Voter ID, Why Not?

The subject of voter ID has been around for awhile.  As most of you know, I think voting (in the Federal elections) is useless and a waste of time.  But that is for another day.  Requiring voters to have legal identification, however, just keeps rearing it’s head as a political issue.  I’m interested in getting some answers on this subject.  This will be an Open Mic Plus, as always so bring forward any subjects you choose.  Now for some questions.

1. For those against voter ID,  Why and what proof is there is “disenfranchisement” to support your side of the argument?

2.  For those who want voter ID, How much illegal activity in the voting process will this solve?  Please give proof of examples!

Let’s finally try and put this issue to rest, with PROOF, not political fairy tales.


  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    October 28, 2013 at 8:43 pm (Edit)
    I am going to repeat this over and over until you guys get it!

    Funny thing about all this , years ago, a friend of mine had two NY State Drivers licenses. One contained the name we all knew him by the other was a juxtaposition of his first and middle initials. for example. Pedro M. Rojas or P. Manuel Rojas. Used them for years so as not to build up too many points finally got caught because, he kept them both on the same side in his wallet and as he removed one the cop saw the other. I don’t think that it is ever too much to ask that people use at least one form of ID which is as fraud proof as possible. There will never be perfection.

    Buried in the story was the fact Judge Watts was allowed to vote by signing an affadavit. prominent in the story was the equation of a Birth Certificate with a “Poll Tax”. Interesting use of the term to say the least. I guess none of those people drive or ever need to secure a license since under new federal anti terrorism laws, positive ID in several forms must be provided to get a DL.

    Anybody who wants to see just how looney fraud can be is welcome to check the NJ Div. of Motor vehicles position on Birth Certificates issued by Hudson County. There was so much fraud there that none are acceptable.

    Colonel, the next time anyone questions you about voter fraud, as a matter of fact the next time ANYBODY questions any of you about voter fraud, feel free to link them with Hudson County and the New Jersey Division of Motor vehicles site.

    For those too lazy to look at the link, the State Department of the United States will NOT accept a certified Hudson County Birth Certificate either. But remember, according to Eric Holder, there is no proof of any substantial fraud ANYWHERE!

    • A couple of years ago I had to apply for a new passport. I sent them the birth certificate I have always had (six decades old) plus my old passport and other documentation. They rejected the BC because it did not have my parents name and nationality on it. Time was short so I did not have the time to order a new BC so we argued that the old passport should be good enough. They finally relented and sent me a passport. So be advised many old for BCs are no longer valid for official government services. Mine had the raised seal and was obviously old. That made no difference. If you plan on using a BC, I would advise getting a new copy.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        A few years ago I had to get a PA drivers license when I moved here. My original BC, which was just fine to get in the USAF in 1983, was suddenly not. I had to get a NEW BC with a special border around it. It complied but was not happy.

        I wonder, if a valid ID is a requirement for Welfare (not sure if it is) what would happen if it changed for not needing one to needing one?

        • It is – and that is where the whole “disenfranchises poor people” argument falls apart.

          • On the Hudson County issue, you can go to the hall of records tomorrow, pull a brand new computerized copy with raised seal and IT IS STILL NOT ACCEPTABLE. Hudson county NJ, in the past, perhaps one of the most corrupt counties in the US has a totally compromised system.

            I had totally forgotten about this. A few years back i drove a friend to have his new fraud-proof drivers license issued. He was 63 at the time, a Vietnam vet with an honorable discharge and born and raised in Jersey City NJ. He was turned away and we had to come back with his 214 and additional documents.

            In the days of mayor Frank Hauge when he was born, the Birth Certificates flew out the door to establish voting rights for people who should not have had them. Also new identities. multiple new identities. Right up through the ’70’s and ’80’s the same thing kept happening for political reasons. A few years ago a whole bunch of people in the DMV down there went away in handcuffs for selling licenses, including chauffeurs licenses out the back door. I believe it was $ 500.00 per.

            I am frankly ashamed of myself. I have been involved in the voter ID argument many times over the past couple years in a lot of venues. Jersey City is the best example I can give and I forgot about it! I am sure that there are other New York places and Louisiana places that are just as bad just not yet on the State Department watch list.

    • You guys all claim getting an ID is sooooo easy, but then you have all these horror stories about having to get one.

      You make a pretty good argument for why voter-id is a BAD idea…and you don’t even realize it…too funny! 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:

        OR…………you could recognize it is ridiculous that the standard for getting a passport is more stringent than that of voting.

        Which brings me to…………. Birth Certificates should be required to be shown along WITH a picture ID issued by the Govt before you can vote.

        Polling places should all be located in the local police and sheriff’s stations.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    To clarify somewhat, I don’t much care for “legal ID’s” anyway, but I’ve always had one and they won’t go away, so I’m not going to fight it. For the most part, ID’s are needed for everything in life. So I’m not sure about this disenfranchising issue, frankly, I think it’s just a Conspiracy theory, prove me wrong! On the other hand, where I have voted in Youngstown Ohio in previous elections (prior to 2012) I have always been asked for ID and thought it was a fair request. I’m not even sure Ohio has an ID law, but was asked none the less.

    • Gman,

      I have always been asked for ID and thought it was a fair request. I’m not even sure Ohio has an ID law, but was asked none the less.

      So you just BLINDLY follow whatever DEMANDS the GOVERNMENT makes?

      Sounds kinda like following the HERD to me!

      Moooove along Bessy! 😉

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Todd, it seems to me YOUR following right in Charlie’s footsteps, hope he don’t stop to fast or your head will be up his ass. I’m so glad you provided some educated answers to the questions, NOT, apparently, You can’t defend disenfranchisement either. Still walking lockstep right behind all those Liberals, careful, that goosestep your doing behind Charlie could hurt him if you not following just right 😉

        • Gman,
          So I point out that you’re just blindly do what you’re told – pretty much YOUR definition of SHEEPLE – and you respond with CHILDISH PERSONAL ATTACKS on Charlie and me?

          Real classy – keep up the good work.

  3. How cool is this?

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh boy, my Seahawks stunk it up, fell into a pit of pig poop and found a rhinestone.

    They should be thankful Bradford was not playing.

    The Seahawks need some starters back soon or they will go into SF two games back.

  5. Colonel,

    Todd, you forgot to mention…..and barefooted!!! ****ducking****

    You’re just trying to bait into this, aren’t you?!?!? 😉

    I believe there’s one more part to that…but I have NO idea what it is… 🙂

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Time to evaluate why we might need changes to Congressional Terms and/or number of Representatives.

    First up, the avg tenure of US Senators since the beginning. I was trying to see if there was a huge jump when we started electing them by popular vote. It did increase but the jump was bigger in the early 1950’s. Which probably means the correlation is more total population than election method. Although the former would certainly feed into the latter.

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Now for the House of Representatives

    Note the correlation between tenure and population within a District.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Which brings me to an explanation and possible action. Just imagine a House of Representatives in the thousands…………… good grief what a show it might be.

      I urge you to read the entire piece along with the Q and A section.

      Then we can discuss as the week moves along.

    • How much of this can be explained by the increase life expectancy? How much can be explained by the fact that being in Congress is very lucrative? If you watched the 60 Minutes piece on Congressional leadership pacs, you get a feel for the general corruption that is going on. I think it is time for term limits. Levin’s 12 years is a good start.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        My reservation with 12 is the Senate. This is supposed to be the august body with the institutional memory and statesmanship needed to steer foreign policy and trade.

        So is 12 years enough to gather that skill and then apply it before bringing in the next character.

        Now given the 6 year terms, would a maximum of 18 years total make a difference either way?

        Your thoughts?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          JAC, When representing your state (Senators) and you need more than 1 year to become proficient at the job, the government is way to convoluted and complicated. I, yes me) should be able to got to DC as a Senator and be able to do the job I was hired for within the first year.

          What you are saying is part of the big problem with the big government, it should not be as you say it is (and I do agree with you on this). I say Senators serve one term with no lifetime benefits. I say HOR’s should serve 3 terms (6 years) with no lifetime benefits. JMHO 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            There is no way a person is going to be able to get up to speed on what is happening in DC in one year. Not on the Senate side. This is the area where TREATIES are ratified. There needs to be some continuity among the Senate members on matters that reach across several years.

            The purpose of the Senate was to increase deliberations and SLOW DOWN the legislative process. To “cool the passions of the House”.

            If you shorten the Senate term to much you get two possible outcomes.

            1. The slow down is lost altogether because Senators won’t care.
            2. STAFF become the repository of ALL Institutional Knowledge.

            Number 2 is already happening and is worse on the House Side. This is not a good thing because STAFF are party operatives and are not elected and are not subject to the public scrutiny that the elected official gets.

            Those who believe in a ONE term or Short term of service need to consider this.

            What would have happened to Health Care if when the Dems got control of the Senate and the House they had been limited to one term? Do you think the Blue Dogs would have been so hesitant to pass Single Payer???

            • gmanfortruth says:

              JAC, the Govt is totally out of control and corrupt. You can’t fix this by sticking with the status quo. How many treaties do we actually need? 1 per country, done! Not an excuse in my mind. I’m not applying this to the past, just too the future. Take the money away, the political parties will follow quickly. 🙂

          • I agree with Gman. 12 years is plenty. If you can’t get up to speed in one year, then you don’t deserve to serve. Perhaps it will develop into a simpler government this way.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              He did not say 12 years. He said 6 years. ONE term for Senators.

              I would agree with 6 for the House and 12 for the Senate.

              Remember the post the other day discussing how our representation has gone astray due to the affect of direct elections held frequently. It is a two edged sword.

              On one, we get rid of them quicker to prevent the power grabs, but on the other we are more likely to get ZEALOTS willing to tow the Ideological line because they do not fear facing the electorate again.

              Kind of like the Lame Duck President…………

  8. @ Mathius………..I watched the video and i did so open minded as possible for this Texan. First of all, this guy was nutso. He is not representative of the conservative minded nor the South any more than Malcom X was representative of liberals and the North. What struck me about the video was the tone. The tone of the video seemed to be mired, once again, in the past. Even the map of the voter ID laws showed the “Old South” and did not show all the states that are in the process or have already changed their voter laws to have proof of ID. So from that standpoint, the video was flawed. All the old buzz words were in this video to incite.

    Someone also said, that in Texas, you can show a concealed gun license as proof of ID and not a school ID….Yes sir….THAT IS TRUE. Anyone, including illegal immigrants, can get school ID’s….this is not proof of citizenship. But a concealed license is about as fool proof as you can get. It requires a thorough background and criminal check, as well as a standing from the Sheriff in your county. It checks debt records, credit liability, proof of insurance. To get a school Id all you have to say is…” My name is Jose Jimenez” ( sarcasm intended ). So, no argument there.

    IS there something in particular that you wanted me to see? I will go back and look again.

    • Colonel, Malcolm was never a liberal. He had no use for Liberals. He saw them the way I see them, as the new plantation masters. Remember his famous line to a white liberal co-ed after she listened to one of his speeches. “What can I do to help”, she said. “Go home!” he said.

      The man, especially in those last few months when he finally broke with that phoney, Elijah Muhammad, and realized the brotherhood of man was truly one to be feared and reckoned with. The world would have been so very different had he lived. Jesse Jackson would be a toll collector somewhere in Chicago and Al Sharpton would never have emerged from whatever fever swamp he emerged from.

    • this guy was nutso. He is not representative of the conservative minded nor the South

      Perhaps not.. but he was on the GOP Executive Council.

      He was one of the people who helped make the decision to push these policies.

      And his reasoning was that it would give the Democrats a kick in the ass – his words.

      He is, if nothing else, rather plain-spoken. Do you suggest to me that his fellow council-members did not know his thoughts? A man who will casually admit this to a well-known member of the arch-liberal press (the Daily Show) is not a man who will keep this secret from his peers – he simply saw nothing wrong with what he was saying and saw no reason to try to keep it quiet.

      So, even if you, personally, and the majority of conservatives favor this for other reasons, I can definitively state that one of the major reasons this policy is being pushed is specifically to disenfranchise liberals. Maybe not 100%, but beyond a doubt at least a substantial portion.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You cannot say that. Because that is NOT WHAT HE SAID.

        Watch it again and follow the precise words in response to the questions.

        He said it will kick the Dems ass. He did NOT say we instituted this to kick the Dems ass.

        That is called an INDIRECT BENEFIT.

        • To block ONE OR TWO cases of abuse.

          Either (1) he’s clinically insane and thinks it’s worthwhile to disenfranchise tens of thousands of people (potentially swaying an election outcome) in order to prevent one or two cases of fraud which have zero discernible effect on the anything or (2) he’s politically motivated and interested in swaying the outcome of elections.

          YOU DO NOT RISK THE INTEGRITY OF AN ENTIRE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO PREVENT MINOR NON-ISSUES UNLESS YOU ARE NUTS. That’s like burning your house down because you saw a spider in the basement.

          So which is it? Are they nuts or are they politically motivated?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            FALSE choices.

            Or they established voter ID to prevent fraud and maintain the public trust in elections.

            And it happens that the LAZY people will not make an effort to get the ID.

            And it happens that a bunch of the LAZY people are voting Democratic.

            Go figure how that could be possible.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I’m very curious to get some answers from my Left of Center Friends 🙂

              Lazy people is not an excuse to fight a law, there must be more to this issue.

        • You know what, nevermind. Don’t answer that.

          Don’t answer any of it.

          You refuse to see plain obvious motivations and will grant him any possible excuse on the flimsiest of pretenses. Great, the GOP is interested in doing the right thing and has no political motivations at all – any political repercussions of their actions are solely incidental and, I’m sure, they’d do the same thing if the victims were conservative instead.

          Nevermind. Screw it. There’s no point in discussing it.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            YOU are the one who needs to reflect on this a little. You are the one who often criticizes people here for reading between the lines and making assumptions about what was intended instead of using the actual words, when it comes to Obama or some Democrat.

            So why don’t you apply the same standard here. That is all I am doing. Pointing out how your ASSUMTIONS and BIASES are driving your reaction.

            You ASSUME this is an attempt to disenfranchise. Yet this claim is ridiculous. Unless this guys “assumptions” about the Dem voters is true. They are too lazy to go get a valid ID.

            And if that is true, are they really be disenfranchised when it is their lack of effort that causes them to not have the ID to vote?

          • Nevermind. Screw it. There’s no point in discussing it.

            Soooooooooo…you just figured this out NOW?? 😉

            • No, but most people here are willing to at least listen and think.

              JAC seems to be in the mindset of flat denial. Good solid evidence stares him in the face and he give “his side” every conceivable possible (and impossible) out, refusing to see what is right in front of him. But then he’s willing to convict liberals of anything and everything on the flimsiest of pretenses. JAC, if this seems to be a personal attack, please consider it constructive criticism from a concerned friend.

              SUFA is better than that, but apparently JAC is not. I find this highly disappointing. Gman, Anita, VH., Murph, Buck, D13, LOI, USW (wherever he may be), and the rest – you’ll all rationally debate things, listening to opposing arguments and rebutting with considered and nuanced logic. You guys are the reason I still come here after four years.

              But some people – Charlie (sorry, buddy, it’s true), JAC, Black Flag – simply believe they have the corner on truth, put the blinders on, and shout “I can’t hear you” when you try to convince them of anything which contradicts the nice pretty narrative in which they choose to ensconce themselves.

              I have better things to do with my life than deal with that.

              • I don’t think you’re being fair Matt-I think JAC goes to a lot of effort to explain why he feels the way he feels in a nice and civil manner. There isn’t a person on here that hasn’t at some point thought someone was just being “in the mindset of flat denial”. I just think JAC has spent a lot more time than most of us thinking about these issues and he has certain principals that he follows and he hasn’t come to these beliefs without a lot of thought and study. And I don’t happen to believe that one can’t change his mind-I just think you didn’t manage to do it and that fact is bothering you wayyyy to much. Lighten up 🙂

  9. A Judgment on Intelligence
    By Herbert E. Meyer

    Despite everything you’ve gleaned from spy novels and movies, the most important raw material for a successful intelligence service isn’t information; it’s judgment. If you don’t know what information is worth collecting, and if you cannot figure out what this information means soon enough and clearly enough for policymakers to use it — you lose.

    The latest case in point is the fuss over allegations in the German press that our country’s intelligence service has been listening in to Angela Merkel’s cell phone conversations. From the moment these allegations began to surface, American commentators and television talking heads — a few of whom have actually served in US intelligence, most of whom claim to be intelligence experts because they once, perhaps, were allowed to read a classified document — have been pooh-poohing these allegations as much ado about nothing. “Everyone does it,” they pronounce, usually with a shrug and a wink. “So what’s the big fuss?”

    Yes, it’s true that from time to time allies do spy on one another. France, for example, is infamous for running industrial espionage operations against America’s leading high-tech companies. (It doesn’t seem to have done the French much good; their economy is a basket case.) But just because our allies put more effort into spying on one another than spying on their real enemies, that doesn’t mean we should too.

    In the real world of intelligence, it isn’t possible to know everything about everything. You can never have enough spies, enough satellites, or even enough bandwidth to monitor all humanity. And even if you had an unlimited supply of spies, satellites and bandwidth, there aren’t enough analysts in the world, let alone in Washington DC, to make sense of what’s been collected. If you try to know everything about everything, you wind up knowing nothing about anything. An effective intelligence service must pick and choose its targets very — very — carefully. And that’s a matter of judgment.

    What could we possibly hope to learn from Angela Merkel’s cellphone conversations that’s worth the risk of offending one of our country’s most important allies? Is she likely to be calling China’s president to co-ordinate an invasion of Russia? Is she on the phone with the head of Pakistan’s army to secretly purchase one of that country’s nuclear bombs for the Luftwaffe? Are you kidding?

    This is Angela Merkel, one of the world’s most capable, serious, head-screwed-on-straight leaders. There isn’t a chance she would do something to start a world war or fracture the Western alliance. It’s more than likely the most interesting call we’d pick up from the German chancellor is a conversation with her husband saying she’ll be home late for supper because a delegation of Greek bankers has unexpectedly arrived in Berlin to beg for yet another Euro loan. And you don’t need spies or wiretaps to have predicted this — or to predict Merkel’s response to their pleas.

    Meanwhile, it seems that none of our country’s senior intelligence officials thought it worth the time and effort to keep an eye on the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston before they exploded two bombs at the Boston Marathon — even though both brothers were growing more radical by the week, had set up a terrorist-type website, and one of them had traveled to Dagestan, and after returning to the US was the subject of a tip-off from Russian intelligence. And before that, our intelligence service completely missed all the warning signs flashing red from Major Nidal Hassan in Texas — emails to and from al Qaeda operatives, overseas phone calls to known terrorists, personal outbursts that would have alerted your average high-school guidance counselor, even calling cards with Soldier-of-Allah imprinted after his name — before the army psychiatrist killed 13 people and wounded 31 others at Fort Hood back in 2009.

    No intelligence service can be perfect, and even the most brilliant, hard-working spy chiefs will suffer the occasional failure. But as the Angela Merkel dust-up and the other failures make clear, the problem with American intelligence today isn’t a shortage of resources needed to keep us safe, but a lack of judgment at the top.

    Read more:

    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  10. Did anyone see the 60 Minutes piece on Benghazi? What a screw up?

    • Yes….saw it. Disgusting but exactly as predicted.

    • Sacrificial lambs…..

    • BUT – did they mention by name the CIC or SofS? No! As someone wrote, “this special seems like it should be part 1 of 3 so they can finish telling the story”.

      BTW, nothing in that special hasn’t been already brought forward by that awful “Faux News”. I’m actually a little suspicious of why CBS decided to do this and why now?

    • Did see it and thought what I thought when it first occurred … this president is the most incompetent SOB in my lifetime … and Benghazi should sink Hillary’s chance sin 2016 but it won’t … and no, I haven’t switched sides … I’m still all for a social-democracy … Obama has been a disaster to true liberals (not the fugazy ones in the democratic party/loyalists) … this absurd issue with the website for ACA is just another nail in his historical coffin … he wasn’t ready for the job when he talked his way into it/McCain Palinized it for him) and he hasn’t gained a lick of sense since. And most important to me, he’s as useless as tits on a bull to labor.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    While I’m not surprised, i’m disappointed that NOONE has explained how voter ID “disenfranchises” the poor and minorities. Not even a small example has been brought forward. Is that because the whole “disenfranchisement” talking points are nothing more than Liberal fairy tales?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mathius, Todd, Buck, Charlie, Where are you?

      • Nope. Not bothering. No point.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Mathius, I’m asking an honest question. Please show me what occurs when voter IDis implemented that disenfranchises people. I ask because I don’t know what the hell is the big argument. For the record, I’m not against or for voter ID, it matters not to me 🙂

          • I’m with mathius — exercise in futility.

            However, for your reading pleasure on voter fraud, I once again point to Exhibit A:

            Click to access The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf

            • Just A Citizen says:
              • We believe there “might be” in-person voter fraud. Sure, there’s no evidence for it other than a handful of cases over the previous decade, but we think it’s there. And we think there’s probably hundreds of thousands of undetected cases. We just need the evidence to support this.

                Therefore we should disenfranchise tens-to-hundreds of thousands of *wink wink* “those people,” suppress overall voter turnout by 2-3%, shift the election results by ~1-1.5% in favor of the Republicans, and inconvenience tens-to-hundreds of thousands of people (and possibly also cost them money they can’t afford).

                Because, you know, we think it’s happening.

                You know what I think? I think Bigfoot is voting in Texas republican primaries despite being a Canadian citizen. Sure, you know, I can’t “prove” anything. Nor do I have, you know “evidence,” but I believe it in my heart, so we should act on that.

                I say we should administer blood tests to every registered conservative and make that a requirement before he can cast his ballot.

                You know what? Nevermind. Screw it. I forgot that I’m not bothering with arguing with you.

                This is more than a few isolated incidents… Enough for me to take up Matt’s”err on the side of caution”

              • JAC Anita

                Enough for me to take up Matt’s”err on the side of caution”

                Fair enough.

                But I would suggest that “erring on the side of caution” is to NOT disenfranchise the tens-to-hundreds of thousands of verifiably real would-be voters to detect some hypothetical minor* fraud.

                You’re erring on the side of screwing these people and almost certainly effecting the outcomes of elections by 1-1.5% in favor of a specific party. That’s not really the side of caution in my humble opinion.

                Still, at least you present a reasonable stance, so thank you for that.

                On a related note: did you respond to my video from yesterday? I would love your take on whether this guy is really just out “give democrats a kick in the ass” or if you think there’s another explanation (also whether you think this guy really represents (A) just himself – he’s a one-off outlyer / anomaly (B) a viable subset of party insiders / power-players (C) much of the leadership (D) some substantial portion of the conservative citizenry).

                *Minor because, even if it is real, the odds of it impacting an election of beyond minuscule. First of all, you’d need big enough numbers of fraud (say, 10k+) AND you’d need them in the same direction. If, for example, there were 10k frauds, but 5k were pro-Red and 5k were pro-Blue, then there’s no effect and the result is moo.**


              • You still sound wishy washy to me. Do you contest the validity of the examples in my post? That’s a yes or no question. I’m going to ASSume your answer is no..since most of the fraudsters got jail time..which leads me to question …

                What can be done to ensure the vote is accurate? Don’t know if accurate is the correct but I’m trying to stay away from the cliche words like TRUE the vote.

          • I apologize, Gman. JAC is being intentionally obtuse elsewhere and I took it out on you.

            In answer to your question, the short version goes like this: poor people don’t have cars, therefore they a less likely to have licenses. They also tend to be left-leaning as a group. Now, they could go to the DMV, but (A) it costs money or they don’t know about a free licence program (B) it requires documentation such as a SS card or passport which they also may lack and (C) the DMV may only be open during hours which they work and can’t take off (or can’t afford to take off). Students / the young also tend to be liberal, but many similarly do not drive and may face similar hurdles. Women, additionally, are less likely to have licences AND are “A full 34% of women don’t have documents proving citizenship with their current name on it” – they voted for Obama +7 in 2008 and +10 in 2012.


            Now the longer version:

            The point is, basically, that this presents an extra hurdle for liberals and not [as much] for conservatives. In a world where voters are already tremendously apathetic about voting and really don’t want to be bothered, they really don’t want to be bothered to (weeks in advance) gather up the necessary documentation, take time off from work, lose that income, take a bus to the DMV, wait for hours in line, (possibly) pay money, and take the bus back – all just for the privilege to be able to cast their vote – it’s just not worth it to them. So they don’t bother – or they can’t afford the lost income / extra bus fare / et cetera. So they just don’t vote.

            For simplicity’s sake, imagine the law requires people to do 25 jumping jacks in order to vote blue, but just check a box to vote red. Sure, 25 jumping jacks is doable in 99% of case. Why won’t those lazy liberals just get off their asses and do it? Don’t they care enough about who runs their government? But of course, you and I know, that it’s going to cause some (many?) people to just say screw it and stay home. And most of those people who stay home will be people who would have voted blue.


            The ACLU (take it with a grain of salt) says 7% of eligible voters lack voter ID.

            Brennan Center (who the hell are they?) say that “about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don’t have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn’t represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.”


            [Suspected Sorcerer] Nate Silver says: “Based on the experiences of other states, it is more likely that these laws will prevent something like 2 or 3 percent of registered voters from actually casting a ballot”

            You remember him, right? He’s the guy who correctly pegged the 2012 electoral college with stunning 100% accuracy while the “unskewed polls” guy and Fox news were calling him a fool and saying Romney was a lock.

            Anyway, he says: Regarding the “Estimated Effects of Voter ID Law Ganges 2008-2012:
            (state / change in voter turnout / shift in popular vote toward Republicans)
            PA / -2.4 / +1.2 (so in PA, 2.4% fewer people voted because of the ID law, and that shifted the results by 1.2% toward the Republicans)
            KS / -2.4 / 1.2
            ID / -1.6 / 0.8
            TN / -1.6 / 0.8
            OK / -0.8 / 0.4
            RI / -0.8 / 0.4
            UT / -0.8 / 0.4

            1.2%? 0.4%? Is that enough to swing an election? If it’s close, sure. And these are for high turnout elections (this was Obama / 2012).. Nate Silver didn’t get into it, but I’d be willing to bet that the effect is even more pronounced on low turnout elections. My back-of-the-napkin rule-of-thumb calculation on his numbers suggests that (roughly) every extra percent of voter turnout results in 0.5% increase favorability toward the Democrats – correspondingly, a 1% decrease will shift the totals by 0.5% toward the Republicans. This is because the people on the margins who could go either way in voting or not voting are the more likely to be blue-shirts.


            And there you have it.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I wonder if these two guys are trying to deliberately confuse the voters in hopes of disenfranchising enough to get what they want?


              • It is straight up dishonest. It is lying. It is smoke and mirrors with the intent to deceive. It is what happens when you have too many lawyers in government. Everything is only one word away from meaning something different.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Mathius, Thanks for an honest answer! Now let’s look at your answer and see where it takes us 🙂
              ” poor people don’t have cars, therefore they a less likely to have licenses.”

              With public transportation readily available in most areas, this is not an acceptable excuse. Now is this based on facts or conjecture?

              .” In a world where voters are already tremendously apathetic about voting and really don’t want to be bothered, they really don’t want to be bothered to (weeks in advance) gather up the necessary documentation”

              OK, let’s look at this one and ask, Fact or conjecture?

              “Now, they could go to the DMV, but (A) it costs money or they don’t know about a free licence program (B) it requires documentation such as a SS card or passport which they also may lack and (C) the DMV may only be open during hours which they work and can’t take off (or can’t afford to take off)”

              OK, Most people with jobs require identification to work. Not many of the poor need passports, so we can forget that thought. Ignorance of the law is no excuse (heard that before?) These are all conjecture , or do you have some facts?

              “they really don’t want to be bothered to (weeks in advance) gather up the necessary documentation, take time off from work, lose that income, take a bus to the DMV, wait for hours in line, (possibly) pay money, and take the bus back”

              Do you really accept this as a reasonable excuse? Take out the lose work/income then re read. Now, fact or conjecture (or even reasonable)?

              Any links to the other stuff? For the record, I think voting is useless these days. I do believe that if someone is going to vote, they should prove that they are a) legal citizens, b) live in the precinct they are voting in. I would think that if something is free (the ID) it doesn’t prevent anyone from voting.

              So let’s decide what is conjecture and what is a reasonable reason to not have a voter ID law. If you were trying to sell me something, I ain’t buying just yet partner 🙂

              • First, we need to determine whether there is an actual problem that needs to be addressed. All evidence points to “maybe” — see the Brennan report.

                Then, we need to determine whether voter ID laws would do anything to resolve the problem at hand. All evidence points to “no” — see the Brennan report.

                So what do we have left? Basically, a push to pass voter ID laws which just so happen to have the effect of disproportionately impacting those that tend to vote democrat which will do absolutely nothing to resolve the “problem” of voter fraud. That leaves me to believe such laws are being pushed entirely for political gain.

              • I don’t really have time right now – as usual, I’ve spent far too long on SUFA already today – but I’d like to address your first point.

                Mathius: poor people don’t have cars, therefore they a less likely to have licenses.”

                gman: With public transportation readily available in most areas, this is not an acceptable excuse. Now is this based on facts or conjecture?

                I fail to understand your point.

                What I’m saying is that they DO use public transportation. Therefore, they DON’T need cars. Therefore, they DON’T need licences. Therefore they DON’T have licences.

                You rebut that they have ready access to public transportation.. so they should have licences?

                Not being glib / sarcastic – I just don’t get your point.. Could you rephrase?

            • Which basically means if anyone has any problem obtaining an ID, which they have 2 years to accomplish-means people should be allowed to vote illegally in order to be nice.

            • Sometimes Matt, I wish you and everyone else would think about the statistics you quote. You said that 34% of the women in this country do not have proper ID, i.e. ID with their current name, etc. on it. Now think about that. It means that 1 out of every 3 women you know do not have legitimate IDs.

              • My wife is one of them.. her drivers licence does not match her passport/S.S. since she changed her name after we got married.

                I don’t think this is saying that 1/3 women don’t have any “legitimate ID” – I think it’s saying that they don’t have “documents proving citizenship with their current names.” A licence is not proof of citizenship. According to The Google, the following are “proof of citizenship”:
                -Previously issued, undamaged US passport
                -Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state of birth
                -Consular Report of Birth (of U.S. citizen) Abroad or Certification of Birth
                -Naturalization Certificate
                -Certificate of Citizenship
                Note that a driver’s licence is not on this list.

                As such, many married women may lack THESE items with their current (ie, married) names.

                I agree, though, the statistic does seem too high even given this definition. But I wouldn’t doubt that it’s a non-inconsequential amount, regardless.

                Did you know that 72.84% of statistics are made up on the spot?

              • My S.S. matches my birth certificate-I had to call and get a new one, when I got married. Don’t remember it being a hard thing to do-been wayyyyyy too long to remember all the details 🙂 Now I suspect it is even easier and everyone has more obtains to use to accomplish this change.

              • obtains?? 😉

              • 🙂
                that should be options.

        • Felt that way numerous times 🙂 Anyone else felt that way?

          I talk and talk about abortion. All evidence is a strawman -everything is either ignored or dismissed. They won’t accept evidence- they want a confession of guilt. Glad some people on here aren’t detectives-because the guilty parties very seldom confess.

      • Gman,
        We’ve been down this road before. There are some THINGS you can’t fix…

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    Did Obama get caught lying AGAIN?

    How can people support this man? He has ZERO integrity 🙄

    • The old saw is if a dog bites a man it is not news if a man bites a dog it is news.

      In the case of the president, if he lies it is not news, if he tells the truth, that is news!


  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Does anyone else find it strange that the Fukushima nuclear disaster (which is way worse than Chernobyl) is never talked about but the MSM?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Here are NBC stories, the latest in September of this year. I didn’t search for more MSM but am guessing you will find several stories. The Mainstream New Media has also been running many stories on this.

    • Gman,

      Does anyone else find it strange that the Fukushima nuclear disaster (which is way worse than Chernobyl) is never talked about but the MSM?

      How would you know? I didn’t think you watched the MSM?

      Maybe it’s the right-wing-whacko-crazy-media that you watch that isn’t covering it?

  14. Dr. Sowell once again speaks truth:

    I have a good friend that works in the “worst” elementary school in the Madison school district (poorest). She tells of the stark differences between the minorities in the school and how things are handled differently by the administration at the school. The Asians (predominately Hmong) have very involved parents (2!), kids are self-disciplined and even though they need to overcome language issues, are some of the best students. Seldom are they on government assistance (free b’fast, lunch). They don’t stay in this district long because as soon as the parents can afford to, they leave this downtrodden, problem neighborhood.

    Then the Hispanics. Not as involved parents, not as good students, a little more apt to have a “chip”, but still work hard to improve. Some exiting as family $$ improves.

    Then the blacks. Minimal involvement from parent (1 – mom!), excuses, excuses, never leave district, most on complete government assistance – and whine about it.

    She gets frustrated often because the mostly black adm. of this school also falls into the trap of having high expectations for group one and two and then completely excuse/lower them for the black kids. They just feed into this destructive circle. When she’s pointed it out, “you couldn’t understand – you’ve never walked in our shoes” crap is shot back to her.

    Madison has tried several things – busing was big at one point. Bringing in white kids from several districts away and busing out minorities to other schools. Aside from kids being on the bus for one hour each way, it was the minorities who screeched about it not being OK. More recently, a guy who grew up out of this area, wanted to start a charter school specifically for black males. I read his plan and thought it made sense, but all hell broke out from the unions, and the uber-liberal school board who is of course, “so dismayed at the inequity results” until it comes time to do something positive about it.

  15. Yeah – I just mostly read the news to find out what my adm. is up to. Yep! That’s how it goes. Who are the fools that voted for this stooge?

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    Mathius, The drivers license issue is not an excuse to NOT have a legal form of ID. States cannot charge money for a legal ID so that people can vote. I’ll add more in Bucks answer 🙂 Thanks for engaging 😉

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    Buck, You wrote ” a push to pass voter ID laws which just so happen to have the effect of disproportionately impacting those that tend to vote democrat ”

    The purpose of this discussion is to prove or disprove the political talking points on this subject. What proof is there that supports your statement? Basically, being a non voter, I’m asking for the left to prove “disenfranchisement” and for those on the other side to prove it will work to solve illegal voting issues.

    There are some illegal voting issues that are provable, notably the Lady in Cincinnati who voted more than once. Not sure if the ID would solve the problem, but it does show that problems exist.

    • Before even getting into the merits/demerits of specific voter ID laws and whether/how they disenfranchise certain groups of voters we must first determine whether these laws are even necessary.

      So again, take a look at my two questions and review the Brennan report:

      1) Is there a problem of voter fraud?
      2) If so, do voter ID laws address that problem?

      If (a) there is no problem or (b) voter ID laws fail to address the problem, then why have the laws to begin with?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Since when is it important to prove a law necessary? Take the ACA for example.

        Yes there is voter fraud. Yes there is ID fraud and people do vote.

        Will voter ID solve some of that problem? YES. Will they solve all of it? No.

        Whether voter fraud is “significant’ or “important” or “major” is IRRELEVANT.

        Take action to eliminate the concerns and maintain confidence in the system.

        • The ACA is a pretty bad example. Clearly there are problems and the ACA is designed to resolve some of those problems.

          In this case, even assuming there is a problem that needs to be addressed, all evidence points to the fact that voter ID laws fail to address the problem. Per the Brennan report, out of all substantiated instances of voter fraud found, voter ID would have prevented absolutely NONE of them.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buck, Laws don’t prevent murder or rape either. Can you or can’t you prove the Disenfranchisement theory?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I say those problems are insignificant. And there was a solution to them already in existence.

            So sorry, but it is a good example.

            Voter ID to a Democrat = DOG WHISTLE.

      • 1) Yes see my link above or here you go Why do you guys keep denying that it happens?

        2) What other way can you ensure that the numbers are accurate? Seems to me that there is no harm in demanding ID..if nothing else it acts as a deterrent .

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Well done Anita, so far you are the only one to provide some form of proof to support your position. That earns you and your side 10 GMan points 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Let me sum up the study that Buck and Mathius like to put forth each time this comes up. It answers your question.

          1. Unless there is an actual conviction of FRAUD it is NOT Voter Fraud.

          2. If there is a conviction it amounts to an insignificant amount of voters, ie 0.0001%.

          Number two is the Logical fallacy of minimalizing by the way. Declare something irrelevant because it is small.

        • I’m not denying it happens. I am denying that it is a problem in terms of even coming close to affecting an election. More importantly however, I am denying that voter ID laws are designed to address the problem.

          Truth be told I am not 100% against mandating photo ID to vote. But there must be safeguards — clear and unambiguous information about the law posted at voting sites, a FREE ID card issued by the State, a knowledgable voting booth staff that actually knows and understands the law and its requirements, a means of casting one’s vote even absent ID and then subsequently proving ID would be nice, etc.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Buck, valid questions, but irrelevant to this discussion. I’m trying to get the two sides to PROVE their respective positions with facts, not conjecture and political talking points 🙂

      • Wow, I think you have this backwards. We have laws that state who can and who cannot vote-I think a process by which one proves they have the ability to vote is, or at least should be considered just a reasonable way to follow those already written laws.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    If requiring personal Identification to vote will prevent substantial numbers of people from voting Democrat Party then I am FOR IT. The more the better.

    Now if only that “Voting will make you gay” thing will work on the Republicans….Maybe another option….thinking………….thinking……………

  19. The more people dig, the more they find:

  20. Interesting

    White House Logs Show Visits by CGI Official, Classmate of Michelle Obama

    Read Latest Breaking News from
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      NO! It shouldn’t be repealed. It will die on it’s own, which is the goal of Obama. THe goal is single payer, or medicare for everyone. I do not believe for a minute that this is anything less. What good would it do to repeal it now, the damage is done!

  21. The main issue in Texas, is the changing demographics. Hispanics are a significant growing population….illegals do vote and they vote in numbers. So, prove citizenship and vote. Then, I cannot complain.

    As you say, it is not worth the argument any longer because no one can show disenfranchisement…..other than lip service.

    We will just do it and clean up the discrepancies. Whoever is in power, Dems or Repubs, will still gerrymander their districts, as they always have. We will continue to pay no attention to the US Attorney general. Just leave us alone.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Not much has been proven for either side so far. My score is Voter ID- 10 Disenfranchisement – 3 (only because Mathius put forth ample effort) . Now if someone provides some proof on the illegal immigrant voting problem, that number will go up.

      But disenfranchisement so far is really not going anywhere. Just lame excuses for people that keeps them from being responsible. Why don’t Liberal’s seem to want the poor /minorities to be personally responsible?

      • Frankly I think election fraud is much greater than what the prosecutions reflects. Most of the fraud is committed by the poll workers or prior to the election in rigged machines. While I do think that voter databases need to be significantly improved, that all voters need to prove citizenship, this just a first step in cleaning up a dirty process.

        Why do I think this way? Look at the Franken fiasco in MN. They counted ballots until they “found” enough to give Franken the win. In FL in 2000, remember the Carnac the Magnificent poll judges trying to discern the “intention” of the voter? I remember the 1960 election in IL when Chicago withheld their count until the downstate was in. Cook Co. had machines, the downstate votes were paper ballots counted by hand. There was only one reason to withhold the Chicago count. They needed to know how many votes to manufacture.

        I have no use for people that commit voter fraud, be they Rs or Ds. Buck and Mathius, I think you need to look to your own and clean up your side of the fence.

    • Todd you are too good to be passing on this kind of tripe. Let’s reverse roles a second. Would you have vote for Herman Cain in the next election if it was a contest between Herman and a white democrat? If so why not?

      Now I can guess that your answer is no because his politics did not reflect your own beliefs. To that I would answer racist. This would be no different than this BS that is going on with the TP and anyone that challenges Obama’s actions.

      20+% of the people identify with the TP. Do you believe that 1 in 5 of the people you know are racists?

      • Do you ever read beyond the headline of this stuff? The article contradicts itself all over the place. If you find you agree with one out of a hundred things someone says, does that make you them or them you?

        In short, I like dogs, Hitler liked dogs therefore I like Hitler. You need a logic course.

        • Ummmm, I don’t think Todd was thinking about Logic when he posted it. Imagine a real big Button.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Proof? Then you link HuffPo and it’s obviously a joke. BWAHAHAHA! It worked Todd, I’m laughing 😆

    • What next? Read this article, then went above and read the Colonel’s article about Michelle Obama and her buddy and how deeply entrenched they were in BLACK PRIDE at Princeton…then the O’s spent 20 years in a BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY church…Gee.those Obamas sure have a following of RACISTS!!!!


    • I find it funny how many people from the right jump in to object to this – or post an equally biased article or comments about the left.

      No – I don’t take this seriously – but I did think it was hilarious! It should have been listed under Comedy!

      But Gman posts this kind of stuff about the left all the time – and usually includes some childish and offensive remarks. Occasionally someone else from the right even joins in. But rarely does anyone from the left comment, or object, or post something equally biased. We just let it go as the childish crap it is.

      Gman and I had quite the discussion about the “quality” of posts on SUFA. He felt this kind of stuff was just fine. I disagree. So I posted this as a test/example. I find it interesting this didn’t occur to anyone…

      If you don’t want to see this kind of crap, speak up so it stops on both sides.

      • There is a fine line somewhere between smears, frustration. ridiculous story of the day, personal experiences, knowledge of history, willingness to research, passion about the topic, etc It depends where you’re at from the start. I’d never compare my smarts to that of BF, for instance. I’m extremely jealous of how some of you guys can articulate your positions. Let’s use Charlie as an example, since he’s a perfect punching bag 🙂 I’m on record as saying I love Charlie Stella. He cracks me up with his New York “charm”, but he goes overboard sometimes and it gets stupid..At the same time he can defend his position well, not saying we buy it but he can defend it. Me? I can’t defend my position well. IT JUST DOESN’T COME OUT RIGHT! But I know how I feel, and I try to get right to the point.

        Everybody has their own reasons for hanging around SUFA. It’s like the Hotel California…you can check out any time you like but you can never leeeaaaave. It gets heated in here sometimes, but everyone has their own personality and it can be expected occasionally. I think the disconnect may be…. this goes to GMan…this isn’t a site like InfoWars where you WIN because you KNOW your position is right, I take it as more of a coffee shop scenario where everyone throws their thoughts around and we all go home happy.Nobody is going to win. And as for you Tooooood! You can get pretty low down yourself sometimes. 😉

        What ever happened to Judy, anyway. I thought she was supposed to be the mom!

  22. Buck,

    I didn’t see a direct link from you, but I did go check out Brennan..was it a pdf? I read quite a bit of THAT. along with some other stuff on the page, and it seems to discount, or minimalize …just as you do…actual court cases like the many I posted.

    • The report actually looks into various types of voter fraud, the actual facts of cases, and whether voter id would have prevented them from happening.

      • Yeah, that’s what I read. It goes over what happened in some cases.I can easily say it’s cherry picked cases to justify their side. But my link is proof beyond reasonable doubt..with jail time given..of voter/election/wordoftheday fraud.

        now..what do we do about it. What is your suggestion?

        • I’ll rephrase: In the cases your survey found, what were the circumstances of each case? Would voter ID laws have done anything to prevent the ‘fraud’?

          • Are you kidding? Short in two precincts, non citizens voting. non resident voting. There were also others,,just by memory..of faulty voting machines and absentee ballots coming up missing. But, correction has to start somewhere. Would voter id have prevented the double votes..non citizen votes..non resident votes. YES!

          • Now what is your suggestion. I have proven it exists..I concede voter id will not fix every offer your suggestions too.

          • Now I know we have all these statistics and surveys to look at. Then we have common sense and logic. Logically if one has the right to vote based on certain criteria -it only makes sense for someone to have to prove that they fit that criteria. And I would posit that if no one has to prove they are who they claim to be-then no one really knows how many cheat.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Now complete the line of thinking.

              If you don’t know how many cheat, but you start to believe it could be a large number, are you more or less likely to vote.

              If you think the other side is stealing elections how long will you continue to vote in hopes of winning …………… someday.

              • #1 I make damn sure I vote in every type of election there is!

                #2 I start feeling hopeless and wonder if it matters-that is where I am now-but at this point I still intend to vote-how long this will last-I honestly don’t know.

              • But I will specify that these feelings of hopelessness are not based solely on feeling that elections are being stolen although I do believe they are.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I raised the question because I am concerned about the affect of the constant screaming about fraud. BOTH sides do this.

              So what is the goal, what purpose does it serve in the long run.

              I think your feelings reflect that potential impact. It could reduce voting by those who are not the most rabid and motivated partisans.

              I suspect some elections are stolen. But I am also pretty sure it is not as large as many of us come to believe based on all the yelling and rhetoric. I think our systems catch many of the attempts. We can make those stronger.

              I believe that some of the yelling is to make you mad and increase your efforts. However, I am not sure those screaming think about the long term.

              The left has been telling Black people for years that they are victims and need to fight back. But nothing really changes. So they vote in lower and lower numbers. Obama was enough to motivate them to come out and try once more.

              I would not be surprised to see the “Black vote” drop off substantially in the next and future elections. The Dems can only use fear and rage so long to “get out the vote”.

              It seems to me that certain factions within the Republican Party are now doing the same thing.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            In the ones I witnessed, YES it would have. Well that is if the clerks had asked and actually enforced what was right in front of them.

            You guys attack Voter ID for absolutely no reason. Dog Whistle as I said.

            You know how I know this?

            Because every State in which I lived has had a voter ID requirement. Nevada was one of those and until ACORN started registering mythological people, had very little problem.

            So maybe this disenfranchisement argument only applies to the lazy and ignorant East Coasters. Cause out here we been doin it for decades and nobody has howled about being disenfranchised.

            Now to an actual point on this topic. Two points actually.

            1. The Voter ID is only one of many safeguards. But it is key to helping make sure identity is accurate. Because the ID contains information beyond just a picture.

            2. The requirements for the Voter ID can be made to have an adverse affect on a voter’s ability to get the needed ID. This must be watched. But I have seen nothing from any CREDIBLE study indicating such requirements can be made to TARGET one group disproportionately.

            Now for one more important point.

            NONE of this is DISENFRANCHISING voters. Because those voters can still vote. They can personally take the responsibility to go get what is needed and get themselves to the polling place. NOTHING will stop them except their own laziness or lack of interest.

            Disenfranchisement means actions designed to stop voters from exercising their PRIVILEGE. There is nothing in Voter ID that is designed to do that.

            What it offends is the Advocacy groups like your Brennan study bunch. Yes, they are an ADVOCACY or ACTIVIST group whose stated GOAL is to make voting as easy as possible.

            So you see, anything that might make it harder no matter the benefit or need is contrary to THEIR STATED GOAL.

            • I don’t know JAC, I’ve never been asked to present a valid form of ID to vote.

              As for your argument that voter ID would have prevented the cases you’ve seen — what specifically have you seen?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Three people voted who were not the person registered. Now what I do not know is whether they or the person registering were the frauds.

                Because in these cases the Picture ID, drivers license, was the person with the ID.

                But the SIGNATURES did not match.

                You see, we require Picture ID WITH Proof of residency WITH a Signature on the books that must “match” the one photo copied from the REGISTRATION.

                The signature issue was raised with the election officials at the polling place. They blew it off and allowed them to vote. Not provisional but regular voting.

                Complaints to the County Clerk and Sec of State went without response. All the controlling people in this case were Democrats.

                So here is a case where Voter ID COMBINED with a SIGNATURE did catch a problem but that problem went ignored.

                This is why I do agree that Voter ID will not stop ALL Identity fraud. But it is part of the system that increases the chances.

                But in the end, our system is only as strong as the INTEGRITY of those who run it.

                By the way Buck, if you guys really want to address “disenfranchisement” then you should focus on the number and location of Polling Stations, not the voter ID requirements.

                BOTH sides use the polling places and the Precinct designations to make it harder to vote. And that impact is far more real than getting a State issued ID.

              • No need for voter ID to correct that issue — although I’ve never had to produce an ID, I always have to sign in (which signature is then compared to that on file).

                I do agree with you that number and location of polling stations is a real issue in many places. That being said, I’ve personally never had to wait more than 5 minutes to vote.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is one thing on the voter issue I simply don’t understand about our SUFA left wing.

    They constantly complain about the laziness and stupidity of the avg American (or people), yet they support increasing the number of lazy and stupid people who VOTE.

    Buck scoffed at my comment about having to pay taxes to vote. BUT, the Progressive tells you that Taxes are the “Cost of maintaining a civilized society”. So they want those who TAKE the money from others to VOTE as easily as possible. If Taxes are cost of civilization should not those voting to maintain it have to participate in it? Is not TAXES a “Civil” DUTY? That is what I am told by the left constantly.

    You want to vote then you have to have “Skin in the Game”. No taxes paid, NO VOTING.

    Next election, bring a Birth Certificate and your Tax returns if you want to vote in JAC Land.

  24. Canine Weapon says:

    This made me laugh harder than I should have..

    • A gay person is welcome to touch my car, live in my house and sleep in my beds. Me oh my isn’t that surprising I’ve allowed my friends to share my home, be friends with my children and loved them unconditionally. Your joke is an insult-but I do know you are kinda kidding.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The supposed joke is based on the left’s bigotry.

        They can not accept that people may disagree with them on marriage based on principles.

        So they must categorize those in opposition as having some PHOBIA.

        This is spread far and wide, with some person eventually putting a sign on a car because they equate opposition as being Homophobic.

        This is the TOLERANCE of the LEFT in full display.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Funny how things can circle round and bit you in the backside. The amazing thing is that this is even being reported on huffpo.

    • Caved to support the all important first lady’s whims and now their votes’ resulting consequences are happening. Tell my kids all the time – Choices and Consequences (CC for short, because it was used often when they were in HS and early college). So a big CC to all you liberal hypocrites.

  26. Voter Id simply will hamper election fraud….not stop it. No one has yet prove that disenfranchisement occurs…I did not know that the poor, the elderly..etc were only democrat. Potential is a buzz word and does not carry any weight.

    I wonder why the left is so adamant on it….perhaps it is because it can lead to fraud? Or is it simply to allow non registered, non citizen people to vote.

    • We simply don’t believe the potential for disenfranchisement outweighs any perceived ‘need’ for voter id laws which largely fail to address the problem in the first place.

      But as I said, guarantee same-day registration, free state-issued IDs, an ability to vote absent ID, clear and unambiguous information about the law, and a knowledgable polling site staff and I may well support your efforts.

      • Hold up, you added that same day voting thing-don’t agree with that at all-at least not at the voting places.

    • Here in WI we have a huge problem with same day registration – particularly in some border counties where access by IL union members is easy!

      Video of (govt. licensed) vans bringing in people and saying all they needed to remember was “Bama/Baldwin” (a very liberal Senator elected last year). Their “voter ID”? Some showed a Bed, Bath & Beyond coupon as their proof of residence.

      We have now put in voter ID and need to get in no same day registration. One vote/each legal, alive citizen should be something we can all agree on.

  27. @ Buck……( and I sincerely mean this )…..I am sure you are a big boy and will check things out thoroughly…but I am not finding anything near what you reported when you went on the healthcare site…..nothing even close. Please be careful.

    I know many many people that are getting their letters in the mail about being dropped because their current insurance, that they picked, does not meet the minimum so called standards that were set by the ACA. For example, the aged, who cannot have children are forced to cover things that do not pertain to them….so they negotiated policies that fit their specific agenda. Now their insurance is sky rocketing because they are forced into policies that do not even pertain to them and the deductibles are going through the roof.

    I am very serious when I tell you, that you are the only one that has a lowered premium…..I am being dropped from Medicare advantage, as are all older persons, and Medicare A and B does not cover the basic minimums. I havenot yet found, even in the exchange program, anything resembling lowered outof pocket costs and deductible…..nothing in site and I have been to BCBS, CIGNA, AETNA, United Health care…..

    The other thing that I am seeing is that where there is a lowered premium…..unless you live in that state, you cannot get it. Competition across state lines prohibits an individual from selecting another exchange.

    This is simply a nightmare. Even though I have Medicare, it is primary now, over the VA. The VA covers everything else IF AND ONLY IF it fits a certain criteria…..except for war injuries which are still covered for now.

    One I did get on the health care exchange, the type of questions that are required to be answered as you go deeper….are not the types that I wish to answer. Sources of income for example….the name and address of your source of income and if hey have a group policy, what is the number of it and the deductible amounts. Religious preference….I did not answer that and my inquiry stopped there.

    Just be careful.

    • As I mentioned Colonel, I haven’t delved deeper as of yet. Assuming I opt to go with the policy I came across however, I will report back my final experience.

      However, my experience does match with what I’ve read of several other people having in finding lower premiums. Perhaps it is just Texas that’s the problem? 🙂

      • Actually this was addressed in Sebelius’ testimony this am. Watched for only a short time, but this question did come up. The questioner compared it to using a coupon in a store, ie, you select something to purchase and take to the register, have a coupon to use and if the terms of the coupon are applicable to item, coupon is applied before checking out. He compared subsidies to the coupon and asked why the system was set up applying the coupon/subsidy upfront and then if you go through the entire process and don’t end up qualifying, the amount is removed. He called it misleading.

        Sebelius didn’t have an answer.

      • I dont think so Buck, but what do I know. I am talking to people directly and not reading biased newspapers…..either way. I do not read the local paper either. The only paper that I do read on a daily basis is the WSJ.

        Anyway, my post to you was as a friend..nothing more.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    @Mathius, Thanks for your answer yesterday, that is what I have heard it the past. Would you agree that most of the reasons given for disenfranchisement were assumptions and conjecture? On the subject of women, I agree that when they Marry, much must be done to fegt their lives in order. Ensuring that her voter registration matches her new identity is part of that change. Claiming disenfranchisement of women based on this don’t fly, it’s called personal responsibility. When the name on the passport is now different due to Marriage, the women must get a new passport to travel abroad, is this disenfranchisement too?

    My point on the disenfranchise subject is that I believe it’s nothing but a political fairy tale, with no basis of facts to back it up. Just sayin 🙂

    @Buck, Would voter ID laws work to stop voter fraud? Nobody can really ever know, because those who can’t commit the fraud aren’t going to jump up and tell us that 🙂 They are more likely to claim disenfranchisement because of the requirement than to admit to their desire to commit voter fraud. what do you think?

    @Anita, Good job at providing solid evidence about voter fraud, so far you are leading the pack when it comes to facts 🙂

    @VH, keep voting, especially in local elections! Soon, you will realize that voting at the higher levels is useless. When that day comes, jump for joy because you have seen the light of truth 🙂

    @Todd, Can you prove disenfranchisement? So far, I’d so NO!

    @JAC, your pay tax to vote has some merit, maybe that can be a new discussion this week. I’m currently against it, mainly because of the elderly.

    • “@JAC, your pay tax to vote has some merit…”

      How do you figure!?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Basically, I don’t feel that people who have been on Govt assistance for a LOOOOONG time should have a vote. When people can vote themselves money from the treasury, collapse is not far away. I’m sure you already know that! I’m not speaking of those who get temporary help, just those that make it a living.

        • So you believe in stripping away one of the most fundamental rights to a whole class of people because they are poor?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            No, just those who are abusing the system that is offered as temporary help, not a lifestyle!

            • And will you be the sole arbiter of who is a mooch who is undeserving of a vote?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                NO, never! But it can be a future discussion. I’m generally against the JAC’s idea, but it would be fun to chat about it 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:

            First of all VOTING is not a “fundamental right”.

            It is a fundamental PRIVILEGE granted by a Govt which needs it to maintain its credibility.

            Second, poverty does not preclude people from paying taxes. The POOR used to pay taxes just like the rest of the US citizenry. Maybe that was before your time.

            There was a sound reason the Founders originally limited voting to landholders. Now I don’t agree with going that far on State wide or National Elections. It still has merit in some form when it comes to local and county elections. And State elections where that is the primary taxiing body.

    • “@Buck, Would voter ID laws work to stop voter fraud?”

      All evidence I’ve found points to no. You keep discounting the findings of the Brennan report on this point. Why?

      Other studies I’ve come across (will try to find and post links later) have found that voter ID laws correlate to an upwards of 2% reduced voter turnout…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        You keep discounting the findings of the Brennan report on this point. Why?

        Abstract: Citizens Without Proof, a report on voter identification requirements produced by the Brennan Center at New York University’s School of Law, is both dubious in its methodology and results and suspect in its sweeping conclusions. By eschewing many of the traditional scientific methods of data collection and analysis, the authors of the Brennan Center study appear to have pursued results that advance a particular political agenda rather than the truth about voter identification. Given that Citizens Without Proof is the study most frequently cited by opponents of voter identification requirements, its shortcomings cannot simply be dismissed—a tempting solution, given the study’s dubious methodology. Rather, the conclusions drawn by the Brennan Center must be contrasted with other, legitimate studies—a process that will reveal the truth about voter identification requirements.

        I think this about covers it 🙂

        • “Citizens Without Proof” as far as I am aware is a survey of citizens who do not have valid ID as required under cetain voter ID laws.

          I posted to a report entitled “The Truth About Voter Fraud” – an entirely different study. Try again.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Washington, D.C. – A new report from the National Center for Public Policy Research finds the Brennan Center for Justice – one of the country’s loudest opponents of voter integrity measures – to have a history of bias-driven research.

            The report also discloses that the Brennan Center has received millions in funding from George Soros.

            The report is the latest entry in the National Center’s series.

            “The Brennan Center is on a mission to undermine support for voter integrity measures, claiming that state-level voter ID provisions will disfranchise millions of voters and that voter fraud rarely occurs. However, some of its major reports concerning voter ID measures and voter fraud are wrought with bias and have been refuted by election scholars,” said National Center General Counsel Justin Danhof.

            The Brennan folks are a biased group of liberals funded by Soros, why on earth would I apply any of their findings on the side of truth. They have an agenda, there work is not a basis of fact, but just more false (LIES) from the left to support their political agenda. That should about cover it, Yes?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I’m sure that any organization funded by the Koch bros. would be discounted by the left, most vehemently, I might add.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The projections are not a STUDY. Just as the one Matt posted, they are estimates and opinions.

        If this were true then you should be thankful those 2% don’t vote.

        The Brennan study did not address how or when Voter Id would work, or why.

        It simply discounted it when compared to the cases which Brennan chose to highlight in the analysis.

  29. GMan, I’m curious what your definition of ‘collapse’ is..and on what time frame are you thinking…and how will a collapse affect me..

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    Chicago politics are alive and well with these losers in DC.

    The White House is ordering insurance companies not to criticize Obamacare and threatening “retribution” against executives who speak out, according to CNN reporter Drew Griffin.

  31. Just A Citizen says:


    I am sharing your “sinking” feeling as I watch the voters of Virginia accepting that scumbag McCaullif for Governor.

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — An internal government memo obtained by The Associated Press shows administration officials were concerned that a lack of testing posed a “high” security risk for President Barack Obama’s new health insurance website.

    The Sept. 27 memo to Medicare chief Marylin Tavenner said a website contractor wasn’t able to test all the security controls in one complete version of the system.

    Insufficient testing “exposed a level of uncertainty that can be deemed as a high risk,” the memo said.

    The memo recommended setting up a security team to address risks, conduct daily tests, and a full security test within two to three months of going live.

    At a congressional hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the site’s security certification is temporary, but asserted consumers’ personal information is secure.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    Well now, another blow to the disenfranchisement crowd. I just personally spent several hours with an elder person filling out paperwork and interviewing for senior/section 8 housing through HUD. To get into HUD run Section 8 housing (for the poor), the following documents are REQUIRED to get approved. A picture ID, a SSAN card, a long form Birth Certificate, bank statements, proof of income and several references. Please note the first 3 :). So what poor people are going to get disenfranchised again? The homeless, who a vast majority are mentally ill? Illegal aliens? Please, someone on the Left prove disenfranchisement of the poor due to voter ID laws. If not, at least admit it’s a political fairy tale!

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    I couldn’t make this stuff up if I wanted too!

    And some of ya’ll think I’m off the wall 🙄

  35. gmanfortruth says:

    When Chris “Tingles” Matthews starts questioning Obama and Hillary, things have to be bad. Am I stating to see a slow switch in MSNBC? Are they starting to leave the Church of Obama and coming back to realizing that their ratings suck because of their unending love for Obama and his minions? I’m starting to see how money can change the political beliefs of some of these Left wing media perps.

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    A new thread will be started soon. I want to look further into Buck’s position of “do we need another law?” Excluding any links that have been presented in support of Buck’s position, he does make a good case against the law, in some ways. Do we really need more laws? I don’t think so, but many believe that voter ID laws will work to stop some voter fraud. In many ways I agree, in many ways I think it’s a useless argument when we consider our choices, R or D. That alone is voter fraud, but nobody see’s it for what it is.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      As you move forward you need to consider WHAT is needed to get Govt issued ID.

      Then think about WHO should and should NOT vote.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I will be putting up a new thread tonight or in the early morning. We will go from there. I would like YOU to lead the who should vote subject, I’m not the best moderator because I think voting is a waste of time. 🙂

  37. gmanfortruth says:
%d bloggers like this: