Union Election Requires Photo ID But No Outrage From Left and Liberal Media

[red states rule]

OK, union thugs hold their electin and require a phto ID in order to voter and the left and liberal media say nothing

R's want voters in general electons to show a photo ID in order to vote all hell breaks loose and the usual lame racism charge is tossed out

What am I missing here? It is not the lefts hypocrisy for sure


http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/IAMvoteBoeingIDrequired1211.jpg

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70058.html

[logroller]

I don't see why proving ID would detrimental to either, but I would assume there are legal differences on the voting requirements of a member-based, private election and a general, public one. For example, is presenting ID a collectively bargained voting requirement? Unions are in a class of their own. But to the extent they are member-based, anything goes so long as the top brass say it is so-- it'd be like Jim saying all members need to verify their identity to post here-- tis his prerogative--don't like it, leave. Not so with general citizens, save expatriation.

[red states rule]

I don't see why proving ID would detrimental to either, but I would assume there are legal differences on the voting requirements of a member-based, private election and a general, public one. For example, is presenting ID a collectively bargained voting requirement? Unions are in a class of their own. But to the extent they are member-based, anything goes so long as the top brass say it is so-- it'd be like Jim saying all members need to verify their identity to post here-- tis his prerogative--don't like it, leave. Not so with general citizens, save expatriation.

Union thugs do not want their elections tampered with (the union bosses will do that for them)

But Dems NEED fraud to have a chance to win some elections. Even when the ID is provided FREE to the "poor" voter, Dems still oppose it

The only answer is, if you have to provide an ID to vote the election will be a fiar election.

Dems will never allow that to happen

[logroller]

Union thugs do not want their elections tampered with (the union bosses will do that for them)

But Dems NEED fraud to have a chance to win some elections. Even when the ID is provided FREE to the "poor" voter, Dems still oppose it

The only answer is, if you have to provide an ID to vote the election will be a fiar election.

Dems will never allow that to happen

Like I said, I don't see why ID requirements aren't in place; but given the dismal voting turnout that does exist, I think apathy reigns far superior to fraud; though, I could see how lower turnout creates an environment more susceptible to fraud. What was the opposition's reasoning for not requiring IDs? The poor don't have IDs?-- I'd guess they don't vote, proportionally, as much the less impoverished anyways-- ID requirements could have detrimental effect on their turnout, but back to my earlier point, it seems moot in light of the general apathy. What fraud are you talking about-- people voting as others?

[red states rule]

Like I said, I don't see why ID requirements aren't in place; but given the dismal voting turnout that does exist, I think apathy reigns far superior to fraud; though, I could see how lower turnout creates an environment more susceptible to fraud. What was the opposition's reasoning for not requiring IDs? The poor don't have IDs?-- I'd guess they don't vote, proportionally, as much the less impoverished anyways-- ID requirements could have detrimental effect on their turnout, but back to my earlier point, it seems moot in light of the general apathy. What fraud are you talking about-- people voting as others?

The Dems #1 talking point is the same old worn out excuse LR - it is racist and unfair

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/states-with-strict-voter-photo-id-laws-more-than-trippled-in-2011/

The REAL reson for Dems opposing this is how the hell will the dead voters and illegals vote if they have to show a photo ID to vote? That will take away part of their voting base in every electon. Then Dems would have to win elections based on their agenda and core principals

[logroller]

The Dems #1 talking point is the same old worn out excuse LR - it is racist and unfair

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/states-with-strict-voter-photo-id-laws-more-than-trippled-in-2011/

The REAL reson for Dems opposing this is how the hell will the dead voters and illegals vote if they have to show a photo ID to vote? That will take away part of their voting base in every electon. Then Dems would have to win elections based on their agenda and core principals

It said 3.6 million people are registered but don't have an ID. Of those-- how many actually vote under current standards? The ABCNews article just said 'a portion'; no doubt, if the number were significant-- they'd have used the statistic. I know far more people who don't vote, than I do people without IDs that vote. But I'm biased-- I think voting laws are too liberal anyways. For example, I think you should be able to read, but I guess idiots need representation as much as those without identification.

[red states rule]

It said 3.6 million people are registered but don't have an ID. Of those-- how many actually vote under current standards? The ABCNews article just said 'a portion'; no doubt, if the number were significant-- they'd have used the statistic. I know far more people who don't vote, than I do people without IDs that vote. But I'm biased-- I think voting laws are too liberal anyways. For example, I think you should be able to read, but I guess idiots need representation as much as those without identification.

Bottom line is, any attempts to ensure a fair election will be opposed by the left. Chicago is a prime example on how Dems would like to have electons run nationwide

[red states rule]

Given his slumping poll numbers, Obama has ordered AG Holder to make sure all this crap over photo ID's being shown in order to vote has to stop NOW




The Obama administration on Tuesday will wade into the increasingly divisive national debate over new voting laws in several states that could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect the president in 2008.

A dozen states this year tightened rules requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Although Democratic governors vetoed four of the measures, liberal and civil rights groups have been raising alarms about the remaining laws, calling them an “assault on democracy” and an attempt to depress minority voter turnout.

Supporters of the tighter laws say they are needed to combat voter fraud.

With the presidential campaign heating up, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Eric_Holder). will deliver a speech Tuesday expressing concerns about the voter-identification laws, along with a Texas redistricting plan before the Supreme Court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-blocks-redistricting-plan-for-texas/2011/12/09/gIQARe4UjO_story.html) that fails to take into account the state’s burgeoning Hispanic population, he said in an interview Monday.

Holder will speak at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Libary and Museum in Austin, Tex., which honors the president who shepherded the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law.

“We are a better nation now than we were because more people are involved in the electoral process,’’ Holder said in the interview. “The beauty of this nation, the strength of this nation, is its diversity, and when we try to exclude people from being involved in the process . . . we weaken the fabric of this country.’’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/holder-to-wade-into-debate-over-voting-rights/2011/12/12/gIQAdUHZqO_story.html