I.D.=Voter Suppression: More Brilliance From Current TV (a channel)

Only in the bizarre alternate universe of liberals is asking people to produce identification in order to vote labeled “voter suppression”. Watch and marvel as some guy from Rolling Stone Magazine admits that the main Democrat constituency consists of people who are too stupid to figure out how to obtain government identification for themselves. It boggles the mind how liberals find it acceptable to produce i.d. to cash a check, open a bank account, purchase alcohol and tobacco, enter a night club, drive a car and buy cold medicine can think asking someone to prove they are who they say they are in order to vote is suppression. Brilliant.


Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Rich Mitchell

Rich Mitchell is the editor-in-chief of Conservative Daily News and the president of Bald Eagle Media, LLC. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Bald Eagle Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. It appalls me that my fellow conservatives would demand Identification from a person at a voting booth. Are conservatives pushing for a draconian state?

    Sad to say that liberals almost have it right here, although calling it “voter suppression” is indeed overkill.

    For over 200 years, Americans have pretty much voted the same way, by registering. It is the responsibility of voter registration offices to validate eligibility, which is where this issue needs to be. They have the data bases to verify legal residence and citizenship. So why is there an uproar to show I.D., when voting offices already have the paperwork to check off the names of people who come to vote?

    I feel that the illegal alien issue has conservatives running scared over U.S. elections. We already have laws on the books to punish people who vote fraudulently, and adding another layer of crap (I.D.’s) isn’t going to accomplish squat.

  2. As a matter of fact I don’t like having to show my drivers license, and sign for nasal decongestant. When the law came out I went to the government website and copied the law so I could read it. Then Walmart, who must have lawyers who know to do this, and that is “How far can we go and not be in violation of the law?” The way Federal laws are, you can go beyond the law, in other words you can make your policy stiffer than what the law requires. And that’s what Wal Mart did with the decongestant, they restricted how often you can get the medicine. So I took a copy of the law up to Wal Mart to argue the fact they had not adhered to the law but rather went beyond it, and that’s what I had issue with. Well, hell, they are supporters of having you get a doctor’s prescription to get the same pills you have to sign for now. I emailed my state representative and told him in no uncertain words that I would not tolerate my state making further law causing me to miss work, expence of time and gas just to go to the doctor’s office to get a piece of paper to be able to go give it to Wal Mart to get my sinus pills I need?

    And people in around the country are complaining about having to show their drivers license to verify who they are, where they live, and that they are on the voter roll. We, here in Louisiana have had to show drivers license, and used to in addition to that had to show voters card to verify who we were in order to be legal to cast a vote. But now it’s just your drivers license to be able to vote, which I believe should be a national law. And like Wal Mart did when they went beyond what the law required to make it even harder to get these pills that have the ingredient in them that is used to make meth, they limit you to being able to only buy one box, instead of all three boxes like the law would limit people to, these states could require a voter regislation card on top of a drivers license in order to vote. We find that the only states that don’t require a drivers license to verify that they are who they say they are, an address on the license to verify that is where they live and where they live IS in the district they are voting in, and then like we do here you have to sign a book that has your name in it that is backed up on the drivers license. So they know for sure that you are a legal voter, you’re in the right district, and you can’t go anywhere else to vote because you would have to show verification there to. And since you have already voted and in the right district your name won’t be on any other book.

    The Democrat districts are the only districts that don’t require voter I.D. and for logical reason, and what would that be? The Democrats don’t care how many times you vote, nor do they care about where you go to vote. If you vote ten times and all over town, who cares? The Democrats need every illegal vote they can get in order to make sure their candidate wins any way they can. Probably every Democrat from those states shouldn’t be in office. And that would be a lot of people who are making laws that affect every one of us. Look at what happened in Minnisota and Al Frankin. If people had had to have a I.D. to vote, Frankin wouldn’t be in office. And any vote that was “found” in a trunk of a car after the polls close should have been disqualified. And I’ll guarantee you that if it had been a Republican election they would have been.

    For the most part Republican’s don’t cheat in their elections, Democrats do.

  3. If people have to prove who they are to get a government check, cash a check, join the military, and any number of things in our daily lives as a citizen in the U.S., why is it any less important to prove you are a legal registered voter??? Everyone’s vote effects all of us, especially as the takers are over taking the makers.

    1. I guess it varies state-by-state, district-by-district. In my district, you must register 30 days before an election, and you are mailed a voting packet OR a absentee ballot. I have voted both ways, in person by taking my registration notice (with no requirement to show my I.D.) and by mail (also no requirement to show my I.D.)

      So maybe you can explain how absentee voters will be dealt with? Or will that be illegal too?

      1. A person should have to prove who they are before being sent an absentee ballot. We really need to revamp out election process. There is a lot at stake for our country with all the fraud.

        1. Tony,

          Certainly you don’t think showing an I.D. will stop election fraud do you? This country is flush with fake I.D.’s.

          I think most conservatives are missing the point here. It is the responsibility of election offices to validate voter registration. They do so by checking databases. Which is required before they mail the absentee ballot. What is an I.D. going to do, aside from adding more red tape to the process?

          We need to slow down and think…. because what you are really asking for (Zero Fraud) can only be accomplished by biometrics… you know… embedded in your right hand, or forehead.

Check Also
Back to top button