Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 25, 2014, 10:40:56 AM
-
What do you think?
78% Favor Proof of Citizenship Before Being Allowed to Vote
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
A federal judge last week upheld the right of states to require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. Voters continue to overwhelmingly support such a requirement.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 78% of Likely U.S. Voters believe everyone should be required to prove his or her citizenship before being allowed to register to vote. That’s up from 71% a year ago. Just 19% oppose that requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe laws that require proof of citizenship before allowing voter registration discriminate against such voters. But more than twice as many (61%) say such laws do not discriminate, up three points from 58% who felt that way in March of last year. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.
Opponents of proof-of-citizenship laws claim they are intended to keep eligible voters from voting, while supporters say instead that they are intended to keep ineligible voters from casting votes. Thirty-four percent (34%) think it is more common that people are prevented from voting who should be allowed to vote. Half (50%) of voters disagree and think that more often people are allowed to vote who are not eligible to vote. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.
This marks a six-point increase from last year in the number of voters who think it is more common for people to be allowed to vote who are not eligible. It’s also the highest level of doubt about the voting process in surveys since January 2008.
The federal judge’s ruling last week upheld laws enacted in Arizona and Kansas because federal voter registration forms do not include a proof of citizenship requirement. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters believe state governments should set the requirements for voter registration, but 51% think that is a responsibility of the federal government. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure. This is unchanged from earlier surveying.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 20-21, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
In surveys since June 2006, voters have been just as adamant in their support of laws that require voters to prove their identity at the polls before being allowed to vote. Fifty-nine percent (59%) do not believe photo ID laws discriminate against some voters.
Most voters across the partisan spectrum support laws that require proof of citizenship before being allowed to register to vote, although Democrats are less enthusiastic about those laws than Republicans and unaffiliated voters are. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of GOP voters and 67% of unaffiliateds believe such laws do not discriminate against some voters, but Democrats are evenly divided on that question.
But then 54% of voters in President Obama’s party think it is more common for legitimate voters to be denied the right to vote, while 74% of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters think that it’s more common for non-voters to vote.
Ninety-five percent (95%) of voters who think illegal voting is more common support proof-of-citizenship laws. Those who think it is more likely that eligible voters are denied their right to vote are evenly divided over such laws.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of all voters say they have been following news reports about voter registration at least somewhat closely, with 34% who are following Very Closely. Voters 40 and over are much more interested in the topic than those who are younger.
Only 17% think it is too hard to vote in the United States. Twenty-seven percent (27%) think it's too easy to vote in America today.
Forty-one percent (41%) of all voters think American elections are fair to voters, well below the all-time high of 57% who felt that way in October 2012.
Americans strongly value being a citizen of the United States, but one-in-four thinks it's too easy these days for someone to become a citizen.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2014/78_favor_proof_of_citizenship_before_being_allowed_to_vote
-
this will make it harder for illegals to vote. isn't the latest craze doing everything we can to suck up to them? :(
Is a drivers license proof of citizenship (provided it isn't one of those licenses they give illegals)?
-
As usual, politicians going against the will of the people.
-
You're forgetting one crucial factor... citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
-
You're forgetting one crucial factor... citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
It is not a requirement for federal elections?
A lot of states have made it a requirement even to vote in state elections.
The will of the people is moving towards citizenship being a requirement to vote in ALL TYPES OF ELECTIONS. That is very, very good.
-
You're forgetting one crucial factor... citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
What? In the US, it is a Federal crime for any non-citizen(legal or illegal resident) to vote in Federal elections. It's called "Impersonating a US citizen", and it's a crime.
That means that even legal, permanent residents of the US are prohibited by law to vote. If they do and get caught, they forfeit their legal permanent residency, get arrested and processed for immediate deportation.
No, a driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Legal permanent residents, foreign students, foreign workers, etc. maybe allowed to get a drivers license, but they are definitely not allowed to vote.
-
The other 22% must work for OFA or NBC
-
The other 22% must work for OFA or NBC
or Ron Paul. or marco Rubio.
-
Great idea.
But good luck with that....considering our bought and paid for politicians.
-
You're forgetting one crucial factor... citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
What? In the US, it is a Federal crime for any non-citizen(legal or illegal resident) to vote in Federal elections. It's called "Impersonating a US citizen", and it's a crime.
That means that even legal, permanent residents of the US are prohibited by law to vote. If they do and get caught, they forfeit their legal permanent residency, get arrested and processed for immediate deportation.
No, a driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Legal permanent residents, foreign students, foreign workers, etc. maybe allowed to get a drivers license, but they are definitely not allowed to vote.
24KT, please substantiate your claim that "citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote"
-
What? In the US, it is a Federal crime for any non-citizen(legal or illegal resident) to vote in Federal elections. It's called "Impersonating a US citizen", and it's a crime.
That means that even legal, permanent residents of the US are prohibited by law to vote. If they do and get caught, they forfeit their legal permanent residency, get arrested and processed for immediate deportation.
No, a driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Legal permanent residents, foreign students, foreign workers, etc. maybe allowed to get a drivers license, but they are definitely not allowed to vote.
24KT, please substantiate your claim that "citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote"
Bump.
-
What? In the US, it is a Federal crime for any non-citizen(legal or illegal resident) to vote in Federal elections. It's called "Impersonating a US citizen", and it's a crime.
That means that even legal, permanent residents of the US are prohibited by law to vote. If they do and get caught, they forfeit their legal permanent residency, get arrested and processed for immediate deportation.
No, a driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Legal permanent residents, foreign students, foreign workers, etc. maybe allowed to get a drivers license, but they are definitely not allowed to vote.
I was not stating that non-citizens (legal or illegal residents) have the right to vote in US Federal or State elections, however, since 1968 legal residents do have the right to vote at the local level.
What I stated was fact: Citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
I've never stated a driver's license constituted proof of citizenship.
-
It is not a requirement for federal elections?
A lot of states have made it a requirement even to vote in state elections.
The will of the people is moving towards citizenship being a requirement to vote in ALL TYPES OF ELECTIONS. That is very, very good.
Be careful of this thing you call "the will of the people".
It will be a collectivist mentality that will thwart individual rights & freedoms.
It's not so noticeable when your will or desires line up with those of others, but the tyranny is laid bare should yours be of a "divergent' opinion. {pun fully intended}
-
I was not stating that non-citizens (legal or illegal residents) have the right to vote in US Federal or State elections, however, since 1968 legal residents do have the right to vote at the local level.
What I stated was fact: Citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
I've never stated a driver's license constituted proof of citizenship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States)
Currently, only American citizens can vote in federal elections
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml (http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml)
To be eligible to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen.
http://www.866ourvote.org/issues/proof-of-citizenship-voting-identification (http://www.866ourvote.org/issues/proof-of-citizenship-voting-identification)
All states require an individual to be a U.S. citizen in order to vote in state or federal elections.
http://immigration.about.com/od/immigrationlawandpolicy/f/Elctns_Elgblty.htm (http://immigration.about.com/od/immigrationlawandpolicy/f/Elctns_Elgblty.htm)
Must be a United States citizen
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080206182512AAmug6S (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080206182512AAmug6S)
You must be a US citizen, be at least 18 years old, and registered to vote.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States)
Currently, only American citizens can vote in federal elections
Sheesh!!!
Does EVERYBODY have a reading comprehension problem?
I was not stating that non-citizens (legal or illegal residents) have the right to vote in US Federal or State elections, however, since 1968 legal residents do have the right to vote at the local level.
What I stated was fact: Citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
I've never stated a driver's license constituted proof of citizenship.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States)
Currently, only American citizens can vote in federal elections
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml (http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml)
To be eligible to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen.
http://www.866ourvote.org/issues/proof-of-citizenship-voting-identification (http://www.866ourvote.org/issues/proof-of-citizenship-voting-identification)
All states require an individual to be a U.S. citizen in order to vote in state or federal elections.
http://immigration.about.com/od/immigrationlawandpolicy/f/Elctns_Elgblty.htm (http://immigration.about.com/od/immigrationlawandpolicy/f/Elctns_Elgblty.htm)
Must be a United States citizen
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080206182512AAmug6S (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080206182512AAmug6S)
You must be a US citizen, be at least 18 years old, and registered to vote.
In response to the assertion:
What I stated was fact: Citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
Citizenship IS a requirement to vote
Dam details and distinctions. Yawn.
-
In response to the assertion:
Citizenship IS a requirement to vote
Dam details and distinctions. Yawn.
LOL! ;D
-
In response to the assertion:
Citizenship IS a requirement to vote
Dam details and distinctions. Yawn.
OzmO, is citizenship a requirement to vote in local elections?
-
You're forgetting one crucial factor... citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
this is not your quote?
I was not stating that non-citizens (legal or illegal residents) have the right to vote in US Federal or State elections, however, since 1968 legal residents do have the right to vote at the local level.
What I stated was fact: Citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
I've never stated a driver's license constituted proof of citizenship.
Is this not your back peddle?
LMAO :D
-
I was not stating that non-citizens (legal or illegal residents) have the right to vote in US Federal or State elections, however, since 1968 legal residents do have the right to vote at the local level.
What I stated was fact: Citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
I've never stated a driver's license constituted proof of citizenship.
i'm so confused. I think i've been working too much.
-
Lets take a look at another distinction shall we....... ;D
A federal judge last week upheld the right of states to require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. Voters continue to overwhelmingly support such a requirement.
The federal judge’s ruling last week upheld laws enacted in Arizona and Kansas because federal voter registration forms do not include a proof of citizenship requirement.
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml (http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml)
To be eligible to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen.
Obviously the article is talking about FEDERAL or STATE voting.
;D
Dam distinctions!
spank that ass.....spank that ass.....spank that ass
-
LOL!!!!! ;D Stop it. lol
-
this is not your quote?
Is this not your back peddle?
LMAO :D
That was my quote, and it is no back pedal. It is fact. Those pesky little things you refuse to acknowledge.
Since you previously cited wiki, I trust you accept it as substantiation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_States
United States[edit]
Main article: Right of foreigners to vote in the United States
More than 20 states or territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, admitted foreigners' right to vote for all elections. As of May 2010, however, most of those foreign voting and office holding rights have been repealed and, as of 2010, no foreigner was allowed vote at the national or state level in the US, and only a handful of local governments allowed foreigners to vote. These few foreign voting rights at the local level have been granted to non-citizens by state governments from 1968 onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_States
Now kindly F-off and have a shitty night.
Thank You :)
-
That was my quote, and it is no back pedal. It is fact. Those pesky little things you refuse to acknowledge.
Since you previously cited wiki, I trust you accept it as substantiation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_States
United States[edit]
Main article: Right of foreigners to vote in the United States
More than 20 states or territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, admitted foreigners' right to vote for all elections. As of May 2010, however, most of those foreign voting and office holding rights have been repealed and, as of 2010, no foreigner was allowed vote at the national or state level in the US, and only a handful of local governments allowed foreigners to vote. These few foreign voting rights at the local level have been granted to non-citizens by state governments from 1968 onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_States
Now kindly F-off and have a shitty night.
Thank You :)
Blahahahahahahahahaha.
Picking cherries again are ya?
who has more credibiliy? USA.gov or wiki
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml
To be eligible to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen.
But let's take a look at some distinctions from your post:
That was my quote, and it is no back pedal. It is fact. Those pesky little things you refuse to acknowledge.
United States[edit]
Main article: Right of foreigners to vote in the United States
More than 20 states or territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, admitted foreigners' right to vote for all elections. As of May 2010, however, most of those foreign voting and office holding rights have been repealed and, as of 2010, no foreigner was allowed vote at the national or state level in the US, and only a handful of local governments allowed foreigners to vote. These few foreign voting rights at the local level have been granted to non-citizens by state governments from 1968 onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_States
Jag what year is it? Is it 2009 or 2014?
Can you tell me the distinction between 2009 and 2014?
See Jag, this is why peeps give you such a hard time. Instead of simply just saying you were mistaken you try pass off such a dumb argument.
Grow up and own up.
And have a wonderful night. :)
All the best!
-
Why should non-citizens get a say in how a country is run?
Makes no sense.
-
Blahahahahahahahahaha.
Picking cherries again are ya?
who has more credibiliy? USA.gov or wiki
But let's take a look at some distinctions from your post:
Jag what year is it? Is it 2009 or 2014?
Can you tell me the distinction between 2009 and 2014?
See Jag, this is why peeps give you such a hard time. Instead of simply just saying you were mistaken you try pass off such a dumb argument.
Grow up and own up.
And have a wonderful night. :)
All the best!
We should have a mercy rule on the board. lol
-
We should have a mercy rule on the board. lol
Sure, but the what the hell?
When i am wrong or mistaken i have no problem admitting it. She seems to have such a low self esteem that she can't even admit a mistake on a forum.
Part of being an adult: Grow up and own up!
-
Sure, but the what the hell?
When i am wrong or mistaken i have no problem admitting it. She seems to have such a low self esteem that she can't even admit a mistake on a forum.
Part of being an adult: Grow up and own up!
Maybe you need a 160 IQ to understand her point?
But seriously, I agree.
-
Blahahahahahahahahaha.
Picking cherries again are ya?
who has more credibiliy? USA.gov or wiki
But let's take a look at some distinctions from your post:
Jag what year is it? Is it 2009 or 2014?
Can you tell me the distinction between 2009 and 2014?
See Jag, this is why peeps give you such a hard time. Instead of simply just saying you were mistaken you try pass off such a dumb argument.
Grow up and own up.
And have a wonderful night. :)
All the best!
Own up to what? I made no mistake. I stated fact. It isn't a requirement to vote.
I was not referring to a federal or state election, I was referring to the fact that in the USA, non citizens are able to vote in some situations. If one were to make proof of citizenship a requirement to even register to vote, you would in effect disenfranchise those who currently have the right to vote.
This is what I was referring to in PM OzmO. You jump to a conclusion, and run with it, regardless of how inaccurate it is, and you assume to know what is in someone's head, ...even when they tell you. You prefer to run with your pre-conceived ideas. You are so prejudiced that way.
-
Own up to what? I made no mistake. I stated fact. It isn't a requirement to vote.
I was not referring to a federal or state election, I was referring to the fact that in the USA, non citizens are able to vote in some situations. If one were to make proof of citizenship a requirement to even register to vote, you would in effect disenfranchise those who currently have the right to vote.
This is what I was referring to in PM OzmO. You jump to a conclusion, and run with it, regardless of how inaccurate it is, and you assume to know what is in someone's head, ...even when they tell you. You prefer to run with your pre-conceived ideas. You are so prejudiced that way.
That's not what you said, that's not what you meant.
Every attempt has just made you look stupid. But wait, everyone knows that already.
Grow up and own up.
-
Be careful of this thing you call "the will of the people".
It will be a collectivist mentality that will thwart individual rights & freedoms.
It's not so noticeable when your will or desires line up with those of others, but the tyranny is laid bare should yours be of a "divergent' opinion. {pun fully intended}
You have an interesting take on what tyranny is.
So far the will of the CITIZENS has been clearly shown to be against crapcare, against amnesty, and in support for voter id laws, yet politicians, the clowninchief and even the supreme court, in some cases, have all worked together against what the people want. Is that not "tyranny" to you?
-
24KT, you are getting destroyed in this thread. Just admit that you were wrong.
78% Favor Proof of Citizenship Before Being Allowed to Vote
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
A federal judge last week upheld the right of states to require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. Voters continue to overwhelmingly support such a requirement.
You're forgetting one crucial factor... citizenship is NOT a requirement to vote.
Backpedal
I was not stating that non-citizens (legal or illegal residents) have the right to vote in US Federal or State elections, however, since 1968 legal residents do have the right to vote at the local level.
I was referring to the fact that in the USA, non citizens are able to vote in some situations.
WTF?
-
You have an interesting take on what tyranny is.
So far the will of the CITIZENS has been clearly shown to be against crapcare, against amnesty, and in support for voter id laws, yet politicians, the clowninchief and even the supreme court, in some cases, have all worked together against what the people want. Is that not "tyranny" to you?
This is very true. The irony is that our current federal government is actually vastly more oppressive and out of touch than ANYTHING the british did leading up to the Revolution.
the time has clearly come to' refresh the tree of liberty'..
-
You have an interesting take on what tyranny is.
So far the will of the CITIZENS has been clearly shown to be against crapcare, against amnesty, and in support for voter id laws, yet politicians, the clowninchief and even the supreme court, in some cases, have all worked together against what the people want. Is that not "tyranny" to you?
Of course it is, ...but it's only one form of tyranny. It exists in many forms, and the tyranny of 'democracy' as I mentioned is not always evident, ...until it is too late. aka "mob rule"
-
24KT, you are getting destroyed in this thread. Just admit that you were wrong.
Backpedal
WTF?
Oh F-me!!! ::)
You guys are all talking about state elections. I was not.
Quick question, is the voter registration process different at each level of government?
Does one register to vote at the local level, then again register to vote at the state level, and again at federal? Or does one registration sufficient? Because if one is eligible to vote (but not a citizen) then requiring proof of citizenship to even register disenfranchises eligible voters.
Then too, there would be the issue of those who would be citizens and eligible on election day, but not eligible at the cut-off time for registration. They should be able to register in advance if they will be citizens and eligible on election day.
Listen, I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong or made a mistake. I do it all the time.
I just don't feel I was wrong. I stand by my statement and above is my explanation as to why I feel the way I do. It's a difference of opinion... move on.
-
Oh F-me!!! ::)
You guys are all talking about state elections. I was not.
Quick question, is the voter registration process different at each level of government?
Does one register to vote at the local level, then again register to vote at the state level, and again at federal? Or does one registration sufficient? Because if one is eligible to vote (but not a citizen) then requiring proof of citizenship to even register disenfranchises eligible voters.
Then too, there would be the issue of those who would be citizens and eligible on election day, but not eligible at the cut-off time for registration. They should be able to register in advance if they will be citizens and eligible on election day.
Listen, I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong or made a mistake. I do it all the time.
I just don't feel I was wrong. I stand by my statement and above is my explanation as to why I feel the way I do. It's a difference of opinion... move on.
There is one voting registration that covers all(Federal, State, county, etc.), and it does require proof of citizenship. Just admit you were wrong already.
-
Oh F-me!!! ::)
You guys are all talking about state elections. I was not.
Quick question, is the voter registration process different at each level of government?
Does one register to vote at the local level, then again register to vote at the state level, and again at federal? Or does one registration sufficient? Because if one is eligible to vote (but not a citizen) then requiring proof of citizenship to even register disenfranchises eligible voters.
Then too, there would be the issue of those who would be citizens and eligible on election day, but not eligible at the cut-off time for registration. They should be able to register in advance if they will be citizens and eligible on election day.
Listen, I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong or made a mistake. I do it all the time.
I just don't feel I was wrong. I stand by my statement and above is my explanation as to why I feel the way I do. It's a difference of opinion... move on.
You don't know what the fuck you were talking about.
You have been back peddling this whole time.
Did you even read the article before you jammed your foot in your mouth?
You are ridiculous and pathetic and a LIAR.
to refresh your LYING ASS:
Lets take a look at another distinction shall we....... ;D
A federal judge last week upheld the right of states to require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. Voters continue to overwhelmingly support such a requirement.
The federal judge’s ruling last week upheld laws enacted in Arizona and Kansas because federal voter registration forms do not include a proof of citizenship requirement.
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml (http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml)
To be eligible to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen.
Obviously the article is talking about FEDERAL or STATE voting.
;D
Dam distinctions!
spank that ass.....spank that ass.....spank that ass
Then you had the retarded idea to back peddle this way:
That was my quote, and it is no back pedal. It is fact. Those pesky little things you refuse to acknowledge.
Since you previously cited wiki, I trust you accept it as substantiation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_States
United States[edit]
Main article: Right of foreigners to vote in the United States
More than 20 states or territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, admitted foreigners' right to vote for all elections. As of May 2010, however, most of those foreign voting and office holding rights have been repealed and, as of 2010, no foreigner was allowed vote at the national or state level in the US, and only a handful of local governments allowed foreigners to vote. These few foreign voting rights at the local level have been granted to non-citizens by state governments from 1968 onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_States
Now kindly F-off and have a shitty night.
Thank You :)
Blahahahahahahahahaha.
Picking cherries again are ya?
who has more credibiliy? USA.gov or wiki
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml
To be eligible to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen.
But let's take a look at some distinctions from your post:
That was my quote, and it is no back pedal. It is fact. Those pesky little things you refuse to acknowledge.
United States[edit]
Main article: Right of foreigners to vote in the United States
More than 20 states or territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, admitted foreigners' right to vote for all elections. As of May 2010, however, most of those foreign voting and office holding rights have been repealed and, as of 2010, no foreigner was allowed vote at the national or state level in the US, and only a handful of local governments allowed foreigners to vote. These few foreign voting rights at the local level have been granted to non-citizens by state governments from 1968 onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_States
Jag what year is it? Is it 2009 or 2014?
Can you tell me the distinction between 2009 and 2014?
See Jag, this is why peeps give you such a hard time. Instead of simply just saying you were mistaken you try pass off such a dumb argument.
Grow up and own up.
And have a wonderful night. :)
All the best!
________________________ ________________________ _________________
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
GROW UP AND OWN UP JAG
-
I really hope Judy (24KT/JaguarEnterprises) is not advising US foreign students, US foreign workers and US legal residents. Otherwise she's gonna get them all arrested and deported.
Judy, you claim to be a business woman, but I definitely would not do business with a person of your character.
You would have been much better off simply admitting that you were wrong. You would have come off looking a lot better to everyone who reads this thread.
Everyone makes mistakes, but I bet you blame your clients for all of your mistakes, instead of owning up and admitting to them.
-
Yo dudez, not to interrupt your gang-rape, lol, but where in the OP's posted article does it say they're only talking about state or federal elections? Is it implied in some way that didn't jump out at me or what? Honest question; I just scanned it so I might have missed it, actually.
-
Just read where I bolded parts of the article in my last post. It's obvious what the article was talking about.
Where they talking about being a citizen is a requirement when registering to vote in elections and even mentioning state and federal voting or.were they talking about local elections?
-
There is one voting registration that covers all(Federal, State, county, etc.), and it does require proof of citizenship. Just admit you were wrong already.
That's what I thought. So I'm still confused as to why you guys keep insisting I'm wrong. Is it just because its what you want to see? I don't get it. ??? Now if there are separate registrations, then of course my opinion on the matter would perhaps be incorrect, however, when there is only ONE voter registration that covers Federal, State, County, City etc., etc., I feel that to require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, disenfranchises those non-citizens who are indeed eligible to vote.
If you are a non-citizen legally allowed to vote, that right is effectively stripped from you if the form registering you to vote requires something you are unable to provide. As long as non-citizens are allowed to vote in some elections, I believe it is wrong to make proof of citizenship a requirement simply to register to vote.
It would be as ludicrous, and as unfair as saying Caucasians are allowed to vote, but in order to be eligible to exercise that right, they must first register, and in order to register, they must provide DNA samples from their biological African-American parents, ...but hey, Caucasians can still vote, ...as long as they register. Or another way to say it is, the legal drinking age is 21. If you're 21 or older, you are legally allowed to purchase & consume alcohol from or in a public estashblishment provided you show ID, ...however, the only valid form of identification that they will allow or accept is an AARP membership card. Do you get it now?
-
Yo dudez, not to interrupt your gang-rape, lol, but where in the OP's posted article does it say they're only talking about state or federal elections? Is it implied in some way that didn't jump out at me or what? Honest question; I just scanned it so I might have missed it, actually.
RRKore, if you read the article in its entirety, you'll see the focus of the piece is actually people's OPINIONS on the matter. It may have opened with results of a ruling from the federal bench, but the main thrust of the article is people's opinions on whether or not they support this requirement or feel it is discriminatory.
I stated my opinion and pointed out a fact which many "angry xenophobes" prefer to neglect, ...namely that citizenship is not a requirement to vote. For whatever reason the bully posse decided to declare my opinion wrong, and focus on Lord knows what...
But then again... perhaps in makes sense to those living in the Bizaroland south of our mutual border. After all, they live in a country that states they have "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ...while at the same time they are subject to secret laws about which they're not entitled to know, and have a President that can order them to be detained indefinitely without charges, and/or be killed. So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-
Be careful of this thing you call "the will of the people".
It will be a collectivist mentality that will thwart individual rights & freedoms.
It's not so noticeable when your will or desires line up with those of others, but the tyranny is laid bare should yours be of a "divergent' opinion. {pun fully intended}
You have an interesting take on what tyranny is.
So far the will of the CITIZENS has been clearly shown to be against crapcare, against amnesty, and in support for voter id laws, yet politicians, the clowninchief and even the supreme court, in some cases, have all worked together against what the people want. Is that not "tyranny" to you?
Of course it is, ...but it's only one form of tyranny. It exists in many forms, and the tyranny of 'democracy' as I mentioned is not always evident, ...until it is too late. aka "mob rule"
Hey Dario, here's an article that to me is a great example of what I was refering to before when I spoke of 'the tyranny of democracy' Not everything should be based on the will of the majority, especially when that will infringe's on the individual rights of the minority. One of the biggest reasons people should seek to protect the rights of others is in order to ensure their own, ...especially after having witnessed the bullshit that went down in 2000, and the purge of eligible voters in Florida that resulted in the coup that brought the world almost 4 terms of stupid, failed Bush policies?
You’d Have Better Luck Converting Them to Become Jehovah’s Witnesses
By Nick Giambruno
I’d bet that many of you have thought about or discussed the following question: “What are the chances that the political situation might improve in the US?”
I know I have.
Unfortunately, I have long concluded that the chances are slim to none… and slim is out of town.
The reason for this is simple: a growing majority of voters in the US has deeply ingrained collectivist impulses in some fashion or another. In other words, they’re addicted to the heroin of the failed policies of the welfare, warfare, and nanny state.
Speaking of the nanny state, New York City is perhaps one of the most infamous incarnations of it. The bureaucrats in the Big Apple have a particularly strong affinity for regulating every aspect of the personal lives and businesses of its residents. It’s all done “for your own good,” of course—the standard catch-all justification for big government.
The latest example of which is Mayor Bill de Blasio’s absolutely ridiculous “Vision Zero” plan. This plan seeks to reduce traffic deaths to zero by drastically increasing police enforcement.
It’s delusional to think that fatal accidents could ever be fully eliminated, no matter how many police officers or enforcement cameras there are on the streets. It’s not unlike trying to totally eliminate bathtub falls by putting a police officer or a camera in every bathroom.
Jaywalkers in particular have been singled out for extra attention by the police in “Vision Zero.”
Consider the story of Kang Wong, an 84-year-old man who was recently stopped for jaywalking near Broadway and 96th Street at around 5 in the evening. Wong, who apparently didn’t understand what was happening or why he was being stopped, tried to walk away from the police. The situation escalated, and the police ended up arresting and bloodying him (picture below).
Few New Yorkers question why the money extracted from them via taxation—to pay for the police—didn’t instead go towards dealing with real crimes (aggressions against people and property). Nor did many question the disturbing absurdity of the bloodying of an 84-year-old man spurred by the increased enforcement of jaywalking in the name of the “Vision Zero” fantasy.
This whole ordeal underscores why I’m not particularly optimistic that a significant number of Americans will change their views on collectivism and personal freedom anytime soon.
(https://d24g2nq85gnwal.cloudfront.net/images/140326image1.jpg)
Source: NY Post
Many have been force-fed since a young age the notion that democracy is the most sublime form of government. I believe the reality, however, is quite different—especially once a society loses respect for the rights of individual. In other words, when the majority or the collective trumps all.
Then it only takes 51% of the people to agree to restrict the rights of the rest of the 49%—which amounts to nothing more than mob rule dressed up in a suit and tie.
If 51% of the people vote to elect a guy who wants to turn their city into a police state in pursuit of the delusion of totally eliminating traffic deaths, they can. (Note: NYC mayor Bill de Blasio won in a landslide, with 73% of the vote.)
If 51% of the people vote to elect a guy who wants, in the name of the greater good, to force you to buy health insurance you don’t need or want, they can.
If 51% of the people deem it “fair” that the top income tax bracket to be 75%, then so be it. It’s already happened in France.
Or suppose that gold explodes to the upside (another way of saying the currency crashes) and 51% of the people demand, in the name of fairness, a precious metals windfall profits tax.
These are the kinds of possibilities that can occur in a democratic society with collectivist leanings.
It brings to mind the words of H.L. Mencken: “Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.”
Granted, the US has not arrived at some of these destinations yet… though I believe we are on the path toward it—and there’s no turning back.
The reason is simple: a growing majority of Americans are financially dependent on the government.
It’s estimated that around 47% of Americans are already receiving government benefits in some way.
Here is 3 minute video on what Judge Napolitano says about the situation.
The Mises View: "Government Debt Addiction | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
But I believe 47% is not an accurate reflection of the situation.
We also need to consider all government employees as well as those in the nominally private sector who make a living off of the warfare state—like defense and other government contractors who win huge no-bid contracts.
Those involved in the military industrial complex are living off slops at the government trough just as much, if not more than those who collect food stamps and other traditional forms of welfare. Yet they aren’t counted in the statistics. So we need to include them to get a more complete picture of who is financially dependent on the government.
Anyone who exists off of political dollars instead of free-market dollars should be counted.
When these people are included, we’re well north of 50% of the American population (a solid majority and growing) that’s financially dependent on the government in some form.
This means the US has crossed the Rubicon.
It’s not good news for those opposed to collectivism.
This built-in majority of welfare recipients and government employees guarantees that there will be a solid voting block to continue—and accelerate—these policies. It would be foolish to assume that a meaningful number of these people would vote to stop the government from giving them benefits or otherwise vote to break their own rice bowls.
The notion that a significant number of people living off of government largesse will be brought around to an individualist or libertarian way of thinking is a pipe dream.
You’d have better luck converting them to become Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In other words, there is no hope for positive change to come from the political system.
Therefore, I believe your time and energy are best spent preparing for and protecting yourself from the effects of a collectivist system that eventually collapses under its own weight… like all of them eventually do.
Once you’ve realized that it is futile to stop this collectivist tsunami, the next logical question becomes “How do I protect myself and my savings?”
The answer is: the same way you would with a regular tsunami… get out of the way!
(https://d24g2nq85gnwal.cloudfront.net/images/140326image3.jpg)
The good news is that thanks to internationalization, you don’t have to be a passive victim.
Moving some of your savings abroad in the form of offshore bank and brokerage accounts, foreign real estate, and physical gold held in safe jurisdictions, will go a long way toward protecting yourself. Obtaining a second passport is an important part of the mix as well.
It’s not all doom and gloom; the world is your oyster, and there are very attractive jurisdictions that are cause for optimism. And that’s what International Man is all about—making the most of your personal freedom and financial opportunity around the world.
http://www.internationalman.com/articles/youd-have-better-luck-converting-them-to-become-jehovahs-witnesses
-
Jag, getting her ass handed to her, attempts to rebut with a wall-o-text, lol.
Typical CT'r defensive tactic.
And, pathetic.
-
Jag, getting her ass handed to her, attempts to rebut with a wall-o-text, lol.
Typical CT'r defensive tactic.
And, pathetic.
Lol yeah. Instead of grow up and own up, she walls up and runs.
-
Lol yeah. Instead of grow up and own up, she walls up and runs.
Better to "wall up and run" as you describe it than to make my head explode trying to understand your thinking. ::)
-
Better to "wall up and run" as you describe it than to make my head explode trying to understand your thinking. ::)
"A federal judge last week upheld the right of states to require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote."
That's the first sentence of the article. And it continues to talk about having to be a citizen to vote and it also talks about people's opinions on the matter.
At what point in the article do they talk about people not having to be a citizen to vote in local elections?
Do they bring up local elections in the article?
Do they talk about mostly if not entirely registering to vote and having to be a citizen?
If you weren't so wrong about what you said no one would have joined me calling you out on it.
I realize your fragile self esteem won't allow you see the truth of it. I pity you.
-
:-[
(http://images.covers.com/editorial/2010/383x165/ali-liston043010.jpg)
-
Just read where I bolded parts of the article in my last post. It's obvious what the article was talking about.
Where they talking about being a citizen is a requirement when registering to vote in elections and even mentioning state and federal voting or.were they talking about local elections?
You're right; It refers to federal voter registration forms.
Anyway, informative thread. I did not know that non-citizens are allowed to vote in some local elections.
-
It just makes sense for voting rights be available only for legal citizens.
-
You're right; It refers to federal voter registration forms.
Anyway, informative thread. I did not know that non-citizens are allowed to vote in some local elections.
Care to list which local elections non-citizens are allowed to vote in?
-
RRKore, care to list which local elections non-citizens are allowed to vote in?
-
RRKore, care to list which local elections non-citizens are allowed to vote in?
-
RRKore, care to list which local elections non-citizens are allowed to vote in?
-
RRKore, care to list which local elections non-citizens are allowed to vote in?
Why? Are you not familiar with the Google?
Anyway, here's one: City elections in Takoma Park, Maryland.
Green card holders (who are not citizens) have apparently been able to vote in city elections there since 1992.
The google tells of more, but I'm gonna give you credit for knowing how to look them up on your own.
Now, what's your point?
-
Sorry, BB. I was driving cross-country; My job is paying for my relocation from shitty, pollen-filled NC to sunny SoCal.
Anyway, per Google, there seem to be quite a few city-level elections around the country that are open to non-citizens (green-card holders only, it looks like).
What's the big deal? Honest question. Many green-card holders (my wife is one) have jobs and pay taxes so why shouldn't they vote in local elections?
-
Sorry, BB. I was driving cross-country; My job is paying for my relocation from shitty, pollen-filled NC to sunny SoCal.
Anyway, per Google, there seem to be quite a few city-level elections around the country that are open to non-citizens (green-card holders only, it looks like).
What's the big deal? Honest question. Many green-card holders (my wife is one) have jobs and pay taxes so why shouldn't they vote in local elections?
Allergies not much better in SoCal. :(
BTW, why is your wife a green card holder? Are you in a waiting period for her to become a citizen?
-
If we were better at checking voting id and bc and records - we would never have had to deal with having a Kenyan communist slug in the WH
-
Why? Are you not familiar with the Google?
Anyway, here's one: City elections in Takoma Park, Maryland.
Green card holders (who are not citizens) have apparently been able to vote in city elections there since 1992.
The google tells of more, but I'm gonna give you credit for knowing how to look them up on your own.
Now, what's your point?
If that's true then why did a councilman introduce a bill to permit green card holders to vote in December 2013?
http://wamu.org/news/13/12/03/dc_legislator_wants_non_citizen_legal_residents_to_be_allowed_to_vote
-
If that's true then why did a councilman introduce a bill to permit green card holders to vote in December 2013?
http://wamu.org/news/13/12/03/dc_legislator_wants_non_citizen_legal_residents_to_be_allowed_to_vote
Uh, because the District of Columbia and Takoma Park, Maryland aren't the same place?
(WTF, dude, reading comprehension much?)
From your own article:
The DC councilman Grosso introduced a bill in Dec 2013 for green card holders to vote in local elections IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Green-card holders have been voting in local elections since 1992 IN TAKHOMA PARK, MARYLAND.
From your own article:
In 1992, residents of Takoma Park, Md. voted in a referendum to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. The proposal passed narrowly, 1,199 to 1,107, and allows even undocumented immigrants to vote, provided they have lived in the city for 21 days preceding an election.
Six other locations — three towns, three villages — in Montgomery County allow the same. In 2004, Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) introduced a bill to the same effect in D.C., but it was rejected. Last May, legislators in New York considered a bill of their own that would allow non-citizen legal residents to cast ballots.
-
Allergies not much better in SoCal. :(
BTW, why is your wife a green card holder? Are you in a waiting period for her to become a citizen?
Hmmm, my sinus issues have improved greatly in the short time I've been in SoCal. Maybe it's not the pollen, though -- I'm living in the "Inland Empire" (lol, that still sounds weird to me) so maybe the air being so much drier than in Raleigh is why I'm feeling better.
My wife is a green card holder because she's from Thailand. She's been here just over 5 years now. She isn't trying to become a citizen just yet; Her green card is of the 10-year variety (there's a 2-year one, too, I think) so we have a little time before spending the money to get that done. Immigration the legal way (petitioning for fiancee visa and then for a green card), even without the help of a lawyer, costs some money. Not sure how much the citizenship stuff costs yet, but we won't put it off too long.
-
Uh, because the District of Columbia and Takoma Park, Maryland aren't the same place?
(WTF, dude, reading comprehension much?)
From your own article:
The DC councilman Grosso introduced a bill in Dec 2013 for green card holders to vote in local elections IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Green-card holders have been voting in local elections since 1992 IN TAKHOMA PARK, MARYLAND.
From your own article:
In 1992, residents of Takoma Park, Md. voted in a referendum to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. The proposal passed narrowly, 1,199 to 1,107, and allows even undocumented immigrants to vote, provided they have lived in the city for 21 days preceding an election.
Six other locations — three towns, three villages — in Montgomery County allow the same. In 2004, Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) introduced a bill to the same effect in D.C., but it was rejected. Last May, legislators in New York considered a bill of their own that would allow non-citizen legal residents to cast ballots.
In your defense, BB, the way that article was written is a little confusing.
Not surprising, though -- It was written by a green card holder. ;D
-
A can kind of see how a long term green card holder might be awarded the right to vote after an extended stay particularly if they intend to acquire citizenship
-
Uh, because the District of Columbia and Takoma Park, Maryland aren't the same place?
(WTF, dude, reading comprehension much?)
From your own article:
The DC councilman Grosso introduced a bill in Dec 2013 for green card holders to vote in local elections IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Green-card holders have been voting in local elections since 1992 IN TAKHOMA PARK, MARYLAND.
From your own article:
In 1992, residents of Takoma Park, Md. voted in a referendum to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. The proposal passed narrowly, 1,199 to 1,107, and allows even undocumented immigrants to vote, provided they have lived in the city for 21 days preceding an election.
Six other locations — three towns, three villages — in Montgomery County allow the same. In 2004, Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) introduced a bill to the same effect in D.C., but it was rejected. Last May, legislators in New York considered a bill of their own that would allow non-citizen legal residents to cast ballots.
Not a reading comprehension. Just careless. My bad.
But I will say I don't really make a distinction between D.C. and Maryland geographically. And I got a ticket for driving in a "toll" lane last year. >:(
-
Not a reading comprehension. Just careless. My bad.
But I will say I don't really make a distinction between D.C. and Maryland geographically. And I got a ticket for driving in a "toll" lane last year. >:(
No worries.
If it makes ya feel any better I got a 10 over speeding ticket in Arizona and got stopped with just a warning in Oklahoma for what I seriously suspect was nothing more than having out-of-state plates during my recent cross-country drive. (Which reminds me, I need to try to use google to find out what will happen if I don't do anything about that Arizona ticket...)
-
Why? Are you not familiar with the Google?
Anyway, here's one: City elections in Takoma Park, Maryland.
Green card holders (who are not citizens) have apparently been able to vote in city elections there since 1992.
The google tells of more, but I'm gonna give you credit for knowing how to look them up on your own.
Now, what's your point?
RRKore, thank you! I stand corrected.
I apologize for thinking you were a 24KT/JaguarEnterprises gimmick. I still say she messed up in this thread and won't admit she was wrong.
-
Hmmm, my sinus issues have improved greatly in the short time I've been in SoCal. Maybe it's not the pollen, though -- I'm living in the "Inland Empire" (lol, that still sounds weird to me) so maybe the air being so much drier than in Raleigh is why I'm feeling better.
My wife is a green card holder because she's from Thailand. She's been here just over 5 years now. She isn't trying to become a citizen just yet; Her green card is of the 10-year variety (there's a 2-year one, too, I think) so we have a little time before spending the money to get that done. Immigration the legal way (petitioning for fiancee visa and then for a green card), even without the help of a lawyer, costs some money. Not sure how much the citizenship stuff costs yet, but we won't put it off too long.
RRKore, best of luck with your wife obtaining US citizenship. It will cost you about $1,500 without a lawyer. A lawyer is not necessary.
I recommend you and your wife get this done ASAP, not just for the right to vote and to hold a government job, but for other more important reasons. I am sure you are aware of them.
If your wife travels outside the US, and for whatever unfortunate reason gets stuck outside the US longer than six months, her permanent resident status maybe revoked permanently.
I also read from an immigration attorney about a case where a non-citizen, legal permanent resident got into a bar fight. He is married to an American citizen, has kids born in the US and he himself had lived in the US for years. The guy got taken to court for hurting someone in the bar fight. The judge somehow managed to get the guy's permanent residence revoked and the guy was deported. It was all done legally. The attorney who wrote about this said this is one reason why non-citizen US residents should behave and seek citizenship ASAP.
-
...
If your wife travels outside the US, and for whatever unfortunate reason gets stuck outside the US longer than six months, her permanent resident status maybe revoked permanently.
...
Yikes! I did not know this. And considering we do go back to Thailand (every 2 years) where it's possible that red shirt/yellow shirt political shenanigans could tie up the airport like back in 2010, this is something to think about.
thanks
-
RRKore, thank you! I stand corrected.
I apologize for thinking you were a 24KT/JaguarEnterprises gimmick. I still say she messed up in this thread and won't admit she was wrong.
ROTFLMAO!!!