an act of desperation?

DWFan · 10-04-2008, 12:39 PM

Push to register felons to vote could aid Obama - Yahoo! News

Draw your own conclusions on this one.

roadie · 10-04-2008, 12:46 PM

Well, I'm not sure I understand why they can't vote in the first place, they are still citizens of the country, some have argued that they should not have their gun rights taken away...but I don't get why they can't vote.

stalebiscuit · 10-04-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadie

Well, I'm not sure I understand why they can't vote in the first place, they are still citizens of the country, some have argued that they should not have their gun rights taken away...but I don't get why they can't vote.

if the get the right to vote, when released they should be granted their gun rights back

you cant pick and choose liberties

SwedeSteve · 10-04-2008, 02:10 PM

I don't think they should have ANY rights, period !!

GlockMeister · 10-04-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadie

Well, I'm not sure I understand why they can't vote in the first place, they are still citizens of the country, some have argued that they should not have their gun rights taken away...but I don't get why they can't vote.

So you really think drug dealers, embezzlers, an American charged with domestic terrorism and anyone with any other felony should get to vote? If a person doesn't want to lose their right to vote, they could always just simply OBEY THE LAW!

I'm sorry, they might still be citizens of this country, but if they really gave a crap about that or losing their right to vote or any other freedom this great country offers and that many thousands of men and woman died for protecting, maybe they shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place.

All it's about is getting as many votes for him as possible. He isn't thinking of it as a matter of just getting them their voting rights back, he sees it as more votes for him. Same as him and or the Democrats wanting illegal immigrants to have the right to vote. All a bunch of crap!

nathangdad · 10-04-2008, 02:32 PM

will sink to win.

Nothing matters but winning.

.22hustler · 10-04-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadie

Well, I'm not sure I understand why they can't vote in the first place, they are still citizens of the country, some have argued that they should not have their gun rights taken away...but I don't get why they can't vote.

Each case must be looked at individually. You can't throw a blanket on all.

Rave · 10-04-2008, 06:46 PM

When you become a CONVICTED felon you loose your civil rights.
When released you are still a felon who has paid his/her dues.
Your governor must restore your civil rights,usually after a period of time after your release and a review of your record of post release behavior.

troy2000 · 10-04-2008, 07:17 PM

Speaking of "acts of desperation": the Republican Party is throwing legal challenges at voters in democratic-leaning areas around the country, hoping to reduce the turnout.

For example, in Montana, the State Party has challenged the eligibility of people who filed a change-of-address form with the Post Office, including soldiers who've been deployed to Iraq. They claim they're doing it because, "The integrity of the voting process is something that has to be above reproach to have faith in the system." But strangely enough, they're only doing it in the six counties that are traditionally Democratic strongholds.

They're pulling the same general sort of hold-down-the-vote, legalistic crap in other Democratic-leaning areas across the country, including in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and New York, under the guise of fighting voter fraud.

In Michigan, the state GOP reportedly plans to challenge the registrations of people who lost their homes to foreclosure.

In Wisconsin, the Republican attorney general is suing the state agency that oversees elections, saying that federal law requires that the agency check the names of more than 240,000 voters against driver records. Election clerks there say it is impossible to perform those checks by Nov. 4.

GOP registration challenge frustrates voters, officials | greatfallstribune.com | Great Falls Tribune

TXplt · 10-04-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWFan

Push to register felons to vote could aid Obama - Yahoo! News

Draw your own conclusions on this one.

I think it speaks for itself

Just like the nefarious "early voting" and register in the same day you vote (kleverly inhibiting vetting) combo push in OH.

The whole concept of registration is to verify to the maximum extent possible that a person is legally entitled to vote--this is why it takes some time. I personally woudn't doubt the dems might try to short-circuit this process.

Maybe "stuffing the ballot box" by any other name.

troy2000 · 10-04-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXplt

I think it speaks for itself

Just like the nefarious "early voting" and register in the same day you vote (kleverly inhibiting vetting) combo push in OH.
The whole concept of registration is to verify to the maximum extent possible that a person is legally entitled to vote--this is why it takes some time. I personally woudn't doubt the dems might try to short-circuit this process.
Maybe "stuffing the ballot box" by any other name.

The whole Republican campaign the last few years to 'reduce voter fraud' is a cover for suppressing the vote. They have yet to uncover enough voter fraud, anywhere in the country, to justify their alleged concern for the integrity of the registration process.

Their true concern is that Republicans are simply outnumbered. Since only a third of the registered voters are Republicans, they've adopted a two-prong approach: encourage turnout among the party faithful and in heavily Republican areas, and discourage it among everyone else.

Frankly, I prefer the Democratic method of trying to win: encouraging more people to vote, rather than discouraging those who want to.

TXplt · 10-04-2008, 08:37 PM

Nice to hear from you again, Troy

Never heard verifying someone is legally allowed to vote is "suppressing." That's a stretch that even you won't be able to make. Maybe the next time I get pulled over I'll tell the trooper he's suppressing me when he wants to see my license. Maybe I could make the same argument to the FAA when one of their inspectors wants to see my pilot certificate. Wonder how far I'd get ? Just like "enough" voter fraud. Guess it's the old "democrat thinkin' " kicking in again. How's the state kash flow looking there in CA btw ? Maybe y'all best stop passing all those silly rules banning trans fats and the like--I'll bet laying off a few of the trans fat police (as well as getting rid of some of those silly carcinogen placards) might help get y'all into the black.

I missed an election a couple of years back in TX because I didn't register in time (despite mil ID, drivers license, etc.). I simply looked at it as a cock-up on my part and took responsibility and made sure it never happened again. I'm happy we make sure that people aren't voting fradulently. That's why we have the registration process--if we could instantly, accurately and positively verify eligibility that'd be fine for me. But we can't in many cases.

My opinion (I know it's not constitutional, but we could amend the consitution) is that one should either be paying tax or own (free and clear) property before one can vote. This guarantees the voter has a stake in the outcome, and can't just use his vote to boondoggle himself/herself $$$ out of the kandidate with the pretty voice throwing cash and free everything their way. Our current schemes to vote $ out of the public treasury (where candidates effectively buy votes) isn't working.

Anyway, I do value your opinion and hearing from you, even when you're really wrong

roadie · 10-04-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

So you really think drug dealers, embezzlers, an American charged with domestic terrorism and anyone with any other felony should get to vote? If a person doesn't want to lose their right to vote, they could always just simply OBEY THE LAW!

I'm sorry, they might still be citizens of this country, but if they really gave a crap about that or losing their right to vote or any other freedom this great country offers and that many thousands of men and woman died for protecting, maybe they shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place.

All it's about is getting as many votes for him as possible. He isn't thinking of it as a matter of just getting them their voting rights back, he sees it as more votes for him. Same as him and or the Democrats wanting illegal immigrants to have the right to vote. All a bunch of crap!

What are you talking about...cool your jets pal, all I was saying is I just didn't understand why they couldn't vote...literally. I said nothing about anyone wanting votes. The slam was not appreciated. Is it getting to the point here where someone can't just pose an honest question without getting jumped on?

Cyrano · 10-04-2008, 09:09 PM

Since I became eligible to vote, the only election I have missed is the 1988 general election. I had just moved and had not lived at my new address long enough to establish residency. All the rest, I've voted in, even when that meant sending in an absentee ballot because I would be at sea on election day.

I'm of two minds on the verification issue. I don't want anyone who is legally eligible to vote to be denied the opportunity to vote. But I don't think it is unreasonable to verify that Voter A is in fact Voter A and not a ringer snuck in by one political party or the other.

In my town, you are verified by members of the Election Committee at the polling station, and the method they use is to check your signature from either your voter registration card (if you are newly registered at your address of record) or your signature from signing the voting rolls at the polling station the last time you voted. I've never seen or heard of the people doing the verification asking for ID. On the other hand, our town still votes using Hollerith Tabulator-type IBM voting machines built in the 1950s and we've never had a case of electoral fraud. I know things are done differently elsewhere, but most places accept a driver's license or state-issued ID card as proof you're who you say you are.

But let's suppose a state is really being paranoid. Just put out a biometric scanner tied in to a central computer. Make taking a biometric scan, say of a thumbprint and a retinal scan, part of the registration process. On election day, you enter your name, press your thumb to a touchpad and look into a scanner. A second or three later (which is eons in computer time), the machine verifies you, and you go into the booth and vote. Provided a sane method of voting is being used - none of that butterfly ballot, 'hanging chad' crap - I'd say voter fraud has been taken out of the picture.

Notice I don't say anything about hacking, faulty programming that yields a false result or several someones taking bribes to set the tabulators to something other than zero. But that ought to stop voter fraud, anyway.

Of course, it would be nice to have a candidate or two worth voting for....

troy2000 · 10-04-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXplt

Nice to hear from you again, Troy

Never heard verifying someone is legally allowed to vote is "suppressing." That's a stretch that even you won't be able to make. Maybe the next time I get pulled over I'll tell the trooper he's suppressing me when he wants to see my license. Maybe I could make the same argument to the FAA when one of their inspectors wants to see my pilot certificate. Wonder how far I'd get ? Just like "enough" voter fraud. Guess it's the old "democrat thinkin' " kicking in again. How's the state kash flow looking there in CA btw ? Maybe y'all best stop passing all those silly rules banning trans fats and the like--I'll bet laying off a few of the trans fat police (as well as getting rid of some of those silly carcinogen placards) might help get y'all into the black.
I missed an election a couple of years back in TX because I didn't register in time (despite mil ID, drivers license, etc.). I simply looked at it as a cock-up on my part and took responsibility and made sure it never happened again. I'm happy we make sure that people aren't voting fradulently. That's why we have the registration process--if we could instantly, accurately and positively verify eligibility that'd be fine for me. But we can't in many cases.
My opinion (I know it's not constitutional, but we could amend the consitution) is that one should either be paying tax or own (free and clear) property before one can vote. This guarantees the voter has a stake in the outcome, and can't just use his vote to boondoggle himself/herself $$$ out of the kandidate with the pretty voice throwing cash and free everything their way. Our current schemes to vote $ out of the public treasury (where candidates effectively buy votes) isn't working.
Anyway, I do value your opinion and hearing from you, even when you're really wrong

When a party challenges voter registrations at the last minute in areas where the vote tends to run against it, knowing that some people won't manage to jump through the hoops in time, it's suppressing the vote. Put any flowery spin on it you want; it has nothing to do with identifying yourself to a state trooper.

And the last time I checked, I wasn't a member of the California State Legislature. I haven't passed any laws regarding trans fats, nor have I hired any trans fat police. Although that also has jack to do with what we were talking about...

So you think voting should be restricted to people who are property owners or 'pay tax'. Why am I not surprised that you would believe only people with money and property have the motivation and good judgment needed to vote? Talk about elitism...

But your proposal wouldn't cut down the number of voters nearly as much as you think; everyone who buys gasoline is paying federal taxes, every time he fills up. And everyone who pays rent is covering the landlord's property taxes.

Nor is it only the poor who are looking for government handouts, gaming the system and abusing the taxpayers. Some of the richest companies, organizations and individuals in the country are the greediest.

SPOCAHP ANAR · 10-05-2008, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

Frankly, I prefer the Democratic method of trying to win: encouraging more people to vote, rather than discouraging those who want to.

Frankly I prefer that only legally eligible people who are registered vote actually get the chance to vote, and they do so by providing an approved ID; all others can go suck it.

What the Republicans are doing sounds kinda like the Gore tactic in Florida a few years back. Challenge those votes that tend to be Republican and only recount those in heavily democratic counties.

troy2000 · 10-05-2008, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPOCAHP ANAR

Frankly I prefer that only legally eligible people who are registered vote actually get the chance to vote, and they do so by providing an approved ID; all others can go suck it.
What the Republicans are doing sounds kinda like the Gore tactic in Florida a few years back. Challenge those votes that tend to be Republican and only recount those in heavily democratic counties.

This is more in the way of a preemptive strike: they're trying to stop people from voting to begin with, rather than challenging the vote count afterward. And it's a general tactic across the country this election season.

They aren't trying to stop voters from registering or challenging their ID's, in most of the cases. Instead, they're bringing up last-minute challenges to people who are already registered, hoping it won't get resolved in time to allow them to vote, or that the unnecessary inconvenience will make them not fight it.

But it is the logical extension to their campaign to pass laws requiring photo ID's, which were timed whenever possible to make it difficult for existing voters to comply quickly enough for the elections.

GlockMeister · 10-05-2008, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadie

What are you talking about...cool your jets pal, all I was saying is I just didn't understand why they couldn't vote...literally. I said nothing about anyone wanting votes. The slam was not appreciated. Is it getting to the point here where someone can't just pose an honest question without getting jumped on?

Wasn't a slam. If you felt it was, I apologize. Yes, you asked why can't they vote? I read it as if you were asking, so, big deal, they have a felony, doesn't mean they should lose their right to vote. So I answered it in that regards, I sincerely apologize if I took it other then you intended. My Bad.

To also answer your other comment about it seems as if you can't post in here anymore without getting jumped on. I'd honestly reply you're right, as far as when it comes to the election and politics. Why you might ask? What difference does or should that make? I'd say, WE ALL HAVE A LOT AT STAKE WITH THIS ELECTION AND WE ALL HAVE A LOT OF SINCERE PASSION NOT ONLY FOR GUNS AND GUN RIGHTS, BUT FOR THIS COUNTRY; AND SOME STRONGLY AND PASSIONATELY FEEL THE OBAMA/BIDEN TICKET IS THE ANSWER AND SOME THINK THE McCAIN/PALIN TICKET IS THE ANSWER. When it comes to the political thread or posts or replies to the election, try to remember this, we all need to and not take anything too personally.

Again Roadie, I apologize. I did answer out of passion for what I just mentioned above.

TXplt · 10-05-2008, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

Nor is it only the poor who are looking for government handouts, gaming the system and abusing the taxpayers. Some of the richest companies, organizations and individuals in the country are the greediest.

Guess you're right on this one. I believe they're called democrats

Come from all walks of life, but share a common bond.

roadie · 10-05-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

Wasn't a slam. If you felt it was, I apologize. Yes, you asked why can't they vote? I read it as if you were asking, so, big deal, they have a felony, doesn't mean they should lose their right to vote. So I answered it in that regards, I sincerely apologize if I took it other then you intended. My Bad.

To also answer your other comment about it seems as if you can't post in here anymore without getting jumped on. I'd honestly reply you're right, as far as when it comes to the election and politics. Why you might ask? What difference does or should that make? I'd say, WE ALL HAVE A LOT AT STAKE WITH THIS ELECTION AND WE ALL HAVE A LOT OF SINCERE PASSION NOT ONLY FOR GUNS AND GUN RIGHTS, BUT FOR THIS COUNTRY; AND SOME STRONGLY AND PASSIONATELY FEEL THE OBAMA/BIDEN TICKET IS THE ANSWER AND SOME THINK THE McCAIN/PALIN TICKET IS THE ANSWER. When it comes to the political thread or posts or replies to the election, try to remember this, we all need to and not take anything too personally.

Again Roadie, I apologize. I did answer out of passion for what I just mentioned above.

No worries, this have just been wacky round here lately.

10-04-2008, 12:39 PM	#1
DWFan Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: N. Texas Posts: 922 Blog Entries: 2	an act of desperation? Push to register felons to vote could aid Obama - Yahoo! News Draw your own conclusions on this one.

10-04-2008, 12:46 PM	#2
roadie Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 732 Images: 10 Blog Entries: 1	Well, I'm not sure I understand why they can't vote in the first place, they are still citizens of the country, some have argued that they should not have their gun rights taken away...but I don't get why they can't vote. __________________ Blaming guns for violent acts is like blaming the keyboard for your poor spelling.

10-04-2008, 02:10 PM	#4
SwedeSteve Thor's Hammer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Alaska Posts: 12,563 Images: 1	I don't think they should have ANY rights, period !! __________________ Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers

10-04-2008, 02:32 PM	#6
nathangdad Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,906	It makes me sick as to the level political campaigns will sink to win. Nothing matters but winning.

10-04-2008, 06:46 PM	#8
Rave Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tampa Posts: 7,048	When you become a CONVICTED felon you loose your civil rights. When released you are still a felon who has paid his/her dues. Your governor must restore your civil rights,usually after a period of time after your release and a review of your record of post release behavior. __________________ USAF '62-'66 . Last edited by Rave; 10-04-2008 at 06:48 PM.

10-04-2008, 07:17 PM	#9
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 10,017 Images: 9	Speaking of "acts of desperation": the Republican Party is throwing legal challenges at voters in democratic-leaning areas around the country, hoping to reduce the turnout. For example, in Montana, the State Party has challenged the eligibility of people who filed a change-of-address form with the Post Office, including soldiers who've been deployed to Iraq. They claim they're doing it because, "The integrity of the voting process is something that has to be above reproach to have faith in the system." But strangely enough, they're only doing it in the six counties that are traditionally Democratic strongholds. They're pulling the same general sort of hold-down-the-vote, legalistic crap in other Democratic-leaning areas across the country, including in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and New York, under the guise of fighting voter fraud. In Michigan, the state GOP reportedly plans to challenge the registrations of people who lost their homes to foreclosure. In Wisconsin, the Republican attorney general is suing the state agency that oversees elections, saying that federal law requires that the agency check the names of more than 240,000 voters against driver records. Election clerks there say it is impossible to perform those checks by Nov. 4. GOP registration challenge frustrates voters, officials \| greatfallstribune.com \| Great Falls Tribune __________________ I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said. WF Buckley, Jr Last edited by troy2000; 10-04-2008 at 10:01 PM.

10-04-2008, 08:37 PM	#12
TXplt Conservative in Exile Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 3,188 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	Nice to hear from you again, Troy Never heard verifying someone is legally allowed to vote is "suppressing." That's a stretch that even you won't be able to make. Maybe the next time I get pulled over I'll tell the trooper he's suppressing me when he wants to see my license. Maybe I could make the same argument to the FAA when one of their inspectors wants to see my pilot certificate. Wonder how far I'd get ? Just like "enough" voter fraud. Guess it's the old "democrat thinkin' " kicking in again. How's the state kash flow looking there in CA btw ? Maybe y'all best stop passing all those silly rules banning trans fats and the like--I'll bet laying off a few of the trans fat police (as well as getting rid of some of those silly carcinogen placards) might help get y'all into the black. I missed an election a couple of years back in TX because I didn't register in time (despite mil ID, drivers license, etc.). I simply looked at it as a cock-up on my part and took responsibility and made sure it never happened again. I'm happy we make sure that people aren't voting fradulently. That's why we have the registration process--if we could instantly, accurately and positively verify eligibility that'd be fine for me. But we can't in many cases. My opinion (I know it's not constitutional, but we could amend the consitution) is that one should either be paying tax or own (free and clear) property before one can vote. This guarantees the voter has a stake in the outcome, and can't just use his vote to boondoggle himself/herself $$$ out of the kandidate with the pretty voice throwing cash and free everything their way. Our current schemes to vote $ out of the public treasury (where candidates effectively buy votes) isn't working. Anyway, I do value your opinion and hearing from you, even when you're really wrong __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas Last edited by TXplt; 10-04-2008 at 08:39 PM.

10-04-2008, 09:09 PM	#14
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 2,990	Since I became eligible to vote, the only election I have missed is the 1988 general election. I had just moved and had not lived at my new address long enough to establish residency. All the rest, I've voted in, even when that meant sending in an absentee ballot because I would be at sea on election day. I'm of two minds on the verification issue. I don't want anyone who is legally eligible to vote to be denied the opportunity to vote. But I don't think it is unreasonable to verify that Voter A is in fact Voter A and not a ringer snuck in by one political party or the other. In my town, you are verified by members of the Election Committee at the polling station, and the method they use is to check your signature from either your voter registration card (if you are newly registered at your address of record) or your signature from signing the voting rolls at the polling station the last time you voted. I've never seen or heard of the people doing the verification asking for ID. On the other hand, our town still votes using Hollerith Tabulator-type IBM voting machines built in the 1950s and we've never had a case of electoral fraud. I know things are done differently elsewhere, but most places accept a driver's license or state-issued ID card as proof you're who you say you are. But let's suppose a state is really being paranoid. Just put out a biometric scanner tied in to a central computer. Make taking a biometric scan, say of a thumbprint and a retinal scan, part of the registration process. On election day, you enter your name, press your thumb to a touchpad and look into a scanner. A second or three later (which is eons in computer time), the machine verifies you, and you go into the booth and vote. Provided a sane method of voting is being used - none of that butterfly ballot, 'hanging chad' crap - I'd say voter fraud has been taken out of the picture. Notice I don't say anything about hacking, faulty programming that yields a false result or several someones taking bribes to set the tabulators to something other than zero. But that ought to stop voter fraud, anyway. Of course, it would be nice to have a candidate or two worth voting for....