Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

**Pam** · February-09-10, 10:16 AM

For the record, here is his bio. including legislation he has been involved in:

http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?F...bout.Biography

bartock · February-09-10, 11:25 AM

Voter fraud is a much bigger problem than legitimate voters exercising their rights.

**drjeff** · February-09-10, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by bartock

Voter fraud is a much bigger problem than legitimate voters exercising their rights.

Uh, no. Despite what you might read in the right wing media, voter fraud is not a significant problem anywhere in the U.S. and currently has zero impact on elections.

You could maybe make an argument for the 1960 presidential election, but that was 50 years ago.

bartock · February-09-10, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by drjeff

Uh, no. Despite what you might read in the right wing media, voter fraud is not a significant problem anywhere in the U.S. and currently has zero impact on elections.

You could maybe make an argument for the 1960 presidential election, but that was 50 years ago.

I disagree, and was not talking about presidential elections. I think it depends on what you consider voter fraud. There were discussions during last years' mayoral run-off regarding elderly folks, deceased voters, absentee ballots, etc. This wasn't any sort of presidential thing [[though the left wing media may have an issue with your statement, given the Bush/Gore outcome of a few years ago).

**ejames01** · February-09-10, 11:53 AM

Who wrote that?

Originally Posted by Hermod

Apparently, a requirement to show a valid picture ID which includes your current address at the voting booth before being allowed to vote is considered to be "racist" and "voter suppression".

**maxx** · February-09-10, 05:25 PM

Despite Conyers' connection to Monica, he does hold the chairmanship of an important subcommittee. Until he shows that he is letting go of his marbles, it's probably best to let him get re-elected than risk getting a bigger crook to replace him. He votes as a liberal. How old is Conyers anyway? I wonder if he is priming his successor.

Route29 · February-09-10, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by stasu1213

That is why some people shouldnt be allowed to vote. Lack of education

Who determines this? What is that level? Standardized testing is a mess as it is, are we going to use a standardized test? Or grade level? Who determines that? High school graduate? Maybe only college graduates?
What is YOUR highest level of education? You would likely be opening yourself up to exclusion if you're actually serious.

**stasu1213** · February-09-10, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Route29

Who determines this? What is that level? Standardized testing is a mess as it is, are we going to use a standardized test? Or grade level? Who determines that? High school graduate? Maybe only college graduates?
What is YOUR highest level of education? You would likely be opening yourself up to exclusion if you're actually serious.

You don't need a college education to learn how to do research on the candidates who are running. You don't need a college degree to do research on the voting records of councilpersons, representatives, and senators. Many of these politician in Detroit were voted in by name recognition only. Can anyone say Monica Conyers, Kwame Kilpatrick, Charles Pugh?

**Hermod** · February-09-10, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by ejames01

Who wrote that?

Do some research on the Georgia law requiring a picture ID for voting and the rabid reaction to it.

Bearinabox · February-09-10, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Do some research on the Georgia law requiring a picture ID for voting and the rabid reaction to it.

It makes a certain amount of sense to me. There are a lot of reasons for not having a valid address. I don't see why having an address should be a requirement to vote.

**ejames01** · February-09-10, 07:50 PM

What does Georgia's law have to do with John Conyers, Literary and Poll taxes?

Originally Posted by Hermod

Do some research on the Georgia law requiring a picture ID for voting and the rabid reaction to it.

**smogboy** · February-09-10, 08:16 PM

This might sound a little callous and awkward but seriously when was the last time John Conyers was in the Detroit area?

Sure, he and Monica are married but is it just on paper? Do they even talk to one another? I know plenty of couples that do the long distance thing but am I just digging for more than what's on the surface here?

**Gistok** · February-09-10, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Rideron

No need for testing, instead; have a requirment that to vote you have to had paid taxes to the state for state and local elections; and to the Feds for federal elections, for the last 2 or 3 years prior to the election.

Maybe you needed to think that thru before you posted... under your guidelines the following would be inelligable to vote....

1) young adults who go to university full time where their parents pay 100% of their college tuition and living expenses.

2) retirees who don't earn enough to pay taxes.

3) welfare recipients.

**R8RBOB** · February-09-10, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Maybe you needed to think that thru before you posted... under your guidelines the following would be inelligable to vote....

1) young adults who go to university full time where their parents pay 100% of their college tuition and living expenses.

2) retirees who don't earn enough to pay taxes.

3) welfare recipients.

No, the poster thought it through. The requirement would be only for Detroiters since most of the city is damn near unemployed. This is a Detroit thing only.

**Hermod** · February-10-10, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Hmm, it is not rocket science. Voting is all about choice. We do not need a civics exam to determine if we support candiate A or candidate B. Do you support this proposal, yes or no? There was a reason why tests as prerequisite to vote was banned. Because they were rigged to eliminate voters from the rolls, particularly, Black voters. You guys dying for a test should go to MSNBC and watch the first clip of the Rachel Maddow show. She had a segment on this very thing you seem to endorse.

I didn't say "dying for a test", I said "philosophically" and then said why that wouldn't ever happen in the US. "Philosophically" means what I would write if I was designing my idea of the perfect government [[for perfect men) like Plato did in "The Republic".

**Hermod** · February-10-10, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by ejames01

What does Georgia's law have to do with John Conyers, Literary and Poll taxes?

You asked for an example of people calling "racism" over the requirement to present a picture ID at the voting booth. I told you that the reaction to the Georgia law would give you all the examples you wanted.

**R8RBOB** · February-10-10, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Rideron

Wow!

The government produces and sells nothing, it earns no income.

The government is almost totally funded by income taxes on citizens .

The point behind linking voting rights with income taxes is simply that if you want to have a say in the direction of government, you need to join the people FUNDING the government.

Not a 'white' person funding the government

Not a person who passes a literary test funding the government

Not a 'native-born only' American funding the government

Just a person funding the government because they are a taxpayer.

Apart from a notion that it's 'just the right thing to do' what is YOUR basis for the idea of everyone having the vote, regardless of whether or not they have ever paid a dime of income taxes???

From what I've read here, the only response to the idea of linking voting rights with having paid income taxes is to haul out the favorite strawman... "RACISM"

So becoming a taxpayer makes you a RACIST now?

Friend,

As I'm drinking a cup of coffee and reading you comments, I can't grasp your words. If I'm reading you correctly, you saying that if you want a say in the government then you should be able to vote via taxes paid. Ok, here is a wild thought.
1 vote = $1000
Say person A pays $1000 in taxes and person B pays $5000 in taxes. Should person B get their vote counted five times because they paid more in taxes?

My point is if the US was to implement such an off the wall idea, people who pay more in taxes are going to want some more than one vote since others who pay less will get the same one vote. So that would mean more votes like voting shares in a company. Something to think about.

**ejames01** · February-10-10, 09:02 AM

No, I did not. As a matter of fact, not one person mentioned identification before you did.

Originally Posted by Hermod

You asked for an example of people calling "racism" over the requirement to present a picture ID at the voting booth. I told you that the reaction to the Georgia law would give you all the examples you wanted.

**oldredfordette** · February-10-10, 09:02 AM

Rideron, you seem to be the perfect example of those who don't know history being doomed to repeat it.

Conyers is always in town, the man truly represents his people and is generally here to monitor what is going on.

**ejames01** · February-10-10, 09:14 AM

Your idea isn't racist, but it is absurd. A person without any money is just as much an American citizen as Bill Gates is. We don't have conditional rights here.

On the other hand, your 'Conyers gets reelected cuz he's the man.
and if you ask why, you be hatin' IS racist. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by Rideron

Wow!

The government produces and sells nothing, it earns no income.

The government is almost totally funded by income taxes on citizens .

The point behind linking voting rights with income taxes is simply that if you want to have a say in the direction of government, you need to join the people FUNDING the government.

Not a 'white' person funding the government

Not a person who passes a literary test funding the government

Not a 'native-born only' American funding the government

Just a person funding the government because they are a taxpayer.

Apart from a notion that it's 'just the right thing to do' what is YOUR basis for the idea of everyone having the vote, regardless of whether or not they have ever paid a dime of income taxes???

From what I've read here, the only response to the idea of linking voting rights with having paid income taxes is to haul out the favorite strawman... "RACISM"

So becoming a taxpayer makes you a RACIST now?

Route29 · February-10-10, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by stasu1213

You don't need a college education to learn how to do research on the candidates who are running. You don't need a college degree to do research on the voting records of councilpersons, representatives, and senators. Many of these politician in Detroit were voted in by name recognition only. Can anyone say Monica Conyers, Kwame Kilpatrick, Charles Pugh?

Oh you don't? Who says? You? Are you arbitrarily making the laws of this country? What if I say you do? Who is making the rules here, since you've introduced the unconstitutional, insane concept of requiring "education" as a prerequisite to vote?
See the can of worms you've opened? Education to vote? Great idea. College grads only. You have probably just disenfranchised yourself.

**Hermod** · February-10-10, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

It makes a certain amount of sense to me. There are a lot of reasons for not having a valid address. I don't see why having an address should be a requirement to vote.

Supposedly you need to live in the legislative/congressional district in which you are voting. Plus it keeps you from voting for a tombstone at another voting booth after you voted for yourself in one voting booth.

**markharrison** · February-10-10, 11:13 AM

Persons A & B live off the government dole at the poverty level, and pay no income or property taxes. Person C busts his butt, makes good money, and pays income and property taxes, which support persons A & B. Government representative Q campaigns on the platform of raising A & B's living standard, by taxing person C at a higher rate. The takers will ALWAYS vote for the "givers".

**firstandten** · February-10-10, 11:22 AM

Back to Conyers, I resent the fact that some on here are taking the same old bash Detroit voters because they keep him in office. Look the House is filled with people who have been voted back time and time again. Conyers has done good things thru out his career and one needs to take his whole career into account.

Now having said that, I believe no one should have a political job-for-life, but the reality is that no credable candidate wants to raise the money it would take to run against this guy only to lose and go into debt. There aren't many if any DeVos that live in Conyers district. There have been good people who could be good congresspeople but the political reality I just mentioned will keep them on the sidelines.

Besides being the sponser of MLK national holiday bill, working for it pushing it and finally getting Reagan to sign it guaranteed that he will be a congressman until the day he wants to give it up. As a matter as fact, I wouldn't be surprised it they carried him out of the Capitol feet first.

**ejames01** · February-10-10, 01:28 PM

You are more than welcome to move to another country that has a different constitution.

Originally Posted by markharrison

Persons A & B live off the government dole at the poverty level, and pay no income or property taxes. Person C busts his butt, makes good money, and pays income and property taxes, which support persons A & B. Government representative Q campaigns on the platform of raising A & B's living standard, by taxing person C at a higher rate. The takers will ALWAYS vote for the "givers".