86 and can't get an ID to vote

[artradley]

Do you have any data whatsoever that suggests Democrats are more irresponsible than Republicans?

The most likely to find difficulty obtaining an valid ID are the poor and the elderly.

The poor and the elderly tend to vote Democratic.

Ergo, the GOP supports any thing that makes it difficult to vote, because the majority of those left out are likely to vote Democratic.

Now, you can argue all you want that lazy and unintelligent people are more likely to vote for Democrats. That's fair game (thought I have some responses for the argument). But it is simply obvious on its face that voter ID laws are intended to lower the number of elderly and poor voters.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Well, "widespread" is definitely a matter of interpretation. "Significant" is a much better word. I assume that a number that might effect the outcome of an election would fit that definition for most anybody.

That is certainly a better term to use.

 

[naturalmwa]

Why is it when people suggest registering guns, the right says it's dangerous to Liberty to let the government know who is armed. But when we change guns to people, the right is all for letting the government know who is voting? I think we should link these things. Register both people and guns or neither.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why is it when people suggest registering guns, the right says it's dangerous to Liberty to let the government know who is armed. But when we change guns to people, the right is all for letting the government know who is voting? I think we should link these things. Register both people and guns or neither.

Completely irrelevant but similar thought: I read on here (iirc) that somewhere/somebody gave out police officers' home addresses and phone numbers publicly in order to "get back" at them, and how that was a travesty and disgusting, etc. etc. etc.

Then I heard on the news (iirc?) that the woman who pulled over the 90mph-driving-not-yet-on-the-clock officer in Florida (iirc) had her home address and phone number amongst other things (picture?) released to the press by the police.

It amazes me how some people can do A and defend it, while complaining about someone else doing A to them.

Both of these acts were disgusting, but wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more people defended the cops than the lady.

(BTW that video was hilarious, "well ma'am I don't think I was speeding" - after driving 90)

 

[theiacowtipper]

The most likely to find difficulty obtaining an valid ID are the poor and the elderly.

The poor and the elderly tend to vote Democratic.

Ergo, the GOP supports any thing that makes it difficult to vote, because the majority of those left out are likely to vote Democratic.

Now, you can argue all you want that lazy and unintelligent people are more likely to vote for Democrats. That's fair game (thought I have some responses for the argument). But it is simply obvious on its face that voter ID laws are intended to lower the number of elderly and poor voters.

True once but not anymore.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Your schtick is beyond old, Tar. When wrong, change the subject and hhope nobody notices. Try something else for once, will you?

Your schtick is beyond old, Tar. When wrong, change the subject and hhope nobody notices. Try something else for once, will you?

More BS. My response was directly on point. You claimed, "Voter fraud based on fake ID has not been widely documented -- which is no surprise, as I don't think a real investigation has ever been held to see how often it occurs" is a lie. Do you think the bush DOJ or Abbott just ignored this? Do you think they simply failed to search for evidence? Really? The bush admin fired prosecutors that they appointed because those prosecutors tired of chasing nothing and tried to put their resources into investigating real crimes.

Your claim that "[t]he only way to determine that would be to contact everybody who is listed as voting to determine if they did indeed vote" is simply, flatly, categorically w-r-o-n-g. To carry off what you're claiming, your fraudsters would have to perfectly match voter rolls with all kinds of databases to determine who WASN'T going to vote. They would have to go in KNOWING that the person they were going to impersonate was absolutely NOT going to vote...no mistakes. They would have to KNOW that the name would be unknown to the poll workers.

Unless all those conditions are met, we would have registered voters going to vote only to discover that their vote has already been cast...or we would have poll workers reporting that people were trying to vote as someone who had already cast a ballot. You can feel free to investigate this all you want LC...but those things ARE NOT OCCURRING. So either your fraudsters are gods who make no mistakes or you have nothing to indicate that your boogeyman is at large.

The biggest argument against what you claim is that it is the g*ddamn dumbest way imaginable to try and influence an election. And that's being kind. So your genius fraudsters would have to ignore EVERY other possible way to influence an election and settle on the method that would be most difficult to pull off. And IF they're going to put this much effort into in-person voting fraud, they would take the small extra step of creating fake ID's anyway. It's ridiculously easy to do, you know.

You might not like it but...so what? If you want to carry out your investigati0on, feel free to proceed. The GOP certainly won't do it because they already know what it would show. Hell, they won't even do it for one precinct. So continue to spout your nonsense...but don't for a second think you're fooling anyone.

 

[KitingHigh]

Why is it when people suggest registering guns, the right says it's dangerous to Liberty to let the government know who is armed. But when we change guns to people, the right is all for letting the government know who is voting? I think we should link these things. Register both people and guns or neither.

Not exactly the same. ID laws would let us know that the person buying the gun and the person voting are who they claim to be, but no record is kept for the transaction. It's not registration anymore than showing ID to buy alcohol or tobacco is.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Not exactly the same. ID laws would let us know that the person buying the gun and the person voting are who they claim to be, but no record is kept for the transaction. It's not registration anymore than showing ID to buy alcohol or tobacco is.

Decent point, counter Natural?

 

[naturalmwa]

Not exactly the same. ID laws would let us know that the person buying the gun and the person voting are who they claim to be, but no record is kept for the transaction. It's not registration anymore than showing ID to buy alcohol or tobacco is.

This is not true. When I go vote that is recorded.

 

[KitingHigh]

This is not true. When I go vote that is recorded.

Not who you voted for.

That's never even recorded.

 

[naturalmwa]

Not who you voted for.

True, but that wasn't my claim. The government knows which citizens participate and who they can ignore. That's arguably a far greater threat to Liberty than knowing where the hand guns are.

 

[KitingHigh]

True, but that wasn't my claim. The government knows which citizens participate and who they can ignore. That's arguably a far greater threat to Liberty than knowing where the hand guns are.

Without knowing who they vote for, how so?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Without knowing who they vote for, how so?

I think the idea being that they know [who voted], similar to knowing [who has gun], not necessarily what they do with that gun. It is the government having an official knowing of something you did that is a protected activity. Voting vs. having gun.

I guess maybe your more similar scenario would be requiring IDs to be scanned and recorded every time they entered a store to look at a gun. We don't know whether they got one, just that they went.

 

[naturalmwa]

Without knowing who they vote for, how so?

TIH gave a good answer. I'd augment it by pointing out that they aren't completely in the dark about who you voted for either. They knowing your party registration for example. And if you add metadata to the mix, political scientists can determine with a high degree of accuracy how a person votes. So know if you vote is in fact the only thing the government needs to determine how you voted for policy purposes.

Much like the gun fear is that registration would lead to some seizure. The notion that the government might want to suppress all the opposition voters is as plausible.

 

[Lone Clone]

That is certainly a better term to use.

I appreciate the correction. One should be precise in the use of language.

 

[Lone Clone]

More BS. My response was directly on point. You claimed, "Voter fraud based on fake ID has not been widely documented -- which is no surprise, as I don't think a real investigation has ever been held to see how often it occurs" is a lie. Do you think the bush DOJ or Abbott just ignored this? Do you think they simply failed to search for evidence? Really? The bush admin fired prosecutors that they appointed because those prosecutors tired of chasing nothing and tried to put their resources into investigating real crimes.

Your claim that "[t]he only way to determine that would be to contact everybody who is listed as voting to determine if they did indeed vote" is simply, flatly, categorically w-r-o-n-g. To carry off what you're claiming, your fraudsters would have to perfectly match voter rolls with all kinds of databases to determine who WASN'T going to vote. They would have to go in KNOWING that the person they were going to impersonate was absolutely NOT going to vote...no mistakes. They would have to KNOW that the name would be unknown to the poll workers.

Unless all those conditions are met, we would have registered voters going to vote only to discover that their vote has already been cast...or we would have poll workers reporting that people were trying to vote as someone who had already cast a ballot. You can feel free to investigate this all you want LC...but those things ARE NOT OCCURRING. So either your fraudsters are gods who make no mistakes or you have nothing to indicate that your boogeyman is at large.

The biggest argument against what you claim is that it is the g*ddamn dumbest way imaginable to try and influence an election. And that's being kind. So your genius fraudsters would have to ignore EVERY other possible way to influence an election and settle on the method that would be most difficult to pull off. And IF they're going to put this much effort into in-person voting fraud, they would take the small extra step of creating fake ID's anyway. It's ridiculously easy to do, you know.

You might not like it but...so what? If you want to carry out your investigati0on, feel free to proceed. The GOP certainly won't do it because they already know what it would show. Hell, they won't even do it for one precinct. So continue to spout your nonsense...but don't for a second think you're fooling anyone.

Lots of words, no argument, Tar. You were wrong....again. Just admit it and go on to the next.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Lots of words, no argument, Tar. You were wrong....again. Just admit it and go on to the next.

Well, that's one well-reasoned response in support of your case, isn't it? Certainly hard to refute your mastery of the facts...since there are none.

Once again...and you can write this on your computer screen as a reminder...you saying it doesn't make it so. The best part of your "argument" is that it's based entirely on a complete lack of evidence. And that's your evidence that it's occurring - that no one can find evidence of it. That kind of "logic" is truly unassailable.

 

[22*43*51]

You can feel free to investigate this all you want LC...but those things ARE NOT OCCURRING. So either your fraudsters are gods who make no mistakes or you have nothing to indicate that your boogeyman is at large.

Why? Nothing is preventing it.

This guy showed he could vote as Eric Holder.

 

[22*43*51]

Here's one where ballots for dead people are given out.

 

[lucas80]

Since 2009 we have seen a vigorous movement by Republican controlled state houses to "protect the integrity of elections", even though there is no proof of voter fraud. Not widespread voter fraud mind you, just fraud in general. It is the classic solution in search of a problem.
The ugly truth is this is a targeted, callous, scheme to take the ability to vote away from Americans. You hear very few stories about individuals who vote to the right losing their vote. It's clear that the polling stations that have been closed, the hours and days of early voting that have been restricted, and the paths to a voter ID that have been restricted are all targeted to take away the vote from left leaning voters.
It's reprehensible. Men and women died for this country to make sure people can vote and that we all enjoy the benefits of our system of government.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Why? Nothing is preventing it.

This guy showed he could vote as Eric Holder.

And explain what would happen when Eric Holder came in to vote. TIA

 

[lucas80]

Can someone commit fraud? Sure, but it requires a lot of effort for minimal return. It's much easier to reach your own craven political goals by taking away tens of thousands of votes than fake one or two. That's the logic of Republican efforts to restrict citizens ability to vote.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Here's one where ballots for dead people are given out.

*sigh* Do you guys even bother to read? As was stated, if your fraudsters are going to attempt to influence an election in the absolute dumbest way possible, why would they not spend a few moments getting a fake ID?

As has been stated ad nauseum, nobody tries to steal elections in this way because it is stupid, time-consuming, and dangerous as hell. There are FAR easier ways to influence an election that involve far less time and risk. The most interesting thing is the GOP isn't interested in addressing those avenues. Explain that.

 

[22*43*51]

*sigh* Do you guys even bother to read? As was stated, if your fraudsters are going to attempt to influence an election in the absolute dumbest way possible, why would they not spend a few moments getting a fake ID?

As has been stated ad nauseum, nobody tries to steal elections in this way because it is stupid, time-consuming, and dangerous as hell. There are FAR easier ways to influence an election that involve far less time and risk. The most interesting thing is the GOP isn't interested in addressing those avenues. Explain that.

I agree in a general, but midterm and state/local elections can be easily manipulated due to traditionally low turnout.

I also, don't think this would be the only strategy utilized. It would work in combination with others.

That being said enough individuals with time on their hands could make their rounds and cast a lot of votes.

This State Rep voted for herself 19 times. How many other of her supporters did too?

http://www.nhregister.com/governmen...ina-ayala-arrested-on-19-voting-fraud-charges

 

[KitingHigh]

Do y'all make your own foil hats or is there a central repository for them?

 

[22*43*51]

And explain what would happen when Eric Holder came in to vote. TIA

He wouldn't be able to until he showed an ID proving that he was indeed Eric Holder.

Weird isn't it.

 

[22*43*51]

Since 2009 we have seen a vigorous movement by Republican controlled state houses to "protect the integrity of elections", even though there is no proof of voter fraud. Not widespread voter fraud mind you, just fraud in general. It is the classic solution in search of a problem.
The ugly truth is this is a targeted, callous, scheme to take the ability to vote away from Americans. You hear very few stories about individuals who vote to the right losing their vote. It's clear that the polling stations that have been closed, the hours and days of early voting that have been restricted, and the paths to a voter ID that have been restricted are all targeted to take away the vote from left leaning voters.
It's reprehensible. Men and women died for this country to make sure people can vote and that we all enjoy the benefits of our system of government.

You can't get a marriage license without an ID either.

Why are you against marriage equality?

Clearly we are disenfranchising our "Identificationally challenged" citizens from the benefits of a legally recognized marriage.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

He wouldn't be able to until he showed an ID proving that he was indeed Eric Holder.

Weird isn't it.

Effective avoidance of the question. (Not really...just trying to make you feel better.)

What if that guy showed an ID with the name "Eric Holder" on it? What would happen? Try to answer the question this time.

 

[Lone Clone]

And explain what would happen when Eric Holder came in to vote. TIA

For crissake, Tar, that's the point! Presumably Holder would be able to prove his identity and he would be allowed to vote. But the vote cast by the imposter would count because there's no way to negate it.

 

[Lone Clone]

Well, that's one well-reasoned response in support of your case, isn't it? Certainly hard to refute your mastery of the facts...since there are none.

Once again...and you can write this on your computer screen as a reminder...you saying it doesn't make it so. The best part of your "argument" is that it's based entirely on a complete lack of evidence. And that's your evidence that it's occurring - that no one can find evidence of it. That kind of "logic" is truly unassailable.

Have you read John Fund's book? Or any of his columns about this subject, for that matter? Have you read Chris Matthews comments about scams in Philadelphia?

Do you honestly think that the comments made by both parties about "graveyard votes" in urban areas just spontaneously occurred to all of them without any basis?

It isn't difficult to do, after all. The party hacks simply find a bum or an activist -- a warm body -- give him or her five bucks and tell them to go, identify himself/herself as a dead person, and cast a vote.

I honestly don't understand why opponents of voter ID laws think they have to go into ridiculous denial.

Every precinct in America has multitudes of people registered who are not eligible to vote in that precinct. I've mentioned a couple of times my conversation with the elections official (a Democrat) in Decorah about several thousand bogus registrations there. I don't know why the potential for fraud in these situations is so difficult to grasp. I can understand a difference of opinion about how to deal with it, but I can't understand the basic level of denial.

Please read the linked article about an FBI investigation of voter fraud in Chicago in theh '80s.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-in-chicago

 

[22*43*51]

Effective avoidance of the question. (Not really...just trying to make you feel better.)

What if that guy showed an ID with the name "Eric Holder" on it? What would happen? Try to answer the question this time.

Which Guy? Eric Holder, or the guy making the video?

If he had created a false ID then he'd be breaking the law. But, there is no ID law so the question is moot.