DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

So without a shred of evidence to back it up, it's your ASSumption that a politician you dislike will violate the law.

Talk about moving the goal post! lmao

Yeah, since Trump decided a Hispanic judge couldn't do his job I should have expected his followers to use it as a template.

Yeah, since Trump decided a Hispanic judge couldn't do his job I should have expected his followers to use it as a template.

ahhh I see where you went. so you ASSumed I meant because of his name that's why his politics are such. Actually, it would be because of his politics. But go ahead, throw out the racist and bigot names - like clockwork.

maybe you should do some research on the gentleman and learn what his stances and cases he has backed are, then get back to me on that. typical.

I'm saying that your claim that we couldn't have a popular vote because it would be at the whim of illegal votes cast in "LA and Chicagoland" is laughably untrue.

This whole thing started when Trump assumed he would lose the election, and wanted to lean on "voter fraud" as his excuse. After winning, he was fuming because people kept bringing up the popular vote, so he funded a commission to be headed up by Kobach or one of those other nativist weirdos who believed there was rampant voter fraud. He had to abandon it, because the commission tasked with proving it could only come up with a dozen or so instances, the majority of which were frauds cases involving people voting Trump.

Does voter fraud occur in the U.S.? Yes.

Is it rampant? No.

Like, Trump himself - a grudge-holding man hold- has given up the ghost on this one.

What does that have to do with whether he will follow the law or not?

someone in charge of enforcing laws won't do so because of their personal beliefs is something I simply won't do.

Have they posted a single case yet?

if every vote matters in a popular vote then the presence of even a single illegally cast vote (for any party) essentailly invalidates the whole process

It always boils down with them the same way it does Trump - "OK, I have no proof of widespread voter fraud. But I feel it's happening."

So, I have a question: Why do some areas/states fight or argue against showing a photo i.d. in order to vote?

So, I have a question: Why do some areas/states fight or argue against showing a photo i.d. in order to vote?

Because not everyone has an acceptable photo I'd, nor are they free. Why don't cons worry about voter fraud in absentee ballots?

I do worry about absentee ballots as well.

In Ohio, it costs $8.50. It's good for 4 years. http://ohiodriverslicense.org/licenses/id-cards.html

That's $2.15 per year. I find it extremely unbelievable that people can't afford it.

Can it be 'inconvenient' to get one? Perhaps. It entails getting to A BMV with the proper papers. And it doesn't involve much more than buying sudafed at a store, or seeing a doctor.

The whole notion that it is unaffordable is foolish, in my opinion. Now, I only checked Ohio and Alabama. Alabama is at $23.50.

The 24th Amendment of the US Constitution forbids anyone to be denied a vote because they can't pay a poll tax or any other tax. As long as there is a free method by which you can vote, you are OK. Once you institute things like Voter ID requirements, then you must ensure the Voter ID is available both easily and free of charge, which unfortunately it isn't. There hasn't been a constitutional challenge on the 24th in a while, but if the Supreme Court took up Voter ID, it would be a quick turnaround in favor of the citizen with how states have currently drafted it.

then make it free to get an id. case closed, we have voter id. You cant say its not easy to get an id, as millions upon millions already have obtained them. So that's false claim.

Yup, as long as the mechanism used to obtain voter registration involves no burden on the voter, it's fine. As to it being easy to get an ID, you are mistaken: http://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FullReportVoterIDJune20141.pdf . The cost ranges from $75 to $175 as of 4 years ago. To someone living at the poverty line, they wouldn't be able to justify that purchase. And just like that, you've disenfranchised a voter.

Heck an anecdotal example was when I bought a car in Connecticut. I had just moved there and had an Ohio license. I bought the car, made the down payment, all ready to go, but in CT I needed a CT ID to get the car titled and registered. This was not easy as my mom lost my birth certificate a few years before this event. In the end it cost me almost $200 to get a Connecticut ID, just to drive my car off the lot. Fortunately for me, paying $200 unexpectedly is an annoyance, but for others it is not nearly the case.

Did you, or your mom, consider spending $15 to $50 to get a new, certified replacement? I mean, I have my birth certificate, and my wife's, and my daughter's. And I have notarized copies of each.



There is no one, anywhere that will be able to convince me that getting a photo i.d. to vote is cost prohibitive. It might be a cost some don't want to pay. And that's fine.

So, you're fine with the no i.d. required to vote thing?

There's a lot of hurdles it creates to allowing someone to vote, but if a state were to set up a no-fee license and weekend days where they could set up pick ups and drop offs for those who wanted to obtain them for voting purposes, I wouldn't be against a voter ID law

Did you, or your mom, consider spending $15 to $50 to get a new, certified replacement? I mean, I have my birth certificate, and my wife's, and my daughter's. And I have notarized copies of each.



There is no one, anywhere that will be able to convince me that getting a photo i.d. to vote is cost prohibitive. It might be a cost some don't want to pay. And that's fine.

This is colossally stupid and completely ignores the fact that we have 50 individual states and each state is supposed to represent ITSELF and its OWN people.

Moronic.

I don't see how allowing illegals a meaningless vote in a state that is always democrat is somehow worse than having a President elected by Russians.