>>>>>>>>> (and look for the idiotic Voter ID laws to be ruled out of existence soon so they will be able to do so freely!)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Exactly why do you think it is so idioitc to require a photo ID in order to vote. You need one to buy beer, cigarettes, get on an airplane, drive a car, just to name a few. Do you think that buying beer and cigarettes is more important than voting?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Personally, I do not want to see dead people and illegal immigrants stealing our elections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That all makes sense on a logical level. It's also clear that voter ID is aimed at people who are likely to vote for Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's bull$hit and you know it Mike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's called fair to all legal voters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't think it's BS at all. Do you disagree with what I said?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"It's also clear that voter ID is aimed at people who are likely to vote for Democrats."
>>>>>
>>>>>I absolutely disagree with that statement.
>>>>
>>>>So you disagree with the Pennsylvania House Majority Leader who said to the Republican State Committee, "Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done"?
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>I know nothing about the statement you brought up which has nothing to do with the conversation. Perhaps you could try deflecting some other way?
>>
>>Not a deflection. This was exactly on point. A few weeks ago, the (Republican) Majority Leader of the PA House made that statement about the Voter ID law that passed here. During the push for the law, of course, the Republicans talked only about preventing fraud.
>>
>>Here's an article about this: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/turzais-voter-id-remark-draws-criticism-641982/
>>
>>Tamar
>
>It could also be interpreted to mean that reduction of fraud will improve GOP chances of winning PA.

Since Obama won PA by more than half a million votes out of about 6 million in 2008, that would assert that there was voter fraud way beyond anything ever seen in the US.

>Of course each side is promoting that which it thinks improve its own chances but don't you think it is kind of bad postition for the Dems to take saying "Reducing fraud will hurt our chances:"

But that's the position. The position is that voter fraud is so rare as to be negligible, and that putting barriers in the path of legitimate voters hurts Dem's chances. (And we've seen this in practice, say in Ohio, in 2004.)

Tamar