Jump to content


Disenfranchised in America....the ''beacon of democracy'' is just a lie??


8 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Misty_Fifty_*

Guest_Misty_Fifty_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:56 PM















Democracy. That buzzword we hear over and over again coming from powerful quarters in the US to help explain interventions across the globe, from Iraq to Central America.



But while many in the world are familiar with the buzzword, few may realise that a fight over democracy is being waged on American soil as we speak, and it comes in the form of challenging brand new voting laws.



Here's a little background: In 2010 the Republican Party swept to power at the state level across the US. Today they control the senate and the House of Representatives in 25 states, and have a significant presence in a number of other state level legislatures. They've been using that newly acquired power to pass laws that clamp down on what they say is rampant voter fraud. To date, at least 30 new laws and bills have been introduced to change the rules of the voting game, like for example requiring voters to have a government-issued photo ID to cast their ballot.



Since embarking on this story, I have had a number of people ask me "what's the big deal with wanting people to present a photo ID when they vote?"



On the surface, nothing.



Until you think about the fact that only 30 per cent of Americans actually have a passport. Compare that to 60 per cent in Canada and 75 per cent in the UK, and a certain picture begins to emerge. Now break that down even further, and you will see that 22 per cent (almost a quarter) of African Americans don't have any kind of photo ID. When you look at it like that, then it becomes clear that the picture is much more complicated than originally meets the eye, and that the burden of complying with these new rules will be heavier on some communities than on others.



Combating voter fraud is not limited to voters themselves. In Florida for instance, civil society groups that have historically helped educate and sign up voters are now being forced to operate under tighter rules. In the US, unlike some other Western democracies, you are not automatically registered to vote if you are eligible, and you won't get a notice in the mail telling you where to show up to cast your ballot. The onus is upon you to sign yourself up. Civil society organisations in Florida now have 48 hours instead of 10 days to sign up a new voter, double check all the details on their registration form, and submit that form to the state. Making a mistake on a submitted form is now a felony under Florida's new rules, punishable with jail time and fines.



While traveling for the story, it became clear to me how much certain communities depend on the help of civil rights groups to do just that. Carolyn Thompson is a voter protection advocate with the Advancement Project, a civil rights organisation in Miami. She's been working on voter education with the Caribbean community there for decades. "New immigrants who have gotten their citizenship but are not civically educated and engaged have no one to register them. We don't have the capacity to reach deep into poor neighbourhoods to find voters who are not registered anymore," Thompson told me when we met in a Haitian community centre.



But Kurt Browning, a Republican who ran Florida's elections for over 20 years and is Florida's former secretary of state, disagrees with Thompson. He told me the people to blame for any issues are civil society groups themselves. "We had an instance or two in Florida, where we've had potential voters not able to cast a ballot because the person they had entrusted their form to did not turn the form in. Now, I think that's a travesty, they didn't even get to vote."



No one knows exactly how these laws will affect the outcome of the 2012 presidential election, but what we already know, thanks to an extensive study by the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute at NYU school of law is this: of the 12 likely battleground swing states, 5 have already passed new voting laws. Of the 270 electoral votes colleges a candidate needs to secure his or her victory, 171 – or 63 per cent - are affected by the new voting laws.



This is significant because the US system is 'winner takes all'. That means that to win a state you need 50 + 1 per cent. In swing states where winning is considered critical to securing the White House, that + 1 becomes crucial. Therefore if the election turns out to be a close one, even the slightest impact of these new voting laws could sway the final result.



If you are not male, white, and a property owner, then chances are your right to vote only came as a result of a tough and long struggle against forces that have actively engaged in suppressing voting rights at one point or another throughout American history. Rutgers University professor Lorraine Minnite has done some of the most extensive research into the history of voting in the US. She told me: "We should not forget that both parties have engaged in this kind of behavior. It was the Democratic Party in the South that committed the worst violence in terms of trying to suppress the African American vote."



And that's why so many communities in the US are taking these Republican-driven changes so personally.



That's also why Section 5 exists. It's the one part of the US Voting Rights Act which specifically says that states and districts with a history of discriminating against minorities must clear any changes to their voting rules at the federal level, via the federal court and the Department of Justice (DOJ). These two have already struck down voting laws in South Carolina and Texas.



Texas refuses to go down without a fight. The state is now challenging the Voting Rights Act itself, arguing that Section 5 amounts to an unconstitutional federal intervention in state affairs. In the case of Texas, the DOJ concluded that the state's requirement for photo ID disproportionately burdened the Hispanic population, despite the fact that Texas "did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation".



Which brings me to my final point. Throughout all of this, no one has been able to show that voter fraud and voter impersonation – the raison d'etre cited for of all these changes – is indeed a structural and comprehensive problem that plagues US democracy. "I looked everywhere where I thought there would be evidence. So it was a process of trying to find the footprint of a ghost," was professor Minnite's assessment of the prevalence of voter fraud.



The real question when thinking about all of these new voting rules then, is that old American adage: if it ain't broke, why fix it?

LINK.....


We at Fault Lines set out on a journey across Florida and Tennessee to answer that very question. Watch our piece, "Disenfranchised in America", online.

#2 Guest_Misty_Fifty_*

Guest_Misty_Fifty_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:59 PM

"The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud. It is being used to persuade the public that deceitful and criminal voters are manipulating the electoral system… The exaggerated fear of voter fraud has a long history of scuttling efforts to make voting easier and more inclusive, especially for marginalised groups in American society." - Lorraine Minnite, The Politics of Voter Fraud, 2007

San Pedro, CA - Last week, thousands of people participated in a re-enactment of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights, which was directly responsible for the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The recent march culminated with a rally at the state capitol.

"We didn't come to commemorate what happened 47 years ago. We came to continue what happened 47 years ago," said Reverend Al Sharpton, whose National Action Network was a principal organiser of the march. Martin Luther King III told the crowd his father would have opposed voter photo-ID laws being passed or considered in many states. "I think my father would be greatly disappointed in our nation," he said.


Republicans allege that in-person voter fraud is on the up and up. Yet there's simply no evidence - or plausible motive - for suspecting that individual voters pose a threat to our democracy. In fact, many of these new measures contribute to the further disenfranchisement of minority groups, while leaving the door open to the potential abuse of electronic vote counts.

According to a report from the Brennan Center for Justice last October, Voting Law Changes in 2011, 34 states had introduced photo ID bills, seven of which had been passed by that time. Five more were passed, but vetoed by state governors. More than 21 million citizens nationwide - around seven per cent of US citizens - do not have such ID. At least 12 states introduced proof of citizenship laws, requiring would-be voters to produce a birth certificate in order to register or vote. Previously, only two states had passed such laws. Before 2006, none had.

Furthermore, at least 13 states introduced bills to end highly popular Election Day and same-day voter registration, limit voter registration mobilisation efforts, and reduce other registration opportunities. This last group of bills have no conceivable relationship to voter fraud. Overall, the report found that these new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. The laws already passed then could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012, and involve states with 171 electoral college votes, 63 per cent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

All manner of rationales and practices were used to prevent blacks from registering and voting - especially in the South - before the Voting Rights Act was passed. Other minorities were also affected, along with poor whites. Indeed, the roll-back of voting rights characterised an entire era of US history - from roughly 1850 to 1920 - as described by Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar in his 2000 book, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. After 1920, voting rights remained restricted until the Civil Rights era. Rationales of efficiency, fraud prevention, and "protecting democracy" were commonplace in the rollback of voting rights during that earlier era, but the ulterior motives are impossible to miss from a distance of 100 years or more. However, they're not that much harder to see today.

Hollow rhetoric

First of all, there's simply no proof that any voter fraud problem exists. Available statistics show that voter fraud is extremely rare - rarer than being struck by lightning. On the federal level, as Lorraine Minnite noted in The Politics of Voter Fraud, government records show that only 24 people were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This was under a very aggressive enforcement regime during the Bush administration. State level evidence is similarly minimal.

Second, there have been efforts at the highest level to artificially drive up voter fraud statistics and to illegally bring prosecutions in a manner to influence elections - clear indications of a propaganda effort intended to deceive. These efforts, under the Bush administration, were directly responsible for the most egregious examples of politically motivated firings in the US Attorneys scandal.

Third, ID requirements in some states are clearly crafted to favour Republican demographics over Democratic ones. In Texas, for example, concealed handgun licenses can be used as voter ID, but student IDs cannot. Other states exclude or limit student IDs as well. The Brennan Center study cited above specifically identified Democratic-leaning groups as being most affected.

Fourth, voter ID laws have also been accompanied by other provisions that tend to suppress the vote, such as roll-backs in early voting and restrictions on voter registration. In Florida, the combination of high fines and short deadlines for turning in new voter registrations created such a punitive environment that the League of Women Voters has ceased its long-standing voter-registration program, which had run for 70 years. A high-school teacher in New Smyrna Beach is facing massive fines, running into the thousands of dollars, for helping her students register to vote.

Fifth, the Republican Party has generally not required photo IDs for its own party primaries and caucuses - which, by the way, have been filled with chaos and uncertainty over outcomes. If photo IDs are so desperately necessary for election integrity in general elections, why aren't they needed for GOP primaries?

Sixth, there are other election security problems that Republicans have not just simply ignored over the past decade or more, they've actually made them worse - which they would not do if their concerns about electoral integrity were pure. Most notable is the problem of vote tabulation that emerged as one of the most profound problems since the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The "solution" that's been almost universally pushed since then is the adoption of private, proprietary computerised voting systems which lack the capacity to be double-checked in case of questionable results - thus substantially reducing the trustworthiness of election results.

Seventh, if there were no ulterior motives, then Republicans would be eager to work with Democrats to develop solutions that addressed the concerns of all parties - such as providing free picture IDs for those who can't afford them, and doing aggressive outreach to make such ID readily available, at the very least.

Eighth, if Republican motives were pure, there would be no pattern of repeated misinformation, disinformation and bad-faith arguments used to push the voter fraud myth, which seemingly remain impervious to any empirically based refutation - much like the deep-seated birther beliefs that I've written about before.

The past as prologue

Perhaps more important than all of the above is the decades-long history of organised Republican voter-suppression efforts, dating back more than 50 years. The earliest well-known example of this took place in Arizona in the late 1950s and early 1960s, targeting both blacks and Latinos. We know about this because former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist was personally involved in this effort, and testimony came out during his confirmation hearings. This suppression programme was taken nationwide with "Project Eagle Eye" in the 1964 Goldwater campaign, and the GOP has engaged in successor programmes ever since.

The key strategy was a process known as "caging", which involves sending out non-forwardable mass mailings, and then compiling challenge lists of potential voters to question from the returned mail. Another variation, called "virtual caging" involves comparing voter rolls to other lists to compile challenge lists. Because these strategies have been used to target mostly minority voters, they appear on their face to violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and a 1980s federal civil suit against the Republican National Committee resulted in a settlement forbidding the RNC to engage in caging - although other GOP groups have taken up the practice since then.

This history is hardly obscure. It's been documented in studies such as "Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters [PDF]", a report authored by Teresa James, JD, for Project Vote in 2007, and "Vote Caging as a Republican Ballot Security Technique", by Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise, published in the William Mitchell Law Review in 2008.

Where have all the Democrats gone?

From all of the above, you might think that my point is the perfidy of Republicans. And, of course, the Republican Party has much to answer for, quite apart from the attitudes of millions of individual Republicans. But what I find most striking, like Sherlock Holmes in "Silver Blaze", is the curious incident of the dog that didn't bark, which is to say, the Democrats. Republicans have been fighting to suppress minority voting for more than 50 years. In the United States today, that ought to count as a moral outrage, but for some reason, Democrats don't do moral outrage. They seem to think that Republicans have a patent on it: a patent they use primarily on made up things, like the "war on religion" or Obama's alien religion and birth.

The Selma-to-Montgomery march was a hopeful sign that something is being done to fight back against this massive effort to disenfranchise millions of US citizens. Recent legal actions have protected hundreds of thousands of voters in Texas and Wisconsin. But we're still missing the national outrage that such attacks on democracy so richly deserve.

One problem is that Obama loves to babble on about how "these aren't Democratic values or Republican values ... they're American values". Obama said this in Kansas early last December, referring to his belief that "this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules". But when it comes to voting rights, the record of the past half century is clear: the Republican Party doesn't believe any of that - even though millions of individual Republicans obviously do. They should be outraged, too - perhaps even more than anyone else, because such anti-American actions are being undertaken in their name.


LINK

#3 matigimu

matigimu

    New Zimbabwean

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:58 PM

View PostMisty_Fifty, on 12 April 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

"The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud. It is being used to persuade the public that deceitful and criminal voters are manipulating the electoral system… The exaggerated fear of voter fraud has a long history of scuttling efforts to make voting easier and more inclusive, especially for marginalised groups in American society." - Lorraine Minnite, The Politics of Voter Fraud, 2007

San Pedro, CA - Last week, thousands of people participated in a re-enactment of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights, which was directly responsible for the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The recent march culminated with a rally at the state capitol.

"We didn't come to commemorate what happened 47 years ago. We came to continue what happened 47 years ago," said Reverend Al Sharpton, whose National Action Network was a principal organiser of the march. Martin Luther King III told the crowd his father would have opposed voter photo-ID laws being passed or considered in many states. "I think my father would be greatly disappointed in our nation," he said.


Republicans allege that in-person voter fraud is on the up and up. Yet there's simply no evidence - or plausible motive - for suspecting that individual voters pose a threat to our democracy. In fact, many of these new measures contribute to the further disenfranchisement of minority groups, while leaving the door open to the potential abuse of electronic vote counts.

According to a report from the Brennan Center for Justice last October, Voting Law Changes in 2011, 34 states had introduced photo ID bills, seven of which had been passed by that time. Five more were passed, but vetoed by state governors. More than 21 million citizens nationwide - around seven per cent of US citizens - do not have such ID. At least 12 states introduced proof of citizenship laws, requiring would-be voters to produce a birth certificate in order to register or vote. Previously, only two states had passed such laws. Before 2006, none had.

Furthermore, at least 13 states introduced bills to end highly popular Election Day and same-day voter registration, limit voter registration mobilisation efforts, and reduce other registration opportunities. This last group of bills have no conceivable relationship to voter fraud. Overall, the report found that these new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. The laws already passed then could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012, and involve states with 171 electoral college votes, 63 per cent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

All manner of rationales and practices were used to prevent blacks from registering and voting - especially in the South - before the Voting Rights Act was passed. Other minorities were also affected, along with poor whites. Indeed, the roll-back of voting rights characterised an entire era of US history - from roughly 1850 to 1920 - as described by Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar in his 2000 book, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. After 1920, voting rights remained restricted until the Civil Rights era. Rationales of efficiency, fraud prevention, and "protecting democracy" were commonplace in the rollback of voting rights during that earlier era, but the ulterior motives are impossible to miss from a distance of 100 years or more. However, they're not that much harder to see today.

Hollow rhetoric

First of all, there's simply no proof that any voter fraud problem exists. Available statistics show that voter fraud is extremely rare - rarer than being struck by lightning. On the federal level, as Lorraine Minnite noted in The Politics of Voter Fraud, government records show that only 24 people were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This was under a very aggressive enforcement regime during the Bush administration. State level evidence is similarly minimal.

Second, there have been efforts at the highest level to artificially drive up voter fraud statistics and to illegally bring prosecutions in a manner to influence elections - clear indications of a propaganda effort intended to deceive. These efforts, under the Bush administration, were directly responsible for the most egregious examples of politically motivated firings in the US Attorneys scandal.

Third, ID requirements in some states are clearly crafted to favour Republican demographics over Democratic ones. In Texas, for example, concealed handgun licenses can be used as voter ID, but student IDs cannot. Other states exclude or limit student IDs as well. The Brennan Center study cited above specifically identified Democratic-leaning groups as being most affected.

Fourth, voter ID laws have also been accompanied by other provisions that tend to suppress the vote, such as roll-backs in early voting and restrictions on voter registration. In Florida, the combination of high fines and short deadlines for turning in new voter registrations created such a punitive environment that the League of Women Voters has ceased its long-standing voter-registration program, which had run for 70 years. A high-school teacher in New Smyrna Beach is facing massive fines, running into the thousands of dollars, for helping her students register to vote.

Fifth, the Republican Party has generally not required photo IDs for its own party primaries and caucuses - which, by the way, have been filled with chaos and uncertainty over outcomes. If photo IDs are so desperately necessary for election integrity in general elections, why aren't they needed for GOP primaries?

Sixth, there are other election security problems that Republicans have not just simply ignored over the past decade or more, they've actually made them worse - which they would not do if their concerns about electoral integrity were pure. Most notable is the problem of vote tabulation that emerged as one of the most profound problems since the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The "solution" that's been almost universally pushed since then is the adoption of private, proprietary computerised voting systems which lack the capacity to be double-checked in case of questionable results - thus substantially reducing the trustworthiness of election results.

Seventh, if there were no ulterior motives, then Republicans would be eager to work with Democrats to develop solutions that addressed the concerns of all parties - such as providing free picture IDs for those who can't afford them, and doing aggressive outreach to make such ID readily available, at the very least.

Eighth, if Republican motives were pure, there would be no pattern of repeated misinformation, disinformation and bad-faith arguments used to push the voter fraud myth, which seemingly remain impervious to any empirically based refutation - much like the deep-seated birther beliefs that I've written about before.

The past as prologue

Perhaps more important than all of the above is the decades-long history of organised Republican voter-suppression efforts, dating back more than 50 years. The earliest well-known example of this took place in Arizona in the late 1950s and early 1960s, targeting both blacks and Latinos. We know about this because former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist was personally involved in this effort, and testimony came out during his confirmation hearings. This suppression programme was taken nationwide with "Project Eagle Eye" in the 1964 Goldwater campaign, and the GOP has engaged in successor programmes ever since.

The key strategy was a process known as "caging", which involves sending out non-forwardable mass mailings, and then compiling challenge lists of potential voters to question from the returned mail. Another variation, called "virtual caging" involves comparing voter rolls to other lists to compile challenge lists. Because these strategies have been used to target mostly minority voters, they appear on their face to violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and a 1980s federal civil suit against the Republican National Committee resulted in a settlement forbidding the RNC to engage in caging - although other GOP groups have taken up the practice since then.

This history is hardly obscure. It's been documented in studies such as "Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters [PDF]", a report authored by Teresa James, JD, for Project Vote in 2007, and "Vote Caging as a Republican Ballot Security Technique", by Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise, published in the William Mitchell Law Review in 2008.

Where have all the Democrats gone?

From all of the above, you might think that my point is the perfidy of Republicans. And, of course, the Republican Party has much to answer for, quite apart from the attitudes of millions of individual Republicans. But what I find most striking, like Sherlock Holmes in "Silver Blaze", is the curious incident of the dog that didn't bark, which is to say, the Democrats. Republicans have been fighting to suppress minority voting for more than 50 years. In the United States today, that ought to count as a moral outrage, but for some reason, Democrats don't do moral outrage. They seem to think that Republicans have a patent on it: a patent they use primarily on made up things, like the "war on religion" or Obama's alien religion and birth.

The Selma-to-Montgomery march was a hopeful sign that something is being done to fight back against this massive effort to disenfranchise millions of US citizens. Recent legal actions have protected hundreds of thousands of voters in Texas and Wisconsin. But we're still missing the national outrage that such attacks on democracy so richly deserve.

One problem is that Obama loves to babble on about how "these aren't Democratic values or Republican values ... they're American values". Obama said this in Kansas early last December, referring to his belief that "this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules". But when it comes to voting rights, the record of the past half century is clear: the Republican Party doesn't believe any of that - even though millions of individual Republicans obviously do. They should be outraged, too - perhaps even more than anyone else, because such anti-American actions are being undertaken in their name.


LINK

But why is it that the minorities do not have IDs? You only need your birth certificate and pay a nominal fee to get one.

#4 HON. PROUD ZIMBABWEAN

HON. PROUD ZIMBABWEAN

    PROUD ZIMBABWEAN

  • Members
  • 10233 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:21 PM

View Postmatigimu, on 12 April 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

But why is it that the minorities do not have IDs? You only need your birth certificate and pay a nominal fee to get one.

LOL! are you suggesting this well detailed presentation is not true and you know better then?
Posted Image
OUR DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER AND SELF HATING PISKAZZ CLOSET RACISTS, THE WHITE RACISTS SYMPATHISERS IN THE WEST WILL JUST HAVE TO GRIN AND BEAR IT!!!
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted Image
NELSON MANDELA IS A HERO, ROBERT MUGABE IS A HERO!!, THEY FORGAVE THE WORST RACISTS THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN!!...MORGAN TSVANGIRAI IS A VILLAIN................ NOW ROBERT MUGABE IS A VILLAIN TOO FOR THEY DECIDED
TO FORGIVE EACH OTHER FOR HARM DONE IN FUTILE EFFORTS TO PERPETUATE WHITE RACIST PRIVILEGE!!

BETTER FOR ZIMBABWEANS TO HAVE A FLAWED MODEST AGREEMENT THAN TO HAVE A BIG WAR!! WHICH WOULD HELP RACISTS MAINTAIN APARTHEID PRIVILEGE OVER THEM<!


THESE BORN AND BRED RACIST BOERS WOKE AT DAWN WITH NO OTHER INTENTION BUT TO GO AND KILL BLACKS ENMASS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY FOR DARING TO DEMAND THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS!! AND NO OTHER REASON!!, I DARE ANYONE TO TELL ME ANY OTHER REASON PLEASE PLEASE!! WHERE ELSE ON EARTH HAS THERE BEEN SUCH FORGIVENESS!?, WHY SHOULD WE FORGIVE MASS MURDER!!?

#5 Guest_Misty_Fifty_*

Guest_Misty_Fifty_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:27 PM

View PostPROUD ZIMBABWEAN (original, on 12 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

LOL! are you suggesting this well detailed presentation is not true and you know better then?




it blew mind as to how desperate these republicans are to make sure that Black Americans and other minority's don't get to vote again.......

the way one White American says it is a privilege to vote not a basic human right....sounds like some one we all know.......

#6 Refugee3

Refugee3

    New Zimbabwean

  • Members
  • 9718 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:39 PM

View PostMisty_Fifty, on 12 April 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

it blew mind as to how desperate these republicans are to make sure that Black Americans and other minority's don't get to vote again.......

the way one White American says it is a privilege to vote not a basic human right....sounds like some one we all know.......


Misty,

Have you ever trolled the Fox News comments sections?  That is fun.  Lots of rednecks to bait.
Posted Image

#7 kwv.

kwv.

    New Zimbabwean

  • Members
  • 31685 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:35 PM

Don't they have photos on their drining licenses? That's the major for of ID after passports in UK

And just about EVERY American drives . . .

But although I used to go there a lot, to me it is a weird, weird country  :huh:
Hokoyo - guineaswine

#8 Squatter

Squatter

    New Zimbabwean

  • Members
  • 8598 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:48 PM

What is the problem? You want to vote. - get ID!

What are the black Americans crying about? They represent a really small number in the States, crying about photo ID isn't going to increase their votes, they will still only represent a very small margin of voters.

Drivers licenses are the no1 ID tool in Canada - why not in the states? Something fishy going on here I think!

#9 frankster

frankster

    New Zimbabwean

  • Members
  • 1701 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:03 AM

Democracy benefits only the rich - thru mob rule

Aid is imperialism
All thats necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing.
Legalize It.

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Africa is my home, I have yet to return.
Are you a racist, take the test
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users