Florida Republicans Admit Voter Suppression Was The Goal Of New Election Laws

Its a blue state with a Tea Party governor and a Republican legislature?

 

New York elected Guiliani, Massachusetts Mitt Romney, and California the Governator.

I suppose you'd argue those are all red states?

Not to mention, the Tea Party governor has approval ratings in the 30's.

 

Did those states also have reliably Republican legislatures?

 

Is there an echo? Leftist goes to whacko leftist site to discover that Republicans wanted to suppress the voters. You are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed right we do. We want to suppress the dead voters. They tend to vote as frequently for the Democrats as blacks do. We want to suppress the illegal alien vote. They also nearly always vote for Democrats. We want to suppress the frequent voter. After the first vote they get on a roll and vote over and over and over for Democrats.

So states with laws insisting that each voter identify themselves and vote just once selected the Republican, Romney, over the Marxist, Obama.
Those states preventing such laws overwhelmingly voted for the Marxist.

Hmmm.

 

Admit it. If the dead voted for Republicans you would have a problem. Isn't it uncanny how the dead vote just the right numbers to give the democrat the win?

 

Oh, wait. So are we changing the standard of "red state"? You mentioned governors. That not matter now? We only looking at legislatures? Or, more likely, are you just making it up as you go?

Except you have no evidence to back that up whatsoever.

 

What lil Mike's not telling you is that although our state legislature is still red, it's bleeding and the influx of new democrat state reps and senators will seriously dampen the insanity that has held our legislature in it's grip the past few years.

Why? Because of the governor. Scott's approval rating isn't 30%, it's 26 and would be lower if he hadn't capitulated on some issues. Even Republicans in the state say he's a train wreck.

He's the perfect example of the need for election campaign finance reform. This idiot basically bought his election and the republican idiots and *********s of Florida, including lil Mike, gleefully fell for his line and voted for him.

 

No, a state is red or blue if the majority of their state offices are red or blue. New Jersey is a blue state even though their governor is red, because a majority of their state offices are blue.

 

We'll see. I think Floridians are getting tired of being a laughingstock every election day.

 

I'm generally inclined to agree with you, but I was referring more in terms of Presidential politics. I see Florida voting Democratic consistently if the Republicans don't make serious changes.

 

Oh, I agree. But it depends. The GOP looks to be putting up Rubio in 2016, and I think he has a real convincing shot at pulling an upset.

 

Names on VOTER ROLLS do not consist FRAUD.
Obviously, if someone dies 2 days before the election, he will still be on the voter rolls.

Now. . .show us that a significant number of dead people have filled a BALLOT. . .and you may have a point.

However, you will ALSO need to show WHICH party they voted for!

 

Important fact about political forums: everything anyone says has a snide political point behind it.

For example, many Republicans advocate voter ID laws because they know they would negatively impact Democrats as their demographics tend to be those without ID. The reverse is also true for many Democrats - they don't want voter ID laws because it will negatively impact them at the polls. The Republican talking point is basically that while electoral fraud is a small problem in terms of the overall scheme of the election, crime should be pursued wherever it exists, regardless of its scale. I find it interesting that they don't have this same level of opposition to crime when it comes to corporate or banking fraud. Why? Because obviously voter ID legislation benefits their party. Likewise for Democrats.

Let's instead take a pragmatic approach: obviously you shouldn't be able to walk into a polling place and vote just like that. Also obviously you shouldn't have to take a DNA test to prove you are who you say you are. It's all about balance. Why not require ID as a prerequisite to register. Then if someone walks in to register and doesn't have ID chances are they can work it all out then and there and prove you are who you say you are using government records: if you have a drivers license on record the government has your photo: bam, you're identified. How do people get these ID cards anyway? There are other methods of identifying someone, which is why someone with no ID at all can be given ID through birth records, the testimony of others, etc. If we sorted all this out before voting day and had on record a name and picture for each person registered to vote then there would be no issue.

Just a thought.

 

Good points, but the bottom line is that every voter should be required to prove that they are who they claim to be before voting. Anyone who disagrees with that has an agenda other than fair elections.

 

Rubio is their only real shot in 2016, either for Florida or the nation. But a Clinton ticket would pretty much devastate anything the Republicans can put forward. I know she wants to take a break for a while, but I hope she seriously considers running again, if for no other reason that she would win easily.

 

Oh, if she ends up running in 2016 they might as well just give her the Presidency. She'll win it easily.

 

No, I'm not changing the definition, you are. You mentioned Massachusetts under Mitt Romney, and California the Governator. Were those states red states during those governorships?

 

What I think bothers them more, as they learned this last election, that the nation does not have to wait with baited breath for them to make up their mind who gets to win the election and can move on without them. It mattered not how Florida went. Obama won with or without them. That has to be a deflating reality check on just how significant they really are.

 

I just don't see how requiring ID is suppressing Democrat voters. Republicans must present ID as well, no? And really, if you don't have ID, you are not a functioning member of society, and why should anyone care what you think anyway, since you obviously have no clue what it takes to make it. Might as well let the dead vote if you're going to let the brain dead vote who can't even get an ID.

 

Not having ID has nothing to do with being "brain dead".

 

No of course not. That's my point.

I declared Florida a blue state with respect to presidential politics, and you countered by saying that it had a Republican governor. I pointed out that this governor is hated there. In addition, tons of "blue states" have had Republican governors, like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and California.

 

Yeah, whatever. Getting an ID is not difficult. If you can't even get your (*)(*)(*)(*) together enough to get an ID, then your opinion is most likely worthless. Something to consider, we would probably get a better class of politicians if we had a better class of voters.

 

Republican Gov Scott Walker made it more difficult, right after he signed Voter ID in Wisconsin:

And BTW, all of this manufactured concern about "the integrity of the vote" is based on a problem which is virtually non-existent. If you'd like to educate yourself on the facts, rather than regurgitating slogans, you may want to take a look at the Brennan Center for Justice study on the subject. http://brennan.3cdn.net/c176576c0065a7eb84_gxm6ib0hl.pdf A sample of its findings:

These cases are not an aberration. In Pennsylvania, supporters of the law were forced to admit to a judge that there were NO KNOWN CASES of in-person voter fraud. In Indiana, the law went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion admitted, "The record contains NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SUCH FRAUD ACTUALLY OCCURRING IN INDIANA AT ANY TIME IN ITS HISTORY."

So be for Voter ID if you want, but at least have the honesty to admit that it's not about preventing voter fraud.

 

Well, that's pretty F'd up, but an abusive exploitation like this doesn't mean that the idea of requiring ID is a bad one.

I haven't regurgitated a single slogan, in fact, if you look, my post was nothing like the standard argument for voter ID laws. So I'll skip reading that case study, since I wasn't talking about voter fraud in the first place.

Uhh, yeah. That's what I've been doing.

 

It is indeed f'ed up. So why would he do it? And why is it a good idea? Especially in view of the statistics I posted?