No borders, No nations, Stop deportations

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Nobody missed it, you just like to throw on your Tin Foil hat and start flinging accusations like your Oprah Friggin Winfrey giving away toasters.

One of the great things about this country is the right to vote, so why don't those living here legally become naturalized citizens, then they can vote. Why take away the motivation to want to become a citizen of this country. You know, one of the Perks of being a citizen

whos taking away motivation to become a citizen? such a wonderful perk only 55% of Americans who could vote did.. Lets move voting to a weekend ... have more polling station not less .. but we already know what partys action have installed road blocks to voting of Americans .. but none of them seem to bother you as much as this story the only tin foil hat keeps saying brick by brick

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

whos taking away motivation to become a citizen?

Well, if you are advocating for allowing Non-citizens the right to vote, You are>

Originally Posted by wdmso

such a wonderful perk only 55% of Americans who could vote did..

Would you prefer we did away with the whole 'Voting Thingy" and just became a Monarchy then....or worse

Originally Posted by wdmso

Lets move voting to a weekend ...

You mean when more people who work during the week would better be able to cast a vote.....all for that, I wonder how that would affect the results

Originally Posted by wdmso

have more polling station not less .. but we already know what partys action have installed road blocks to voting of Americans ..

God forbid we actually make people prove they are allowed to vote before they vote...those bastards. Why don't we just get rid of drivers licenses while we are at it, why should people have to prove they are allowed to drive before they get behind the wheel of a car.

Originally Posted by wdmso

but none of them seem to bother you as much as this story the only tin foil hat keeps saying brick by brick

No, No they don't, I sleep pretty well at night.

[Pete F.]

All have four of these, the other three come with citizenship

Freedom to express yourself.

Freedom to worship as you wish.

Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury.

Right to vote in elections for public officials.

Right to apply for federal employment requiring U.S. citizenship.

Right to run for elected office.

Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well, if you are advocating for allowing Non-citizens the right to vote, You are> no just not having a snowflake moment like you are over the storie



Would you prefer we did away with the whole 'Voting Thingy" and just became a Monarchy then....or worse ... Seems republicans haven been making it harder to cast a vote all over the country



You mean when more people who work during the week would better be able to cast a vote.....all for that, I wonder how that would affect the results Who knows it might bump it 10% well never know until they do it not sure where the down side would be



God forbid we actually make people prove they are allowed to vote before they vote...those bastards. Why don't we just get rid of drivers licenses while we are at it, why should people have to prove they are allowed to drive before they get behind the wheel of a car.

weak argument this country never required ID to vote no state required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition for voting before the 2006 election funny how that works ,,

to reduce electoral fraud(fake) Brick by brick to build barriers

No, No they don't, I sleep pretty well at night.

Every one sleeps well when it doesn't impact them directly

[The Dad Fisherman]

Actually, i wasn't having a snowflake moment over the story. I am pretty happy with my stance on it. Become a citizen, enjoy your voting rights. Pretty cut and dry.

I was actually having a "snowflake" moment at your asinine assumption that since we don't think they should be allowed the right to vote until they are granted citizenship, that we somehow lack the intellect to understand the whole sentence/thought process.

....and you know what is an even weaker argument, thinking that just because they didn't do it before, doesn't make it a good idea to do it now.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Actually, i wasn't having a snowflake moment over the story. I am pretty happy with my stance on it. Become a citizen, enjoy your voting rights. Pretty cut and dry.

I was actually having a "snowflake" moment at your asinine assumption that since we don't think they should be allowed the right to vote until they are granted citizenship, that we somehow lack the intellect to understand the whole sentence/thought process.

....and you know what is an even weaker argument, thinking that just because they didn't do it before, doesn't make it a good idea to do it now.

change happens because of something usually factual ...the factual information is the need to require ID to vote is based on the rights conspiracy theory of voter fraud which no facts support ... yet we have many facts showing the assault on voting is a GOP led operation

heres one never made it into law but it make the point

The amendment, introduced by Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and approved on May 9, 2012, was aimed at preventing the Justice Department from using its funds “to bring any action against any state for implementation of a state law requiring voter identification.”almost entirely with Republican votes.


In other words, even if the Department of Justice thought a voter ID law discriminated against African Americans or Latinos, it could not sue to protect them.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

heres one never made it into law but it make the point

The amendment, introduced by Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and approved on May 9, 2012, was aimed at preventing the Justice Department from using its funds “to bring any action against any state for implementation of a state law requiring voter identification.”almost entirely with Republican votes.


In other words, even if the Department of Justice thought a voter ID law discriminated against African Americans or Latinos, it could not sue to protect them.

In other words??? How about in totally different, non-sensical words, based on assumptions, that don't have anything to do with the actual amendment.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by wdmso

change happens because of something usually factual ...the factual information is the need to require ID to vote is based on the rights conspiracy theory of voter fraud which no facts support ... yet we have many facts showing the assault on voting is a GOP led operation

heres one never made it into law but it make the point

The amendment, introduced by Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and approved on May 9, 2012, was aimed at preventing the Justice Department from using its funds “to bring any action against any state for implementation of a state law requiring voter identification.”almost entirely with Republican votes.


In other words, even if the Department of Justice thought a voter ID law discriminated against African Americans or Latinos, it could not sue to protect them.

In order to drive you need ID
To collect benefits you need an ID
To board a plane you need ID
To enter the country you need ID
To open a bank account you need ID
To cash a check you need ID

The list of things goes on and on, and it is not discriminatory to require it

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

In order to drive you need ID
To collect benefits you need an ID
To board a plane you need ID
To enter the country you need ID
To open a bank account you need ID
To cash a check you need ID

The list of things goes on and on, and it is not discriminatory to require it

is not discriminatory to require it.. your correct if the reason to to start requiring them . "to combat voter fraud " But prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting. to start with ...

So yes its discriminatory enacted a law to solve a problem that never and still does not exist ..

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So yes its discriminatory ..

doesn't it apply to everyone?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

doesn't it apply to everyone?

Hey, they changed the meaning of the word "racist", why shouldn't they change the meaning of the word "discriminatory"

[Sea Dangles]

No, you dummies. It discriminated against people without identification.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

In order to drive you need ID
To collect benefits you need an ID
To board a plane you need ID
To enter the country you need ID
To open a bank account you need ID
To cash a check you need ID

The list of things goes on and on, and it is not discriminatory to require it

How many of those things are enumerated in the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How many of those things are enumerated in the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The constitutional enumerations are a few select categories (powers) under whose umbrella a host of specific things either are covered or they are not. Those specific things, which can be many, are not themselves, enumerations.

Your list of things are not enumerations. Some of them may fall within the enumerated power of the Federal Government to regulate. Others may not, and can either be a state right to regulate, or may not be within the purview of any government to regulate.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

How many of those things are enumerated in the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

point?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

point?

Top of head
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

July 18, 2018 10:38 AM

San Francisco began registering non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, to register to vote Monday in the November election for the city school board, reported The San Francisco Chronicle.

The move follows passage of a 2016 ballot measure by San Francisco voters opening school elections to non-citizens who are over the age of 18, city residents and have children under age 19, reported the publication.

“This is no-brainer legislation,” Hillary Ronen, a San Francisco supervisor, told the Chronicle.