Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 2, 2010 in Politics | 56 comments

Photo ID Strikes Again

Although most of the attention in Tuesday’s Texas primary election is focused on the GOP race for Governor there is another issue that is attracting controversy (primarily from the left).

On the Republican primary ballot are several non binding resolutions, one of which expresses the view that some form of photo ID should be required to vote. This is purely an advisory proposal and has no legal impact but there are some blogs that are freaking out over the idea.

The text of the proposal is

The Texas legislature should make it a priority to protect the integrity of our election process by enacting legislation that requires voters to provide valid photo identification in order to cast a ballot in any and all elections conducted in the State of Texas.

The standard response being how it is racist, prejudiced, etc to require photo ID because the poor and minorities find it so difficult to get photo ID and how there are huge numbers of people living without it.

Often the response to this argument is to point out that there are a lot of things these days that do require photo ID, such as opening a bank account, renting a movie, cashing a check, etc. But I would respond from personal experience to point out that one of the biggest parts of my work is bankruptcy.

I’ve been doing this for more than 10 years and I have *never* had a client who had an issue with photo ID.

My clients run a pretty wide range from middle class homeowners on the upper end of the income range on down to migrant farm workers who didn’t even have the money for the filing fee (the court does allow fees to be waived in those cases). None of them had a problem getting photo ID (and also social security cards for that matter).

So assuming for the sake of argument that some of the less affluent clients didn’t have photo ID at the start, they were able to get it to file bankruptcy. If they could do it for that important thing then why couldn’t they do it to vote ?

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2010 The Moderate Voice
  • BarkyBree

    I’m with ya. Voter fraud has been and will continue to be a great threat to our democracy. Getting a photo ID (and showing up in person … I’m opposed to internet voting, too) is a small price to pay for taking advantage of your right to vote.

    • Don Quijote

      Voter fraud has been and will continue to be a great threat to our democracy.

      As opposed to those 5-4 votes on the Supreme Court…

  • Don Quijote

    I’ll swap you support for photo ID, with support for making election day a Federal Holiday in which all non-essential businesses must be closed, Or if you can’t go with a Federal Holiday, moving election from the first Tuesday after a Monday in November, to the second week-end in November(Open Polls on Saturday 7:00 AM and close them on Sunday 7:00 PM).

  • superdestroyer

    I am forced to present a picture ID to fly in a commercial aircraft. I am forced to present ID and proof on insurance to get a car inspection in Texas or to register by car. I am forced to provide complete financial data in order for my children to be admitted into college. Yet, the Democrats (the groups who wants to ask me what my sexual orientation is before allowing me to apply for a government job) refuses to acknowledge that the possibility of identify theft and voter fraud exist.

    Progressives are like drunks searchng for their keys under the street lamp instead of where they dropped their keys. Progressive only pass laws for those groups that they know will comply. Any groups that refuses to comply will always been given a free pass by the left. Thus, more regulations on the middle class but ignore crimes commited by the poor and minority groups.

    • Don Quijote

      ignore crimes commited by the poor and minority groups.

      Which is why the incarceration rates amongst minorities is sky high.

      African-Americans 2531 per 100,000
      Latinos 957 per 100,000
      Whites 393 per 100,000

      US Incarceration rates by race

  • ksb43

    Have any of you people actually voted lately? At my precinct, they have a list of voters names, along with addresses. You have to verfiy that it is you by giving address, full name infomation, then sign a slip of paper that verifies it is really YOU. Then your name is marked off. Who are these fictional voter fraud people and do you really think that they are so EAGER to cast a fraudulent vote that they’ll put up with the long lines, general inconvenience and being found out immediately?

    Voter fraud is one of the most trumped up issues of the right, they equate it with eating babies and talking at the theatre. There is simply no evidence of widespread collusion to defraud voting sites.

    Geez, people, one might think you just want to exclude the folks who don’t look and think just like you.

    • shannonlee

      Ummm…have you any idea how voter fraud works? The trick is to put as many names on the list as possible…dead people if need be…and then have people vote multiple times with different names. It has been said that some groups will truck bus loads of people from station to station and have them vote under different names. That would be very easy to do….and get away with.

      My European wife was shocked to find out that I did not have to show a photo id to vote. In some countries over here, you aren’t even supposed to leave the house without a photo id.

      If you have to register in order to vote….you might as well have to get a certified photo id while you are at it.

      How do conservatives feel about government funded photo id cards? Would you be willing to support tax funds for such a program? I would.

      • Don Quijote

        How do conservatives feel about government funded photo id cards? Would you be willing to support tax funds for such a program?

        But that would be BIG GOVERNMENT, practically fascism!!! They will not support that…

      • ksb43

        Puhleez. This something out of 1960’s, not today. DId you even look at the link I so conveniently provided? Do you really think you could get people to do this today and actually KEEP QUIET ABOUT IT? And that they wouldn’t be found out? Do you have any idea how freaking long the lines are at most polling places? It takes most of the day to vote for yourself, much less someone else.

        What percentage of adults eligible to vote actually do, anyway? 60%? Where are you finding these highly motivated people willing to risk going to jail at great inconveneince to themselves and others? Oh, yeah, and where do you hide said buses?

        No, if the right were really serious about voter fraud, they’d outlaw absentee ballots, which are FAR more likely to be fraudulent. JimBob is much more likely to fill out Granny’s absentee voter form and send it in, reflecting HIS political beliefs, than any other scenario. But you don’t see screams from the right to get rid of absentee voting, because it HIGHLY FAVORS THEM.

        • “But you don’t see screams from the right to get rid of absentee voting, because it HIGHLY FAVORS THEM.”

          How so?

          • ksb43

            Because absentee voters tend to be older and generally more conservative. Also high numbers of military personnel, who are generally more conservative. Among other reasons.

          • Hmmm… Methinks you’re obfuscating a bit here.

            You said: “JimBob is much more likely to fill out Granny’s absentee voter form and send it in, reflecting HIS political beliefs, than any other scenario.”

            Granny, then, concerns you because she’s (obviously) older and more conservative. But you’re worried about JimBob?

            And what is your recommendation for counting the votes of our military, and/or other citizens overseas?

          • Don Quijote

            And what is your recommendation for counting the votes of our military, and/or other citizens overseas?

            Let them fly home and stand in line like every one else… How else can we know that they are who they say they are? We haven’t seen that Photo ID… 🙂

        • shannonlee

          Someone could easily vote 10 times at my polling station….no problem. I agree, absentee voting is also a problem.

          “Where are you finding these highly motivated people willing to risk going to jail at great inconveneince to themselves and others”

          Spend 10 minutes on any one sided political website…HotAir…Huff… and you will find plenty of people willing to do almost anything for the cause. Even claim a black person beat them up and carved “Obama” into their face.

          • CStanley

            I seem to be agreeing with you a lot today.

            I’ve often noted the same thing, how easy it would be to show up multiple times at the polling place. It’s even led me to think we might want to do what they do in Afghanistan and Iraq…having people’s fingers inked. Of course that too would probably ‘disenfranchise’ someone…I guess folks who might be allergic to the dye, or those with OCD who can’t tolerate dirty fingers…

      • CStanley

        I’d definitely support funding for photo ID cards (and I agree with your suggestion that it should be very easy to add a photo at the point of voter registration)

        And although my own voice isn’t enough to disprove DQ’s snarky comment about how conservatives would react to this, I’ll also point out that a lot of states have had to go back and include this provision (after court challenges), and the GOP in the state legislatures haven’t raised a fuss about it as far as I know.

    • Don Quijote

      Voter fraud is one of the most trumped up issues of the right,

      And it will continue to be as long as they are losing elections…

      Since there is nothing you can say or do that will change their minds, give them what they want in exchange for something more valuable to you, I would suggest a Federal Holiday or Week-End voting… They get their photo ID and you get the day off or the week-end to vote (No people leaving the voting line because there are not enough voting booth and they have to get to work – Ohio 2004) …

      I am sure that after you give them the Photo ID, they’ll find something else to bitch about, we’ll just have to deal with that when we get there…

  • ksb43

    No, you misunderstand me. Granny has probably been getting absentee voter forms for a few years, and is too demented to fill them out, at this point. So, family member takes it upon himself to make sure form is filled out to his liking. Maybe Granny would have voted the same way, maybe not. But it sure ain’t HER voting. There have even been documented cases of political operatives showing up at nursing homes to coerce demented patient to fill out voting forms to their political bent.

    I neither know nor care, which side of the political spectrum Granny or JimBob fall onto. But one can’t say with a straight face, that it isn’t voter fraud. I want everyone to vote, and vote however they choose. But with their own free will.

    As far as military and overseas voting, I have no problem with absentee voting, as long as there’s a verification process in place, which I am sure there is. My point is to emphasize that the right’s claims of voter fraud are over-blown, Chicken Little nonsense. I’m not the one screaming for people to have voter ID’s and be able to pass literacy tests, you know.

    • Yes, the absentee process is rife with potential problems — particularly with the elderly and the illiterate. And I agree with you: I also want everyone to vote, and vote however they choose. I was reacting to what I perceived as a reaction to problems with absentee votes because you view them as coming from more conservative voters.

      The system has flaws. But it’s hard to imagine a perfect scenario. What is the problem with trying to address one of those flaws?

      If Granny has dementia, should she be voting?

      If someone’s illiterate, how do they know what (or whom) they’re supporting?

      I don’t have answers to these questions, and I’m not suggesting that they be solved in this thread.

      But what’s the sense of putting those flaws forward as a reason to avoid addressing identity fraud? Every election — every single one — has had problems with this.

      Furthermore (in terms of partisan politics) — I agree that the objections to the various flaws tend to skew by political bent. The claims of false-identity fraud do tend to be leveled at the liberals. Photo id is a (relatively) easy fix, and would negate (many of) the attacks from the right.

      • Don Quijote

        and would negate (many of) the attacks from the right.

        You wish… They would find something else…

        • Yup. I do wish.

          And you’re right that they’d move on to something else. Just like the left would. What’s that got to do with addressing a flaw when we can?

          • Don Quijote

            What’s that got to do with addressing a flaw when we can?

            A) The right thinks it’s a flaw, I am not sure it is. Where are all those prosecution & conviction for voter fraud?

            B) If I am going to make the Right happy, I want something in exchange…

            C) If they don’t want to deal, F*** them…

          • “A) The right thinks it’s a flaw, I am not sure it is. Where are all those prosecution & conviction for voter fraud?”

            I’m not seeing mass convictions in the absentee voting either.

            Everything’s perfect then. Nothing to see here.

            “B) If I am going to make the Right happy, I want something in exchange…

            C) If they don’t want to deal, F*** them…

            Sigh… DQ, it’s stuff like this that makes me wonder whether there’s any hope for this country.

          • PJBFan

            DQ, I am a right-winger who believes that you should have to pass a reading test and show photo ID for voting, and yet, I am certainly willing to agree to making election day a national holilday. However, we should also get rid of caucuses, as they discriminate against workers who work during the time of the caucuses. Go to a purely closed primary system.

      • ksb43

        There’s no HUMAN voting system that can be free from our very human flaws. Kind of like democracy.

        As far as Granny, we can hardly even take away the elderly’s driver’s licenses, you think we’re going to somehow rescind their voting rights? As if the AARP would be on that in a hot second.

        But the right likes to trot out the idea of picture ID’s as a means to solving the left’s venal voting fraud. *Sigh* Ever heard of fake ID’s, people? There are any number of ways to get around controls already in place. I suppose if someone is that determined to commit voter fraud, they will find a way to do it.

        This simply an over blown issue. There isn’t a basis in reality for accusations of large scale, organized voter fraud.

    • CStanley

      The thing is that even if Granny is in a demographic group that trends conservative, the kids and grankids would presumably be spread across the ideological spectrum so individuals who do this would more than likely cancel each other out (or at least the chances of it having a significant effect would be low.)

      What I think is much more concerning along these lines are partisan voting advocacy groups that actually go to senior citizen centers (as well as prisons and low income, minority neighborhoods) to help people cast their absentee ballots. Much more opportunity for systemic fraud there.

  • dduck12

    When I have to show photo ID to get to my dentist in a midtown office building and then again to use a credit card at a K-Mart, proving my identity to vote (and we have to sign in here) is OK with me, although I will try to avoid K-Mart in the future.
    P.S. My Metro-Card has my picture also.

  • tidbits

    So far we are overlooking the disenfranchising of a segment of our society. There are people [citizens] who do not have photo ID. They tend to be poor and live on the margins of society, working for cash, living as best they can without cars or driviers licenses or other forms of ID. Scraping by, but still citizens. The right to vote is not reserved to the affluent, nor is it confined to those who live above-ground. One can choose to live a “Private” life, avoiding computer characterization and data collection, avoiding government intervention, in other words underground, without loosing one’s right to vote.

    Yes, I know those who support photo ID voting requirements allow that they will provide opportunities to obtain photo ID. But, we are talking precisely about the types of folks who either lack the sophistication or are philosophically opposed to obtaining those ID’s. Their right to vote should not be sacrificed because of the lifestyle they lead or their core philosophy. They may not be like “us”, but they are still citizens.

    If the choice is between having to be vigilant in observing and prosecuting a very small amount of voter fraud and disenfranchising, either intentionally or de facto, a segment of our citizenry, give me vigilance (not photo ID), but preserve the right to vote for all who are citizens and wish to exercise that right.

    • dduck12

      Their right to vote should not be sacrificed’

      Coming down the pike will be electronic voting. Will registered (need that first) voters use pins, thumbprint, what?
      Also, will Chicago be exempted?

      • tidbits

        Hi Duck,

        The right to vote is guaranteed both constitutionally and legislatively. It is not dependent on one’s ability to use the latest electronic gadgetry. It is not dependent on education level, sophistication level, literacy. The only criteria are age and citizenship. If we need to make provision for those who: a) cannot get to a polling place because of age, disability or foreign service, b) cannot read or write, c) are blind, d) do not have sophistication with electronic gadgetry, or anything else, we are obliged to do so. The day we restrict those who can vote to artificial measures like intelligence, physical access, education or any other limitation is the day we cease being a democratic republic.

        I know you were being a bit tongue in cheek, but we have a serious problem when politicos on both sides try to increase their election odds by attempting to find ways to “suppress” the other side’s likely vote.

        • dduck12

          the other side’s likely vote.”

          I believe that everyone should be registered to vote (just as people are registered for Social Security card/number, the draft, Medical Insurance Proof Certificate (MIPC), and required to vote, for federal posts, at least.

      • Don Quijote

        Coming down the pike will be electronic voting. Will registered (need that first) voters use pins, thumbprint, what?
        Also, will Chicago be exempted?

        Who cares?

        How will you be able to tell if the votes are counted accurately? Will we be able to see the source-code? Will we be able to see the recorded votes? Will we be able to see if they have been modified?

        If you answer NO to any of those questions, why would you accept electronic voting?

        • dduck12

          why would you accept electronic voting?’

          Same reason I am not looking behind the “grassy knoll’.
          Plus, once a specific voter casts a legitimate vote, it will lock out any further votes for that same registration.
          Also, they can exclude dead people, again exempting Chicago.

          • Don Quijote

            Same reason I am not looking behind the “grassy knoll’.

            You faith in the vote counters is far greater than mine…

            To Quote Reagan “Trust But Verify”. If i can’t verify, I don’t trust…

  • Ok, how about a compromise position? Let’s put a picture of the voter on the voter’s registration card! If the actual problem is making sure that the voter is who he/she says he is, this solves the problem at no cost and little inconvenience to the voter. And, if this is such a huge problem, the small additional expense of a black and white digital picture on the card is a bargain.

    • tidbits

      It’s a good thought Bridget and those who seek practical solutions are always worthy of respect. Unfortunately, with voter registration, much of that is done by mail or by filling out information on the street or at malls, outside work, etc. I’m not sure how you get a photo on the card without making it harder to register, i.e. going down in person to register.

      • CStanley

        But as others have noted, most other countries would never even consider having such lax procedures for registration (particularly by mail.) That’s a result of decades of Democratic party agitation to make it easier and easier to register, which could certainly be considered positive in terms of enfranchisement but also ignores the obvious increased opportunity for fraud (and fraud itself is a form of disenfranchisement since it dilutes out legitimate votes.)

        Just a reminder to everyone, a bipartisan commission a while back (headed by Jimmy Carter and James Baker) studied election issues and found that we need to address both disenfranchisement and fraud. Yet, predictably, each party then focuses on the part for which fixes would help their own prospects, while claiming that the other side’s concerns are completely unfounded or that the proposed fixes would create additional problems or burdens.


        • tidbits


          1. I regret that disenfranchisement is an issue taken lightly by so many. As a nation we have experienced poll taxes, literacy tests and all manner of attempts to disenfranchise blocs of citizens from voting. It is an issue we should not neglect.

          2. Voter fraud, when it occurs, should be aggresively prosecuted with significant sentencing to deter others.

          3. I’ve been voting since 1968 and have never registered by any means other than mail…as did my parents and grandparents before me. It’s not a new Democratic conspiracy. Can you link me to evidence contrary to my experience on this issue of mail reistration? The recent changes I’m aware of to register more voters are things like motor/voter laws, registering folks when they get a drivers license.

          4. I agree with you that each side adopts the parts of voter reform they think will help them and objects to those parts they believe might be useful to the opposition. That is consistent with my prior remark about politicos constantly seeking means to suppress the vote of demographic sectors they believe might vote for the opposition.

          • PJBFan

            For the most part, I agree with you. I do disagree, however, that we should be allowing those who cannot read or write, or at least read braille, to vote. Media advertising, televised debates and speeches and the like, are not sufficient opportunity to have an electorate that is educated in the issues. So I do favour an actual “Here’s a card with a randomly selected section of a randomly chosen book appropriate to the age of the voting populace. Read me Paragraph 4.” type literacy test. And for the blind, merely requiring them to do the same with braille. I do not see why that is a bad thing.

          • tidbits


            In respone to your comment, ” I do disagree, however, that we should be allowing those who cannot read or write, or at least read braille, to vote.”

            Literacy tests were banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1970, the U. S. Supreme Court found the ban on literacy tests to be Constitutional in the case of Oregon v. Mitchell. In 1975, the Voting Rights Act made the ban on literacy tests (originally banned for five years) permanent and specifically included “language minorities”.

            Literacy tests are particular issues for non English speakers and certain minorities like Native Americans. The purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to insure that *all* citizens were accorded their right to vote.

          • shannonlee

            Well, how about this…and I am being serious.

            From the next election on, we keep current standards but add to the election process, the process of getting photo ids. Everyone gets a one time no id vote, but after that, you must have the id you registered for during a previous election.

            We create a national election day….we can even span the election over more than one day.

            I think it is feasible.

          • tidbits


            That’s an interesting idea, though it doesn’t account for theft and loss – an admittedly minor criticism.

            But, before I go agreeing to government restrictions & regulations on voting there’s a question I’d like answered. Are there any studies that show, as a percentage, how much of the vote in a national election is fraudulent? You see, I have a notion that the whole issue is being blown out of proportion. If it is a really small number unlikely to ever affect an outcome (say .00001 – one in 100,000), we may be risking disenfranchisement over a problem that isn’t much of a problem. On the other hand, if it really does affect outcome (say 5-10% of the vote) there’s a whole different issue.

            As for multi-day elections, national election day or including at least one weekend day, I’m with you all the way to allow for weather, work schedules and other unavoidable restrictions on ability to vote.

          • CStanley

            I don’t think your question about the percentage (even if it were possible to ascertain) is very relevant because you’re downplaying the potential for mischief.

            First, local and state elections can be just as important, so why limit the concern to the national elections?

            And then, even when talking about national elections there are two things to consider. First, for national offices in Congress you’re still talking about a narrow segment of voters who are participating in that particular election, so it would not be hard to target that district in an attempt at fraud.

            And second, we’ve seen in presidential elections how razor thin the margins have been…and polling analysts from both parties are more than capable of figuring out which are the swing districts, and what their margins would need to be to have an effect. Your assumptions seem to be based on no one knowing in advance where they’d need to focus their efforts, which is way off base from the way things actually happen.

          • shannonlee

            What a weird day…way too much info and way too much agreement.

          • CStanley

            Well, tomorrow’s another day and we’ll likely find more to argue about. 😉

          • tidbits

            CS…and also in response to shannonlee,

            My point isn’t about downplaying mischief; it’s about getting the facts before we jump off the cliff. If there are issues with districts, or wherever issues exist, or are thought to exist, lets get the facts before we announce our theorems have been proved or correction necessary.

            I agree completely with verification and strong enforcement of voter registration and voter fraud laws. I just want everyone who is entitled , over 18 and a citizen, to be able to vote. I do not promote multiple voters or non-citizen voters or any other type of shennanigans.

            Shannonlee, I have no interest in fining folks for not voting [so much for too much agreement]. People have the right not to vote as much as they have the right to vote. There is no perfect system. .01% is pretty darn low and would compare favorably to most if not all, countries I suspect. Perfection is not achievable in politics, my opinion, but we do awfully well…or at least that’s my silly belief, until I see facts that prove I’m wrong. And, if I do see facts that prove I’m wrong, I’ll gladly, or perhaps reluctantly, admit it.

          • CStanley

            I know that you are sincere about disenfranchisement, tidbits, and hope it didn’t come across as though I were implying otherwise.

            Similarly, I am sincere when I say that I don’t want any unnecessary burdens and want to make sure everyone who wants to vote can do so- but I’m sure that some GOP partisans are not sincere about that and would manipulate requirements that are ostensibly to prevent fraud, in order to stack the deck in their party’s favor.

            I just don’t see a similar skepticism on your part regarding the ways that Democrats can manipulate the situation in their favor. I don’t need proof that people are disenfranchised by being unable to vote, for instance- I take it as a given that this could happen and that the GOP could take advantage of those situations. We don’t have to look for actual numbers to see if it’s a problem- even the possibility of it is a problem. That’s what I was getting at with the reverse, the potential for fraudulent votes being cast.

          • tidbits


            Thanks for pointing out that I seemed to be taking a “Democratic” approach to the issue of voter fraud. That was not my intent. The issue at hand was photo ID which is a Republican idea these days. I am equally offended by practices from the other side, some of which were evident in the ’08 elections, like phony registrations or improper challenging of absentee ballots. The issues are not partisan. As you said in an earlier comment each side agrees with the reform that works for them and opposes that which doesn’t.

            Thanks for the reasoned and thoughtful discussion on this issue.

          • CStanley

            Likewise, tidbits, and thanks for the clarification.

          • shannonlee

            After what happened in 2000. .01% is too much for my taste.

            We could go AU extreme and fine people for not voting!

  • CStanley

    I’ve been voting since 1968 and have never registered by any means other than mail…as did my parents and grandparents before me.

    I don’t mean to question your veracity but are you sure your recollection is correct about your initial registration and/or changes during the earlier years? My understanding was that the Motor Voter law was the first implementation of registration by mail, and a quick look at this seems consistent with that but doesn’t actually say for certain whether mail in had previously been done at all (maybe in some states but not others?)

    I certainly could be wrong on this point, but the larger issue is still that in my opinion the laws have made it too easy to commit fraud and Democrats have consistently postured that this is not a problem.

    • tidbits

      Link doesn’t work, CS, and I am always interested to see your research. It is often more relevant and less partisan than many others. Please make another attempt. Thanks. Meanwhile, I will cehck on my once “home” state to see if I can find anything there.

  • CStanley

    Oops, sorry. The link was just to wikipedia, so not exactly impressive nor exhaustive research lol…

    Hopefully this will work (can’t access edit function on disqus.)

    At any rate…it doesn’t prove what I thought was true (that this was the first implementation of mail in registration) but it’s not disproving it either (it’s just not clear one way or the other.) If you find that you were correct, I’ll be glad to concede the point 🙂

    • tidbits


      Doesn’t look like we will resolve this. The Wiki link is primarily about national Motor/Voter with an aside that it “expanded” mail-in registration nationally (seems to infer that it existed in some jurisdictions prior?). My research doesn’t tell me what the law was in 1968, but did show that in my “home” state voter registration up to 5 pm the day before election was in place as far back as 1976. So it probably is historically a fairly liberal registration state, but I can’t prove my actual point.

      • CStanley

        No problem…I really don’t know for certain but I recall a lot of opposition to motor voter over that issue so it could either be that it started it or expanded it. The more I think about it, it’s not even mail in registration that’s necessarily a problem if it’s done correctly- there should be ways to verify- but I would think that would end up costing a lot and I wouldn’t doubt that corners get cut (and that’s why I find it frustrating that some proponents of easy means of registration act as though we don’t have to worry about the potential abuse of those expansions.)

        Just one way or another- for every registration, the election boards should be checking to be sure that the individual exists and that he/she is who he/she says she is, and that there’s one physical address corresponding to each individual (with the caveat that homeless individuals would have to be accounted for somehow I guess.)

  • DLS

    “This something out of 1960’s, not today”

    What are many Democratic central cities like? The 2000s-2010s, or still looking like the 1960s?

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :