Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote!

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


ease up man. iggster had it right. i'm from chicago and i am here to tell you, that in the old days, 50 people would have voted from that address. heck we have votes up here from dead people.

most people who loose their house would find an apartment to live in. those few that would be truly homeless would be able to use a shelter address.

this isn't taking anyones right to vote. just stopping voter fraud.

Alright burdman. Let's put this to bed. Apparently we are on the same page. Hopefully someday soon tweaks in the system can be made to assure as much as possible fair and free elections.

LOL,

Smart move.

You all can bitch and moan and cry like the little girlies you are, and you cry cry cry that right are being violated when you have no clue about the law.

1) It's 100% legal. Being foreclosed means you no longer live at that address, and if you don't have a new residence in the county you want to vote in, sorry its the LAW and they are trying to uphold the LAW.

2) And surprise surprise....it just so happen that it's the Democrats that are the ones losing their homes. Boo Hoo, they signed the papers..no one held a gun to their head. Perhaps it's the socialist mindset of the Democrats that allows them to make poor financial decisions.

reply to post by DisabledVet


Perhaps the Republicans are concerned about their federal government policies that led to these people losing their homes voting them out?

If it has to do with people changing their address, then they should be able to make an absentee vote.

Voting is compulsory in Australia, which is fairly unique. In the US it's optional - that automatically excludes an entire class of people, and those who are apathetic, from making a decision.

Judging people on their competency to vote on whether they own a house or not signals a very sick democracy that seems to me more like a capitalist dictatorship.

And what do you mean by 'socialist' Democrat policy? Your Republican government recently took over Fannie and Freddie - the US government is the biggest nationalizer on the face of the planet right now.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by mattguy404]

Originally posted by iggster
Actually when I read this I see that they are checking the forclosed adresses with reported voting adresses. No name verifications just adresses. They are just making things legit is all. If you have had your home forclosed you just use your new adress to vote.

Kudos for common sense! This is exactly what I saw - prevention of voter fraud by prevent unscrupulous persons from using a VACANT address to cast more than one vote. Has nothing to do with "war against the poor".

I don't anyone here ( the few who are even on topic ) read the damn OP at all ..

reply to post by sos37


From the same article:

“You can’t challenge people without a factual basis for doing so,” said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. “I don’t think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.”

As for the practice of challenging the right to vote of foreclosed property owners, Hebert called it, “mean-spirited.”

I understand that you see this as a way to make sure all votes are legit, but this is absolutely beyond anything they have every pulled out of their bag of goodies. They are using the foreclosure crisis for their own political gain. As Mr. Hebert said in the article there is no legal basis for saying a persons vote is illegitimate if they use the address of a foreclosed house because many people still live in the houses during foreclosure. Also, sometimes these people will be between homes and have no address to use.

I would really like to see if the only votes they challenge will be the ones of foreclosee's voting democrat. I will admit that is a baseless accusation so save your breath on attacking me and telling me how idiotic (all of the above) I am for making such a claim with nothing to back it up yada, yada, yada.

Ok disabled vet fair enough.

How did people vote in 1790 when people were going on the manifest destiny.
Residency should not preclude ability to vote. In my humber opinion.

Shoot. Give registered voters a pin number to establish there vote. It really is not rocket science.

You are evil DD. You place a thread like this and skulk away. LOL.
What are you doing. Working on your thesis?

For the record. I've been called a lot worse. Thank you for your service DV.

[edit on 9/10/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/10/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/10/2008 by jpm1602]

I just check over at a military site and saw no discussion of the military having a problem with voting. So I think that was a red herring.

Those who lose their homes may not be able to vote if the can not come up with a residence within the time alotted. The worst problem is anouncing it so close to the election so people do not have a chance to reregistar if the manage to get a new address.

...

[edit on 10-9-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]

Jimmy: The gold issue is a little different as you're comparing a monetary system which was publically and openly removed from the gold standard by Nixon. In order for the two to be comparable, Congress would have to pass a legislation removing the provision in the Social Security number system that clearly states it is NOT to be used as a national ID program. It is comparing a broken fiat currency system to a badly compromised, but not yet fully broken, social security setup.

I guess you're right, it is a pretty shoty comparison, but it was all I could think of at the time.

Still, the fact that this legistlature is being passed in order with the intent to keep some people, wheather they're republican, democrat, whatever, from voting is pretty wrong, despite wheather it's legal or not, it's still moraly wrong, I think morals matter than laws personally.

-Jimmy

I don't hear anything about people living in apartment buildings. Afterall, are there more people living in homes or apartments. Apartment buildings are usually not foreclosed since rent pays for the building. Like someone said if you moved then you get a new voter card.

Sorry if its been said before but I'm too pissed to read all before me.

This is taxation without representation. We went to war because of this once before. It was called the American Revolution. What now, are we to burn down the houses that we live in just to make a point. "Don't serve us tea, we are American, and I drink coffee." I don't live there and this makes me livid!!!!!

reply to post by DisabledVet


So if you just got forclosed and havent been able to move, you are out? And homless people use family and friend's addresses and can vote? If i am a citizen I want to vote, period. And what about vets that are forclosed on? That happens alot. Are they just trying to keep everyone but the rich from voting? We work for any money we can get, and it's never enough. We pay hundreds for transportation, and food is sky-rocketing. Whats next, as Americans.. We have the right to vote, not the privilege.

Looks like they want the address of a forclosed property to be blocked from being used by bogus voters. I don't see where it says a voter looses voting privileges if forclosed on.

reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN


this has NOTHING to do with people who have been foreclosed, but rather people from foreclosed ADDRESSES voting..

[SNIP] people read the [SNIP] article.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
,

[edit on 9/10/2008 by Gools]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Just more proof that there is no freedom in this country. Even if you could sustain yourself with everything you need on a farm, if you failed to pay your taxes the govt would seize everything. It forces you to participate in the buying and selling of goods just to keep what you have already bought and paid for.

reply to post by Peepers


But then you can't vote if you don't have a new address. What of that? Every American has the rite to vote, nay the responsability to vote. So why not take homes straight out of the voting process? Isn't almost a quarter of Americans homeless or on their way to be homeless? They should find another way to verify voters like SS was suggested here. If you block an address, you have the potential of blocking legal voters. And what if they do false voters like we have all seen on tv and in movies. And does anyone remember the silent voter bill they tried to put in place where if you don't vote, you are automatically voting for the party your aligned with? My biggest peeve is some of those people are working really hard and paying taxes, so they should be able to vote. My final thought is if anyone pays there fair share of taxes, they should have equal representation to any one else no matter how rich or poor they are.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I have to say, I don't realy agree with you but you do show a good point. What I see here is the blocking of the people who dont make enough money. people who wouldn't vote republican. Once your house is forclosed you have a amount of time to get caught up before you are forced to move. I see something much more sinister being put into place here.

These are MAFIA TACTICS.

As George Green www.youtube.com... said, both sides are "owned" by the elite, so it doesn't matter WHO we vote for!

Both sides need to be sacked and flushed down the toilet for the sh!t they are!!

If you carry a SSN and a legitimate photo ID such as a Sam's Club Card or Driver's License, you should be given a pass as being legitimate.

What about all the folks on the coast who are homeless from the hurricanes??

What happens to them?? Will they be allowed to vote??