Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED II

[IndyGal65]

Sorry, it isn’t that simple. You’re going to need other documents to get that ID. You don’t just walk in say “I’m so and so,” and walk out with a piece of paper that allows you to vote. Specifically, proof of identity, social security, and residency.

As it should be.

From the Indy Star:

Anyone applying for their first Indiana license or ID must receive a Real ID card. To receive one, go to a BMV location and provide proof of identity, a Social Security number, proof of lawful status in the U.S., and two pieces of proof of Indiana residency.Jun 19, 2019

 

[IndyBeerman]

Sorry, it isn’t that simple. You’re going to need other documents to get that ID. You don’t just walk in say “I’m so and so,” and walk out with a piece of paper that allows you to vote. Specifically, proof of identity, social security, and residency.

WOW, Yes it is THAT SIMPLE. Something that EVERYONE should have, that is unless they lost it in a tragic boating accident, or trying to conceal their identity, or lost in the house they burnt down last week for insurance purposes.

All things needed to collect federal and state benefits.

On welfare, you needed it.
On Social Security, you needed it.
On Un-Employement, you need it.

Not really hard to comprehend or understand that maybe 95+% people living today over the age of 21 in this country have it, and have easy access to it.
Jesh, the day I turned 16, my mom handed me my SS card and a told me where my my birth certificate was, I remember seeing it and learning that day I was a twin and lost my brother at birth.

Now, stop with your word play , you know damn well what I meant and the process.

 

[nonobaddog]

The only part that isn't easy here is waiting through the line.

 

[MCgrease08]

Maybe bring it down a few notches IBM. No need to get so worked up.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[Vigilant]

.

 

[Dead Duck]

.

I see your point.

 

[Bigtanker]

Time for all involved to cool it down. Insults will not be tolerated.

 

[nonobaddog]

I saw a thing that said Oregon is starting to do their Real ID's in July. They will have to process 32 per second to get everybody done. That ain't gonna happen so they must be counting on lots of people that don't want/need one.

 

[Ingomike]

Stop it or I'll shoot...

Opps wrong thread. LOL

 

[nonobaddog]

That is not the best sight picture she has there.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Maybe bring it down a few notches IBM. No need to get so worked up.

I reacted a little harsh, for that I am sorry I threw that out there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

WOW, Yes it is THAT SIMPLE. Something that EVERYONE should have, that is unless they lost it in a tragic boating accident, or trying to conceal their identity, or lost in the house they burnt down last week for insurance purposes.

All things needed to collect federal and state benefits.

On welfare, you needed it.
On Social Security, you needed it.
On Un-Employement, you need it.

Not really hard to comprehend or understand that maybe 95+% people living today over the age of 21 in this country have it, and have easy access to it.
Jesh, the day I turned 16, my mom handed me my SS card and a told me where my my birth certificate was, I remember seeing it and learning that day I was a twin and lost my brother at birth.

Now, stop with your word play , you know damn well what I meant and the process.

Sorry, but that is simply false. While you are correct that you do need those things for the statuses you listed, there are a great many people that have been both on welfare, and social security, a great many years; especially older people. They aren’t required to provide the documents in question on a periodic basis. They provide it once, and ride off into the sunset. As for poorer people who often change addresses, often to places where they aren’t the “official” resident of the places they live, providing proof of residency isn’t that easy either. You can ask any lawyer, law enforcement official, tax collector, or any person in an occupation where they often have to look for someone how often they encounter, or have to look for, individuals who doesn’t live at the actual address they have listed.
Further, obtaining those documents isn’t exactly easy either. There are costs associated, and a significant amount of legwork to get those documents, if you don’t have them readily available. You say 95% of people over 21 have those documents. I don’t know where you got that number, but I suspect you made it up. Regardless, I have a better than fair bet, that isn’t true either.
Im not playing word games with you, you apparently just don’t have a pulse on the state of many of your fellow citizens. If what you posed were true, yes, it would be easy to get an ID, but what you stated isn’t true for a great many people.
And calm down bro, no one is coming for you.

 

[jamil]

The same court that ruled other states’ voter ID laws were unconstitutional, ruled Indiana’s is fine. If you have a problem with Indiana voter ID laws, you’re probably on the fringe of bat **** crazy. Or maybe you’re just pissed because it makes it more difficult for dead people to vote Democrat. I agree that if a state requires ID to vote, it should make it easy to get an ID, or have provisions for people who can’t get one.

In Indiana, people older than 65 can vote absentee BY MAIL without showing ID. Or, you can sign an affidavit stating that obtaining the proper documentation to get a free ID is financially burdensome.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[Kutnupe14]

The same court that ruled other states’ voter ID laws were unconstitutional, ruled Indiana’s is fine. If you have a problem with Indiana voter ID laws, you’re probably on the fringe of bat **** crazy. Or maybe you’re just pissed because it makes it more difficult for dead people to vote Democrat. I agree that if a state requires ID to vote, it should make it easy to get an ID, or have provisions for people who can’t get one.

In Indiana, people older than 65 can vote absentee BY MAIL without showing ID. Or, you can sign an affidavit stating that obtaining the proper documentation to get a free ID is financially burdensome.

And nevertheless, obtaining an ID to vote still isn’t as easy as some believe it to be. I have no idea why you’re talking about Indiana, as from my end, I was speaking generally.

 

[jamil]

And nevertheless, obtaining an ID to vote still isn’t as easy as some believe it to be. I have no idea why you’re talking about Indiana, as from my end, I was speaking generally.

I’m speaking about Indiana’s law because Indiana’s law was brought up previously, and Indiana’s law serves as an example of a voter ID law done in a way that doesn’t disenfranchise voters. Yet still there are bat **** crazy Democrats whining about how oppressive it is. The point is, if the people whining about disenfranchisement still whine about Indiana’s law—they do—then maybe the whining is really about something else.

Indiana has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the people voting are the same as the people registered, and that the people registered are legal residents of the district, while protecting people’s right to vote. If states want to adopt Voter ID laws and see them pass court scrutiny they should use Indiana’s law as a model.

 

[jamil]

And nevertheless, obtaining an ID to vote still isn’t as easy as some believe it to be. I have no idea why you’re talking about Indiana, as from my end, I was speaking generally.

Oh. And did you not read the whole post. If it’s that hard to get an ID, you don’t have to have an ID. Indiana has provisions for that.

 

[chipbennett]

This is one of those "decisions, decisions" moment, as obviously the president has implied essentially same thing. If you believe that 3 million fraudulent votes were cast (and I don't, FYI), then Schiff's comment has a ring to truth to it, does it not? Now if you think the president is FOS (as I do) concerning 3 million fraudulent votes, then yes Schiff's comments are troubling. So what's it gonna be?

If there were 3MM fraudulent votes cast, almost all of them were in a state (California) for which their existence had no impact on the Electoral College. So, while their existence could have impacted the (entirely irrelevant-by-design) popular vote, they could not have changed the election result.

Local election fraud is a given in (particularly Democrat bastions) St. Louis City, Cook County, IL, Broward County, FL, etc. I think there is a decent chance that some CA House races were won fraudulently in 2018. I think there's a decent chance that a state or two (Wisconsin 2012, IIRC, with double-voting college kids in Madison and other chicanery, comes to mind) may have been flipped in one-off scenarios in presidential elections. But I do not think that we are yet at the point where a presidential election has been won/lost fraudulently due to fraudulent votes.

And further: you and I both know that none of this has anything to do with Schiff's claims. He is implying/alleging that the President himself is engaging in activities that would result in a fraudulent election.

 

[chipbennett]

EVERY presidential impeachment will be a “dog and pony show.” And it absolutely has quite a bit to do with the AMBIGUOUS language from a 200+ year old document. One side says it’s been violated, the other it hasn’t.

I don't get what's supposedly ambiguous about, "bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?