Jill Stein demands recount in 3 states

[ArmedCorgi]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. The Republicans wanting him to lose the election was one thing. But to give it to her even if he has more electoral votes no matter what will be suicide and a sure end to their power.

Yeah but you have to consider why it was the republicans wanted him to lose in the first place. He obviously represents a serious threat to the status quo and their way of life. Sure, he wins, she concedes and everyone plays nice and tries to secure their place in the new administration. Show them "hope" however, and who knows what they will do. If they have a chance at sinking his presidency, securing their place and putting the Bitch in the white house, I don't doubt for a minute they would do it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Assuming that were to happen, do you think Republicans would hold their seats next election? That would be the last time most Republicans vote Republican. That's a guaranteed suicide.

I do not think they are willing to do so. Trump is playing nice appointing Rhinos for Christ's sake in his cabinet. He is willing to work with them.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Assuming that were to happen, do you think Republicans would hold their seats next election? That would be the last time most Republicans vote Republican. That's a guaranteed suicide.

I do not think they are willing to do so. Trump is playing nice appointing Rhinos for Christ's sake in his cabinet. He is willing to work with them.

Assuming that were to happen, I don't think elections would matter much or mean much anymore in this country.

 

[prambo]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. The Republicans wanting him to lose the election was one thing. But to give it to her even if he has more electoral votes no matter what will be suicide and a sure end to their power.

Something more important than their power will be lost - their freedom. This would be the last straw for many - Committees of Correspondence would probably arise, arrest the scum, and jail them. And anyone disagreeing would be strenuously opposed.

 

[X340]

Throughout this cluster as usual lawyers are going to make out like fat freaking rats...A good chunk of the
money Jill darling raises (and Soros gives) will go to them.

 

[spat]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. The Republicans wanting him to lose the election was one thing. But to give it to her even if he has more electoral votes no matter what will be suicide and a sure end to their power.

Anything at this point that steals the election from him would be the end of a lot of things.

Honestly, the people on the left that are trying this stuff either don't realize how dangerous what they are suggesting is, or they know it will fail and they are just posturing for their base.

 

[pjzwtl]

Let them play these games it rubs more people the wrong way then it impresses. I'm all for letting them act like this

 

[NirvanaFan]

Equating an ID as a poll tax is nonsense in my opinion. An ID that identifies who you are is not a tax. It is a identifier. Nothing more.

Under that logic, if they do not come to your home for you to cast your vote, the gas, vehicle, or bike required to get to the poll site is a tax. The food required for you to be alive to vote is a poll tax. The clothes required to vote is a poll tax.

You have to be who you say you are to vote. An ID is just a tool to do so.

If you have to pay for that ID, it is certainly a poll tax. How is it not? Plenty of laws have been struck down by the courts regarding photo ID. Part of this is the ability to get and pay for photo ID. I'm perfectly fine with requiring ID to vote, but people shouldn't have to pay for a document.

Do you think you should have to have to pay for the right to keep and bear pistols like you do in NY? After all, it's just to identify who you are....

 

[Arjuna]

Green Party poised to cash in on Jill Stein’s recount crusade | New York Post

Jill Stein’s recount is a scam — and it also trolls Trump | New York Post

 

[Phauxtoe]

There is a good chance her PA Challenge will fail

 

[Marine Cpl]

If you have to pay for that ID, it is certainly a poll tax. How is it not? Plenty of laws have been struck down by the courts regarding photo ID. Part of this is the ability to get and pay for photo ID. I'm perfectly fine with requiring ID to vote, but people shouldn't have to pay for a document.

Do you think you should have to have to pay for the right to keep and bear pistols like you do in NY? After all, it's just to identify who you are....

I have no problem paying for a required ID to identify me as eligible to vote just the same as I have no problem paying for clothes that clothe me so I can get to the polls or to the liquor store. I cannot go to the polls naked and I shouldn't be able to go to the polls without identification. Both should be required out of pocket.

You are seeing the requirement to identify yourself as a tax if you have to pay for it. Do you see the requirement to wear clothes as a tax as well? How about the requirement to get to the polls? Should they pay to pick you up from home so that your vote can be cast?

It's up to you to wear clothes to get out of the house and up to you to get there by any means possible. It should also be up to you to leave your house with a means of identifying yourself. You already purchased clothes to leave the house for other reasons and you already have an ID to identify yourself for other reasons. These are things you already have. You aren't getting them just to vote. In fact, most poor people already have a free picture ID to get government benefits.

As far as the right to bear arms go, that's a different matter as far as ID goes. I do not believe an ID should be required to have the right to bear arms. If you are not in prison and incarcerated, there is no need to identify yourself for the sole act of bearing arms so an ID should not required for just carrying that arm. If you are ineligible to carry an arm, you should be in prison.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I have no problem paying for a required ID to identify me as eligible to vote just the same as I have no problem paying for clothes that clothe me to go so I can get to the polls or to the liquor store. I cannot go to the polls naked and I shouldn't be able to go to the polls without identification. Both should be required out of pocket.

You are seeing the requirement to identify yourself as a tax if you have to pay for it. Do you see the requirement to wear clothes as a tax as well? How about the requirement to get to the polls? Should they pay to pick you up from home so that your vote can be cast?

It's up to you to wear clothes to get out of the house and up to you to get there by any means possible. It should also be up to you to leave your house with a means of identifying yourself. You already purchased clothes to leave the house for other reasons and you already have an ID to identify yourself for other reasons. These are things you already have. You aren't getting them just to vote. In fact, most poor people already have a free picture ID to get government benefits.

As far as the right to bear arms go, that's a different matter as far as ID goes. I do not believe an ID should be required to have the right to bear arms. If you are not in prison and incarcerated, there is no need to identify yourself for the sole act of bearing arms so an ID should not required for just carrying that arm. If you are ineligible to carry an arm, you should be in prison.

Will,

I have to say, that I think your posts on this issue are spot on. Well stated!

 

[Foxtrapper]

If you have to pay for that ID, it is certainly a poll tax. How is it not? Plenty of laws have been struck down by the courts regarding photo ID. Part of this is the ability to get and pay for photo ID. I'm perfectly fine with requiring ID to vote, but people shouldn't have to pay for a document.

Do you think you should have to have to pay for the right to keep and bear pistols like you do in NY? After all, it's just to identify who you are....

Most, if not all, of the voter id laws passed included free id's. You just had to show up with the correct paperwork to get them. And most of them were struck down as unconstitutional.

I have no problem paying for a required ID to identify me as eligible to vote just the same as I have no problem paying for clothes that clothe me so I can get to the polls or to the liquor store. I cannot go to the polls naked and I shouldn't be able to go to the polls without identification. Both should be required out of pocket.

You are seeing the requirement to identify yourself as a tax if you have to pay for it. Do you see the requirement to wear clothes as a tax as well? How about the requirement to get to the polls? Should they pay to pick you up from home so that your vote can be cast?

It's up to you to wear clothes to get out of the house and up to you to get there by any means possible. It should also be up to you to leave your house with a means of identifying yourself. You already purchased clothes to leave the house for other reasons and you already have an ID to identify yourself for other reasons. These are things you already have. You aren't getting them just to vote. In fact, most poor people already have a free picture ID to get government benefits.

As far as the right to bear arms go, that's a different matter as far as ID goes. I do not believe an ID should be required to have the right to bear arms. If you are not in prison and incarcerated, there is no need to identify yourself for the sole act of bearing arms so an ID should not required for just carrying that arm. If you are ineligible to carry an arm, you should be in prison.

I don't believe you should have to have id to carry. However, your contention that if you are ineligible to carry you should be in jail? Really? That means that a lot of people would be jailed, as almost all democrats aren't eligible. That statement is just a bit over the top..

 

[NirvanaFan]

I have no problem paying for a required ID to identify me as eligible to vote just the same as I have no problem paying for clothes that clothe me to go so I can get to the polls or to the liquor store. I cannot go to the polls naked and I shouldn't be able to go to the polls without identification. Both should be required out of pocket.

You are seeing the requirement to identify yourself as a tax if you have to pay for it. Do you see the requirement to wear clothes as a tax as well? How about the requirement to get to the polls? Should they pay to pick you up from home so that your vote can be cast?

It's up to you to wear clothes to get out of the house and up to you to get there by any means possible. It should also be up to you to leave your house with a means of identifying yourself. You already purchased clothes to leave the house for other reasons and you already have an ID to identify yourself for other reasons. These are things you already have. You aren't getting them just to vote. In fact, most poor people already have a free picture ID to get government benefits.

Are you seriously comparing wearing clothes, which 99.9999whatever% of the population does, to having a government issued id that proves citizenship? There are millions of Americans that don't have any government ID. There are hundreds of millions that don't have ID that proves citizenship (regular drivers licenses and government benefits cards don't prove citizenship). BTW, you're free to vote by mail and the Post Office will deliver ballots with no postage. So, there's no need to wear clothes or get yourself to the poll. Honestly, I couldn't care less if you went out in public with no clothes. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

As far as the right to bear arms go, that's a different matter as far as ID goes. I do not believe an ID should be required to have the right to bear arms. If you are not in prison and incarcerated, there is no need to identify yourself for the sole act of bearing arms so an ID should not required for just carrying that arm. If you are ineligible to carry an arm, you should be in prison.

So, we should jail people between 18-21 in NY? They can't carry arms

Why should people be required to pay for an ID to vote when they aren't required to pay for an id to exercise their other rights?

Why should people be required to pay to exercise a right?

 

[Dr. Evil]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants to make one thing clear: They don’t want a recount

 

[NirvanaFan]

Most, if not all, of the voter id laws passed included free id's. You just had to show up with the correct paperwork to get them. And most of them were struck down as unconstitutional.

Yup, a lot of them have been struck down. The laws that allowed people to use multiple ways of IDing themselves like using utility bills, drivers licenses, college IDs, library cards, etc have all been upheld. The ones that have been struck down were the ones that required strict IDs. For example, states have to allow non-photo IDs to be used because certain religions don't allow for photographs (like the Mennonites and Amish here in NY).

 

[Marine Cpl]

Most, if not all, of the voter id laws passed included free id's. You just had to show up with the correct paperwork to get them. And most of them were struck down as unconstitutional.



I don't believe you should have to have id to carry. However, your contention that if you are ineligible to carry you should be in jail? Really? That means that a lot of people would be jailed, as almost all democrats aren't eligible. That statement is just a bit over the top..

If a means of ID whether free or paid was indeed to identify yourself as eligible to vote was indeed declared unconstitutional, then it was a bad decision just like other bad decisions in my opinion.

How so is if you are ineligible to bear arms that you should be locked up over the top? If you are a danger to society, shouldn't you NOT be emersed in society? If you are a criminal that cannot be trusted to bear arms because you will hurt or kill someone, than you should be locked up. A criminal can always get a gun or another dangerous weapon. If you are a mental deficient that cannot be trusted in society for the same reasons, than you should be in a mental institution.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Yup, a lot of them have been struck down. The laws that allowed people to use multiple ways of IDing themselves like using utility bills, drivers licenses, college IDs, library cards, etc have all been upheld. The ones that have been struck down were the ones that required strict IDs. For example, states have to allow non-photo IDs to be used because certain religions don't allow for photographs (like the Mennonites and Amish here in NY).

If I'm not mistaken, the laws that were struck down were state laws. Also, I don't believe that there are millions of American citizens in the US that do not have government issued ID's. The very same people that claim it is an infringement on their right to vote if they have to provide ID, have no trouble providing ID to drive, open bank accounts, buy restricted items, apply for welfare, etc.

I call BS. I want Congress to pass a law as I noted above, and then let's see if SCOTUS strikes it down. The time is way overdue to bring some sanity back to our electoral system.

 

[NirvanaFan]

1. Mandates that government issued photo ID (THAT PROVES US CITIZENSHIP) such as the enhanced driver's license or non driver ID be required to vote in EVERY ELECTION,- Federal, State, and local,

If I'm not mistaken, the laws that were struck down were state laws. Also, I don't believe that there are millions of American citizens in the US that do not have government issued ID's. The very same people that claim it is an infringement on their right to vote if they have to provide ID, have no trouble providing ID to drive, open bank accounts, buy restricted items, apply for welfare, etc.

Driver's licenses don't prove citizenship. There are many people who can get a driver's license who are not citizens (people on traditional work visas, H1B visas, etc.) Hell, even illegal aliens can get a driver's license in a dozen states. You don't need to prove you're a citizen to drive, open a bank account, and apply for most welfare. Having a driver's license doesn't prove you have the right to vote.

And it turns out that more than three million Americans actually don't own a government-issued picture ID. That's according to a recent study by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.

There are hundreds of millions of people that don't have a photo ID proving their citizenship.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Are you seriously comparing wearing clothes, which 99.9999whatever% of the population does, to having a government issued id that proves citizenship? There are millions of Americans that don't have any government ID. There are hundreds of millions that don't have ID that proves citizenship (regular drivers licenses and government benefits cards don't prove citizenship). BTW, you're free to vote by mail and the Post Office will deliver ballots with no postage. So, there's no need to wear clothes or get yourself to the poll. Honestly, I couldn't care less if you went out in public with no clothes. It wouldn't bother me one bit.



So, we should jail people between 18-21 in NY? They can't carry arms

Why should people be required to pay for an ID to vote when they aren't required to pay for an id to exercise their other rights?

Why should people be required to pay to exercise a right?

I see you are arguing just for the sake of doing so.

There are no millions of Americans without ID. A couple thousand homeless maybe that do not even care to vote but if they really did they can. If you are homeless and live in the streets, a shelter will put a roof over your head and issue you an ID if you want a required address to vote. I worked right across the street from one years ago so I know. You can register to vote from the shelter and use their address (all it is is a mailed out form) and still get a picture ID from the same shelter. Saying there are millions is preposterous. If they are poor enough not to have money to eat but do have a roof over their head, they are issued this ID free of charge. Every state has a similar card.

As far as ID's not proving citizenship, it's not intended to work that way. They do not prove citizenship. You are correct on that point. Registering to vote and the government sending your information to the polling place however does. Once you get there, any government issued picture ID would suffice since you've supposed to have been vetted by the government as eligible to vote. An ID would just be a tool to show that you indeed are that already vetted person printed in their booklet. That government ID which is a tool and not a tax will be the one you use to drive, get state benefits, travel abroad, buy cigarettes, ect. You already have it and if you do not have one, you are either an illegal or a homeless person that will not vote anyway since you have no legal address. You cannot get a roof over your head without an ID.

And how many people vote by mail because they don't have clothes? I'd bet none. If they don't have clothes, they don't have a home or an address so that point is nil.

Your point about paying for rights doesn't make sense. Why would you need an ID to talk or to plead the 5th. You don't need to prove who you are to talk or to keep your mouth shut so the tool of identification is not needed. You need that tool however to prove you are a citizen for a number of things. Marrying a foreigner and giving her citizenship, applying for government loans, ect. It isn't a tax. It's just a tool to identify yourself. That same tool that is used to buy liquor, drive, or get benefits should be used to prove who you are.

I will respectfully not respond to your second paragraph regarding the 18 to 21 year olds. Doing so would be ridiculous. You know what I mean.

No hard feelings.

 

[spat]

Most, if not all, of the voter id laws passed included free id's. You just had to show up with the correct paperwork to get them. And most of them were struck down as unconstitutional.

Just because something has been upheld or struck down by the courts doesn't mean it really is constitutional/unconstitutional.

Our history is replete with examples of the courts (including SCOTUS) being on the wrong side of correct.

I don't believe you should have to have id to carry. However, your contention that if you are ineligible to carry you should be in jail? Really? That means that a lot of people would be jailed, as almost all democrats aren't eligible. That statement is just a bit over the top..

You've got that backwards. What he's saying is that only people in jail should be ineligible. As in, if you can't trust them with a gun, don't let them out.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I see you are arguing just for the sake of doing so.

You have me confused with @Darth

There are no millions of Americans without ID.

Sorry, but you're totally wrong on that. I know a few people that don't have government issued IDs. They don't drive, so they have no need for them. My sister didn't start driving until she was ~21. She was voting before she had a government issued photo ID. Many polls and studies disagree with you.

That government ID which is a tool and not a tax will be the one you use to drive, get state benefits, a travel abroad, buy cigarettes, ect. You already have it and if you do not have one, you are either an illegal or a homeless person that will not vote anyway since you have no legal address.

So, you're calling my sister illegal or homeless? LOLOLOLOL. There are plenty of people like her that live in large cities and have no need for a driver's license or other state issued photo ID.

And how many people vote by mail because they don't have clothes? I'd bet none. If they don't have clothes, they don't have a home or an address so that point is nil.

You're the one who brought up clothes! Clothes are expected in our society and have nothing to do with voting.

Your point about paying for rights doesn't make sense. Why would you need an ID to talk or to plead the 5th. You don't need to prove who you are to talk or to keep your mouth shut so the tool of identification is not needed. You need that tool however to prove you are a citizen for a number of things. Marrying a foreigner and giving her citizenship, applying for government loans, ect. It isn't a tax. It's just a tool to identify yourself. That same tool that is used to buy liquor, drive, or get benefits should be used to prove who you are.

Can you point me to the laws/regulations that show you need a photo id to marry someone that isn't a citizen of this country? (BTW, they don't get citizenship from marrying a citizen. They get a green card and can apply for citizenship after a few years. You probably know this, but I'll say it just in case.) I know that two citizens marrying don't need photo ID in at least a bunch of states. I never gave any photo ID to get government (student) loans when I was going to college. My sister surely didn't, because she had no driver's license at the time.

I said it before (post #49), and I'll say it again. I have no problem with requiring an ID to vote. However, the government shouldn't be charging for those IDs, and they have to make accommodations for people. (Amish, Mennonites, certain Native American cultures, etc)[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[dubleuhb]

Just curious, your sister didn't get a license for several years, did she get the non driver ID from the DMV? I can't see any way to go about your business if you don't have some sort of government issue Id. I'm 53 and still get asked for some form of id for a number of reasons.

 

[Dr. Evil]

 

[Marine Cpl]

You have me confused with @Darth



Sorry, but you're totally wrong on that. I know a few people that don't have government issued IDs. They don't drive, so they have no need for them. My sister didn't start driving until she was ~21. She was voting before she had a government issued photo ID. Many polls and studies disagree with you.




So, you're calling my sister illegal or homeless? LOLOLOLOL. There are plenty of people like her that live in large cities and have no need for a driver's license or other state issued photo ID.


You're the one who brought up clothes! Clothes are expected in our society and have nothing to do with voting.



Can you point me to the laws/regulations that show you need a photo id to marry someone that isn't a citizen of this country? (BTW, they don't get citizenship from marrying a citizen. They get a green card and can apply for citizenship after a few years. You probably know this, but I'll say it just in case.) I know that two citizens marrying don't need photo ID in at least a bunch of states. I never gave any photo ID to get government (student) loans when I was going to college. My sister surely didn't, because she had no driver's license at the time.

I said it before (post #49), and I'll say it again. I have no problem with requiring an ID to vote. However, the government shouldn't be charging for those IDs, and they have to make accommodations for people. (Amish, Mennonites, certain Native American cultures, etc)

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I'm not buying it. Sorry.

You need an ID to buy cigarettes, but alcohol, buy a gun, get a fishing or hunting license, rent an apartment, buy property, open a bank account, buy a new car, drive a car, rent a hotel room, apply for food stamps, apply for Medicaid, get on an airplane, adopt a pet, pick up a prescription of a controlled substance, donate blood, apply for a job, collect unemployment, apply for social security, buy a cellphone, ect....I can go on forever.

So you are saying your sister has never done any of these things? If the answer is no, I'm not buying it.

There are ways around some of these things but not all.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Priebus says Clinton, Trump teams 'cut a deal'

 

[NirvanaFan]

This will be my last response, and then I'm done. I'm tired of debating the need for an ID.

You need an ID to buy cigarettes, but alcohol, buy a gun, get a fishing or hunting license, rent an apartment, buy property, open a bank account, buy a new car, drive a car, rent a hotel room, apply for food stamps, apply for Medicaid, get on an airplane, adopt a pet, pick up a prescription of a controlled substance, donate blood, apply for a job, collect unemployment, apply for social security, buy a cellphone, ect

cigarettes - entirely dependent on the store - My mother bought them for years with no ID
alcohol - entirely dependent on the store - I rarely ever get carded.
guns - only in states with mandatory background checks. There is no photo ID requirement for face to face sales in most states. Last I heard, the Mennonites were going to sue Cuomo/Schneiderman over this and claim religious freedoms.
fishing or hunting license - All they need is the number to tie it to someone. You can buy them online, so they're not checking photos when you do buy it. I'm not sure they can enforce having a photo ID on non-residents.
renting an apartment - again, this is dependent on the business/renter
buy property - With a cash sale? I doubt it. Taking a loan out? That's going to depend on the lender. (related: I don't remember giving a photo ID the last time I took out a car loan when I did it all online.)
drive - Some states, like Arkansas, have religious exemptions for the photo requirement on driver's licenses.
rent a hotel room - Again, this is dependent on the renter/business
apply for Medicaid - Not if you apply online in Monroe County (I just asked my friend who works in the healthcare field getting people Medicaid)
get on airplane - Currently, there is additional screening, but if you forgot or lost your photo ID, they can let you through.
adopt a pet - No the last time I adopted a dog
prescription for a controlled substance - no clue. I'd wager if a Mennonite with no license, they would find a way to give it to them.
donate blood - again, this is dependent on the business
apply for a job - I don't think you need photo ID for that. Sure, it makes it easier, but you can use old W2s, SS cards, etc.
collect unemployment - No clue. I've never had to do it
Apply for social security - definitely don't need photo id for this. Right from the SS website. You need your w-2 from the previous year, your SS card (or number), and your birth certificate
buy a cellphone - I don't think there's any legal requirements for businesses to capture ID. I don't think they do with "burner" phones, do they?


Most of those are private businesses requiring ID and don't really pertain to the government needing it.

So you are saying your sister has never done any of these things? If the answer is no, I'm not buying it.

There are ways around some of these things but not all.

I said my sister HAD no license UNTIL she was ~21. She went 5 years before she got one. She did rent an apartment at the time. This was about ~2000-2001 time frame.

I said it before. I'd be perfectly fine with a photo ID to vote if the government is willing to pay for it for the people who don't have something like a driver's license, and they allowed for certain exemptions (like for religious reasons).

 

[Marine Cpl]

I said it before. I'd be perfectly fine with a photo ID to vote if the government is willing to pay for it for the people who don't have something like a driver's license, and they allowed for certain exemptions (like for religious reasons).

That highlighted above I could agree with.. I cannot however agree with exemptions for religious reasons. This includes the Amish, Mennonites, Muslims, Pastafsrians, ect. A non photo ID would be in order like they do in PA.

 

[Dr. Evil]

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Savage!!