2016 Election Thread (My God Kill Me Now)

[Cheddar Tom]

The voting restrictions amount to poll taxes....how this can be disputed is beyond me.

Requiring an ID is no more a poll tax than being required spend gas to get to the polls. Or have a bike to ride there. Or shoes to walk there.
An ID is required for many activities already.

These are pretty terrible analogies....and there is nothing in the Constitution about needing ID to vote. Forcing someone to pay $200 to fix a misspelling on their birth certificate in order to get an ID to vote is a poll tax. Forcing anyone to purchase something in order to exercise their constitutional right is a poll tax. Poll taxes were found unconstitutional 50 years ago.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

It's gonna suck when the Clintons are implicated in the Panama Papers and she loses to Trump.

From my understanding, there are few americans implicated in the panama papers because, well, it focused on international shell companies, like those in panama, and America has the ability to create its own shell companies, like in Idaho or Nevada.

[Jocephus]

The voting restrictions amount to poll taxes....how this can be disputed is beyond me.

Requiring an ID is no more a poll tax than being required spend gas to get to the polls. Or have a bike to ride there. Or shoes to walk there.
An ID is required for many activities already.

These are pretty terrible analogies....

if we keep repeating them, they might come true

[Myles]

The voting restrictions amount to poll taxes....how this can be disputed is beyond me.

Requiring an ID is no more a poll tax than being required spend gas to get to the polls. Or have a bike to ride there. Or shoes to walk there.
An ID is required for many activities already.

These are pretty terrible analogies....and there is nothing in the Constitution about needing ID to vote. Forcing someone to pay $200 to fix a misspelling on their birth certificate in order to get an ID to vote is a poll tax. Forcing anyone to purchase something in order to exercise their constitutional right is a poll tax. Poll taxes were found unconstitutional 50 years ago.

There are allot of things we require that are not in the constitution. That is a terrible argument.
I had to get a prescription for my daughter. Needed to show my ID to get it.
I suppose we could argue that the cost should/could be less. Getting an ID in Indiana costs $13.

[thrill]

It's gonna suck when the Clintons are implicated in the Panama Papers and she loses to Trump.

From my understanding, there are few americans implicated in the panama papers because, well, it focused on international shell companies, like those in panama, and America has the ability to create its own shell companies, like in Idaho or Nevada.

I was being facetious (trolling) but hackers can find that [expletive] too.

[Leroy]

I was just reading that section in the constitution about how abortions are legal.


---evil laugh---

[Cheddar Tom]

There are allot of things we require that are not in the constitution.

We have the right to vote....you do not have the right to get what I am assuming is a narcotic of some sorts for your daughter.

[Jocephus]

i mean, yeah, let the congressman just agree with us

Grothman: Voter ID law will help eventual GOP nominee win Wisconsin

MILWAUKEE -- In comments made to TODAY'S TMJ4's Charles Benson on election night, U.S. congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Campbellsport) said he thinks Wisconsin's new voter ID law will help the eventual GOP nominee win in the state.

Grothman's response came as Benson asked him about the GOP's poor performance across recent presidential contests in the state.

"You know that a lot of Republicans, since 1984 in the presidential races, have not been able to win in Wisconsin," Benson said. "Why would it be any different for Ted Cruz, or a Donald Trump?"

After explaining he thought Hillary Clinton would be a weak nominee for the Democrats, Grothman said "now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is gonna make a little bit of a difference as well."

http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/gro ... -wisconsin

[pioneer98]

The fifteenth amendment was passed in 1870.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

My interpretation of section 2 is that Congress has the right to pass laws that guarantee people's right to vote as described in section 1. Instead, states are doing the opposite and restricting the right to vote. Seems like Congress needs to act and these state laws need to get challenged in courts.

[Jocephus]

The fifteenth amendment was passed in 1870.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

My interpretation of section 2 is that Congress has the right to pass laws that guarantee people's right to vote as described in section 1. Instead, states are doing the opposite and restricting the right to vote. Seems like Congress needs to act and these state laws need to get challenged in courts.

you forgot the evil laugh