Voter purge in FL . . . this citizen's election rants!

**sharder8** · June 12th, 2012, 09:35 PM

The story!Florida Gov. Rick Scott defends voter purge as DOJ threatens court challenge | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Time for the old arguments to be re-looked at . . . again.

Personally, I have no problem with states or even the Fed from purging voters from the list, IF THEY DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS STATED BY LAW. The fact that FL has found 100 (just getting started) doesn't not tell me there is or isn't a problem. While 100 won't swing any election, (then again with the close races we've been seeing), it is a problem.

The whole voter disenfranchisement argument is getting real old here. We want every LEGAL vote to count right? (Never mind the military that voted absentee, who's votes were not allowed to be counted last time around.) The law states you have to be a citizen to vote. Is it really too much to ask that you prove your citizenship once in your lifetime, by showing a copy of your birth certificate, passport, or other form of proof?

Every election they find people registered to vote, that have either lost that right or never had the right to vote, whether it be through prison sentence, death, illegal, registered in multiple locations, etc., BUT, they typically don't find out until after the election. Shouldn't the states be required to "clean" voter rolls prior to major elections? Why would the Federal government be against this? Why not have the Fed's state the way it should be done and monitor for compliance?

Automatic purge of suspected "not eligible" should not be permitted and those identified should be given the opportunity to provide proof. Like has been said many times before, enforce the law!

Which brings up another question . . . why are the Democrat's so against enforcing the voter laws? Do they have something to hide, that the Republicans don't? Why is the Democrat's so against enforcing the immigration laws? Do they have something to hide, that the Republicans don't?

I would tend to suspect that somebody has something to hide, by the way they're always crying fowl. Why are the Republican's not crying fowl on these matters? Why are the Republican's asking that the laws of the nation be enforced and not the Democrat's?

And here's the biggest question, while I'm on a rant . . . why are both party's against term limits? Let's also ask the same question about campaign finance reform!

Can anyone come up with logical answers?

Harder

**MTAtech** · June 12th, 2012, 10:34 PM

In 2000 Florida purged 20,000 voters who were legitimate minority voters. That would have made a difference in the election.

**sharder8** · June 12th, 2012, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by MTAtech

In 2000 Florida purged 20,000 voters who were legitimate minority voters. That would have made a difference in the election.

And if the Fed's set the criteria and monitored, as well as cooperated, which they're refusing to do . . . that may have been prevented and will be prevented from happening again.

Oh wait a second MTA . . . Homeland Security is refusing to verify and cooperate . . .

While Homeland Security is neither Democrat or Republican, I'm sure Obama gave them their marching orders on this one.

Harder

**Pexster** · June 12th, 2012, 10:55 PM

sharder8, the word is "foul." As for campaign finance reform, ever heard of McCain Feingold? Where are the right wingers who constantly whine about "activist" judges when it comes to this or the outrageous Citizens United vs. FEC decision? Apparently judges are only "activist" when they disagree with you, lol . . .

**sharder8** · June 12th, 2012, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Pexster

sharder8, the word is "foul." As for campaign finance reform, ever heard of McCain Feingold? Where are the right wingers who constantly whine about "activist" judges when it comes to this or the outrageous Citizens United vs. FEC decision? Apparently judges are only "activist" when they disagree with you, lol . . .

Pex -- I used the word fowl for a reason . . . they sound like a flock of geese that are all excited about something going on.

There are Activist judges Pex . . . if the judge(s) vote against something the right wingers want . . . the right wingers whine about it. If SCOTUS finds against the "Obama" Health Care . . . left wingers will whine about the Activist judges. Too bad the Judges don't/can't put their political beliefs aside and vote in accordance with the Constitution. Let's not forget all the lower level "Activist" judges out there, that try to legislate from the bench.

(And yes, there are right-wing AND left-wing activist judges out there.)

As for McCain-Feingold . . . I don't recall that going far enough or becoming very effective at keeping outside sources from buying candidates . . .

Harder

**Pexster** · June 13th, 2012, 04:41 AM

Lol @ sharder8. Fair enough. I have learned a lot about this stuff after hanging out with my daughter, who is at Georgetown Law. We got lost one day walking around the Hill looking for some restaurant. I almost wish we would have have done another circuit so that I could get arrested for wringing Cantor's neck or screaming at Boehner, lol . . . (and don't even get me started on that little weasel Lieberman, lol). Damn good thing we found the restaurant, 'cause I really don't wanna' be on the news! :-)