws that actively try to limit or take away someone’s access to vote. The games like limiting polling places in areas where more people of the opposing party vote, or the truly disgusting law that tells me I can’t offer a bottle of water to someone waiting to carry out their constitutional right to vote, need to disappear.

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Because some people, especially those in lower socioeconomic circumstances, may not have either a photo ID currently, nor have the ability to access one.  When I am asked for an ID I either have to show my driver’s license or a passport.  Some people have neither.

 

I suggest a federal form of ID as they already do thus with a Social Security card. Maybe that’s the answer, show your SS card and say an electric bill or something to verify.

 

My point is simple: I can see the point of an ID but then the corollary is that there should be no state laws that actively try to limit or take away someone’s access to vote. The games like limiting polling places in areas where more people of the opposing party vote, or the truly disgusting law that tells me I can’t offer a bottle of water to someone waiting to carry out their constitutional right to vote, need to disappear.

This is my issue as well.  They want to take poor people who owe a fine they can't afford to pay(or many other reasons) to lose their voting rights.  I know many conservatives have been pushing for voter ID for years and I understand their concerns, BUT I'm completely displeased that these same people can't see what the Republicans are trying to do here.  it's clear as day.  If you accuse your neighbor's dog of pooping in your yard(even though he didn't), and you put up a fence the next day, we all know the reasoning for it.  

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

This is my issue as well.  They want to take poor people who owe a fine they can't afford to pay(or many other reasons) to lose their voting rights.  I know many conservatives have been pushing for voter ID for years and I understand their concerns, BUT I'm completely displeased that these same people can't see what the Republicans are trying to do here.  it's clear as day.  If you accuse your neighbor's dog of pooping in your yard(even though he didn't), and you put up a fence the next day, we all know the reasoning for it.  

All this crap started because Trump put it in people’s heads that if he lost it must be fraud.  Absolutely no day to suggest that happened but because the Republican Party has ceded control and fealty to this guy, here we are.  They’ve ceded control to a guy who lost the Executive and legislative branches.

 

When the Republicans get beat in 2022 and 2024, because the extreme Trump supported candidates lose, we’ll get back to some sense of normality.  Or until he gets arrested.

 

 

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

All this crap started because Trump put it in people’s heads that if he lost it must be fraud.  Absolutely no day to suggest that happened but because the Republican Party has ceded control and fealty to this guy, here we are.  They’ve ceded control to a guy who lost the Executive and legislative branches.

 

When the Republicans get beat in 2022 and 2024, because the extreme Trump supported candidates lose, we’ll get back to some sense of normality.  Or until he gets arrested.

 

 

I'll save them from replying to your post:

 

ARRESTED FOR WHAT EXACTLY?  

 

Now I'll save them from replying to me:

 

For planning a rally about a big lie of election fraud on the day of certification, then leading people to the Capitol to try to undo a certified American election after telling them they will lose their country if they don't.  

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I'll save them from replying to your post:

 

ARRESTED FOR WHAT EXACTLY?  

 

Now I'll save them from replying to me:

 

For planning a rally about a big lie of election fraud on the day of certification, then leading people to the Capitol to try to undo a certified American election after telling them they will lose their country if they don't.  

No, he’ll get caught like Capone got caught.  Tax evasion and such.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

My issue is that Georgia loses bigly(and Trump spreads the big lie), and then decides it's time for voter law changes.  The end game of being "proofed" is keeping substances out of the hands of children, because it's a FACT that they will try to obtain them illegally.  These laws were passed based on LIES about voter fraud.  Huge difference.  I'm all for voter ID if the federal government recognizes voting as a RIGHT, and provides them for everyone.  Trust me, the government knows who each and every citizen in this country is.  if you thinks it's easy to get lost in the shuffle, try not paying your taxes.  If you'd like to show me "fact based" reasoning FOR voter ID, then I'd appreciate that.  1.000 cases of voter fraud out of billions of votes doesn't show a need for voter ID.

From a statistical perspective its a certainty there was some form of voter fraud.  No system or process is 100% effective in eliminating "defects".  Certainly not a mail in process that was thrown together rather quickly and not subject to much testing and validation.  The question is how much of it was there.   Sure there was no evidence of any "widespread" voter fraud and for all I know there wasn't but when you're not looking for something its hard to find it.

 

If you want examples of voter fraud look no further than Mayor Daley's Cook County political machine of the 1960's.  Many of the 2020 claims of fraud are consistent with the practices of the past which were also denied.  Such as in many densely populated Democratic districts were vote counting was stopped for no practical reason.  Why stop counting when the votes are right there to count?  The allegation was to wait for the rest of the state to be counted so you know how many "fake" votes you need to win the State.

 

Specific to Georgia there is a court case pending where the judge is deciding whether or not unseal the votes and allow investigators to "match" specific ballots to specific valid voters in specific counties.  The concern is how to protect the identities of the voters.  Given there was no funny business it seems logical nobody would object to this scrutiny as there is nothing to find and nothing to hide.

[daz28]

9 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

From a statistical perspective its a certainty there was some form of voter fraud.  No system or process is 100% effective in eliminating "defects".  Certainly not a mail in process that was thrown together rather quickly and not subject to much testing and validation.  The question is how much of it was there.   Sure there was no evidence of any "widespread" voter fraud and for all I know there wasn't but when you're not looking for something its hard to find it.

 

If you want examples of voter fraud look no further than Mayor Daley's Cook County political machine of the 1960's.  Many of the 2020 claims of fraud are consistent with the practices of the past which were also denied.  Such as in many densely populated Democratic districts were vote counting was stopped for no practical reason.  Why stop counting when the votes are right there to count?  The allegation was to wait for the rest of the state to be counted so you know how many "fake" votes you need to win the State.

 

Specific to Georgia there is a court case pending where the judge is deciding whether or not unseal the votes and allow investigators to "match" specific ballots to specific valid voters in specific counties.  The concern is how to protect the identities of the voters.  Given there was no funny business it seems logical nobody would object to this scrutiny as there is nothing to find and nothing to hide.

This is about more than voter ID.  As I said I have no problem with the government sending me a voter ID card, so I won't ever have to worry about not being registered ever again.  The real issue here is limiting ways and means of voting with no evidence to support why.  Why not address REAL issues like why my vote is worth less than other's votes, and why ANYONES vote is basically thrown in the trash can, and counted as a statistic, because it's winner take all.  The flyover states already have far more representation in Congress than anyone in a heavily populated area.  They're double dipping.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

This is about more than voter ID.  As I said I have no problem with the government sending me a voter ID card, so I won't ever have to worry about not being registered ever again.  The real issue here is limiting ways and means of voting with no evidence to support why.  Why not address REAL issues like why my vote is worth less than other's votes, and why ANYONES vote is basically thrown in the trash can, and counted as a statistic, because it's winner take all.  The flyover states already have far more representation in Congress than anyone in a heavily populated area.  They're double dipping.

Our national government is a republic and not a democracy.  A union of States.  The electoral college was created and designed with the intent of prohibiting a few large high population states from dictating national polices to the remainder of the States.  This was a condition for the ratification of the Constitution along with two Senators per State and proportional representation in the House.  This issue is no less true in 1789 than it is in 2021.  Absent this we'd have a few large states, California, New York, and a few others dictating all Federal policy to the rest of the nation.  What's so fair about that?      

[reddogblitz]

On 3/26/2021 at 8:07 AM, B-Man said:

People cannot take part in today’s society without an ID, and pretending minorities are too stupid to get an ID is real racism.

 

 

 

 

• Buying weed.
• Picking up chocolate bunnies at See's Candies.

 

Seriously.  I ordered some Easter candy for curb side pickup and See's sent me an email about how to pick it including I needed a government issued ID.  

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Because some people, especially those in lower socioeconomic circumstances, may not have either a photo ID currently, nor have the ability to access one.  When I am asked for an ID I either have to show my driver’s license or a passport.  Some people have neither.

 

I suggest a federal form of ID as they already do thus with a Social Security card. Maybe that’s the answer, show your SS card and say an electric bill or something to verify.

 

My point is simple: I can see the point of an ID but then the corollary is that there should be no state laws that actively try to limit or take away someone’s access to vote. The games like limiting polling places in areas where more people of the opposing party vote, or the truly disgusting law that tells me I can’t offer a bottle of water to someone waiting to carry out their constitutional right to vote, need to disappear.

 

In Washington State a person can get an ID card (not drivers license) at the Driver License Bureau.

 

https://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/idcards.html