5 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2016
    1. If voting fraud is the third oldest profession, and if it is somehow rampant in all these states that have Republican leaders at their helm, then there should be reasonable ways to combat it

      if voter laws truly are the third oldest profession, how realistic is it that we'll actually see an end to it?

    2. You can do the math. You can be stupid and vote in America. You can be drunk and vote in America. You can be mentally insane and vote in America. You could vote in America for Snooki or Rod Blagojevich. Or, like tens of millions of your fellow citizens, you can choose not to vote at all. But if you don't have the means to get a driver's license, or if you cannot afford the time and money it takes to get certain other forms of government ID, you are out of luck? What a great country this is. p.caption2{width:595px;color:black;background:white;text-align:right;padding:7px 10px 7px 10px;line-height:11px;text-size:8px;margin:-5px 0px 5px 0px!important;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;}

      By making this argument, would you be pushing voting laws to be even more strict and restrain even more people? Is it easier to level the playing ground, making voting equally as hard for everyone, or to try to make things easier full?

    1. not need identification

      The issue isn't specifically if someone "needs" identification, but if they are actually able to attain it.

    2. 120 fraudulent voted.

      but how much of a significiant difference does 120 votes really make in an election?

  2. Jan 2016