She’s 86. She can’t get a photo ID. Look at the voter fraud we’ve prevented

Posted by $ nickursis 9 years, 2 months ago to Politics
56 comments | Share | Flag

While this is a Republicrat basher, it does point out something to remember, and note when told "not so". Laws get manipulated for every purpose imaginable, and sold using someother totally unrelated justification. I'm ok with proving you are a citizen, as well as having to stake it all in one place so you don't get counted like a lot of democratic voters do: several times. But the common sense approach would be to use existing records and let it go at that. Next manipulation will be to allow anyone to register with a K mart receipt, and then back it will go when the ruling party changes hands.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oregon went down the same road and I never heard if it went through. They wanted it to be automatic, so if you got as license, you got registered. The issue that most people fought was they were giving licenses to illegal immigrants, knowing they were such. I had to pay 60.00 to Delaware to get my "real" birth certificate, despite the fact I have an ID card issued by the military. I think the point to be made is both parties manipulate the rules and laws for their own ends, and lie out their a@@es to get them. The whole vote by mail ripoff just makes it worse here, you never know what the real count is, just what the County Clerk makes up. So we had a Republicrat candidate for County Commissioner start with a 105 vote lead, that dwindled through several recounts to a loss of 5 votes to the incumbent. And no one questioned it...when I asked where we go to witness the vote counting I was told you can't, it's in a "secured" part of the county courthouse..secured from who?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Timelord 9 years, 2 months ago
    Naturally that article had to be written as an editorial and not hard news - as if we ever get any hard news these days. I'm blown away that she had a problem with her maiden name vs her married name. Seeing that her name as listed on her birth certificate and her other documentation was consistent with a married woman the voter registration should have continued without any fuss at all.

    If the editorialist were interested in the truth he would have contacted the registrar of voters, the DMV, the assemblyman or senator that represented her town, and either the Secretary of the State or a county official, depending on how things like that work in that state. That would have allowed him to get several explanations of the current law vs past law and how current law is supposed to be implemented. That registrar of voters may not have followed the rules, or maybe the rules are seriously f'ed up right now, but at least we'd know. Instead he chose to write a sensational story about an old woman whose rights are being trampled by evil Republicans. (In CT each town has at least two registrars of voters, one Republican and one Democrat. If it's like that where she is then why didn't the editorial list which one turned her down? Was it both?)

    The assertion that the Republicans intention was to make voting harder rather than easier is absurd, typical progressive bullshit. Nobody wants to make voting harder but the integrity of the voter rolls is one of the most important functions of government.

    I have run for Secretary of the State of Connecticut twice, on the Libertarian ticket. During my first campaign I attended a candidates' forum with one of the registrars of voters associations. It was in the very early days of "motor voter," where voter registration was being allowed at the same time your got your driver's license. The registrars were, as a group, not at all pleased. They took their duty as protectors of the integrity of the voting lists extremely seriously.

    One of the main duties of the Secretary of the State as described in the CT constitution is to maintain the integrity of the voter rolls. Our current SOTS has just proposed that people should be automatically registered to vote when they get their driver's license. Never mind that CT issues drivers licenses to "undocumented citizens." One can argue the wisdom of that, but one cannot make an argument that illegal aliens are permitted to vote in political elections in CT without tearing up the laws that say otherwise.

    Democrats, Greens and other progressives get hopping mad when you bring up voter fraud and scream at you that there has never been any. They have to scream because otherwise people would hear your rebuttal listing many, many documented cases of rampant voter fraud in CT.

    Lastly, one can look at every law or regulation that we consider "good" and find examples of people who are hurt by it, and it will always appear to be absurd. It will, in fact, probably actually be absurd. That's insufficient to declare it a bad law.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 2 months ago
    It's amusing that the party that wants to give the government more control over all aspects of our economy and our lives is steadfastly against voter id because the government is incompetent at giving out id cards in a reasonable fashion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is indeed correct, I think since she represents the majority of the sheeple, the system has evolved to support and nurture them. They just can't help themselves...like addicts...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 2 months ago
    While I hate that the beauracracy is making a mess again, this woman's process of deciding who to vote for is one reason the fedgov never changes for the better.
    Voted for GOP for 65 years. Why change just because they have betrayed me for 65 years?.
    Suffrage should be limited to those who can show thinking ability.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo