http://youtu.be/ypRW5qoraTw

discuss

She is a shil!

If you look to semi-famous comedians for your view on politics... then my advice to you is to stop breathing.

Haha why would I want to do that?

/me gets a gun permit.

Wait, I'm not even a U.S. citizen...

Prepare for world war three! Useless lapdogs of illuminati!
(its cool, since both putin who came after jeltsin and todays leadership of china came after Deng Xiaoping, jeltsin and xaoping both lapdogs of illuminati) So. we should not fear. since Russia, China and USA fight for the same NEW WORLD ORDER, and the fantastic free market.Or should we? fear, the enslavement we have been forced upon. Debtslavery. The worst kind of slavery. Crackbong, methsmoking and debtslavery. Has done us all addicts. Sucking fluffs for surviving. Mass suicide the only solution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INZ2l3xc0Uo

She is a vile, disgusting human-being.

b

Why's that?

she is not funny at all i dont know why people find her funny

/me thinks, if you can't follow simple voting rules, you have no business voting to begin with.

is there some sort of "age of majority" card that one can obtain?
What do they show when they go to the liquor store?

i don't love America at the moment.
trying to figure out how they conspired to put that 5 foot wide puddle of water in exactly the right place for me to get soaked the one time that i fell off my unicycle today.

america isnt bad the government is though

Yes there is

Oh my, oh may, someone doesn't want people to vote illegally; that's positively discriminatory of them! They just want to block African Americans, students, the elderly, and the ever important illegal voters from voting. This could positively ruin the carefully crafted coalition of the abused (by democrats), the idiots (mostly) and the confused that Democrats haved used to be elected.

Come on folks, if the voter ID law has been on the books for enough time and the state's choosing to go this route have made it relatively easy to get the photo IDs needed to vote, then the only reason people have to complain is because they won't get the illegal votes they think their sides needs to be elected to office. One illegal vote invalidates one legal vote. Voter ID laws help to secure and legitimize our democratic elections. If these laws are directed at a Democratic constituency it's the illegal voters who typically vote...you got it Democratic.

1) Most of these laws are pretty damn new. They were enacted after decades of NOT requiring them in order to disenfranchise a very specific group of people.

2) Voter fraud is a non-issue in general. This isn't the pre-civil war voting bloodbath...

http://www.brennancenter.org/..._truth_about_voter_fraud/

But, you know, that website is probably a fake and their sources are probably bs. So feel free to ignore it I guess!

(OH GOD, PRE-PREEMPTIVE STRIKE!!!)

Most of those laws have been on the books for at least a year, at least one state delayed their voter ID law through the last midterm election precisely because they had passed it too late for peopple to get IDs if they don't already have them. You can't tell me that an entire year is not enough time to get a picture ID.

We can discuss specific cases, but if the state has had the law on the books for at least a year and IDs have been available for free for at least a year and if locations to get photo IDs are not unduly difficult, then voter ID laws should be fine. Talk specifics or be quiet.

As to your point that voter fraud is a non-issue. The 61st filibuster breaking senate vote responsible for Obamacare passing mattered. The Minnesota senate election was decided by fewer votes than there were fraudulent votes. Polling strongly suggests that the convicted felons cited as the fraudulent votes predominantly vote democratic. Don't tell me that voter fraud is a non-issue. Obamacare is not a non-issue. The Minnesota senate election that prevented a filibuster of Obamacare was not a non-issue. The fraudulent votes which put Franken into office as Senator are not a non-issue. Voter fraud matters. Voter fraud is important and damages our democracy. Reasonable efforts to prevent voter fraud is not racism or playing politics, it's just good leadership.

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/348014

"Voter fraud is important and damages our democracy."

Your governments damage your democracy...

people damage the democracy.

Funny because politicians are on record clearly indicating it's politics (see the original posts video).

In Canada we do have voter ID laws and as someone who would identify as a staunch democrat in the realm of US politics I don't mind these laws. But to say these laws are not politically motivated is foolish.

So fraudulent voters are mainly Democrats? What a wonderful claim to make without providing evidence of your own. Your brief blurb summarizing a book doesn't say anything concretely.

"Franken won with a 312-vote margin in a race where 1,099 felons voted illegally. Despite a formidable barrier to conviction and apathy by county prosecutors, 177 felons were convicted of vote fraud — more than half of Franken’s victory margin."

So ALL 1099 of those felons were democrats? The 177 that were convicted were all democrats? What about the remaining 135 that weren't tied to such felons? They MUST have been illegal too!! You can draw whatever conclusion you want from numbers such as those, ffs. Maybe illegal voters that voted democrat are just stupider than those that voted republican, and thus got caught in higher percentages?

LALALALA I CAN MAKE WHATEVER CLAIM I WANT LALALALA

will never will me over with that argument because frankly I think it is stupid that the US does not allow convicts to vote.

Hell in Canada during election time they set up polling stations in the prisons.

people serving time don't get to vote, they have forfeited their rights until they have served their sentence.

The circumstances for restoring the vote to people convicted of infamous crimes (felonies) varies state to state, but the bottom line is that if they vote before their voting rights are restored, then it's fraud.

Statistics shows that convicts vote mostly democratic. It cannot show specifics in this case, but it is a reasonable claim that the margin of victory is suspect due to the fraudulent votes of felons. As to the fraudulent votes vs conviction rate, there is a simple defense for the fraudulent voter in Wisconsin...that they didn't know they were suppose to vote. That's right it's not a crime unless they knew they weren't suppose to vote, but's it's still a bad vote.

Can it be said definitively that Franken won election on the back of fraudulent votes? No, but it is a reasonable conclusion. The case for saying that Franken won on fraudulent votes is circumstancial, but it is compelling and it shows that the importance that fraudulent votes can have in close elections. The fact that there were more fraudulent votes of just felons who should have been excluded than there was a margin of victory throws the election into question.

Voter fraud matters...photo IDs are one way to prevent voter fraud. I brought up the Coleman/Franken election to show that voter fraud does matter...and I have successfully done this.

You can skew the statistics in any way you want to to make it support your point. They took months to figure out who won that election. If there were more fraudulent voters, there's a good chance they would have found them. Talking in such broad generalities is retarded, imo.

Most convicts vote Democrat(how many? what percentages?)
Most of the fraudulent votes were convicts(This is what it sounds like you are trying to say, btw)
Thus, most of the fraudulent votes were for democrats, not republicans.

I'm sorry, but the facts don't support such a statement...

Most gun owners are Republicans
Most murders involve a firearm
Most murderers must be Republicans then.

Correlation and Causation, my friend.

And honestly, I don't disagree with ID requirements in general. I really really have an issue when they are motivated by politics instead of for more noble and worthwhile reasons. Yes, 'many' of the laws were changed last year. That doesn't mean it's not a NEW phenomenon. It's just the latest iteration of a process designed to disenfranchise whole classes of people. They should wait until AFTER the election to do it, and then claim it's for peoples' own good, and NOT motivated by pure politics.

Also, on a more technical vote, I think it should be done at the time you register to vote, not show up to the polls. But then again, I'm from Oregon and all voting is done by mail anyway, so the ID question is entirely moot in my state.

Correlation and Causation indeed, my friend. I'm not saying that being a felon causes people to vote democratic; I'm simply saying that when the number of illegal felon voters that voted and likely voted democratic is greater than the margin of victory and the number of illegal felon voters that likely voted Republican, then a shadow of suspicion can fall on the election. When the number of felon voters is greater than the margin of victory that also calls the election into question, just not as substantially.

This isn't a causal relationship at all. It is applying a correlation to the situation and running the numbers. The numbers indicate a high chance that Franken won election on the back of illegal voters.

The problem with your example is the lack of a direction relationship. The statistics in my example directly relate to the situation.

I'll look for the statistics and post them if I can find them.

At any rate, as I said above, my point that voter fraud is important is proven.

I'm perfectly aware that is how it works, my point is that it shouldn't work that way. Convicts are still citizens and all citizens over the age of majority should have the right to vote. The right to vote should be completely inalienable. Just because I've been convicted of a crime (note: conviction doesn't necessarily imply guilt) how does that mean that I shouldn't have a say on who governs me?

The government legislates criminal law and in many cases legislates sentencing requirements. A convict is a direct stakeholder in those policy issues. What rationale is there is denying them the ability to vote on who governs them?

It is BS policy, plain and simple.

Having the right to bear arms is also an inalienable right. Would you want convicted felons to be legally able to own guns?

No, but there is pretty straight forward policy rationale as to why the right should be limited in those circumstances. I'm yet to hear a policy rationale for denying voting rights.

YES!!! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE POOR CONVICTED FELONS' RIGHTS :( !!!11oneone

Is following basic rules of humanity really too much to ask?

As an aside there is a supreme court case in Canada striking that down here.

You guys also released bryan adams, celine dion and justin bieber upon the world. Just because you guys do it doesn't make it the right thing to do :P

Trife: just because you don't like them or believe they are bad people doesn't mean they shouldn't' have their rights.

It isn't about providing rights to "poor convicts", it is about lacking a legitimate rationale for denying them said rights to begin with.

If it can be taken away, then it isn't a right. It's a privilege.

The government defrauds the people...
The people vote for government...
Therefore, voter fraud does exist.

See? No hokey statistics necessary, just straight truth. :P

...Some people just take this voting crap too seriously...

Are you okay with felons losing their rights to own firearms after their conviction?

It is an apple to oranges comparison because there is policy rationales for such limitations on gun rights. Such as public safety concerns etc.

Every right has its own context and its own specific circumstances where it could be legitimately limited (free speech is limited when it comes to promoting hate or violence against specific individuals or groups of individuals, as another example).

As previously stated, I'm yet to read or hear a rationale for limitation of voting rights.

How does respecting that right create a social harm?
How does respecting that right limit other peoples rights?

Those are the types of questions (but it not an exhaustive list) that need to be adequately addressed in order to justifiably limit a right.

In general the requirements to limit a right are very high.

Anyways, I'm about to head out.

I have no problems with taking away voting/firearm/driving rights for violent felons. If they don't want to follow basic rules of our society and instead be savage pieces of trash, then they shouldn't get to enjoy some of the advantages that our society has to offer.

Nonviolent felons - sure, I'd be okay with the eventual restoration of voting/firearm/driving privileges.

Not having a problem with it isn't a good reason to do it though.

Good reason = it's yet another incentive (along with the jail sentence) to obey the laws that make up society?

It's not like I'm saying treat them as less than humans by subjecting them to cruel and unusual punishment, but actions have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, don't do the actions :)

Is it really that hard to be a good person and not inflict pain and suffering on other people by committing violent crimes?

providing an incentive to be a good person isn't a good reason to restrict a right :P

Restricting rights is a serious issue. You have to be able to justify it by showing how it is harmful to society by not restricting it in such ways.

If you are going to restrict voting rights to criminals based on such ideological notions, then why have you stopped there? Why not limit their speech rights as well? I'm sure not allowing free speech to convicts would provide "incentive to obey the law".

The reality is that there isn't a good reason to restrict free speech or voting rights when it comes to convicts. The only reason I can see for going after voting rights is purely based electoral politics, and it should be clear to everyone why that is wrong.

Agree to disagree. I'm quite happy that they currently lose their voting rights while in jail =)

yeah but what makes you happy isn't justification for limiting someone's rights.

It might make me happy to limit your rights one day, consider that for a moment.

SO IT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE IN THIS ELECTION WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE, BUT NOT ACCEPTABLE NEXT ELECTION? NOW WHY WOULD THAT BE?

THIS WHOLE BUSINESS OF IT BEING SOOOOO HARD TO GET A PHOTO ID "FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE" IS A LOAD OF BUNK. AS SOMEONE ELSE POINTED OUT, ALL STATES HAVE LAWS RESTRICTING THE SALE OF ALCOHOL WITHOUT ID, AND NOBODY IS SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER ABOUT THAT ONE. WHY? BECAUSE IT IS INCREDIBLY EASY AND CHEAP (OR FREE IN SOME CASES) TO GET A STATE ISSUED PHOTO ID.

THERE IS NO REASON THAT EITHER OF THE CORRUPT, LYING, TYRANNICAL MAJOR PARTIES SHOULD BE OPPOSED TO ENSURING THE VALIDITY OF ELECTIONS.. UNLESS THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO GAIN FROM MAKING IT EASIER FOR FRAUDULENT VOTING TO OCCUR.

LIKE YOU TELLARION, I LIVE IN A STATE WHERE NO VALIDATION OF VOTER IDENTITY OCCURS (WASHINGTON). LIKE OREGON, WE HAVE MADE IT A JOKE HERE AS WELL. BUT STATES THAT ACTUALLY DO CARE ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THEIR ELECTIONS SHOULD NOT BE PREVENTED FROM DOING ALL THAT THEY CAN - WITHIN REASON - TO ENSURE IT.

you're canuckian right? good luck with limiting the rights of a law abiding citizen in another country.

Its amazing how liberals complain so much about the requirement to get a voter ID, but they never complain about the ridiculous restrictions they give third parties. My elderly neighbor just has to get a state issued ID if he wants to vote, but I have to help collect 10,000 valid signatures (which means collecting over 16,000 to submit) if I want to vote for my candidate. And that's just the laws in Maryland. If I was in Pennsylvania, it would be far more ridiculous to jump through all those hoops just so that I can exercise my right to vote.

How about this - if getting a state issued ID is such an imposition, why not just tell all third party candidates that all their candidate has to do is get a state issued ID, and they can get on the ballot? Not willing to do that? Then shut the hell up, dumbass.

I agree that Voter ID laws should be passed at the latest almost immediately after an election or delayed in becoming operative until after the coming election. In cases where the legislature chooses to delay operation of a voter ID law, then that extra time should be used to plaster public notices of the new law at all polling stations so that people are aware of the requirement for the next election. I think the minimum time period between a voter ID law passing with all constituent parts of the legislation in operation to the next election should be at least one year. This means that if the law passes, but the state lacks capacity to issue free photo IDs as part of the law for 3 months after that, then the clock should start ticking 3 months after passing the law. This is not legislation to be undertaken lightly or quickly; states must make reasonable accomodations to ensure people can get photo IDs for an election. However, there is an inherent need for the laws and the protection of everyone's right to vote.

As to whether of not felons should have the right to vote:

1. Not while serving jail time or probation.

2. Not until at least 90% of fines and other payments required as part of the conviction are paid off.

3. Not until at least a judge signs off on the felon having reformed, become a better person, and that they do not pose a threat to the rest of society.

3b. Except in cases where a judge finds that the felonious behavior was an abberration and that individual in question was and continues to be an upstanding citizen.

4. A pardon should restore all rights provided that the individual is pardoned for all offenses which otherwise impede their rights.

People have an inalienable right to control their behavior, to do the right thing, and to not commit felonious acts. Should an individual choose to forgo those rights and choose not to act like a citizen, then they have no right to the benefits of citizenship. To have the right to vote as a citizen does, you have the obligation to behave as a citizen does. Felons have failed to uphold their end of the bargain and while I think some states should make it easier for people to have their voting rights restored, I do not doubt that the right to vote should be taken upon a felony conviction and it should not be restored while a person resides in prison on felony convictions.