Yes there is it is because many people do not have them, the poor, the elderly and some groups such as nuns do not often have one. I do not care one way or another it is simply more distractions being played upon the citizens to get them to not notice the important issues.
They don't have them because they haven't taken the time to get one, have no interest in voting, or do not have the wherewithal to vote. If you have the wherewithal to vote, you have the wherewithal to get a voter ID. There's no reason for anyone to be against voter ID, unless they have a vested interest in fraudulent voting.
I believe that whether the winning candidates have a 'D' or an 'R' next to their name the rich/elitists are covered, and the American people are the true losers of this election, as they are in almost every election.
Why would an old person need one, they no longer drive or travel so what do they need an ID for? Why does a nun need one? What voter fraud, there are no major cases of it, got some real data there? - - - Updated - - - I wonder why so many are against removing that designation from the ballets, are they afraid their voters are too stupid to know who they are supposed to vote for?
I disagree...time and again we 'prove' in court that an election was cooked by more folk voting that should ha been eligible but the courts always respond asking for proof the bogus votes went to any particular candidate, an impossible burden to prove. In Frankin's case there were at least two counties near Green Bay that provided more votes than the population. When Sanchez beat Bob Dornen the judge acknowledged there were more 'extra' votes than the margin of the 'win' but still refused a new election as no one could prove who all those illegal votes went for. and and http://humanevents.com/2007/12/04/the-stunning-reality-of-voter-fraud/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfre...fraud-revelations-call-for-ways-to-reduce-it/
Why should any group be exempted from confirming their identity? As I said, if you have the wherewithal to vote, you have the wherewithal to obtain a voter ID. You can't effectively count the extent of in-person voter fraud until you create a system that effectively detects it, and that is the intent of voter ID laws. That being said, the greater quantity of known fraud comes from absentee ballots, manipulation by political insiders, campaign officials, and election officials. The other type is registration fraud, with ACORN getting sacked for 22 convictions in 7 states.
Yep. http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/Do democrats always win close statewide elections For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time.
Although election fraud is a given, it appears that it only works on close races. But I'm surprised how much voter fraud has already been detected in early voting. The mind reels at what's going to happen on election day. Voter Fraud, the Democrats Secret Weapon
Yeah, that pretty much confirms what I've been noticing for years now. If it's a close race, expect the Democrat to win.
Because the process stops being a vote count and shifts into simple fraud and the dems are better at that....
I'm sure Fox has lined up its excuses already and has taken yours into account. Reps are good at that.
That's it, politics and polls are about 'thinking'. What you believe. To activate someones thought process, not to calm it down, because that would slow down a political 'war'. Polls do the same as politics. Keeps the voter's mind in either a state of 'fear', or in a state of 'relief' for the 'opposition' (red bs blue, left vs right, that candidate vs this candidate, etc) And when you think and say what you see, you slowly start to wake up, and when others agree they too (problem is rising) So you cannot even say what you think about politics or polls ot talk about what you believe, because these political weapons can cause an awakening at the moment you start to see through one. Politics and polls itself can work as awakening propaganda (reruns and repetitions of the same 'grey' -> politicians always sound the same, and polls do the same. In this world you will not find any politician that is using politics that will slow down a political battle or the political process ('war'), because politicians have one job, to keep the voter 'at war'. There is reason why, when a political 'war' ends the politicians have no more 'jobs' ... that is for a while, when they more into the streets with bullhorns or on squares to keep the 'war' going on (now moved from a political 'battle ground' to a new 'front', the revolts)
On the cusp of the vote....9 Senate seats and 11 House ones...Not sure about the governors...Think Walker pulls it off.
Manipulating the public is down to a science in this day and age. Presenting/maintaining extreme opposites and playing on that as the only two viable choices assures that the will of the people is neutered especially when both parties are owned by the same entities, the rich/elites. The social issues, the government for the most part has no business meddling with, are there totally for misdirection. As the population play the race card, fight over religious nonsense, and establish opposing sides through apposing viewpoints, the divide and conquer ploy is established and working. Keep your eyes on the bouncing non-issue, and the plutocracy can and will thrive with nobody paying attention to what they are really up too.
Well, I guess I'll go with my skeptical view of just +5, for a 50/50 split and Democrat control. Iowa, Georgia, and North Carolina are all toss-ups as I see it, so I have those three close ones in the Democrat camp. I hope I'm wrong though.
I prognosticated 9 senate and 10 House seats won...As Iowa, NC and Alaska are all pending and all will go GOP (NC is 97% reported with the GOP up 47,000 votes). Iowa is showing a solid GOP lead and that is growing...La is in a runoff with the GOP an almost sure winner...FOX just gave Iowa to the GOP...that makes six plus NC, Alaska, and the run off in La, all GOP and that makes 9....The 10 House seats are also done deals.
What the right wing is in denial about is basically this... The GOP will have to defend 24 seats in 2016.. And speaking of midterm elections, this past midterm election had the lowest voter turnout since 1942 with a record 65% registered Democrats not showing up to vote, which right wingers are delusionally seeing as Democrats voting for the other party...Not! The lack of voters showing up is largely being attributed to sending a message to the Democratic leadership to grow a pair and it seems to be working if you look at Obama's past week...Climate Change, Keystone, Immigration, etc. That being said, it always amazes me that the Republican base actually supports a party that does zero in the policy department that does not favor big oil and the other corporate giants. Like shoveling (*)(*)(*)(*) against the tide to explain to them that they are inconsequential to the current GOP.
In other words: The GOP (and its various components) cannot continue thinking, talking and ACTING insane in perpetuity... and also 'win' elections. Most Americans are sane and decent. - - - Updated - - - ... an election cycle. A single battle. But the political war continues.
Sure, the GOP will have to defend 24 seats. And? Where do you think they're scared of defending? Utah? Idaho? ND? SD? KS? MO, AR, IA, LA, AL, GA, SC, KY, NC, FL, IN? Yeah, they have a lot of seats to defend - that doesn't mean that they're vulnerable. They hold senate seats in IL and PA that they're bound to lose. They have a toss up in Wisconsin, and FL might open up. You never know with Florida. But, so what? There's two seats there the GOP is bound to lose, and two toss ups. So we can 'average' and expect them to lose 3 seats... They've got 53, soon to be 54 with the LA runoff. That puts them at 51. Whoopty-do, still a majority, but that's not the end of it. The Democrats are vulnerable in NV - it is, at least, a toss up there. But Democrats are VERY vulnerable in CO - so the Democrats will lose one or two seats as it stands today. That puts the GOP at walking away in 2016 with 52 or 53 seats. 1. Yes, voter turnout was low, but that doesn't itself explain why Democrats lost. Voter turnout wasn't much higher in 2006 - and Democrats won major victories then. Yes, voter turnout was low - but that's no reason to skip over Obama's approval hovering around 40%, or his signature legislation hovering around 37%. 2. Yes, let's talk about keystone and immigration. Voters trust the GOP more on it. Only 26% of Americans support the Democratic amnesty plan. 62% of Americans say that border security needs to come first. 78% favor voter ID. 61% support Keystone, only 27% oppose it. Yeah, most of we sane and decent Americans can see through the hyper-partisan rhetoric tossed about.
It's not only about rhetoric and is certainly about the effects of the policies pursued. We have two good years of seeing what increased Republican power will do... I really do hope the outcomes are positive.
