The problem with the 26th Amendment is that it wasn't exact enough. It left the burden on the states to interpret and implement the amendment.
All of this could have been avoided by having the 26th amendment amended by a vote.
History clearly shows that states cannot police themselves.
When the voting rights act was reauthorized - I think politicians should have added an ID proviso.
This is the only part of your answer that matters to me. The rest is political talking points and I have already said I could care less about all of that. So, it it wasn't exact enough then, it isn't exact enough now for sure. Obviously, photo IDs haven't always been around. They are now and everyone has them, so why not use them? You have way more people than early on. Therefore, as times change, laws should be implement with newer technology. I guess each state could decide how to determine this. Maybe Wyoming or Vermont don't have enough people to actually need IDs yet. Everyone in towns probably know most everyone.
The problem with the 26th Amendment is that it wasn't exact enough. It left the burden on the states to interpret and implement the amendment.
All of this could have been avoided by having the 26th amendment amended by a vote.
History clearly shows that states cannot police themselves.
When the voting rights act was reauthorized - I think politicians should have added an ID proviso.
This is the only part of your answer that matters to me. The rest is political talking points and I have already said I could care less about all of that. So, it it wasn't exact enough then, it isn't exact enough now for sure. Obviously, photo IDs haven't always been around. They are now and everyone has them, so why not use them? You have way more people than early on. Therefore, as times change, laws should be implement with newer technology. I guess each state could decide how to determine this. Maybe Wyoming or Vermont don't have enough people to actually need IDs yet. Everyone in towns probably know most everyone.
This is the only part of your answer that matters to me. The rest is political talking points and I have already said I could care less about all of that. So, it it wasn't exact enough then, it isn't exact enough now for sure. Obviously, photo IDs haven't always been around. They are now and everyone has them, so why not use them? You have way more people than early on. Therefore, as times change, laws should be implement with newer technology. I guess each state could decide how to determine this. Maybe Wyoming or Vermont don't have enough people to actually need IDs yet. Everyone in towns probably know most everyone.
This is the only part of your answer that matters to me. The rest is political talking points and I have already said I could care less about all of that. So, it it wasn't exact enough then, it isn't exact enough now for sure. Obviously, photo IDs haven't always been around. They are now and everyone has them, so why not use them? You have way more people than early on. Therefore, as times change, laws should be implement with newer technology. I guess each state could decide how to determine this. Maybe Wyoming or Vermont don't have enough people to actually need IDs yet. Everyone in towns probably know most everyone.
No one is saying there is no voter fraud. The odds of an American committing voter fraud are so damn low that Americans are more likely to die from a direct lightning strike while voting - than commit voter fraud.
Electoral fraud IS a serious problem. The funny thing is there are no republican special interest extremist groups interested in electoral fraud. Gee - I wonder why that is?
The informed know that republicans have a long history of voter suppression - literacy tests - poll taxes - voter caging etc.
No one is saying there is no voter fraud. The odds of an American committing voter fraud are so damn low that Americans are more likely to die from a direct lightning strike while voting - than commit voter fraud.
Electoral fraud IS a serious problem. The funny thing is there are no republican special interest extremist groups interested in electoral fraud. Gee - I wonder why that is?
The informed know that republicans have a long history of voter suppression - literacy tests - poll taxes - voter caging etc.
This is the only part of your answer that matters to me. The rest is political talking points and I have already said I could care less about all of that. So, it it wasn't exact enough then, it isn't exact enough now for sure. Obviously, photo IDs haven't always been around. They are now and everyone has them, so why not use them? You have way more people than early on. Therefore, as times change, laws should be implement with newer technology. I guess each state could decide how to determine this. Maybe Wyoming or Vermont don't have enough people to actually need IDs yet. Everyone in towns probably know most everyone.
Letting the states police themselves is what created the corruption we see today. I get it - integrity is not something that today’s “republicans” care about.
You are asking the wrong questions. IDs have been around for a long time. How come republicans in Washington didn’t try to amend the 26th amendment - when Bush was in absolute power?
The voting rights act has been around for a long time. Why didn’t republicans ask Bush - when the voting rights act was up for re-authorization - for an ID proviso? What has changed since then?
Why the uproar now? What’s the motive behind the initiative? Who is behind the initiative? Who is financially invested in the initiative? Who is most likely to gain from this initiative?
Letting states have control over the national election has created corruption and disproportionate voting practices. The states should absolutely not have control over the national election.
That’s like letting mob bosses police themselves. We are heading down a path of corruption with no return.
Instead of republicans trying to evolve with the times - winning elections with integrity - captivating hearts and minds - attacking democrats with credible claims - they decided to corrupt the voting process to win.
This is one the many reasons why I can’t proudly declare myself a republican today.
This is the only part of your answer that matters to me. The rest is political talking points and I have already said I could care less about all of that. So, it it wasn't exact enough then, it isn't exact enough now for sure. Obviously, photo IDs haven't always been around. They are now and everyone has them, so why not use them? You have way more people than early on. Therefore, as times change, laws should be implement with newer technology. I guess each state could decide how to determine this. Maybe Wyoming or Vermont don't have enough people to actually need IDs yet. Everyone in towns probably know most everyone.
Letting the states police themselves is what created the corruption we see today. I get it - integrity is not something that today’s “republicans” care about.
You are asking the wrong questions. IDs have been around for a long time. How come republicans in Washington didn’t try to amend the 26th amendment - when Bush was in absolute power?
The voting rights act has been around for a long time. Why didn’t republicans ask Bush - when the voting rights act was up for re-authorization - for an ID proviso? What has changed since then?
Why the uproar now? What’s the motive behind the initiative? Who is behind the initiative? Who is financially invested in the initiative? Who is most likely to gain from this initiative?
Letting states have control over the national election has created corruption and disproportionate voting practices. The states should absolutely not have control over the national election.
That’s like letting mob bosses police themselves. We are heading down a path of corruption with no return.
Instead of republicans trying to evolve with the times - winning elections with integrity - captivating hearts and minds - attacking democrats with credible claims - they decided to corrupt the voting process to win.
This is one the many reasons why I can’t proudly declare myself a republican today.
Can you give some examples of when one of O' Keefe's subjects are taken out of context?
During the summer of 2009, O'Keefe and an associate visited ACORN offices in eight cities, and recorded their interviews with financial counselors at those offices who were offering them help. They posed as a prostitute and a pimp seeking advice about free medical care and tax evasion on behalf of illegal-immigrant prostitutes, and several ACORN counselors gave the pair advice on their "activities."
O'Keefe used a great deal of editing in the resulting videos. In the interviews, his questions tended to be vague or leading, and frequently received only appropriate responses from the counselors. The segments of the videos that seemed to be the most damaging were edited together - these included such items as the counselors advising them not to tell the police what they did for a living, how to open multiple bank accounts to avoid suspicion, and where to get medical care for the prostitutes.[14]
Further, O'Keefe edited in a segment at the beginning that shows him wearing a large fur coat and feathered hat and carrying a cane, ("dressed like a pimp") whereas in reality he visited the offices in fairly conservative trousers and shirt. The overall idea, of course, was that ACORN was enthusiastically and knowingly helping a pimp oppress prostitutes and break the law.
The videos exploded into the media, championed first by Andrew Breitbart on his website Big Government. ACORN fired the employees involved, but this wasn't enough to curtail the gleeful pouncing of the right wing. Congress stripped away ACORN funding [15] and despite a later investigation that ruled there had been no wrongdoing by the organization [16], it filed for bankruptcy and closed in November 2010[17].
It was the first scalp on O'Keefe's belt. Such victory was not without cost, however; in filming the videos, O'Keefe and his female cohort Hannah Giles broke a California state law prohibiting the recording of someone else's voice or image without their knowledge or approval. Facing these charges, they acquired immunity from criminal prosecution by releasing the complete, unedited recordings.
... O'Keefe and NPR have even been criticized by the Blaze for misleading, selective editing and unethical tactics...
Can you give some examples of when one of O' Keefe's subjects are taken out of context?
During the summer of 2009, O'Keefe and an associate visited ACORN offices in eight cities, and recorded their interviews with financial counselors at those offices who were offering them help. They posed as a prostitute and a pimp seeking advice about free medical care and tax evasion on behalf of illegal-immigrant prostitutes, and several ACORN counselors gave the pair advice on their "activities."
O'Keefe used a great deal of editing in the resulting videos. In the interviews, his questions tended to be vague or leading, and frequently received only appropriate responses from the counselors. The segments of the videos that seemed to be the most damaging were edited together - these included such items as the counselors advising them not to tell the police what they did for a living, how to open multiple bank accounts to avoid suspicion, and where to get medical care for the prostitutes.[14]
Further, O'Keefe edited in a segment at the beginning that shows him wearing a large fur coat and feathered hat and carrying a cane, ("dressed like a pimp") whereas in reality he visited the offices in fairly conservative trousers and shirt. The overall idea, of course, was that ACORN was enthusiastically and knowingly helping a pimp oppress prostitutes and break the law.
The videos exploded into the media, championed first by Andrew Breitbart on his website Big Government. ACORN fired the employees involved, but this wasn't enough to curtail the gleeful pouncing of the right wing. Congress stripped away ACORN funding [15] and despite a later investigation that ruled there had been no wrongdoing by the organization [16], it filed for bankruptcy and closed in November 2010[17].
It was the first scalp on O'Keefe's belt. Such victory was not without cost, however; in filming the videos, O'Keefe and his female cohort Hannah Giles broke a California state law prohibiting the recording of someone else's voice or image without their knowledge or approval. Facing these charges, they acquired immunity from criminal prosecution by releasing the complete, unedited recordings.
... O'Keefe and NPR have even been criticized by the Blaze for misleading, selective editing and unethical tactics...
I never said O'Keefes videos were not edited (double negative). Nobody wants to watch 60min of two people sitting across a desk talking to each other. I asked of examples of his subjects being taken out of context. The videos we saw showed exactly what was going on and what was said.
As far as being doctored they weren't. An example of a video (or tape) being doctored was when NBC doctored the 911 call George Zimmerman made when he spotted Trayvon Martin... "I think he's black."
I'm surprised our resident liberal-tarian is outraged ACORN was exposed.
I never said O'Keefes videos were not edited (double negative). Nobody wants to watch 60min of two people sitting across a desk talking to each other. I asked of examples of his subjects being taken out of context. The videos we saw showed exactly what was going on and what was said.
As far as being doctored they weren't. An example of a video (or tape) being doctored was when NBC doctored the 911 call George Zimmerman made when he spotted Trayvon Martin... "I think he's black."
I'm surprised our resident liberal-tarian is outraged ACORN was exposed.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.