Illegal Immigrants and Driver's Licences forums forums Politics and other things Illegal Immigrants and Driver's Licences

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
  • #24111

    Now I understand why Democrats want them to have them, and it’s not about “compassion.”

    John Podesta:

    I think Teddy’s idea scratches the itch, is pretty safe and uncomplicated.

    On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.

    WIKILEAKS: Podesta Says It’s OK for Illegals to Vote With Driver’s License….


    You are an awful person in seemingly every regard.


    Are fraudulent voters undermining U.S. elections? The simple answer is no. Rather, the threat comes from the myth of voter fraud used to justify rules that restrict full and equal voting rights.

    A concerted partisan campaign to erect more restrictive voting rules is apace in many states, with Republicans pushing new limits on access and Democrats objecting. Thousands of changes to state election codes have been proposed since the contested presidential election of 2000. Far fewer have been signed into law, but those put in place – such as rules that people have a certain kind of photo identification card available from specific government offices – are making it more difficult for many citizens to cast ballots, including longtime voters as well as new ones.

    In a democracy, reducing access to the ballot is difficult to justify. Political motives and strategies to discourage voting by particular groups such as racial minorities cannot be openly announced. That’s where the myth of criminal voters comes in – as proponents of new rules cite the supposed threat of votes fraudulently cast by foreigners, noncitizens, immigrants, felons, and imposters who supposedly travel around to vote in many precincts. Mythical threats that stoke social prejudices are used to make new restrictions seem reasonable.

    Fraud by Individual Voters is Almost Nonexistent

    The earliest reliable studies of election fraud in the 1920s and 1930s found that individual voters almost never committed fraud on their own. Conspiracies by politicians or election officials were behind most violations. Voter registration laws were put in place to reduce such organized fraud.

    Today, social scientific research on fraud is difficult because there are no officially compiled national or state statistics. Researchers must painstakingly piece together evidence from news reports, court proceedings, law enforcement agencies, election officials, and interviews with experts and other sources. After ten years of such research, I found that intentional fraud by individual voters is exceedingly rare. Other investigations have reached the same conclusion.

    •Replicating my methodology, 24 journalism students at twelve universities reviewed some 2,000 public records and identified just six cases of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2012.

    •Under Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice Department searched for voter fraud. But in the first three years of the program, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting. Out of 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections held during that period, the rate of voter fraud was a miniscule 0.00000132 percent!

    •No state considering or passing restrictive voter identification laws has documented an actual problem with voter fraud. In litigation over the new voter identification laws in Wisconsin, Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania, election officials testified they have never seen cases of voter impersonation at the polls. Indiana and Pennsylvania stipulated in court that they had experienced zero instances of voter fraud.

    •When federal authorities challenged voter identification laws in South Carolina and Texas, neither state provided any evidence of voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that could be deterred by requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls.

    Andy Brown

    Bacon reminds me of any Deadhead without a ticket to the show.


    Bacon: Try reading the actual email, dipshit. Podesta is responding to a chat thread about an article regarding getting more millennial voters to turn out. Millennials are adverse to paperwork and anything that requires them to show paper documents, hence the comment about having to show their driver’s licenses (a relatively well vetted process) and declare their citizenship – a nod to the right’s obsession with the thought that elections are being stolen by vast hordes of “illegals” voting.

    Your lack of intellectual curiosity is astounding…dare I say, “Trumpian”?


    Liar. Hypocrite. Ignoramus. Coward.

    No wonder he loves Trump.


    I am not surprised that the person who started this thread picked a selectively edited source. I was able to find the following on WikiLeaks:

    According to this discussion, statistics show that Millennials don’t fare well when they have to fill out paper forms and meet registration deadlines. One solution proposed was a computerized registration system with voting cards containing a chip security device (similar to a credit card). Regardless of which voter registration system is used, one has to provide proof of age and citizenship in order to be registered.

    I do not want underage people voting. It is illegal. Yet, we don’t often hear politicians and commentators pontificating on the hazards posed to elections by underage voters.


    Glad we have Wikileaks and James Okeefe. We need more poeple like that to expose the corruption and all the slime bags on the right that are playing dirty. Im sure the Hillary Clinton camp is bringing in busses of illegal immigrants into voting booths and letting them vote.
    Oh wait they do, here is video proof.


    James O’Keefe is an admitted liar. He admitted to his crimes in open court. Nothing he puts out can be trusted.


    Dork, here’s the follow to your “explosive” video:

    “He (Schulkin) said she (the O’Keefe reporter) started talking to him but admitted that he should not have spoken with her and insisted that the comments he made in the video do not represent his views…

    “He also said de Blasio was wrong to characterize his statement as a public statement, saying that it was a private statement that he regrets because he was trying to get away from the woman “and I was agreeing with her when I shouldn’t have been.”

    NYC Elections Official Scoffs at Mayor’s Call for Him to Resign Over Voter Fraud Claims

    Plus, who gives a shit what this guy feels and thinks? Proof, baby – we need proof!

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.