Heidi Heitcamp Must Be Getting Desperate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like a Pulosi/feenstein/suros plot to keep 2A voters from the poles by instigating a fear campaign.

I think the dumocrats have stooped to new lows during this season. Just think how a$$holey they will be during 2020.

Makes me want to puke on Beto.
 
I followed the link in the article, to "learn more", and didn't...
This is all it says..

By voting in North Dakota, you could forfeit your hunting licenses.
You MUST be a resident of North Dakota to vote here. And if you are a resident of North Dakota, you may lose hunting licenses you have in other states.

If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakota’s 2018 election.
Click to expand...

and this...

Paid for and authorized by the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party. Not authorized by any candidates or candidate's committee. www.demnpl.com.
Click to expand...

This is not exactly a lie, but its not even close to a HALF truth, more like a very remote connection to the truth with a huge inference to a lie...

The true part is that if you vote in N.Dakota, you could (if caught, you would) lose your out of state hunting license. IF your out of state license was a RESIDENT LICENSE.

This is nothing new, its always been that way. To vote in a particular state, you must be a resident of that state. To buy a resident hunting license, you have to be a resident of the state. If you aren't a resident, you buy (the much more expensive) Non-Resident Hunting License to hunt in that state. Voting in North Dakota, or any other state has ZERO effect on non-resident hunting licenses. NONE.

The lie is both blatant and subtle. The suble lie is the use of the word "may". In this case I can only interpret the word "may" to mean "if you are caught" because if the authorities are made aware that you are holding a resident license (and this goes for hunting, fishing, and DRIVER's licenses) for a state you are not a legal resident of, the license WILL BE CANCLED. (and you may, or may not face charges...)


The statement could have read "if you vote in N.Dakota, you could lose your Wisconsin driver's license" and be equally factually accurate.

If you move to a different state, there is usually a grace period to get a new driver's license. When you are legally a resident of the new state, your previous state's license is INVALID, same for hunting licenses, etc.

By them using the word "may" they imply there is some other option. THERE IS NOT. When you change residence states, there is no "may" your previous residence state's licenses and permits are no longer valid, BECAUSE you aren't a resident of that state any longer.

The only exception to this that I know of is for marriage licenses. And before anyone gets us started on the requirements for states to recognize and "give full faith and credit" to their "acts", that doesn't apply in this case.


If you have a Florida driver's license, you can drive on it, in Washington, if you are a Florida resident. The state recognizes that license for you, a resident of Florida, are just visiting. If you are a Washington resident and you have a Florida driver's license, (and don't have a WA license) then you don't have a valid driver's license.

The Game laws are even more clearly stated. If you aren't a resident of the state you want to hunt in, you get a non-resident license, or you don't legally hunt there. There is no allowance for visitors the way there is for driver's licenses.

The ad is deceitful, implying a risk that does not exist, and worse, downright un-"democratic" by urging certain people NOT TO VOTE!


No matter what party, no matter what positions they hold on ANY political issue, people who adopt, use and endorse, either actively or passively, the kind of thing this ad embodies are not fit for public office, of any kind! (in my opinion)


It's not just low, its vile on several levels...
 
I thought there was a federal law that specifically made it a crime to encourage any group of people to not vote, or to provide false information (such as "Election Day has changed to next Tuesday due to traffic") as was perpetrated against one low income part of town in Texas 20 years ago.
 
If the National Democratic party doesn't throw the people involved in this "under the bus" and then drive back and forth over them a few times, they are going to lose even more political points...
 
If Heitcamp had any ethical inclinations at all she would personally, immediately, vocally, repeatedly disavow that message and strongly encourage any and all duly registered citizens to vote.
But (for both parties), it only counts as “voter suppression” when it hurts YOUR voters. :rolleyes:
 
TXAZ said:
I thought there was a federal law that specifically made it a crime to encourage any group of people to not vote, or to provide false information (such as "Election Day has changed to next Tuesday due to traffic") as was perpetrated against one low income part of town in Texas 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
yer kidding, right?
 
44 AMP said:
The true part is that if you vote in N.Dakota, you could (if caught, you would) lose your out of state hunting license. IF your out of state license was a RESIDENT LICENSE.

This is nothing new, its always been that way. To vote in a particular state, you must be a resident of that state. To buy a resident hunting license, you have to be a resident of the state. If you aren't a resident, you buy (the much more expensive) Non-Resident Hunting License to hunt in that state. Voting in North Dakota, or any other state has ZERO effect on non-resident hunting licenses. NONE.
Click to expand...
Except that, depending on how the laws in the respective states are worded, you may qualify as a resident of multiple states. Even the BATFE recognizes that people who own a vacation residence in a second state are (for BATFE purposes, at least) considered to be residents of the vacation state during periods when they are living in the vacation house.

My grandfather owned a vacation house in Maine. He and my grandmother typically spent roughly six months out of each year there, and the other six months "down here." They usually came "home" in mid- to late October, so their voting address was maintained "here," but for all other purposes they were residents of both states.

My grandfather only owned one car, and that was also registered here. There were other families who vacationed in the same town in Maine who came from farther away than the (long) one-day drive it was for my grandparents. Many of those other families kept a car in Maine year-round, and it was registered in Maine. They paid property taxes in Maine, attended churches in Maine, did everything residents of Maine did except vote. I don't know if any of them had hunting licenses (I was a teen-ager then, and my thing was sailing) but, if they did, I expect they would have qualified for resident rates.

https://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting-trapping/licenses-permits/hunting-license.html#definitions


Looking at Maine's licensing fees, I discovered that there's one thing my state got right (and it amazes me): I'm a senior citizen. My state doesn't charge me for either my hunting license or my fishing license. I was quite surprised to see that Maine doesn't even have a reduced fee for senior citizens.
 
I wonder what the D party and her would have thought if all of those hunters were wanting to vote D. Would she have still wanted them to stay away?
 
For this to be enforced someone would have to be comparing hunting license lists against voter registration lists.

There are already organizations that find comparing voter registration lists with others that would disqualify someone from voting, such as death records or felony convictions, "offensive" I have a hard time believing there is much money to this one.
 
I speculate the Dems are hoping to scare off any hunter who has any tag/ license to hunt in another state. That is separate from someone posing as a permanent resident in more than one state at a time and getting resident hunting privileges in more than one state at a time.

We all know which side of the political equation conducts itself such that many of their supporters vote multiple times and register non-citizens to also vote and it sure is devoid of conservatives and constitutionalists.

Whether the Dems know this or even care .... I don’t know. They are just out to blatantly suppress the vote of folks that vote against them. They are desperate.

Three44s
 
Three 44s writes-
We all know which side of the political equation conducts itself such that many of their supporters vote multiple times and register non-citizens to also vote and it sure is devoid of conservatives and constitutionalists.

Whether the Dems know this or even care .... I don’t know. They are just out to blatantly suppress the vote of folks that vote against them. They are desperate.
Click to expand...
The commission created by Trump himself and chaired by Pence found almost no illegal voting in 2016. Most reliable, non partisan studies, looking at the billions of votes cast over the years, have found that the percentage of illegal voting is tiny. Certainly not the 3 million claimed.

Recently, 36 states have enacted various voting rules and voter registration regulations that many see as targeting people of color or those on the lower economic side of the equation..Those groups most often vote for democrat candidates, those 36 states all have GOP governors.
 
Nope, not kidding. That happened 2012 when we were in Austin TX. I don't know what the final outcome was, but i believe the feds were called in and starting saying "Voting Rights Act".
Click to expand...

Texas and many of the other former confederate states are still subject to voting oversight that many northern states don’t have to go through.

As for Sen. Heitkampf, she was a solid vote on 2A issues until the Kavanaugh confirmation. Once she goes, that’s pretty much the last pro 2A Senator in the Democratic party. It will be entirely anti-Second without even a few dissenting voices.
 
USNRet93 said:
Three 44s writes-
The commission created by Trump himself and chaired by Pence found almost no illegal voting in 2016. Most reliable, non partisan studies, looking at the billions of votes cast over the years, have found that the percentage of illegal voting is tiny. Certainly not the 3 million claimed.

Recently, 36 states have enacted various voting rules and voter registration regulations that many see as targeting people of color or those on the lower economic side of the equation..Those groups most often vote for democrat candidates, those 36 states all have GOP governors.
Click to expand...

Some regulations make fraudulent voting easy to do but hard to detect. Some states do not require (or prohibit) asking for proof of citizenship when registering to vote- the applicant simply has to claim he is a citizen. Coupled with not requiring a photo ID at the polls, illegal voting would not be readily evident. As such, it's hard to see how anyone could determine how much, if any, fraud was being committed.

The integrity of elections is extremely important. It seems to me that requiring a voter to prove he is a citizen and to produce a valid ID should be a basic requirement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top