We use facial ID or fingerprint ID to get into our bank accounts, so why not require this match to vote. I guess absentee ballots would need something comparable. Maybe a finger print which could be matched when arriving at the election center.
Hi Margaret, the 47 countries of Europe all use ID and I believe that 46 of them use photo ID. If Democrats get complete control of a state they change the voting rules by a constitutional amendment. That's what Michigan did, and that's why it will probably remain Democrat forever. Kind of depressing, isn't it?
Nice analysis as usual, Joe. I have always been amazed at the Democrats' arguments against voter ID requirements. They seem to be saying that blacks and other minorities are just too stupid or simple-minded to get an ID. If that's not racist, I don't know what is.
They also claim that many elderly people don't have IDs, but how can that be? You need an ID to receive Social Security payments, and you need an ID to open a bank account to deposit or cash those payments. How many elderly retired people are NOT on SS? Not many, I would venture to guess.
And then there are the other government benefits and freebies. Don't you need an ID to receive those? If blacks are too stupid to get an ID, does that mean they are not receiving any government benefits? Does that mean they only work for cash and then keep it all in their pocket or at home? Yeah, maybe pimps and drug dealers operate that way, but not many law-abiding people do.
The whole signature-matching thing just takes it to another level. Who in their right mind actually believes that signature matching should be the only check on millions of ballot-harvested votes when the signature checkers probably have no more than a few seconds to spend on each ballot? And even if they had all day, it is obviously very subjective unless the signatures match very closely.
Thanks Russ, you've made some great points. In this posting I was simply giving the best case for signatures. Those are the figures when people don't cheat and they actually try to tell a good signature match from a bad signature match. Also that's when the signatures are ink on paper versus simply a photocopy or a scan copy. The reality though is far worse, and maybe I will post another article soon about it. The Democrats have all started so-called curing of the ballots, and it's a complete joke. In Arizona here is how they cure: they ask you to write a phone number where they can call you in case there's a question about the signature. They don't use the phone number in the registration record, mind you. They asked the voter, or the fraudster, for the phone number. Then they call you and guess what they ask for? Your name and address. That's all you need to provide. Of course if you stole the ballot out of someone's mailbox you know the name and address. And for 25 bucks you can buy the name and address of every voter in Arizona - millions of them. No doubt, that is what political operatives do.
We use facial ID or fingerprint ID to get into our bank accounts, so why not require this match to vote. I guess absentee ballots would need something comparable. Maybe a finger print which could be matched when arriving at the election center.
Hi Margaret, the 47 countries of Europe all use ID and I believe that 46 of them use photo ID. If Democrats get complete control of a state they change the voting rules by a constitutional amendment. That's what Michigan did, and that's why it will probably remain Democrat forever. Kind of depressing, isn't it?
There's always the hope of repeal of an bad amendment, but if they cheat, then yes Democrat forever.
Nice analysis as usual, Joe. I have always been amazed at the Democrats' arguments against voter ID requirements. They seem to be saying that blacks and other minorities are just too stupid or simple-minded to get an ID. If that's not racist, I don't know what is.
They also claim that many elderly people don't have IDs, but how can that be? You need an ID to receive Social Security payments, and you need an ID to open a bank account to deposit or cash those payments. How many elderly retired people are NOT on SS? Not many, I would venture to guess.
And then there are the other government benefits and freebies. Don't you need an ID to receive those? If blacks are too stupid to get an ID, does that mean they are not receiving any government benefits? Does that mean they only work for cash and then keep it all in their pocket or at home? Yeah, maybe pimps and drug dealers operate that way, but not many law-abiding people do.
The whole signature-matching thing just takes it to another level. Who in their right mind actually believes that signature matching should be the only check on millions of ballot-harvested votes when the signature checkers probably have no more than a few seconds to spend on each ballot? And even if they had all day, it is obviously very subjective unless the signatures match very closely.
Thanks Russ, you've made some great points. In this posting I was simply giving the best case for signatures. Those are the figures when people don't cheat and they actually try to tell a good signature match from a bad signature match. Also that's when the signatures are ink on paper versus simply a photocopy or a scan copy. The reality though is far worse, and maybe I will post another article soon about it. The Democrats have all started so-called curing of the ballots, and it's a complete joke. In Arizona here is how they cure: they ask you to write a phone number where they can call you in case there's a question about the signature. They don't use the phone number in the registration record, mind you. They asked the voter, or the fraudster, for the phone number. Then they call you and guess what they ask for? Your name and address. That's all you need to provide. Of course if you stole the ballot out of someone's mailbox you know the name and address. And for 25 bucks you can buy the name and address of every voter in Arizona - millions of them. No doubt, that is what political operatives do.