- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why would any Republican be against voter ID?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
If they want insecure elections for governor or state legislature, they can live with the outcome.
Insecure federal elections mean we all have to live with the outcome.
Insecure federal elections mean we all have to live with the outcome.
1
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:35 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
Grassley is saying his opposition is based on a states’ rights thing. He doesn’t want federal intervention on voting forced on the states.
OK, then a Dem controlled state could pass a policy that says only blacks can vote. The justification is reparations. The Feds declaring it unconstitutional is federal intervention of a state's right.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:38 am to loogaroo
Many with Rs behind their name are members of the uniparty. Ex. Statewide officials in Georgia.
Don’t be fooled.
Don’t be fooled.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:38 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
If they want insecure elections for governor or state legislature, they can live with the outcome.
Insecure federal elections mean we all have to live with the outcome.
Again, those seats are representative of those states. They represent the will of the state, including the process the state desires to determine that representation.
Even the Presidential election is only for the Electoral College representatives from that state and not the President himself, directly.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:39 am to Zach
quote:
OK, then a Dem controlled state could pass a policy that says only blacks can vote.
This is one of the few areas with clear federal oversight, via the 14th and 15th Amendments.
quote:
The Feds declaring it unconstitutional is federal intervention of a state's right.
Only if we ignore the actual, clear words of the Constitution
quote:
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because it's literally always been a states rights issue with many court cases supporting this, unless there is a specific amendment (like the 13th-15th) authorizing specific federal authority in the area.
States and Elections Clause
The Supreme Court has ruled extensively over this and SFP is correct. Ensuring voter rights and eligibilty is a states rights matter.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So "RINO" now means "upholds conservative values" (states rights)
MAGA redefining words is so weird. Leave that with the leftists.
I'll try to make a legit counter argument to your opinion. I am absolutely conservative and for states' rights, less big gov, etc. But isn't it possible for there to be times where it is absolutely necessary? What if a state shows that it can't control the cheating in their voting laws? What if a state shows that it can't control the fraud going on? What if a state shows that it can't control riots, criminals, borders, etc.? I mean what do you do? It has to be fixed, right? You can say I want my cake and eat it too. I get it. But sometimes things get out of control and something has to be done about it, IMO. Albeit I think it should be under extreme circumstances. But I think, IMO, we are seeing some extreme circumstances.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:45 am to loogaroo
They are on Soros' payroll?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 9:52 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
I'll try to make a legit counter argument to your opinion. I am absolutely conservative and for states' rights, less big gov, etc. But isn't it possible for there to be times where it is absolutely necessary? What if a state shows that it can't control the cheating in their voting laws? What if a state shows that it can't control the fraud going on? What if a state shows that it can't control riots, criminals, borders, etc.? I mean what do you do? It has to be fixed, right? You can say I want my cake and eat it too. I get it. But sometimes things get out of control and something has to be done about it, IMO. Albeit I think it should be under extreme circumstances. But I think, IMO, we are seeing some extreme circumstances.
Federal government could always do what they did to raise the drinking age to 21. They bribed/extorted the states into raising their ages. It took withholding infrastructure funds for places like Louisiana and Colorado to come on board.
I remember being a young adult, coming into voting and drinking age, and thinking "that shite is wrong". While I agree that we need voter ID, I do not want my government strongarming the states. We have been there and done that.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only if we ignore the actual, clear words of the Constitution
The Feds stopping a state for limiting voting by race because it violates the Constitution is still 'federal intervention.' It's stopping a state from doing what it wants to do. Therefore, Grassley needs a better justification for his vote.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:02 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
Grassley is saying his opposition is based on a states’ rights thing. He doesn’t want federal intervention on voting forced on the states.
Not saying I believe him, but that’s his stated reasoning.
Plus, Grassley and the GOPe/uniparty/Deep State loves stealing elections.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:03 am to prouddawg
quote:
Because, in the eyes of establishment GOP politicians, a Democrat in office is better than an America First Republican. Their grift stays alive and kicking under Democrat control ; it is threatened indefinitely if we peasants should take control - God forbid. The establishment Republicans do not like us. The establishment Republicans deplore the likes of DJT. The establishment Republicans and their families did not and do not vote for DJT or America First Republican candidates.. This can’t be stressed enough and needs to be understood.
Bingo.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:06 am to loogaroo
My theory is they never want to tip the apple cart, and what could be a benefit for the dems one election could benefit the Rs the next.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:07 am to loogaroo
They are country club rinos who love being part of the elite club. They cannot win if it is fair, just like Dems.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:08 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
Grassley is saying his opposition is based on a states’ rights thing. He doesn’t want federal intervention on voting forced on the states.
So let's write ol Chuck down as a fraud enabler.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 10:13 am to loogaroo
quote:
Why would any Republican be against voter ID?
It would insure they win more elections.
That's because they don't actually WANT to win some elections. The republicans serve only at the whim of the opposition. They want to win their primary but they're more than happy making sure they don't win control of congress.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 12:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Everyone that those people vote for represent the state or the voters of that state.
This phrase is doing a lot of lifting for your argument. If we assume that the outlier process is producing a true, honest outcome, then no problem. States rights, they're truly crazy, people voted that way etc.
Why should we assume this??
It's logical imo to say "hey this one state does things completely differently. Are we sure that their results have the same integrity"?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News