(For those who aren't aware Eric Holder is the Attorney General for the US, and his Departmen tof Justice has sued several states over voter ID laws, claiming they aren't needed and discriminate. )
O'Keefe Voter Fraud Investigation: Young Man Offered Holder's Ballot
Email ArticlePrint Article Send a Tip by Breitbart News 2 hours ago 215post a comment
In a shocking new video, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates to the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, just why he should be concerned about lack of voter ID laws – by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s ballot. Literally.
The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year – April 3, 2012 – and giving Holder’s name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.
Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they’ve shown celebrities like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady registering to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. Washington DC voting law is a federal jurisdictional area. Will the federal government take up the challenge?
ON BREITBART TV
O'Keefe's Latest: Voter Fraud Investigation Lands On Eric Holder's Doorstep
This is a little silly. Holder's argument is that people aren't committing voter fraud not that voter fraud is impossible. The video in question assumes the opposite premise of Holder's position in order to undermine it. It's a bit like me presenting a video of a guy smashing a gumball machine to convince the legislature to increase gumball machine security. After all, anyone could walk up to a gumball machine and smash it.
Manchu wrote:This is a little silly. Holder's argument is that people aren't committing voter fraud not that voter fraud is impossible. The video in question assumes the opposite premise of Holder's position in order to undermine it. It's a bit like me presenting a video of a guy smashing a gumball machine to convince the legislature to increase gumball machine security. After all, anyone could walk up to a gumball machine and smash it.
That's a bit of an unfair comparison, isn't it?
One is talking about something that decides the fate of the country (and the world, in certain ways), and the other gives you a treat for 25 cents.
@CHead: You're not contrasting the relevant characteristic: just like there is no rash of gumball machine heists, there is no voter fraud. It does not matter if one crime is trivial and the other is crucial; neither are happening. So it's just as important to legislate against one as it is against the other -- i.e., not important at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Headline should read: "Conservatives Willing To Commit Crime To Prove Useless Law Relevant"
so was the man who did it arrested? Voter fraud is already a crime and he just video'd himself doing it.
The criminal penalty for fraudulently voting when not legally qualified or for voting more than once when qualified is a fine of $300 to $500, one to two years in prison, and disenfranchisement. Anyone who votes or attempts to vote by assuming the name of another is subject to a fine of $500, one year in prison, and disenfranchisement (CGS § 9-360).
Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
Yay, I can do modern politics.
Having a fake ID does not necessarily mean you can vote with it.
Chowderhead wrote:
That's a bit of an unfair comparison, isn't it?
One is talking about something that decides the fate of the country (and the world, in certain ways), and the other gives you a treat for 25 cents.
It's not an unfair comparison. "Project Veritas"(because using Latin makes you sound classier!) is going out of its way to try to make Holder's argument look bad with an unrelated argument.
The DOJ has sued states over voter ID laws because they aren't needed and they're potentially discriminatory in nature. That's not "voter fraud is impossible, so these laws are completely unnecessary!". PV has decided to take the imaginary argument of "Voter fraud is possible, we MUST STOP IT!" and show themselves doing this.
Manchu wrote:This is a little silly. Holder's argument is that people aren't committing voter fraud not that voter fraud is impossible. The video in question assumes the opposite premise of Holder's position in order to undermine it. It's a bit like me presenting a video of a guy smashing a gumball machine to convince the legislature to increase gumball machine security. After all, anyone could walk up to a gumball machine and smash it.
That's a bit of an unfair comparison, isn't it?
One is talking about something that decides the fate of the country (and the world, in certain ways), and the other gives you a treat for 25 cents.
Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
Yay, I can do modern politics.
Having a fake ID does not necessarily mean you can vote with it.
It does however help with identity theft when impersonating someone. Requiring ID won't stop it, but it will heavily discourage it with the added effort needed to pull it off.
Propose that it is nonexistant. Wouldn't it be better to have the safe guards just in case? Its not like getting ID is difficult. Most states already have pseudo-ID laws with voter cards. It's not a huge burden.
It's kind of annoying to solve a problem with a leaky pipe after the pipe has already burst.
Ouze wrote:I hope Frazzled also intends to post the now-inevitable evidence that will show up in about a week showing the tape was doctored in some way.
I'm sure you'll take care of that for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:They're all on my side agreeing its not nonexistent...
The voter fraud or the small government conservative position?
Voter fraud. After all, Kennedy won the Presidency on it.
But without the fraudulent election of JFK, we would never have gotten to the moon. I don't think Johnson or Nixon would have taken orders from the pope. I guess it all balances out, however, thanks to our massive victory at the Bay of Pigs.
I love Bizarro History ... er, me am not mean, me hate Bizarro Un-history.
Manchu wrote:But without the fraudulent election of JFK, we would never have gotten to the moon. I don't think Johnson or Nixon would have taken orders from the pope. I guess it all balances out, however, thanks to our massive victory at the Bay of Pigs.
I love Bizarro History ... er, me am not mean, me hate Bizarro Un-history.
Come back to us Manchu, come back. just follow the sound of my voice. Come baaaaaack.
Monster Rain wrote:This conversation seems familiar. As such:
I'm still wondering if it's racist to require IDs to purchase firearms, as bearing them is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
- a voter ID requirement is not inherently racist
Then you are not the person with whom I happen to disagree on this topic with.
Though...
Manchu wrote:- rights can be legitimately limited so that their exercise does not cause significant harm
If voter fraud were shown to be an actual problem, would you support a voter ID law? Hypothetically speaking, of course. I don't have any data on the matter one way or the other.
- rights can be legitimately limited so that their exercise does not cause significant harm
****Only in extremely rare circumstances.
- a voter ID requirement is not inherently racist
***True dat
- voter ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor and so also black people
***That’s an argument, not a fact.
- voter ID requirements as proposed are would be ineffectual against actual attempts at fraud
***That’s an argument, not a fact. But then again, if it flows with your #1 point, then it should not be an issue. At the same time if even deminimis fraud is occurring, thats effectively disenfranchisement of legally cast votes.
- voter fraud does not seem to actually happen
***That’s definitely just an argument. Voter fraud happens all the time. Just hit google.
- illegal trafficking of firearms happens quite a lot
***Falsehood. There has never been a recorded instance of a firearm driving anywhere.
Monster Rain wrote:If voter fraud were shown to be an actual problem, would you support a voter ID law? Hypothetically speaking, of course. I don't have any data on the matter one way or the other.
Yes, I would. But we'd have to get into what you mean by "an actual problem." Some people believe that voter fraud is "an actual problem" because a conservative lobbyist can obtain a ballot by illegally passing himself off as Eric Holder but I'm not one of them. I don't think that voter fraud is currently "an actual problem" in any of the States.
We'll end up going around and around. Frazzled, for example, has already said that de minimis fraud is effective disenfranchisement. And I don't think that is the real issue, anyhow. For example, does a voter ID requirement actually eliminate de minimus fraud? -- on it's face, no. It only makes fraud marginally more problematic for the absolutely least capable/committed fraudsters.
Monster Rain wrote:Okay, by "actual problem" I mean that voter fraud becomes something that is happening in sufficient numbers to substantially affect election outcomes.
As someone who has lobbied in other threads against the current crop of voter ID laws, I'd also like to say I'd be all for these requirements in the situation you describe. I think they currently are an unreasonable burden for a nearly nonexistent problem but as the latter changes so must the former.
Manchu wrote:We'll end up going around and around. Frazzled, for example, has already said that de minimis fraud is effective disenfranchisement. And I don't think that is the real issue, anyhow. For example, does a voter ID requirement actually eliminate de minimus fraud? -- on it's face, no. It only makes fraud marginally more problematic for the absolutely least capable/committed fraudsters.
Well we have laws on the books against murder as well. It still happens but we keep the law strangely enough.
"He who breaks the Law must go to the House of Pain!" - some animal person
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The test is false.
To prove the issue, lots of people need to go to a voter photo ID jurisdiction and get caught with a false ID.
I'm not trying to prove the issue. I just think the fact they could do it to the head f the DOJ to be hysterical.*
Manchu wrote:Laws against murder put no undue burden on anyone.
(in before T-Bone joke)
It sure puts a crimper on my style. I don't know about you, but I have a list.
Yeppers, my list has gone from a few names to just about everybody.... can't wait until law and order break down and disgruntled peoples everywhere can go on killing rampages for no good reasion without fear of reprisal Truly a perfect world.
Some people in this thread have consumed soooo much cool-aid I wouldn't be surprised if their skin had a red tint to it. Please show me evidence that voter fraud is nonexistent. Because the last several elections have had pretty big dust ups over the voting process.
SickSix wrote:Some people in this thread have consumed soooo much cool-aid I wouldn't be surprised if their skin had a red tint to it. Please show me evidence that voter fraud is nonexistent. Because the last several elections have had pretty big dust ups over the voting process.
The argument against voter registration is not "voter fraud is nonexistent".
The argument against voter registration is "it's not a large enough problem to justify draconian measures".
Monster Rain wrote:Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.
The proposed measures were ridiculously restrictive.
From what I can recall (I don't know if the measure has been rewritten), out of state identification and college issued identification were some examples of identification which was not considered "valid" for purposes of voting.
It just seems to me a elegant solution would be, when your a senior in high school take everyone down for a field trip to the DMV.
The kids register for the draft, Get a photo ID, and register to vote, all at no cost to the kids.
Either that or just start RFID'ing everyone, put a chip in everyones thumb for all their banking/medical/anything else they can put on it. Then all you would need is a reader for your computer and you can vote from home.
Monster Rain wrote:Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.
The proposed measures were ridiculously restrictive.
From what I can recall (I don't know if the measure has been rewritten), out of state identification and college issued identification were some examples of identification which was not considered "valid" for purposes of voting.
Any one going to college gets an ID. It in no way is tied to citizenship, residence in a electoral district, or whatever. An out of state ID is also not good. It could very well indicate you are registered to vote in the state which issued the ID. It also places a burden on the folks at the poll to be able to correctly identify IDs from all over the place and determine their validity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Okay, by "actual problem" I mean that voter fraud becomes something that is happening in sufficient numbers to substantially affect election outcomes.
Shouldn't you have to show that requiring an ID keeps enough people from voting as to substantially affect election outcomes? Shouldn't the argument work both ways?
CptJake wrote:Shouldn't you have to show that requiring an ID keeps enough people from voting as to substantially affect election outcomes? Shouldn't the argument work both ways?
Well, I think the burden of proof would lie on the person trying to implement a change. In this case, in order to make a new law there would have to be a measurable need.
Actually no burden of proof is needed. If a state gets a law passed it gets a law passed. If the electorate of that state perceives a need and their elected officials pass a bill according to their constitution (or other document) then they are good.
To claim the passed law hurts others once passed to get it repealed or declared unconstitutional DOES require proof. If your logic for acceptability is 'doesn't affect the election' than you would have to prove it did to get the passed law sticken.
CptJake wrote:Actually no burden of proof is needed. .
It probably isn't, but you asked about the argument itself, right?
Ideally, there'd be some effort to show that a law is necessary before it gets thrown onto the books. Especially if there's a potential to deny votes to law abiding, eligible citizens.
CptJake wrote:Actually no burden of proof is needed. .
It probably isn't, but you asked about the argument itself, right?
Ideally, there'd be some effort to show that a law is necessary before it gets thrown onto the books. Especially if there's a potential to deny votes to law abiding, eligible citizens.
Now you are being just silly. You expect all these elected folks to ONLY pass necessary laws?
Heh. I wish. We could easily ditch 75% of all Federal laws.
As for potential to deny votes, again, your argument is that it would have to be enough to affect the election... Pretty sure if groups like ACORN (or what ever their name is today) can 'mobilize' folks to vote, they can mobilize them to get them an ID a few weeks ahead of time.
Manchu wrote:We're talking about legislation to discourage non-existent behavior.
Where are all the small government conservatives???
If you think voter fraud isn't happening, you:
1. know nothing about ACORN or have never heard of "voting the dead."
2. live in pleasantville.
3. are too busy painting that 5th 40k army to pay attention to the real world.
4. didn't consider how you can say that it isn't happening, if voting doesn't require valid identification to start with. I mean, how can you know?
Being a small government conservative includes expecting elections to be valid. Do we live in some 3rd world country, or are we a nation of laws?
Don't worry, Kan. There is no evidence of voter fraud therefore it must be happening. We should let these geniuses get back to solving the important problems.
Manchu wrote:Don't worry, Kan. There is no evidence of voter fraud therefore it must be happening. We should let these geniuses get back to solving the important problems.
How about the important questions instead? Such as:
1. What could be the possible motivation for a national political party to NOT want a voter to display valid identification?
Elections are kind of important. If valid identification shouldn't be required to do so , then:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get a driver's license?
Why should we have to display i.d. when a cop pulls you over?
Why should we have to display i.d. to get on an airplane?
Why should we have to display i.d. to get healthcare?
Why should we have to display i.d. to get a loan?
Why should we have to display i.d. to get in/out of the country?
ad infinitum
Gee Peabody, lets just turn the Wayback Machine to before the invention of writing or cities, and we can all just come and go as we please.
Cue John Lennon stupid philosophy of utopia, because you know, it so works...:
Monster Rain wrote:Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.
The proposed measures were ridiculously restrictive.
From what I can recall (I don't know if the measure has been rewritten), out of state identification and college issued identification were some examples of identification which was not considered "valid" for purposes of voting.
Draconian is having to get a state issued ID? Seriously?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I'm for voter IDs if we need them, but I think the argument against that is that voting is free and IDs are not.
I'm not sure how one can function in today's society without an ID, but that's a whole other ball of wax.
Monster Rain wrote:Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.
The proposed measures were ridiculously restrictive.
From what I can recall (I don't know if the measure has been rewritten), out of state identification and college issued identification were some examples of identification which was not considered "valid" for purposes of voting.
Draconian is having to get a state issued ID? Seriously?
Hyperbolic statement was hyperbolic.
But yes, it is ridiculous to expect a college student going to a school out of state--who takes the time to register to vote in the state where he will be attending school--to have to get a whole new set of identification just to vote.
Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?
1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.
Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.
So you're going to say that being registered to vote in the state with the college, and being told that your college identification and out of state driver's license are not valid is acceptable?
Because that's what the voter registration laws which were suggested would say.
Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?
1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.
Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.
So you're going to say that being registered to vote in the state with the college, and being told that your college identification and out of state driver's license are not valid is acceptable?
Because that's what the voter registration laws which were suggested would say.
Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.
LordofHats wrote:Propose that it is nonexistant. Wouldn't it be better to have the safe guards just in case? Its not like getting ID is difficult. Most states already have pseudo-ID laws with voter cards. It's not a huge burden.
Its actually much easier to get a fake ID than to get a real one (took me 4 weeks to get my DL, and 20 minutes to get my fake), at least in Illinois and Minnesota. Which effectively makes the law pointless.
The guy in the video could just as easily have shown up with a photo ID of himself with the name "Eric Holder" on it.
Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?
1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.
Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.
So you're going to say that being registered to vote in the state with the college, and being told that your college identification and out of state driver's license are not valid is acceptable?
Because that's what the voter registration laws which were suggested would say.
Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.
Outside of time and applying for them, retaking tests, etc.
Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.
Usually you just have to be a resident for a certain period of time, though there are definitely towns that don't allow college students to vote in local elections.
Kanluwen wrote:And if their home state requires an in-state residency?
1. You're still in state for purposes of that.
2. If you're not, register in the state with the college.
Its the same issue they have no, else they are voting illegally.
So you're going to say that being registered to vote in the state with the college, and being told that your college identification and out of state driver's license are not valid is acceptable?
Because that's what the voter registration laws which were suggested would say.
Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.
Outside of time and applying for them, retaking tests, etc.
I weep tears of blood at the thought.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively you're saying that lots of college kids are illegally voting now. You have to be a citizen of that state to vote in the first place. There's nothing keeping them from getting local licenses.
Usually you just have to be a resident for a certain period of time, though there are definitely towns that don't allow college students to vote in local elections.
And if its an issue it can be rectified without difficulty.
If I got Holder's ballot I would write in Brian Terry for every office on the ballot. But I could probably never get away with it, it's just not my luck.
Phanatik wrote:
How about the important questions instead? Such as:
1. What could be the possible motivation for a national political party to NOT want a voter to display valid identification?
Why is that an important question? Do you think that the Democrats regularly commit voter fraud en masse?
Actually, my guess is that you probably do.
Phanatik wrote:
Elections are kind of important. If valid identification shouldn't be required to do so , then:
Elections are also unique in that they important for political reasons that extend beyond simply being issues for the parties to bicker over. They are a fundamental component of our government, and our system cannot function without them. As such, they aren't really comparable to anything else outside of rhetorical gamesmanship, which I'm sure is not at all something you enjoy participating in.
Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get a driver's license?
You don't have to show photo ID when you apply for a DL. If you did, it would be somewhat difficult to get one.
Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. when a cop pulls you over?
You don't.
Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get on an airplane?
Not a government function.
Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get healthcare?
You don't.
Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get a loan?
Not a government function.
Phanatik wrote:
Why should we have to display i.d. to get in/out of the country?
And, as with all the above, leaving or entering the country isn't a right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
And if its an issue it can be rectified without difficulty.
By who? The people that likely were the driving force behind taking the right to vote away from the people that no longer have any say in the matter?
CptJake wrote:Actually no burden of proof is needed. If a state gets a law passed it gets a law passed. If the electorate of that state perceives a need and their elected officials pass a bill according to their constitution (or other document) then they are good.
To claim the passed law hurts others once passed to get it repealed or declared unconstitutional DOES require proof. If your logic for acceptability is 'doesn't affect the election' than you would have to prove it did to get the passed law sticken.
No, you would just repeal the law, since you don't need to offer realistic supporting evidence when deliberating in the hallowed chambers of government.
LOL Two democrat politicians referencing an 2006 unscientific survey by a NY organization promoting racial justice, whose data covers a miniscule percentage of the nation's population is what you consider evidence?
Manchu wrote:This is a little silly. Holder's argument is that people aren't committing voter fraud not that voter fraud is impossible. The video in question assumes the opposite premise of Holder's position in order to undermine it. It's a bit like me presenting a video of a guy smashing a gumball machine to convince the legislature to increase gumball machine security. After all, anyone could walk up to a gumball machine and smash it.
LOL Two democrat politicians referencing an 2006 unscientific survey by a NY organization promoting racial justice, whose data covers a miniscule percentage of the nation's population is what you consider evidence?
Puhleese.
What the dog barked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
VermGho5t wrote:
Frazzled wrote: - voter ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor and so also black people ***That’s an argument, not a fact.
I am still trying to make sense of this statement. Anyone want to try and elaborate, or was it just some random stab at an argument?
it someone's opinion. As it effects everyone, by its very nature, its not a fact.
Gravity is not a fact?
Gravity affecting some people more than others, is not a fact. it would be awesomely fun though.
Having said that, I read an excellent book, where as one of the effects of bad things, holes of negative gravity appeared at random. Imagine buildings, houses, and people, just randomly losing gravity and floating up up and away. It had the image of a sky scraper slowly rising in the air, surrounded by helicopters as it gained altitude.
"Hey, something might actually be harming minorities"
"Nuh-uh"
"Yes, here is why"
"You don't have any data"
"Here is the data"
"That data is phony"
"Here is more"
"Phony"
"Here is.."
"LALALALALALALALALA our system is totally fair. There is zero chance that we might be doing something that harms the poor and/or non-white. It's silly to think it's a problem."
"Hey, something might actually be harming minorities" "Nuh-uh" "Yes, here is why" "You don't have any data" "Here is the data" "That data is phony" "Here is more" "Phony" "Here is.." "LALALALALALALALALA our system is totally fair. There is zero chance that we might be doing something that harms the poor and/or non-white. It's silly to think it's a problem."
I love these kinds of discussions where there are posters who contribute nothing but troll and try to inflame the topic. We need an exorcism. I need an old Dakkaite and a young Dakkaite. Out unclean Spirit! The Power of Dakka compels YOU!
VermGho5t wrote:I am still trying to make sense of this statement. Anyone want to try and elaborate, or was it just some random stab at an argument?
The part in orange is what I said. The part in blue is Frazzled's response.
- voter ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor and so also black people ***That’s an argument, not a fact.
First, my statement: Voter IDs cost something. Whether it is the ID itself or the costs of the underlying documents (such as obtaining a birth certificate) or the various logistical expenses (taking time off of work, obtaining transportation, etc), there is no such thing as a free voter ID. The costs no doubt seem utterly insignificant to many Americans, especially those who can afford access to the internet and browse a webpage devoted to painting expensive toy soldiers. But to other Americans, these are significant and additional obstacles to political participation. These other Americans are the poor and a disproportionate amount of impoverished Americans are also black.
Now my response to Frazzled's gloss: You step into the road and see a tractor trailer barreling down on you from less than a mile away. I see the truck as well and shout to you, "get out of the street or that truck will hit you." You retort, "that's just an argument, not a fact." Confused, I yell back "no it's not, there's a truck right there." And you say, "the truck driving on the road is a fact, yes, but you can't be sure the tr--" and then you are hit by the truck. Cause is a fact; effect is also a fact. Now imagine if there was no time at all between stepping into the road and getting hit by the truck. That is the situation of voter IDs -- the poor have trouble affording voter ID as soon as it exists as an idea.
Stepping back, we can ask some practical questions: are people who are not determined enough, or however else you'd like to denigrate them, to obtain voter ID actually going to vote? I don't know. My own cultural assumptions and prejudices make me think that voter ID requirements will not result in disenfranchisement in fact. But I also think that the law will not address voter fraud in fact. So as a matter of practicalities the law is meaningless -- except once you consider that it will make it that much harder for Democrats to get their base to the polls.
First, my statement: Voter IDs cost something. Whether it is the ID itself or the costs of the underlying documents (such as obtaining a birth certificate) or the various logistical expenses (taking time off of work, obtaining transportation, etc), there is no such thing as a free voter ID. The costs no doubt seem utterly insignificant to many Americans, especially those who can afford access to the internet and browse a webpage devoted to painting expensive toy soldiers. But to other Americans, these are significant and additional obstacles to political participation. These other Americans are the poor and a disproportionate amount of impoverished Americans are also black.
***ID’s are free. I am sure the “underlying documents” are also free if needed. That’s an excuse.
More importantly, the right to vote is a right, but its like everythinhg else, there are costs. If I can be charged to buy a gun (2nd Amendment) , and pay a fee to get a parade permit (1st), and can take some effort to vote, which impacts others. If you can’t make the effort to register once, how are you able to vote?
Now my response to Frazzled's gloss: You step into the road and see a tractor trailer barreling down on you from less than a mile away. I see the truck as well and shout to you, "get out of the street or that truck will hit you." You retort, "that's just an argument, not a fact." Confused, I yell back "no it's not, there's a truck right there." And you say, "the truck driving on the road is a fact, yes, but you can't be sure the tr--" and then you are hit by the truck. Cause is a fact; effect is also a fact. Now imagine if there was no time at all between stepping into the road and getting hit by the truck. That is the situation of voter IDs -- the poor have trouble affording voter ID as soon as it exists as a requirement.
***NO they don’t. They are free.
Stepping back, we can ask some practical questions: a people who are not determined enough, or however else you'd like to denigrate them, to obtain voter ID actually going to vote? I don't know. My own cultural assumptions and prejudices make me think that voter ID requirements will not result in disenfranchisement in fact. But I also think that the law will not address voter fraud in fact. So as a matter of practicalities the law is meaningless -- except once you consider that it will make it that much harder for Democrats to get their base to the polls.
***I’m not worried about losers to lazy to vote. I’m worried about voter fraud disenfranchising MY voting rights. Further, there’s nothing keeping illegal aliens from voting under false registrations, they are others voting for the dead etc. etc. Voter ID should just be one of a myriad of procedures protecting my enfranchisement.
Frazzled wrote:I am sure the “underlying documents” are also free if needed.
Would you care to back that up with some facts?
More importantly, the right to vote is a right, but its like everythinhg else, there are costs.
I am not saying that voting is free; I'm saying that this will make it more expensive. And I'm further saying that there is no justification for adding the expense.
I’m worried about voter fraud disenfranchising MY voting rights.
Then you are worried about something that you have no evidence of existing. This is called delusional behavior. The further argument that the evidence actually does exist but is being suppressed by a society-wide conspiracy is called paranoia. You might as well be worried that the unicorn nazis are out to take your ballot.
Frazzled wrote:I am sure the “underlying documents” are also free if needed.
Would you care to back that up with some facts?
More importantly, the right to vote is a right, but its like everythinhg else, there are costs.
I am not saying that voting is free; I'm saying that this will make it more expensive. And I'm further saying that there is no justification for adding the expense.
I’m worried about voter fraud disenfranchising MY voting rights.
Then you are worried about something that you have no evidence of existing. This is called delusional behavior. The further argument that the evidence actually does exist but is being suppressed by a society-wide conspiracy is called paranoia. You might as well be worried that the unicorn nazis are out to take your ballot.
Are you saying I'm delusional because I'm worried about voter fraud. Really?
I know you're done. We've danced this dance recently and you weren't able to provide any evidence that voter ID requirements actually address an actual problem then, either. I don't blame you for that. After all, Indiana couldn't produce any evidence to the Supreme Court and I'm sure they tried a lot harder than you have to find it.
I'm glad that this came back up, if for no other reason than to make me realize that some of the people that I disagreed with in the last thread about this are much more reasonable about this than I originally thought.
Frazzled wrote:
***ID’s are free. I am sure the “underlying documents” are also free if needed. That’s an excuse.
More importantly, the right to vote is a right, but its like everythinhg else, there are costs. If I can be charged to buy a gun (2nd Amendment) , and pay a fee to get a parade permit (1st), and can take some effort to vote, which impacts others. If you can’t make the effort to register once, how are you able to vote?
You can be charged to buy a gun because guns are not provided by the government free of charge (excluding military and police weapons), but provided by a private manufacturer. In my state of Maryland, there was no charge for me to get my gun permit, however.
I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.
Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.
This brings to mind the lefty dichotomy of opposing capital punishment for heinous criminals, but then supporting the abortion of innocent human babies.
Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.
Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.
National ID for what purpose? Let's hear what "the party of the left" actually advocates rather than just conflating national ID proposals and voter ID requirements.
Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.
If bank robbery was totally unheard of, outside of anecdotal prejudice against undocumented immigrants, that might be a worthwhile comparison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The closest thing to a serious national ID proposal was Real ID, which was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by Bush II.
And here's the ACLU, that staunchly conservative organization, arguing against the concept:
Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.
Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.
Here's the difference:
Bank robbery is a common enough crime, even if it's just attempts. There's also a larger temptation for people to y'know...steal valuable physical objects than there is for people to participate in things like voter fraud.
When looking at instances of voter fraud, what you will most likely find is it is being executed by individuals being paid by wealthy supporters of particular candidates or the candidates themselves to ensure that they're in a place to be able to "make a return" on the investment their supporters laid into them.
This brings to mind the lefty dichotomy of opposing capital punishment for heinous criminals, but then supporting the abortion of innocent human babies.
As opposed to labeling abortion of early term fetuses--no matter the circumstances, such as screenings for potentially life threatening diseases in the fetus or products of rape-- as "murder" but capital punishment "justice"?
Let's just forget for a few minutes that a relatively large amount of death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence, which establishes the potential for that "justice" to have been carried out on innocent human beings.
Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.
Or more likely it's the constant stream of hypocrisy that spouts out of the Conservatives' side of the fence. A political party which blunders about wrapping itself in the ideals of their religion to justify their political ideals.
"Hey, something might actually be harming minorities"
"Nuh-uh"
"Yes, here is why"
"You don't have any data"
"Here is the data"
"That data is phony"
"Here is more"
"Phony"
"Here is.."
"LALALALALALALALALA our system is totally fair. There is zero chance that we might be doing something that harms the poor and/or non-white. It's silly to think it's a problem."
And that's this thread in a nutshell. Someone supported this law, someone else suggested a downside. Proof was requested, and it was replied that those wanting to pass the law should provide the proof of no harm. They provided nothing. Finally we proved it, and of course they argue with the proof and provide nothing of their own to support them, and eventually there will be a bunch of confused derp and then pictures of Dachshunds, and it will get repeated again. And again.
And you know what? I kind of blame myself for partaking in it, over and over again. It is stupid, but eventually it's gotta be Charlie Brown's fault instead of Lucy's. Intellectual honest and reasonable discussion are the footballs that these Lucy's will perpetually yank away at the last second. It's probably time to find a better game.
Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.
National ID for what purpose? Let's hear what "the party of the left" actually advocates rather than just conflating national ID proposals and voter ID requirements.
Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.
If bank robbery was totally unheard of, outside of anecdotal prejudice against undocumented immigrants, that might be a worthwhile comparison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The closest thing to a serious national ID proposal was Real ID, which was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by Bush II.
And here's the ACLU, that staunchly conservative organization, arguing against the concept:
Well, if everyone is forced to get a National I.D., wouldn't it put an undue burden on the same people you are concerned about in the voting issue, regardless of the intent of any National I.D.?
The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society. Just like a double fence with barbed wire, machine gun nests and patrolling German Shepherds across our southern border MAY NOT discourage all illegal aliens that would enter our country from doing so, but it would slow them down a bit.
Regards,
P.s. Note that asking people to display I.D. to vote, like the vast majority of people have to do during their daily lives for various reasons isn't like asking someone to wear an armband that reads "Jew." It's not extraordinary, it's not cruel or unusual, and it costs what a baby is charged to be born.
@Ouze: You can't assume everyone is using the internet to dialog much less to learn. I'm not out to convince much less convert anybody. I find that defending my position, even against silly non-arguments, can substantially clarify my position. More than once, I've posted an argument and had it demolished -- and I changed my mind. Anyone else refusing to do the same is no skin off my ass.
Phanatik wrote:
Well, if everyone is forced to get a National I.D., wouldn't it put an undue burden on the same people you are concerned about in the voting issue, regardless of the intent of any National I.D.?
Depends on who pays for it.
As it stands everyone is already forced to be identified by an SSN. The whole national ID thing really just follows from that.
Phanatik wrote:
The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society.
So, white, upper-middle class, males with higher education?
Phanatik wrote:
P.s. Note that asking people to display I.D. to vote, like the vast majority of people have to do during their daily lives for various reasons isn't like asking someone to wear an armband that reads "Jew." It's not extraordinary, it's not cruel or unusual, and it costs what a baby is charged to be born.
The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society.
The issue is that the election fraudsters as social predators are not the only ones who could stumble -- and evidently they don't really exist, at least not in a manner that would be addressed by this law. So I find that the prey in this case are actually poor, black people. And the predators are ... ?
"Hey, something might actually be harming minorities"
"Nuh-uh"
"Yes, here is why"
"You don't have any data"
"Here is the data"
"That data is phony"
"Here is more"
"Phony"
"Here is.."
"LALALALALALALALALA our system is totally fair. There is zero chance that we might be doing something that harms the poor and/or non-white. It's silly to think it's a problem."
And that's this thread in a nutshell. Someone supported this law, someone else suggested a downside. Proof was requested, and it was replied that those wanting to pass the law should provide the proof of no harm. They provided nothing. Finally we proved it, and of course they argue with the proof and provide nothing of their own to support them, and eventually there will be a bunch of confused derp and then pictures of Dachshunds, and it will get repeated again. And again.
And you know what? I kind of blame myself for partaking in it, over and over again. It is stupid, but eventually it's gotta be Charlie Brown's fault instead of Lucy's. Intellectual honest and reasonable discussion are the footballs that these Lucy's will perpetually yank away at the last second. It's probably time to find a better game.
When arguing against someone in an entrenched position that is clearly not willing to listen to reasonable arguments, simply stop trying to persuade him. Instead, focus on refuting his points and keeping a strong argument on your side that he hasn't refuted. This won't convince him, but it will convince people who read the argument but don't partake in it because they don't yet feel strongly about one side or the other.
Chongara, that's the beauty of this predetermination mentality -- we can figure out who's morally worthless by observing their financial worthlessness.
The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society.
The issue is that the election fraudsters as social predators are not the only ones who could stumble -- and evidently they don't really exist, at least not in a manner that would be addressed by this law. So I find that the prey in this case are actually poor, black people. And the predators are ... ?
[Star of David armband straw man]
Also not at issue.
Wow, you fell back on the strawman lameness. Fail.
Grakmar wrote:When arguing against someone in an entrenched position that is clearly not willing to listen to reasonable arguments, simply stop trying to persuade him. Instead, focus on refuting his points and keeping a strong argument on your side that he hasn't refuted. This won't convince him, but it will convince people who read the argument but don't partake in it because they don't yet feel strongly about one side or the other.
That's actually a really good point, as well as what Manchu said.
Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that the party of the left is the party that perennially brings up the idea for a National I.D., but then doesn't see the need for voters to have I.D. in order to vote.
National ID for what purpose? Let's hear what "the party of the left" actually advocates rather than just conflating national ID proposals and voter ID requirements.
Arguing against requiring I.D. to vote because it may or may not dissuade someone from committing voter fraud is like advising banks to not lock their vaults because it may or may not dissuade someone from robbing them.
If bank robbery was totally unheard of, outside of anecdotal prejudice against undocumented immigrants, that might be a worthwhile comparison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The closest thing to a serious national ID proposal was Real ID, which was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by Bush II.
And here's the ACLU, that staunchly conservative organization, arguing against the concept:
Well, if everyone is forced to get a National I.D., wouldn't it put an undue burden on the same people you are concerned about in the voting issue, regardless of the intent of any National I.D.?
The comparison is to show the worthiness of putting stumbling blocks in front of those that would prey upon society. Just like a double fence with barbed wire, machine gun nests and patrolling German Shepherds across our southern border MAY NOT discourage all illegal aliens that would enter our country from doing so, but it would slow them down a bit.
Regards,
P.s. Note that asking people to display I.D. to vote, like the vast majority of people have to do during their daily lives for various reasons isn't like asking someone to wear an armband that reads "Jew." It's not extraordinary, it's not cruel or unusual, and it costs what a baby is charged to be born.
Is it possible voter fraud largely goes under-reported/un-investigated because the beneficiary is usually the one in a position to do something about it?
Does it really matter who ends up "disenfranchised" by the law if it's sensible?
Do we really turn into Soviet Russia if we demand that you provide identification confirming you to be who you say you are before casting a ballot that could have a lot of consequence attached to it?
So, let me get this straight. There is no evidence that Voter Fraud is a problem, but we need legislation to try and stop it because it could theoretically be happening, and possibly causing a big problem in the future?
So, according to the same mind set, there is no evidence that Global Warming is real. Therefore, we need legislation to try and and stop it because it could theoretically be happening, and possibly causing a big problem in the future?
Well, I'm convinced.... but I'm not sure what I'm convinced about yet.
Easy E wrote:there is no evidence that Global Warming is real
I'm struggling with why you're bringing up Global Warming here. So ... you're saying we should have a law preventing non-existent voter fraud because you don't believe in human-influenced climate change?
Manchu wrote:- Successful political candidates are hardly the only people in a position to do anything about voter fraud.
Who investigates it?
- The ostensible object of the law is to prevent disenfranchisement; the application of the law implies disenfranchisement.
I believe the object of the law is to prevent voter fraud. My problem with the, "Hey, voter fraud isn't a significant problem now!" argument against such laws is that it's ridiculously short-sighted. To suggest that something will not happen because it hasn't happened yet...well, look: we spend a lot of money on our nuclear arsenal in case of nuclear war.
- You're the only one talking about Soviet Russia.
In this thread, indeed. In others on the same topic, however, I've seen several of contributors wax on about how they do not wish to live in a totalitarian country where the authorities can demand to see your papers when they wish.
The press is interested in these sorts of things. As are lobbyists. Also, it appears that successful political candidates are interested, as well, given that they are in fact the ones trying to pass this law. They're especially interested when they have to defend the law before the Supreme Court. But, as I mentioned, even being as interested in finding evidence of voter fraud as is possible doesn't mean that one will actually be able to find it.
I believe the object of the law is to prevent voter fraud.
Yes, for the purpose of avoiding disenfranchisement of valid ballots, as Frazzled has pointed out.
My problem with the, "Hey, voter fraud isn't a significant problem now!" argument against such laws is that it's ridiculously short-sighted.
Not really. The assumption is that voter fraud will inevitably become a problem in the future. I don't think that assumption is very tenable.
To suggest that something will not happen because it hasn't happened yet...well, look: we spend a lot of money on our nuclear arsenal in case of nuclear war.
You are saying that voter ID requirements are a deterrent against voter fraud. But that argument relies on the likelihood of the target behavior -- so see my point above.
In others on the same topic, however, I've seen several of contributors wax on about how they do not wish to live in a totalitarian country where the authorities can demand to see your papers when they wish.
Well, perhaps at least you and I can agree that the problem with voter ID requirements is not that they enable totalitarian regimes.
Phanatik wrote:This brings to mind the lefty dichotomy of opposing capital punishment for heinous criminals, but then supporting the abortion of innocent human babies.
Sort of like how conservatives seem to be pro-life until birth?
Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.
Yup, those Tea Partiers and other conservatives only picked legitimate issues to get angry over. Very calm, cool and collected. Made rational arguments at all those town hall meetings.
Manchu wrote:- Successful political candidates are hardly the only people in a position to do anything about voter fraud.
Who investigates it?
- The ostensible object of the law is to prevent disenfranchisement; the application of the law implies disenfranchisement.
I believe the object of the law is to prevent voter fraud. My problem with the, "Hey, voter fraud isn't a significant problem now!" argument against such laws is that it's ridiculously short-sighted. To suggest that something will not happen because it hasn't happened yet...well, look: we spend a lot of money on our nuclear arsenal in case of nuclear war.
- You're the only one talking about Soviet Russia.
In this thread, indeed. In others on the same topic, however, I've seen several of contributors wax on about how they do not wish to live in a totalitarian country where the authorities can demand to see your papers when they wish.
Please, don't bring up anything that Manchu hasn't already discussed. < /straw man!> The Real World does not apply, as Manchu lives in Pleasantville, where there is no such thing as voter fraud (as the mayor has always been the mayor, the city council has always been the same, etc., as they don't have elections.)
Any attempt to expect people to be engaged in a modern society by having i.d. is RACIST! Now, you might think that's just a lefty knee-jerk reaction to shut down debate by playing the race card (they must have it on speed dial) but you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong!
It's racist because they say so. Just like you can google the thousands of images of the millions of welfare children that died in the streets because of Welfare Reform that was forced on Clinton by those darn racist Republicans in the 90's. The democrats said it would happen, so it must be so. But, I didn't bring that up, as Manchu hasn't mentioned it yet, so it doesn't apply.
Phanatik wrote:This brings to mind the lefty dichotomy of opposing capital punishment for heinous criminals, but then supporting the abortion of innocent human babies.
Sort of like how conservatives seem to be pro-life until birth?
You have discerned our evil plan. We want the unborn child to live until we can quash it's little life with dirty water and polluted air. And if that doesn't do it, we'll make it go to school next to a nuclear plant and drive fossil fuel based cars!!! (the horror!)
Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.
Piston Honda wrote:Yup, those Tea Partiers and other conservatives only picked legitimate issues to get angry over. Very calm, cool and collected. Made rational arguments at all those town hall meetings.
Don't bring up the Tea Party, as Manchu hasn't ok'd that topic yet.
Phanatik wrote:Don't bring up the Tea Party, as Manchu hasn't ok'd that topic yet.
Not only do you have my blessing but I also have a question for any Tea Partiers out there:
What is the Tea Party position on legislation requiring government-issued IDs to prevent non-existent crimes?
Automatically Appended Next Post: If that one's too hard, try this rephrased version:
What is the Tea Party position on legislation creating restrictions on voting to make mobilization of the Democratic Party's base more difficult?
Oh, so it's not about racism after all? It's about mobility.
Yes, it's entirely unfair to expect democrats to not bus in people from different districts/states to vote where they are not registered.
Yes, it's unfair to expect democrats to not vote dead people, cartoon characters, and sports persons in states other than where they are registered to vote.
Yes, it's unfair to expect a liberal judge to not hold polls open beyond their legally mandated times in heavily democrat districts in order to run people thru.
Yes, it's unfair to expect the democrats to not concede a race because their candidate died before election day. Lets just let him win, and then give the seat to his wife.
Yes, it's unfair to expect the electricity to not mysteriously go off in a heavily republican district in a race Harry Reid just may lose.
Yes, it's unfair to expect democrats to not slash the tires of vehicles to be used for republican mobilization. (They're racists anyway.)
Yes, it's unfair that all of that can happen, and more, and still expect that someone that legally shouldn't vote might try to do so.
Manchu wrote:Please answer the actual question(s).
Are you in favor of legislation requiring government-issued ID to prevent non-existent crime?
Are you in favor of legislation that makes it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their actual constituents?
I answered the second one already. I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not about racism or keeping a boot on the throat of the financially-challenged.
As to the first question:
1. What evidence do you have that not a single person has ever tried to vote when they would not otherwise be allowed? So, we have criminals from A to Z, but NO ONE has ever committed voter fraud? Wow! Never? Or just not recently?
2. With all of the illegal aliens democrats are encouraging to come to and stay in this country, they don't also try to vote? Ever? Not even just once?
3. Finally, let me answer positively in this way, as this is dakka: At this time, real Star Wars type lightsabers do not exist. Therefore, no one has committed a crime with one. I have absolutely no problem with the government pro-actively making it illegal for someone to commit a crime with one, should they one day be invented. I really doubt Uncle Joe will smile in his grave if someone in America proposes a law now to cover the possibility. So, for the sake of argument, lets say no one is committing voter fraud now. So what? Someone may some day.
Manchu wrote:Please answer the actual question(s).
Are you in favor of legislation requiring government-issued ID to prevent non-existent crime?
Are you in favor of legislation that makes it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their actual constituents?
I answered the second one already. I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not about racism or keeping a boot on the throat of the financially-challenged.
As to the first question:
1. What evidence do you have that not a single person has ever tried to vote when they would not otherwise be allowed? So, we have criminals from A to Z, but NO ONE has ever committed voter fraud? Wow! Never? Or just not recently?
2. With all of the illegal aliens democrats are encouraging to come to and stay in this country, they don't also try to vote? Ever? Not even just once?
3. Finally, let me answer positively in this way, as this is dakka: At this time, real Star Wars type lightsabers do not exist. Therefore, no one has committed a crime with one. I have absolutely no problem with the government pro-actively making it illegal for someone to commit a crime with one, should they one day be invented. I really doubt Uncle Joe will smile in his grave if someone in America proposes a law now to cover the possibility. So, for the sake of argument, lets say no one is committing voter fraud now. So what? Someone may some day.
What I am having trouble with is the notion that we should create laws addressing non-existent crimes, whether voter fraud or misuse of fictional weapons. I am also having trouble getting you to answer a few simple questions on their faces.
Manchu wrote:Please answer the actual question(s).
Are you in favor of legislation requiring government-issued ID to prevent non-existent crime?
Are you in favor of legislation that makes it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their actual constituents?
I answered the second one already. I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not about racism or keeping a boot on the throat of the financially-challenged.
As to the first question:
1. What evidence do you have that not a single person has ever tried to vote when they would not otherwise be allowed? So, we have criminals from A to Z, but NO ONE has ever committed voter fraud? Wow! Never? Or just not recently?
2. With all of the illegal aliens democrats are encouraging to come to and stay in this country, they don't also try to vote? Ever? Not even just once?
3. Finally, let me answer positively in this way, as this is dakka: At this time, real Star Wars type lightsabers do not exist. Therefore, no one has committed a crime with one. I have absolutely no problem with the government pro-actively making it illegal for someone to commit a crime with one, should they one day be invented. I really doubt Uncle Joe will smile in his grave if someone in America proposes a law now to cover the possibility. So, for the sake of argument, lets say no one is committing voter fraud now. So what? Someone may some day.
Manchu wrote:What I am having trouble with is the notion that we should create laws addressing non-existent crimes, whether voter fraud or misuse of fictional weapons. I am also having trouble getting you to answer a few simple questions on their faces.
I would never support anyone interfering with the legal mobilization of voters desirous of voting democrat.
I would always support a law that prevents voter fraud, even if it only catches one culprit from today until The Big Rip occurs.
Notice the second statement also applies to other than democrat voters.
Chongara wrote:I certainly wouldn't. What do I need a dangerous weapon for? I'd stand a pretty good chance of hurting myself with it.
Dude, don't get anybody started on evolution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:I would never support anyone interfering with the legal mobilization of voters desirous of voting democrat.
I would always support a law that prevents voter fraud, even if it only catches one culprit from today until The Big Rip occurs.
Okay, now we're making progress. Now how about a law that does not prevent voter fraud but does interfere with legally mobilizing voters who traditionally vote Democrat?
And, additionally, does you answer change if a Republican tells you that the law is only supposed to prevent voter fraud?
Phanatik wrote:
I would always support a law that prevents voter fraud, even if it only catches one culprit from today until The Big Rip occurs.
Mandatory DNA sequencing of each person at birth. When they register to vote and each voter registration is paired with the unique DNA sequence archived in the NGISA*. When the election rolls around each person will submit to a DNA test at the voting location that checks against the registered DNA sequence for that registration, and verifies back with the NGISA.
Glad we have your support on this. Care to help be draft up the petition?
*This would be a new organisation "National Genetic Identification System Administration"
Chongara wrote:I certainly wouldn't. What do I need a dangerous weapon for? I'd stand a pretty good chance of hurting myself with it.
Dude, don't get anybody started on evolution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:I would never support anyone interfering with the legal mobilization of voters desirous of voting democrat.
I would always support a law that prevents voter fraud, even if it only catches one culprit from today until The Big Rip occurs.
Okay, now we're making progress. Now how about a law that does not prevent voter fraud but does interfere with legally mobilizing voters who traditionally vote Democrat?
And, additionally, does you answer change if a Republican tells you that the law is only supposed to prevent voter fraud?
kronk wrote:Manchu, these are the most loaded questions I've read in a long time, ala 'When did you stop beating your wife/GF."
They are meant to be loaded. We have to go step by step. First, we have to show that Tea Partiers and/or Republicans don't want to legislate regarding non-existent crimes. Next we have to make sure they don't just want to disenfranchise vulnerable people who are likely to vote Democrat. If they say they don't want to do either of those we can go on to see if they can provide evidence of voter fraud, other than that committed by their own agents or based on anecdotes. If there is no such evidence (as proved in the case regarding Indiana) then we have established that voter ID requirements are legislation regarding non-existent crime. And then we have to move on to what the law must actually address (since it clearly is not voter fraud): namely the disenfranchisement of vulnerable people who are likely to vote Democrat. If that's wrong, then we have two strong reasons -- as Tea Party Republicans -- to oppose voter ID requirements.
I see where you're coming from, Manchu, and I agree that voter fraud is so rare as to be a non-issue, but do you really believe this is a Republican ploy to disenfranchise blacks or poor people from voting for Democrats?
This whole thing is a waste of time, I agree.
Something so sinister as it's being made out to be, I just can't see.
Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?
Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?
But then again, don’t pay attention, after all I’m delusional for even thinking there might be voter fraud. Good thing no one called me that on Dakka. That would, after all, be impolite.
Manchu wrote: -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers.
Manchu wrote: So what's up?
I don't have the first damn clue. Sounds like a big old waste of time or perhaps, since they know this has no chance in hell of getting passed, their trying to play on their own constituents fears to get them out and vote. Instead of "Rock the Vote", "Shock them into voting" or something less lame than what I just said.
Manchu wrote: -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers.
Manchu wrote: So what's up?
I don't have the first damn clue. Sounds like a big old waste of time or perhaps, since they know this has no chance in hell of getting passed, their trying to play on their own constituents fears to get them out and vote. Instead of "Rock the Vote", "Shock them into voting" or something less lame than what I just said.
Its passed in two dozen states, and withstood SCOTUS review. Evidently someone thinks its an issue.
Frazzled, just digging around, I could only find articles where a handful of people over the last decade were tried and convicted for it. It certainly doesn't seem that wide spread.
I'm not against having to show ID, but I just don't think it's as big an issue as it's being made out to be.
Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?
But then again, don’t pay attention, after all I’m delusional for even thinking there might be voter fraud. Good thing no one called me that on Dakka. That would, after all, be impolite.
But, none of those voter fraud cases involve people voting in person using a false identity, which is what voter id laws would address (and, 2 of those 4 examples were the same example in two different articles). So, they're completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
kronk wrote:Frazzled, just digging around, I could only find articles where a handful of people over the last decade were tried and convicted for it. It certainly doesn't seem that wide spread.
I'm not against having to show ID, but I just don't think it's as big an issue as it's being made out to be.
How do you convict someone when by the nature of the crime you can't have proof?
As the OP is an example. How are you going to catch people illegally voting if you have no way to prove who they are and can't ask?
Ex. Party A decides to stack the vote. It submits fraudulent registration forms using the names of the dead, cartoon characters, and anyone else they can think of (actual examples). Party A then gives people $10, a name, and buses them to vote. Voila
Frazzled wrote:But then again, don’t pay attention, after all I’m delusional for even thinking there might be voter fraud.
Straight from the horse's mouth -- too bad it's sarcastic. Of course, the voter fraud we're looking for is that which would tend to show that voter ID requirement laws are necessary -- and of course none could be found when SCOTUS asked Indiana about this. But you're very fond of referring to SCOTUS, so I bet you'd know that even if you hadn't ignored me posting it half a dozen times.
Frazzled wrote:Its passed in two dozen states, and withstood SCOTUS review. Evidently someone thinks its an issue.
Yes, it's pretty clear that Republicans think it is an issue. As for SCOTUS, the review was simple enough -- voter ID requirements are the subject of legitimate state interests and their imposition does not violate the Constitution. Big deal. The question here (in this thread) is not whether the federal government should break this up, or even whether states have a hypothetical legitimate interest in restricting voting rights. The issue is, since there is no evidence of actual voter fraud, this is (as noted by the circuit court in Crawford as well as both dissenting opinions on review) nothing but a disenfranchisement of the poor and the old.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:How do you convict someone when by the nature of the crime you can't have proof?
From the page you yourself linked:
At least two whistle-blowing government officials came forward to expose the forgery racket, which court documents say was formulated by Democratic Party officials inside local party headquarters.
Frazzled wrote:Wait so you admit your argument is blown out of the water and moot as SCOTUS has already decided it? Excellent. . .
Seeing how you read (or don't read) my posts makes it easy to understand why you think voter ID requirements are meant to address voter fraud.
Oooh now personal attacks. That will not save you. I'm used to TBone growling at me when I carry him in and out of the car because he's too old to jump - even though he wants me to do it. So more wiener happy dance for YOU!
EDIT: Keep up the growling and I'm going to think you want your belly rubbed. Who's a good manchu? AW you're a good Manchu or yes you are, yes you are!
Just like dozens of users calling you a troll every day doesn't actually make you a troll, accusing me of personal attacks when I call out your blatant misrepresentation of my posts or facts about voter fraud doesn't actually make them personal attacks.
Just like dozens of users calling you a troll every day doesn't actually make you a troll, accusing me of personal attacks when I call out your blatant misrepresentation of my posts or facts about voter fraud doesn't actually make them personal attacks.
True that, calling someone delusional does however. More happy dance for you.
Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?
The problem of course, is that your argument is based on the false premise that there is no voter fraud. A simple google search pulls 20.5mm hits.
1. It isn't.
2. Googling "No voter fraud" gets 36mm hits.
Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?
The problem of course, is that your argument is based on the false premise that there is no voter fraud. A simple google search pulls 20.5mm hits.
1. It isn't.
2. Googling "No voter fraud" gets 36mm hits.
The points made in that two-page opinion piece from a conservative webrag that you posted are directly addressed by the law journal article published by a state university that I posted.
True that, calling someone delusional does however.
I think you're referring to this:
Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I’m worried about voter fraud disenfranchising MY voting rights.
Then you are worried about something that you have no evidence of existing. This is called delusional behavior. The further argument that the evidence actually does exist but is being suppressed by a society-wide conspiracy is called paranoia. You might as well be worried that the unicorn nazis are out to take your ballot.
I described a behavior as delusional and an argument as paranoia. The fact that you happened to be engaged in both doesn't make a personal attack. For example, the statement "posting controversial threads and then posting pictures of wiener dogs instead of actual discussion is spammy and trollish" is not a personal attack against you.
Manchu wrote:Au contraire, I'm not even a little bit French:
I understand you are, comment dit-on, less popular there.
I don't know what that says but hate now burns bright in the eyes of ten million bad breathed little demons. It is officially France's ass for that. It may take us a while to get there, but when we do, all your French poodles shall be reviled!
Manchu wrote:Au contraire, I'm not even a little bit French:
I understand you are, comment dit-on, less popular there.
I don't know what that says but hate now burns bright in the eyes of ten million bad breathed little demons. It is officially France's ass for that. It may take us a while to get there, but when we do, all your French poodles shall be reviled!
When The Great Weinie comes, France will suffer. It will be The Great Weinie Roast.
Manchu wrote:The press is interested in these sorts of things. As are lobbyists. Also, it appears that successful political candidates are interested, as well, given that they are in fact the ones trying to pass this law. They're especially interested when they have to defend the law before the Supreme Court. But, as I mentioned, even being as interested in finding evidence of voter fraud as is possible doesn't mean that one will actually be able to find it.
You just mentioned a lot of different groups with no subpoena power or a myriad other useful investigative tools used by people actually appointed to investigate such things.
I'd imagine it would officially fall to state Boards of Elections, myself, though I don't know.
]Not really. The assumption is that voter fraud will inevitably become a problem in the future. I don't think that assumption is very tenable.
Based on what, exactly? Your powers of prognostication? We've absolutely had issues with voter fraud before. To suggest that it won't come up again because (you believe) it isn't an issue now is like me suggesting I won't ever need a snow shovel because it's currently spring.
You are saying that voter ID requirements are a deterrent against voter fraud. But that argument relies on the likelihood of the target behavior -- so see my point above.
No, it doesn't. At all. Unless you really are saying it's possible to deter only likely behavior.
Well, perhaps at least you and I can agree that the problem with voter ID requirements is not that they enable totalitarian regimes.
I don't grant the premise that there is a problem with them.
Manchu wrote:Au contraire, I'm not even a little bit French:
I understand you are, comment dit-on, less popular there.
I don't know what that says but hate now burns bright in the eyes of ten million bad breathed little demons. It is officially France's ass for that. It may take us a while to get there, but when we do, all your French poodles shall be reviled!
When The Great Weinie comes, France will suffer. It will be The Great Weinie Roast.
Damn straight! The Lord of all BADGER DOGS does not forgive insult.
Seaward wrote:
Based on what, exactly? Your powers of prognostication? We've absolutely had issues with voter fraud before. To suggest that it won't come up again because (you believe) it isn't an issue now is like me suggesting I won't ever need a snow shovel because it's currently spring.
Explain how requiring a photo ID to vote prevents voter fraud when I can get a fake ID that will stand up to any reasonable level of inspection for 20 dollars in the back room of nearly any convenience store.
Seaward wrote:
Based on what, exactly? Your powers of prognostication? We've absolutely had issues with voter fraud before. To suggest that it won't come up again because (you believe) it isn't an issue now is like me suggesting I won't ever need a snow shovel because it's currently spring.
Explain how requiring a photo ID to vote prevents voter fraud when I can get a fake ID that will stand up to any reasonable level of inspection for 20 dollars in the back room of nearly any convenience store.
dogma wrote:
Explain how requiring a photo ID to vote prevents voter fraud when I can get a fake ID that will stand up to any reasonable level of inspection for 20 dollars in the back room of nearly any convenience store.
I don't believe you can. Nobody designs fake IDs for their home state; everybody knows what they look like. When making fakes to get kids into bars, you go with something far-flung and easy. When I was making them in college, that was Texas and New Jersey. Hell, New Jersey didn't even have a hologram on theirs back then. Today, with multiple holograms and inversed pictures and all sorts of other crap? No, you're not going to find a credible fake ID for the state you're in in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars.
Seaward wrote:Today, with multiple holograms and inversed pictures and all sorts of other crap? No, you're not going to find a credible fake ID for the state you're in in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars.
Are you kidding?
First, let's address inverse pictures. You can invert pictures in iPhoto, among many other programs. No protection is offered there. If you're talking about rotation, then even a child can do that with MS Paint.
Holograms are just a matter of ink type, and the stock on which its applied. You think your licensing fee pays for the card itself?
Seaward wrote:Nobody designs fake IDs for their home state; everybody knows what they look like.
If you're trying to bilk idiot kids, sure.
It isn't hard to make any in-state fake, its just easier to take money from kids that are already committing a crime while minimizing your effort.
People committing voter fraud, en masse, don't care about money. Hell, even if they do, that seemingly real Illinois DL might look damn good in Texas, or Oklahoma.
Then make a better card. The Texas ID has holograms and magnetic crap all over it. Regardless, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Laws are not predicated on the ability to violate them easily without discovery.
Seaward wrote:Today, with multiple holograms and inversed pictures and all sorts of other crap? No, you're not going to find a credible fake ID for the state you're in in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars.
Are you kidding?
First, let's address inverse pictures. You can invert pictures in iPhoto, among many other programs. No protection is offered there. If you're talking about rotation, then even a child can do that with MS Paint.
Holograms are just a matter of ink type, and the stock on which its applied. You think your licensing fee pays for the card itself?
I didn't say it was particularly difficult, though nor is it as easy as you make it out to be. I said it wasn't going to be done in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars, as you claimed. I realize you were trying to make a point by making up facts, but it's unfortunately an area in which you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Of course, you can always prove me wrong by walking into the nearest 7-Eleven and asking to browse their fake ID selection.
It is entirely possible to get around voter ID laws. It is entirely possible to get around tax evasion laws. That the laws can be evaded is not an argument against having them. Hell, it's pretty easy to commit murder, despite the laws prohibiting it. Incidentally, punishments for fake ID manufacturing have gotten a little more strict since the whole 9/11 thing, so that's another deterrent to entry for people who would be using them for serious crimes.
People committing voter fraud, en masse, don't care about money. Hell, even if they do, that seemingly real Illinois DL might look damn good in Texas, or Oklahoma.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If I was trying to vote in Virginia, I doubt a Texas license would be acceptable to prove my identity as a registered Virginia voter.
dogma wrote:
Yeah, they actually are. Whether or not a law is enforceable is a pretty significant consideration.
Um...no its not, at all.
Here's a small list of laws and regulations:
*Every drug law ever made.
*Laws on alcohol
*Laws on cigarettes
*Just about every felmony or misdemeanor - well all of them.
*Curfews
*EPA regulations
*Banking regulations
Unless there is a countervailing law that requires some sort of impact assessment or feasibility, its enforceability is rarely a material issue.
Seaward wrote:
I didn't say it was particularly difficult, though nor is it as easy as you make it out to be.
No, its pretty damn easy. I don't own the necessary software or hardware , but I could acquire it shortly if necessary; maybe 10-15k for a self-produced fake ID (much less for any I might distribute) completely indistinguishable from real ID.
Seaward wrote:
I said it wasn't going to be done in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars, as you claimed.
Note the word "reasonable". Its a key term, and one you should note when I use it.
Seaward wrote:
I realize you were trying to make a point by making up facts, but it's unfortunately an area in which you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Of course, you can always prove me wrong by walking into the nearest 7-Eleven and asking to browse their fake ID selection.
Why would I do that, I'm 26? When I was 17 I might take such a risk, though I'm not sure why you would accept me saying that I had as proof.
Do you want me to film a guy that sells fakes saying that you're wrong? That seems like something any seller of fakes would object to.
Seaward wrote:
It is entirely possible to get around voter ID laws. It is entirely possible to get around tax evasion laws. That the laws can be evaded is not an argument against having them.
When the law tries to prevent something that doesn't occur, the prevention is itself ineffective, and further easily circumvented, then yes, it is a sound argument.
It is, as always, an argument from degree. I can evade laws against murder, but its much harder for me to evade those laws than these ID laws regarding voter fraud; which is already illegal.
Seaward wrote:
...so that's another deterrent to entry for people who would be using them for serious crimes.
Only an idiot would get an ID with intent to commit a serious crime under it.
Seaward wrote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If I was trying to vote in Virginia, I doubt a Texas license would be acceptable to prove my identity as a registered Virginia voter.
Why not? You would need to register beforehand, or day of, anyway. The ID is just proof of face.
Frazzled wrote:
Um...no its not, at all.
Here's a small list of laws and regulations:
*Every drug law ever made.
*Laws on alcohol
*Laws on cigarettes
*Just about every felmony or misdemeanor - well all of them.
*Curfews
*EPA regulations
*Banking regulations
Unless there is a countervailing law that requires some sort of impact assessment or feasibility, its enforceability is rarely a material issue.
In a practical sense it absolutely is.
Sure, you can pass a sodomy law, but if you can't enforce it its juts political gamesmanship.
Like curfews, EPA regulations, banking regulations, etc.
Just to show how a ID would not help voter fraud in the slightest.
If you are going to commit voter fraud, you're not just going to walk into a bunch different voting places claiming to be a bunch of different people. That takes to much time and effort.
You are going to register these dead people, and anyone else and get mail in ballots for them. All the ballots come to you, you tick them off, you mail them back in.
of course now its a federal offense because of using the post office, but anything worth doing is worth being a federal offense
sirlynchmob wrote:Just to show how a ID would not help voter fraud in the slightest.
If you are going to commit voter fraud, you're not just going to walk into a bunch different voting places claiming to be a bunch of different people. That takes to much time and effort.
You are going to register these dead people, and anyone else and get mail in ballots for them. All the ballots come to you, you tick them off, you mail them back in.
of course now its a federal offense because of using the post office, but anything worth doing is worth being a federal offense
ID or no, mail in fraud is the way to go
Agreed. This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.
Seaward wrote:You just mentioned a lot of different groups with no subpoena power or a myriad other useful investigative tools used by people actually appointed to investigate such things.
This response is nonsensical. You don't need to be able to issue subpoenas to investigate election fraud.
We've absolutely had issues with voter fraud before.
Please produce the study on which you are relying. And in the meantime, please consider that actual incidents of voter fraud (like the one Frazzled posted about) would not be resolved by a voter ID requirement since they do not involve individuals impersonating other individuals in person at the polls.
Frazzled wrote:
You just attempted to move the goalposts from can they pass it to should they pass it. Sorry, do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
No, you're trying to move the goal posts right now. The initial question was never about "can", it was about "should". Hence the point about being able to pass sodomy laws, but passing them being unwise.
You of all people should know I am the last person you want to get into a semantic fight with.
Seaward wrote:You just mentioned a lot of different groups with no subpoena power or a myriad other useful investigative tools used by people actually appointed to investigate such things.
This response is nonsensical. You don't need to be able to issue subpoenas to investigate election fraud
Frazzled wrote:This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.
Why pass laws that cannot achieve their stated aims and in fact do nothing but hypothetically disenfranchise your political enemies?
Oh right, because that's the point.
What's the big deal about a law that will hypothetically avert voter fraud that will instead hypothetically disenfranchise political enemies? I mean, it all seems so...hypothetical.
If it would make you feel better to stick it to The Man for revenge, why don't you (hypothetically) pass a law making it illegal for Republicans to arrive at polling sites via a Lexus, BMW, or Mercedes? Make 'em ride the city bus!
@Frazzled: I believe Nixon thought about it in a similar way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:What's the big deal about a law that will hypothetically avert voter fraud that will instead hypothetically disenfranchise political enemies? I mean, it all seems so...hypothetical.
In all seriousness, that is actually a great question. The answer is that it will not even hypothetically avert voter fraud. So when balancing, we've got potential disenfranchisement on one hand ... and absolutely nothing on the other.
Frazzled wrote:
You just attempted to move the goalposts from can they pass it to should they pass it. Sorry, do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
No, you're trying to move the goal posts right now. The initial question was never about "can", it was about "should". Hence the point about being able to pass sodomy laws, but passing them being unwise.
You of all people should know I am the last person you want to get into a semantic fight with.
not a semantic fight. You're arguing should on the basis that people successful criminals can get around it. Duh. Successful criminals can get around just about anything. Thats why they are still in business. The standard is nonsensical. Its like arguing because the James- Dalton gang successfully robbed trians and banks that robbery shouldn't be illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.
Why pass laws that cannot achieve their stated aims and in fact do nothing but hypothetically disenfranchise your political enemies?
Oh right, because that's the point.
Thats not the point. you keep injecting your incredibly biased opinion. You're ignoring voting machines, Tammany Hall, etc. etc. for a minimal requirement that people have to use every day. Its one thing. In an era of open borders, of legal and illegal fraud and incredible voter dissaciation, the least we can do is work to make the voting system safe.
but since we're on the subject of impugning others, why are you arguing so hard to make it easy for criminals to illegally vote? Do you have a vested interest in insuring vote fraud is carried out as easily as possible?
Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: I believe Nixon thought about it in a similar way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:What's the big deal about a law that will hypothetically avert voter fraud that will instead hypothetically disenfranchise political enemies? I mean, it all seems so...hypothetical.
In all seriousness, that is actually a great question. The answer is that it will not even hypothetically avert voter fraud. So when balancing, we've got potential disenfranchisement on one hand ... and absolutely nothing on the other.
I was hypothetically being serious. Oh, the irony!
Frazzled wrote:This law should just be part of wide ranging review of security procedures.
Why pass laws that cannot achieve their stated aims and in fact do nothing but hypothetically disenfranchise your political enemies?
Oh right, because that's the point.
Thats not the point.
Sure it is. And it obviously is. Because it does not do anything else.
Frazzled wrote:You're ignoring voting machines, Tammany Hall, etc. etc.
I'm ignoring them becuase a voter ID requirement doesn't address them. Can you understand that?
Frazzled wrote:but since we're on the subject of impugning others, why are you arguing so hard to make it easy for criminals to illegally vote?
I have no concern about people impersonating other people in person at the polls because, aside from conservative hoodlums, it does not occur. Similarly, I have no interest in legislating tighter restrictions on use of gumball machines. I guess you could, if you wanted to make an argument with no connection to reality, claim that I wanted to make it easy for criminals to knock over gumball machines.
Frazzled wrote:Do you have a vested interest in insuring vote fraud is carried out as easily as possible?
As a Democrat but more importantly as an American, I have a vested interest in not creating obstacles to political particpation among all eligible voters -- including the poor and minorities.
Frazzled wrote:but since we're on the subject of impugning others, why are you arguing so hard to make it easy for criminals to illegally vote? Do you have a vested interest in insuring vote fraud is carried out as easily as possible?
It does seem a little absurd that people are stridently against curbing or deterring criminal activity, now or in the future.
Is Manchu blatantly admitting that a significant percentage of democrat votes were/are/will be illegally cast?
Regards,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:... I have a vested interest in not creating obstacles to political participation among all eligible voters -- including the poor and minorities.
I find it hard to believe that someone that is so divorced from modern society as to NOT have a valid i.d. would drag their carcass off the sofa on election day to vote.
Phanatik wrote:It does seem a little absurd that people are stridently against curbing or deterring criminal activity, now or in the future.
I am stridently against creating laws that address imaginary crimes.
Phanatik wrote:I find it hard to believe that someone that is so divorced from modern society as to NOT have a valid i.d. would drag their carcass off the sofa on election day to vote.
I fully admit to sharing that same crypto-racist prejudice. But I don't think such prejudices should be the basis of legislation.
Phanatik wrote:It does seem a little absurd that people are stridently against curbing or deterring criminal activity, now or in the future.
I am stridently against creating laws that address imaginary crimes.
Phanatik wrote:I find it hard to believe that someone that is so divorced from modern society as to NOT have a valid i.d. would drag their carcass off the sofa on election day to vote.
I fully admit to sharing that same crypto-racist prejudice. But I don't think such prejudices should be the basis of legislation.
Only someone without a leg to stand on and/or is hyper-sensitive and/or has a negligible grasp of the English language could read race or prejudice in that statement.
The characterization of people without government IDs as "divorced from modern society" and people who do not vote not being bothered to "drag their carcass off the sofa" are full of prejudice. Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people, that prejudice has obvious racial overtones. I agree that in a completely abstract way, far far away from the actual world where laws are actually made and enforced, this isn't about race or social status. In that abstract world of pure ideas, these laws are only about disenfranchising political opponents. But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.
Phanatik wrote:It does seem a little absurd that people are stridently against curbing or deterring criminal activity, now or in the future.
I am stridently against creating laws that address imaginary crimes.
Phanatik wrote:I find it hard to believe that someone that is so divorced from modern society as to NOT have a valid i.d. would drag their carcass off the sofa on election day to vote.
I fully admit to sharing that same crypto-racist prejudice. But I don't think such prejudices should be the basis of legislation.
I wouldn't so much as say they're imaginary crimes. But it reminds me of sopa, all they wanted to do is stop online piracy, what was so wrong with that?
The bottom line is we have laws against voter fraud already, yet the guy who stole eric's voting ballot hasn't been arrested yet. TMK. If the laws we have are not being enforced, why make new ones that won't stop voter fraud and not be enforced anyways?
Manchu wrote:The characterization of people without government IDs as "divorced from modern society" and people who do not vote not being bothered to "drag their carcass off the sofa" are full of prejudice. Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people, that prejudice has obvious racial overtones. I agree that in a completely abstract way, far far away from the actual world where laws are actually made and enforced, this isn't about race or social status. In that abstract world of pure ideas, these laws are only about disenfranchising political opponents. But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.
Is..."Manchu" an internet username for...Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson? Hi Al! <waves> Hey Jessie!
I know they see racism under every rock and prejudice under every bushel.
But they are race peddlers.
And no one takes them seriously.
sirlynchmob wrote: If the laws we have are not being enforced, why make new ones that won't stop voter fraud and not be enforced anyways?
I'm sure the fact these laws are being largely pushed by Republican dominated legislatures, and will largely disenfranchise traditionally Democratic voters never entered into their minds; so I can't really tell you. I guess it seems silly but I'd prefer that we don't needlessly expand government and waste tax dollars to combat nonexistent problems.
sirlynchmob wrote:The bottom line is we have laws against voter fraud already, yet the guy who stole eric's voting ballot hasn't been arrested yet. TMK. If the laws we have are not being enforced, why make new ones that won't stop voter fraud and not be enforced anyways?
Well, actually, you should re-listen to the audio. O'Keefe was careful to not break a law.
O'Keefe implied he was Eric Holder.
The election worker inferred he was Eric Holder.
O'Keefe avoided signing as Eric Holder when the election worker was willing to let him do so, by saying he was uncomfortable doing so without his i.d.
O'Keefe then departed with the clever line that he would be back faster than saying "furious," a la Fast & Furious.
sirlynchmob wrote:I wouldn't so much as say they're imaginary crimes. But it reminds me of sopa, all they wanted to do is stop online piracy, what was so wrong with that?
That's a good analogy but our pseudo-conservative friends here might not catch the irony. So here's another example, based on the classic lightsaber ban suggested by Phanatik: Let's have a national registry of all firearms -- after all, it would hypothetically allow us to deal with violent crime. Oh wait, a national gun registry is just a shill against gun ownership disguised as a legitimate way to catch crooks. If you can figure this out when it has to do with guns then why can't you figure it out when it has to do with votes?
The characterization of people without government IDs as "divorced from modern society" and people who do not vote not being bothered to "drag their carcass off the sofa" are full of prejudice.
***Prejudice against the lazy yes. Anything else is being filled in by you, and maybe you should re-examine your conceptions of people.
Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people
***Objection your Honor. That assumes facts not in evidence.
that prejudice has obvious racial overtones.
***Objection your Honor. Plaintiff is substituting their personal opinion for evidence.
I agree that in a completely abstract way, far far away from the actual world where laws are actually made and enforced, this isn't about race or social status. In that abstract world of pure ideas, these laws are only about disenfranchising political opponents. But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.
Frazzled wrote:Anything else is being filled in by you, and maybe you should re-examine your conceptions of people.
I explained how we're dealing with a specific case that specifically targets black people.
Frazzled wrote:
Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people
***Objection your Honor. That assumes facts not in evidence.
Opposing counsel should have paid more attention during discovery. Facts exist whether or not he is aware of them or dislikes them.
Frazzled wrote:
that prejudice has obvious racial overtones.
***Objection your Honor. Plaintiff is substituting their personal opinion for evidence.
Opposing counsel does not understand the difference between evidence and argument.
Frazzled wrote:
But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.
Except of course, they aren’t.
That burden of proof rests with those who think the incidence of in-person voter fraud outweighs the incidence of disenfranchisement.
I see that you have once again ignored the fact that voter fraud as it actually if rarely occurs has nothing to do with photo IDs.
In the old days, we Catholics talked about a thing called invincible ignorance. This phrase described the state of those people who had never had the opportunity to hear the Gospels. These days, the same term is used to describe people who ignore evidence as an argument. I have an objection to this usage; after all, even the most ignorant could still repent.
You haven't been reading enough of Phanatik's posts. Also, there are no health care problems in the United States, just FYI. But we're ready for those lightsabers.
Manchu wrote:The characterization of people without government IDs as "divorced from modern society" and people who do not vote not being bothered to "drag their carcass off the sofa" are full of prejudice. Given that we're talking about a law that in fact targets poor black people, that prejudice has obvious racial overtones. I agree that in a completely abstract way, far far away from the actual world where laws are actually made and enforced, this isn't about race or social status. In that abstract world of pure ideas, these laws are only about disenfranchising political opponents. But down here on Earth, where the voter ID requirements actually exist, it's poor people and old people and black people, among others, who are being disenfranchised.
Is..."Manchu" an internet username for...Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson? Hi Al! <waves> Hey Jessie!
I know they see racism under every rock and prejudice under every bushel.
But they are race peddlers.
And no one takes them seriously.
dogma wrote:No, its pretty damn easy. I don't own the necessary software or hardware , but I could acquire it shortly if necessary; maybe 10-15k for a self-produced fake ID (much less for any I might distribute) completely indistinguishable from real ID.
No. You could make plenty that are very distinguishable from real IDs, but if they're out of state, it won't matter, unless whoever's looking them over is intimately familiar with, say, Alaska driver's licenses.
Note the word "reasonable". Its a key term, and one you should note when I use it.
Please start using it correctly.
Why would I do that, I'm 26? When I was 17 I might take such a risk, though I'm not sure why you would accept me saying that I had as proof.
You would do it to prove you're the criminal mastermind/forgery expert you make yourself out to be, of course.
Do you want me to film a guy that sells fakes saying that you're wrong? That seems like something any seller of fakes would object to.
Trouble is, you wouldn't find one. I paid a year of tuition in college making fakes, back when IDs were a lot less complicated than they are now. Even then, we had to get pretty creative with figuring out how to get around holograms. Something like this...
...would be much harder. That second, smaller picture isn't solid; you can see right through it. There's also a lot of lettering on there that only shows up if turned a certain way. That's not a matter of choosing the right ink. We could cut some cellophane and slap it under the laminate, but that sort of trick doesn't work anymore.
When the law tries to prevent something that doesn't occur, the prevention is itself ineffective, and further easily circumvented, then yes, it is a sound argument.
It does occur. This whole thread is about a specific instance of it occurring. Does it occur enough to warrant new laws to prevent it? I don't know, but then, there also hasn't been a demonstrated downside to implementing said laws, so it's not exactly a lose/lose situation.
It is, as always, an argument from degree. I can evade laws against murder, but its much harder for me to evade those laws than these ID laws regarding voter fraud; which is already illegal.
Only an idiot would get an ID with intent to commit a serious crime under it.
What?
Why not? You would need to register beforehand, or day of, anyway. The ID is just proof of face.
I'm fairly sure I need to be registered to vote at least 30 days before the election in Virginia. Virginia also requires you to get a Virginia driver's license within thirty days of moving to the state. Showing up with a Texas ID wouldn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:This response is nonsensical. You don't need to be able to issue subpoenas to investigate election fraud.
You're right, I forgot that investigations that turn up valid evidence for prosecution are conducted by independent citizens without any state or federally-mandated powers to investigate and arrest all the time.
ALL. THE. TIME.
Yeah, sure, you and I could go investigate voter fraud, but we have no ability to demand to see voter rolls, no ability to compel witness testimony, no ability to do any number of other things beyond asking questions to people under no obligation to answer.
Please produce the study on which you are relying. And in the meantime, please consider that actual incidents of voter fraud (like the one Frazzled posted about) would not be resolved by a voter ID requirement since they do not involve individuals impersonating other individuals in person at the polls.
How many books on Tammany Hall and early 20th century Chicago politics do you want me to forward your way, exactly?
Seaward wrote:You're right, I forgot that investigations that turn up valid evidence for prosecution are conducted by independent citizens without any state or federally-mandated powers to investigate and arrest all the time.
No, you're right. I forgot that investigations are never launched due to media pressure. Someone better disband that grand jury Zimmerman is about to go before since it doesn't fit in with Seaward's idea of reality. Also, we are talking about Republican governors supporting these voter ID requirements -- they could certainly direct law enforcement to investigate voter fraud.
Seaward wrote:How many books on Tammany Hall and early 20th century Chicago politics do you want me to forward your way, exactly?
Exactly zero will be necessary since those examples have nothing to do with voter ID requirement laws.
Its not an anonymous guys. Look at the signatures. There's plenty of debate about whether there is global warming currnetly, and further, whether or not its manmade. But thats a saparate topic and I don't give a damn about it.
Manchu wrote:No, you're right. I forgot that investigations are never launched due to media pressure. Someone better disband that grand jury Zimmerman is about to go before since it doesn't fit in with Seaward's idea of reality. Also, we are talking about Republican governors supporting these voter ID requirements -- they could certainly direct law enforcement to investigate voter fraud.
That grand jury's been disbanded, dude. It definitely doesn't fit with my "idea of reality."
I take it you're a fan of O'Keefe's investigations. After all, he's just a citizen journalist, out there trying to marshal media interest to push for official investigations.
Exactly zero will be necessary since those examples have nothing to do with voter ID requirement laws.
That isn't what you asked for. You stated that voter fraud doesn't occur, and when I said that we've had problems with voter fraud before, you asked for examples, because, according to you, voter fraud has never been an issue in this country and never will be again. I provided examples to the contrary, and you have summarily moved the goalposts.
All we need for the poster is a picture of a poor black Jedi or maybe a undocumented immigrant Jedi.
If you are trying to make a case somewhat tangentially that "undocumented immigrants" are being disenfranchised by voter ID laws you'll get not sympathy for THAT cause. You know since non citizens have no franchise to lose.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?
The problem of course, is that your argument is based on the false premise that there is no voter fraud. A simple google search pulls 20.5mm hits.
1. It isn't.
2. Googling "No voter fraud" gets 36mm hits.
To he fair to both of you google hits are useless as a metric. The second hit on KKs uses his search term sarcastically, I'm sure Frazz's is equally useless.
Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:Au contraire, I'm not even a little bit French:
I understand you are, comment dit-on, less popular there.
I don't know what that says but hate now burns bright in the eyes of ten million bad breathed little demons. It is officially France's ass for that. It may take us a while to get there, but when we do, all your French poodles shall be reviled!
Mike; my best friend for 15 years until he died of cancer last year was a 15lbs "toy" poodle (registered as a puppy). He was a trained flush, point, and retrieve bird dog. Perhaps the best hunting dog I've ever had, head and shoulders above my German Shorthair Pointers. When we moved to AZ and I stopped upland bird hunting he settled for clearing the ground hogs and birds out of our yard. I'll cotton no Poodle hate Frazz...
Spoiler:
Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:
Explain how requiring a photo ID to vote prevents voter fraud when I can get a fake ID that will stand up to any reasonable level of inspection for 20 dollars in the back room of nearly any convenience store.
I don't believe you can. Nobody designs fake IDs for their home state; everybody knows what they look like. When making fakes to get kids into bars, you go with something far-flung and easy. When I was making them in college, that was Texas and New Jersey. Hell, New Jersey didn't even have a hologram on theirs back then. Today, with multiple holograms and inversed pictures and all sorts of other crap? No, you're not going to find a credible fake ID for the state you're in in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars.
I'll grant I know little or nothing about modern IDs but I know here next to campus they scan in IDs, I don't know if the fakes dupe the system. But I don't know how much an ID to fake that out would cost. It also seems to me that when this came up before someone pointed out an article with dubious(as in no) citation that 75% of blacks didn't drive; I might believe that but I would ask beyond that if so many people don't have IDs do they not buy cigarettes or booze? Are all these people who are going to be disenfranchised ALL tabacco free, tea totaler, pedestrians? I find that hard to believe. I'm wildly opposed to a national ID, and not particularly fond of the integration of the state drivers licence system that is virtually a national ID system. But it seems to me that IDs are used for a hell of a lot of things that have nothing to do with voting how do THAT many people not have them? I'd rather not see a requirement for ID, but isn't there a modern requirement already in place simply by living here?
Seaward wrote:I take it you're a fan of O'Keefe's investigations.
Are you trying to get me to say that journalists do not investigate voter fraud by citing an example of a journalist attempting voter fraud? Baffling.
Seaward wrote:I provided examples to the contrary, and you have summarily moved the goalposts.
In a sea of misdirection, this is truly a cut above. What kind of voting fraud did you think we were talking about regarding the efficacy of voter ID requirements. I guess by your stated understanding of the discussion, you could also give examples of voter fraud in Somalia or in fictional countries from scifi novels.
To he fair to both of you google hits are useless as a metric. The second hit on KKs uses his search term sarcastically, I'm sure Frazz's is equally useless.
Hey I think 48mm hits for "Pizza in the US" is anything but useless!
AustonT wrote:If you are trying to make a case somewhat tangentially that "undocumented immigrants" are being disenfranchised by voter ID laws you'll get not sympathy for THAT cause. You know since non citizens have no franchise to lose.
I was referring to my suspicion, validated several times by Frazzled, that the chief fear for many is that undocumented immigrants are illegally voting -- a proposition that has as much connection to reality as worrying about undocumented immigrant Jedi wielding lightsabers irresponsibly.
Seaward wrote:I take it you're a fan of O'Keefe's investigations.
Are you trying to get me to say that journalists do not investigate voter fraud by citing an example of a journalist attempting voter fraud? Baffling.
Seaward wrote:I provided examples to the contrary, and you have summarily moved the goalposts.
In a sea of misdirection, this is truly a cut above. What kind of voting fraud did you think we were talking about regarding the efficacy of voter ID requirements. I guess by your stated understanding of the discussion, you could also give examples of voter fraud in Somalia or in fictional countries from scifi novels.
So you now agree voter fraud does, in fact exist. Coming along nicely I see.
Manchu wrote:Are you trying to get me to say that journalists do not investigate voter fraud by citing an example of a journalist attempting voter fraud? Baffling.
I'm trying to say that media investigations go for headlines rather than truth, and that investigation of reported crimes should probably be left up to people equipped and mandated to, you know, actually investigate.
In other words, your position that Angela Lansbury would have clued us all in if vote fraud was actually occurring has a certain specious quality to it that I dislike.
In a sea of misdirection, this is truly a cut above. What kind of voting fraud did you think we were talking about regarding the efficacy of voter ID requirements. I guess by your stated understanding of the discussion, you could also give examples of voter fraud in Somalia or in fictional countries from scifi novels.
It is not my fault you are prone to sweeping generalizations that are not supported by facts. If you want to avoid having to try to squirm out from under past statements in the future, try to be more specific. For example, you could have said, "In-person, day-of voter fraud rarely occurs," rather than, "voter fraud does not occur." It was also pretty crazy to argue the point that voter fraud's never been a problem in this country, but fortunately you seem to be backing away from that position.
Seaward wrote:I'm trying to say ... It's not my fault ...
I just noticed that you are not actually talking to me about this subject. You want to talk about Gilded Age election fixing and Angela Lansbury. My mistake, I should have noticed sooner.
AustonT wrote:If you are trying to make a case somewhat tangentially that "undocumented immigrants" are being disenfranchised by voter ID laws you'll get not sympathy for THAT cause. You know since non citizens have no franchise to lose.
I was referring to my suspicion, validated several times by Frazzled, that the chief fear for many is that undocumented immigrants are illegally voting -- a proposition that has as much connection to reality as worrying about undocumented immigrant Jedi wielding lightsabers irresponsibly.
Manchu wrote:I just noticed that you are not actually talking to me about this subject. You want to talk about Gilded Age election fixing and Angela Lansbury. My mistake, I should have noticed sooner.
Manchu wrote:I just noticed that you are not actually talking to me about this subject. You want to talk about Gilded Age election fixing and Angela Lansbury. My mistake, I should have noticed sooner.
Your ancestry's French, isn't it?
And yours is German? Or you wish it were so perhaps?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:No connection to reality you say?
Yes, none. But if your links were not enough evidence of that, here's the one that I formerly posted.
Manchu wrote:...undocumented immigrants are illegally voting -- ...
Is this cryptic talk for illegal aliens?
You know, illegal aliens have already committed at least one crime by just being in the U.S. Do you suppose they wouldn't commit another by voting? That's good of them. Perhaps they only break the odd numbered laws?
I'm fully aware that I'm being trolled but it's hard to resist (which isn't to say you're good at trolling) and for the sake of the impressionable youth who are probably not following along: it would make no sense for any undocumented immigrant to illegally vote because the benefit of casting a single ballot is as nothing compared to the cost of being arrested and deported.
I'm fully aware that I'm being trolled but it's hard to resist (which isn't to say you're good at trolling) and for the sake of the impressionable youth who are probably not following along: it would make no sense for any undocumented immigrant to illegally vote because the benefit of casting a single ballot is as nothing compared to the cost of being arrested and deported.
I'm fully aware that I'm being trolled but it's hard to resist (which isn't to say you're good at trolling) and for the sake of the impressionable youth who are probably not following along: it would make no sense for any undocumented immigrant to illegally vote because the benefit of casting a single ballot is as nothing compared to the cost of being arrested and deported.
Those impressionable youth might think you trolled me earlier suggesting I cryptically embedded racist and prejudiced talk in a sentence that had nothing to do with race or prejudice.
There are 12-20 something million (how can one know?) illegal aliens in the country. Sounds like enough to move a decimal point.
If no valid i.d. is required to keep them from registering and then voting, there is no arrest or deportation.
If one illegal alien votes, some American is getting disenfranchised. If two illegal aliens vote, two americans are disenfranchised. You are concerned with disenfranchisement, right?
Yeah, I'm concerned with disenfranchisement. Trading one hypothetical disenfranchisement for another is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that the actual purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their base.
Manchu wrote:Yeah, I'm concerned with disenfranchisement. Trading one hypothetical disenfranchisement for another is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that the actual purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their base.
Manchu wrote:Yeah, I'm concerned with disenfranchisement. Trading one hypothetical disenfranchisement for another is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that the actual purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their base.
So, the Democrat base is made up of people ineligible to vote? Fascinating...
@Seaward/Phanatik: I have a feeling that if this was voice chat you guys wouldn't even bother to speak. I have a feeling that you would just emit an incessant, high-pitched whine that I could hear even over Frazzled's impersonation of Dachshund barking.
Manchu wrote:@Seaward/Phanatik: I have a feeling that if this was voice chat you guys wouldn't even bother to speak. I have a feeling that you would just emit an incessant, high-pitched whine that I could hear even over Frazzled's impersonation of Dachshund barking.
I saw what you did!
It's almost as bad as re-gifting.
You would not be able to hear over my dog barking. It's awesome.
Manchu wrote:Yeah, I'm concerned with disenfranchisement. Trading one hypothetical disenfranchisement for another is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that the actual purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their base.
Only if the Democratic base is fraudulent voters.
Phanatik wrote:
Manchu wrote:Yeah, I'm concerned with disenfranchisement. Trading one hypothetical disenfranchisement for another is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that the actual purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their base.
So, the Democrat base is made up of people ineligible to vote? Fascinating...
Are you two being intentionally ignorant? Requiring IDs at voting booths disenfranchises eligible voters who don't have IDs (like the poor and elderly), and anyone with an out-of-state ID (like college students).
Grakmar wrote:Are you two being intentionally ignorant? Requiring IDs at voting booths disenfranchises eligible voters who don't have IDs (like the poor and elderly), and anyone with an out-of-state ID (like college students).
Don't flirt with me, I'm married.
Manchu has been advocating it disenfranchises the poor, but can't prove it.
Why are out of state college students voting in a state they are not a resident of? Go home and vote, or absentee ballot.
How does someone make it to being "elderly" in this country without ever having gotten I.D.? Wow. Does AARP know about this? Does Guiness?
Phanatik wrote:Manchu has been advocating it disenfranchises the poor, but can't prove it.
I suspected that you hadn't been reading the thread. They say trolling is an art and your style is certainly effortless. My argument is that voter ID requirements disenfranchise the poor because only people who can afford voter IDs (even if the ID itself is free) will be able to vote, regardless if they are otherwise eligible to vote. The opposing argument is that voter fraud disenfranchises eligible voters -- which, it turns out, is not actually an opposing argument. The real problem is that supporters of voter ID requirements believe that voter fraud is carried out in person and would be curtailed by government-issued voter IDs. No one in this thread has been able to show that this is actually happening. So, as I just posted a few minutes ago, the laws in question trade one hypothetical disenfranchisement against another. We have no evidence that one hypothetical disenfranchisement affects more eligible voters than the other. So it all washes out to being another obstacle in the way of people who are likely to vote for Democrats.
Manchu wrote:@Seaward/Phanatik: I have a feeling that if this was voice chat you guys wouldn't even bother to speak. I have a feeling that you would just emit an incessant, high-pitched whine that I could hear even over Frazzled's impersonation of Dachshund barking.
NOW THATS TROLLING. You might take a breather Manchu. I don't need to impersonate it. I just need to have the wife put me on speaker at the house and they will go berserk (yes even TBone in his wierd smoker's cough bark). After they loves 'em the guy who sneaks them bits of steak...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Manchu wrote:Yeah, I'm concerned with disenfranchisement. Trading one hypothetical disenfranchisement for another is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that the actual purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their base.
Only if the Democratic base is fraudulent voters.
Phanatik wrote:
Manchu wrote:Yeah, I'm concerned with disenfranchisement. Trading one hypothetical disenfranchisement for another is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that the actual purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their base.
So, the Democrat base is made up of people ineligible to vote? Fascinating...
Are you two being intentionally ignorant? Requiring IDs at voting booths disenfranchises eligible voters who don't have IDs (like the poor and elderly), and anyone with an out-of-state ID (like college students).
I know lots of old people. They all have to have ID to function in society, even the ones in assisted living.
Phanatik wrote:Manchu has been advocating it disenfranchises the poor, but can't prove it.
I suspected that you hadn't been reading the thread. They say trolling is an art and your style is certainly effortless. My argument is that voter ID requirements disenfranchise the poor because only people who can afford voter IDs (even if the ID itself is free) will be able to vote, regardless if they are otherwise eligible to vote. The opposing argument is that voter fraud disenfranchises eligible voters -- which, it turns out, is not actually an opposing argument. The real problem is that supporters of voter ID requirements believe that voter fraud is carried out in person and would be curtailed by government-issued voter IDs. No one in this thread has been able to show that this is actually happening. So, as I just posted a few minutes ago, the laws in question trade one hypothetical disenfranchisement against another. We have no evidence that one hypothetical disenfranchisement affects more eligible voters than the other. So it all washes out to being another obstacle in the way of people who are likely to vote for Democrats.
Using the term "trolling" is the fallback position for those that have lost the debate.
Why don't your poor elderly black disenfranchised democrats you refer to mail in their vote as well? That way they can apparently get around the need for valid I.D.?
Phanatik wrote:Why don't your poor elderly black disenfranchised democrats you refer to mail in their vote as well? That way they can apparently get around the need for valid I.D.?
Can you find the language of some specific statutes please? I'd rather not talk about "getting around the law" in the abstract. As far as I am aware, being poor and black is usually not enough to obtain an absentee ballot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Using the term "trolling" is the fallback position for those that have lost the debate.
It's also a fallback position for those who are being trolled.
Phanatik wrote:Why don't your poor elderly black disenfranchised democrats you refer to mail in their vote as well? That way they can apparently get around the need for valid I.D.?
Can you find the language of some specific statutes please? I'd rather not talk about "getting around the law" in the abstract. As far as I am aware, being poor and black is usually not enough to obtain an absentee ballot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Using the term "trolling" is the fallback position for those that have lost the debate.
It's also a fallback position for those who are being trolled.
Being an old fart is however, in almost every jurisdiction that has absentee ballots.
Manchu wrote:Yeah, I'm concerned with disenfranchisement. Trading one hypothetical disenfranchisement for another is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that the actual purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their base.
NBC Conneticut wrote:
New Haven Mayor John DeStefano plans to ask the state Legislature to allow illegal immigrants who live in the city to be able vote in municipal elections.
DeStefano, a Democrat, said illegal immigrants pay taxes indirectly through rent and send their kids to New Haven schools and should be able to vote.
My heart fair bleeds for thier inability to mobilize their base.
Amaya wrote:You continue to argue that the Democratic voting base is unable to acquire IDs, but have no evidence of this.
I should just post this on every page -- oh wait, I basically have: The disenfranchisement involved is entirely hypothetical both ways. I don't need to provide evidence of hypothetical disenfranchisement. This is like me asking you to provide evidence that voter fraud hypothetically occurs -- which was the IRL trollery Frazzled posted about in the OP and (surprise, surprise) my objection way back on page one was "that's not the issue." To wit:
Manchu wrote:Holder's argument is that people aren't committing voter fraud not that voter fraud is impossible. The video in question assumes the opposite premise of Holder's position in order to undermine it.
Amaya, my advice is to read the thread and then participate.
Manchu wrote:Can you find the language of some specific statutes please? I'd rather not talk about "getting around the law" in the abstract. As far as I am aware, being poor and black is usually not enough to obtain an absentee ballot.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v.
I've never utilized absentee voting (or mailing it in) but I think someone that is so poor they can't get an i.d. (but somehow makes it to the polling site?) or has other obstacles to their voting should be able to mail it in. Perhaps it falls under early voting?
Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: Another dance we've danced before -- racist intent is not required for racist result.
Ah the disparate impact argument from the EEOC. However, other than providing no evidence that would stand up in a court of law to support your claim, you've been alleging racist motivations all along. Don't try to soft pedal it now.
So put up or shut up. How is it racist, unless you are making your own racist assumptions.
Phanatik wrote:Manchu has been advocating it disenfranchises the poor, but can't prove it.
I suspected that you hadn't been reading the thread. They say trolling is an art and your style is certainly effortless. My argument is that voter ID requirements disenfranchise the poor because only people who can afford voter IDs (even if the ID itself is free) will be able to vote, regardless if they are otherwise eligible to vote. The opposing argument is that voter fraud disenfranchises eligible voters -- which, it turns out, is not actually an opposing argument. The real problem is that supporters of voter ID requirements believe that voter fraud is carried out in person and would be curtailed by government-issued voter IDs. No one in this thread has been able to show that this is actually happening. So, as I just posted a few minutes ago, the laws in question trade one hypothetical disenfranchisement against another. We have no evidence that one hypothetical disenfranchisement affects more eligible voters than the other. So it all washes out to being another obstacle in the way of people who are likely to vote for Democrats.
Using the term "trolling" is the fallback position for those that have lost the debate.
Why don't your poor elderly black disenfranchised democrats you refer to mail in their vote as well? That way they can apparently get around the need for valid I.D.?
I have never argued anything but what I am currently arguing, even in other threads. Voter ID requirements disproportionately affect black people. I believe it was even in this thread where I posted that there is nothing inherently racist about voter ID requirements -- and then you quoted my statement in agreement. You may have to be 65 to be old, Frazzled, but you don't have to be old to have a poor memory or argue disingenuously.
I have never argued anything but what I am currently arguing, even in other threads. Voter ID requirements disproportionately affect black people. I believe it was even in this thread where I posted that there is nothing inherently racist about voter ID requirements -- and then you quoted my statement in agreement. You may have to be 65 to be old, Frazzled, but you don't have to be old to have a poor memory or argue disingenuously.
Phanatik wrote:Do you recognize that some people are ineligible to vote for various reasons?
Yes.
Are you in favor of people that are ineligible to vote getting to vote anyway due to lax election processes?
Generally, no. Even if people who are otherwise eligible to vote would be disenfranchised, I'd still be able to support these laws if it were true that American elections were being undermined by in-person voter fraud. I'm not certain if I'd subscribe to the "one impersonation is too many" ideology -- after all, one impersonation is counterbalanced by one disenfranchisement of an otherwise eligible voter.
But that is pretend land. In the real world, it cannot be shown that in-person fraud is actually undermining American elections.
So I reiterate my stance: I oppose legislation designed to undermine the mobilization of any segment of eligible voters.
Getting away from the evil Democrat/Republican stuff now.
Ok so we're talkng disparate impact. How are you envisioning DI impacting minorities Manchu? Please elaborate. The reason being DI cases can often be addressed via measures to ameliorate that impact. For those not looking to DI a particular they would be onside with that.
Cost - make it free. (its free in Texas)
Availability - make it available. Some locales even have mobile services for this.
What else? If both parties have pure intent as in want to protect against potential fraud but at the same time not desiring a material DI, then issues should be addressed.
(I'll note these were issues the various courts have also reviewed, with revised and frankly better legislation following thereafter).
Lets do this from the standpoint of legislators attempting to craft good legislation.
Disparate impact. I just hate typing it constantly.
altneratively DI if you're Frazzled Sr., but then you have to talk in a quiet strained voice and make fun of Air Force and Navy guys at any opportunity.
I don't think you can sort it out that way. The ID requirement is an additional obstacle in the path of voters. The SCOTUS opinion was that the hypothetical obstacle did not outweigh the actual state interest and that's a fine standard for constitutional review. But if we're talking about legislators making good laws -- well, we have to balance hypothetically disenfranchising eligible voters against preventing disenfranchisement by hypothetical fraudsters. We will never be able to weigh them against each other because each is equally weightless. Now, as good legislators, we have to be mindful of the consequences of our proposed law -- and not just the ones we intend, obviously. Whether intentional or not, voter ID requirements will make it harder to mobilize certain voters. People who could hardly be bothered to register and show up will certainly not be bothered to obtain a voter ID. Dealing with this abstractly, we might say that there is no loss -- after all, no party has a prerogative over ambivalent or lazy voters. Unfortunately, we aren't just talking about who is willing -- but also who is able. This is where we encounter the perhaps unintentional disproportionate impact of voter ID requirements on the poor and by extension on black people. These are two groups that traditionally vote for Democratic candidates. So in effect what remains after we check hypothetical disenfranchisement off against hypothetical disenfranchisement is a law that will actually make it harder for Democrats to mobilize their traditional constituents. I know, I know -- the response is, so what? why shouldn't they have to work hard for votes? And that would be a great argument if voter ID requirements actually did anything except make it harder for Democrats to mobilize poor people, especially poor black people. As things stand, however, the law is just a transparent partisan abuse and cannot be rehabilitated short of someone demonstrating that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem.
If I was a Republican or Blue Dog in the state house, I would have to oppose these bills.
Manchu wrote:I don't think you can sort it out that way. The ID requirement is an additional obstacle in the path of voters. The SCOTUS opinion was that the hypothetical obstacle did not outweigh the actual state interest and that's a fine standard for constitutional review. But if we're talking about legislators making good laws -- well, we have to balance hypothetically disenfranchising eligible voters against preventing disenfranchisement by hypothetical fraudsters. We will never be able to weigh them against each other because each is equally weightless. Now, as good legislators, we have to be mindful of the consequences of our proposed law -- and not just the ones we intend, obviously. Whether intentional or not, voter ID requirements will make it harder to mobilize certain voters. People who could hardly be bothered to register and show up will certainly not be bothered to obtain a voter ID. Dealing with this abstractly, we might say that there is no loss -- after all, no party has a prerogative over ambivalent or lazy voters. Unfortunately, we aren't just talking about who is willing -- but also who is able. This is where we encounter the perhaps unintentional disproportionate impact of voter ID requirements on the poor and by extension on black people. These are two groups that traditionally vote for Democratic candidates. So in effect what remains after we check hypothetical disenfranchisement off against hypothetical disenfranchisement is a law that will actually make it harder for Democrats to mobilize their traditional constituents. I know, I know -- the response is, so what? why shouldn't they have to work hard for votes? And that would be a great argument if voter ID requirements actually did anything except make it harder for Democrats to mobilize poor people, especially poor black people. As things stand, however, the law is just a transparent partisan abuse and cannot be rehabilitated short of someone demonstrating that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem.
If I was a Republican or Blue Dog in the state house, I would have to oppose these bills.
Thats never been a legal standard though. The standard of "I'm too lazy" doesn't hold legal gravitas, especially when the effort is deminimis.
The standard of impacting who is able is more of a concern. What issues are not being mitigated by free cost, expanded DPS hours, and scheduled DPS remote facilities?
It's still an additional obstacle that cannot be justified. Your holding the hoop a little closer to the ground but I still see no reason why anyone should have to jump through it.
Manchu wrote:It's still an additional obstacle that cannot be justified. Your holding the hoop a little closer to the ground but I still see no reason why anyone should have to jump through it.
To potentially prevent fraud,same reason you have to have id for anything else. Its a minimum standard appropriate for a minimum regulation.
Manchu wrote:There is no reason to spend tax dollars on a program that prevents fraud that does not occur.
That may not occur. Of course the government spends tax dollars all the time like that for insurance, fire and damage prevention, etc. etc. So we're back to the legislation. Are there any mitigants yet needed for the nonlazy (not counting the whole absentee voting option which varies heavily depending on state).
Actually speaking of, if they are too lazy to get ID, and thats the standard you're discussing, how are they suddenly not too lazy to go vote? Getting an ID is at worst something needed every half decade or so. Voting is much more frequent. WOuld you have the same issue with absentee voting if it were restricted only to those with medical conditions or who are legitimately out of state?
Manchu wrote:I don't think you can sort it out that way. The ID requirement is an additional obstacle in the path of voters. The SCOTUS opinion was that the hypothetical obstacle did not outweigh the actual state interest and that's a fine standard for constitutional review. But if we're talking about legislators making good laws -- well, we have to balance hypothetically disenfranchising eligible voters against preventing disenfranchisement by hypothetical fraudsters. We will never be able to weigh them against each other because each is equally weightless. Now, as good legislators, we have to be mindful of the consequences of our proposed law -- and not just the ones we intend, obviously. Whether intentional or not, voter ID requirements will make it harder to mobilize certain voters. People who could hardly be bothered to register and show up will certainly not be bothered to obtain a voter ID. Dealing with this abstractly, we might say that there is no loss -- after all, no party has a prerogative over ambivalent or lazy voters. Unfortunately, we aren't just talking about who is willing -- but also who is able. This is where we encounter the perhaps unintentional disproportionate impact of voter ID requirements on the poor and by extension on black people. These are two groups that traditionally vote for Democratic candidates. So in effect what remains after we check hypothetical disenfranchisement off against hypothetical disenfranchisement is a law that will actually make it harder for Democrats to mobilize their traditional constituents. I know, I know -- the response is, so what? why shouldn't they have to work hard for votes? And that would be a great argument if voter ID requirements actually did anything except make it harder for Democrats to mobilize poor people, especially poor black people. As things stand, however, the law is just a transparent partisan abuse and cannot be rehabilitated short of someone demonstrating that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem.
If I was a Republican or Blue Dog in the state house, I would have to oppose these bills.
The evolution of your criticism of valid i.d. requirement laws in this thread is truly amazing.
You have reached the point where you're against it because the democrat base is lazy, and just ONE more straw in their way will keep them home. And we're supposed to care?
Is it racist for you to suggest that the poor, blacks, and the elderly are lazy?
Reading that huge block of text is like listening to Louis Farrakhan give a speech. The roundabout circular logic is mindnumbing.
Frazzled wrote: Of course the government spends tax dollars all the time like that for insurance, fire and damage prevention, etc. etc.
Insurance is a very, very bad analogy but I'll run with it to show you why. Insurance means that, for a payment, you can transfer your potential loss to someone else. The loss we're considering here is disenfranchisement. In this case, people who can afford voter IDs are transferring the risk of their own disenfranchisement to people who cannot afford voter IDs. The trouble is that we're not paying any premium to those who must cover the loss. Also, loss is not actually being transferred: even if those who can afford voter IDs are never disenfranchised those who cannot afford them still might be.
Thats a misplaced argument in that you argued we shouldn't pay government expense for something that may not occur, not opportunity costs related to the voters themselves.
Further, they have no disenfranchisement costs under the Frazzled Voter Act. Any disenfranchisement they face is if they literally can't put themselves out. But thats not economic specific. I know lots of lazy rich people. Heck I hope to be one if this Lotto ticket is da winner!
Voter ID requirements are nothing like insurance. That an event may occur, especially when it is not occurring and there is no evidence to support that it is at all likely to occur in the future, is not sufficient grounds to restrict access to voting.
Also, I have already explained that voter ID requirements do not only hypothetically disenfranchise those who are not willing but also those who are not able. I don't want a budget bloated with all kinds of spending on programs to mitigate disparate impact of a law that addresses a non-existent problem.
Manchu wrote:Voter ID requirements are nothing like insurance. That an event may occur, especially when it is not occurring and there is no evidence to support that it is at all likely to occur in the future, is not sufficient grounds to restrict access to voting.
Also, I have already explained that voter ID requirements do not only hypothetically disenfranchise those who are not willing but also those who are not able. I don't want a budget bloated with all kinds of spending on programs to mitigate disparate impact of a law that addresses a non-existent problem.
Actually you didn't address how it impacts those "who are not able," when there are mitigants put in place to prevent that harm. What other mitigants are needed for those "who are not able."
If none then we're back to "the lazy." Again, if its really about "the lazy" why are they a concern when "the lazy" would be too lazy to show up and vote? Further, why are you saying the poor and elderly are more lazy than any other group?
I don't need to explain how we might mitigate the hypothetical disenfranchisement of poor black people because there is no justification for the laws that would require mitigation.
Manchu wrote:@Seaward/Phanatik: I have a feeling that if this was voice chat you guys wouldn't even bother to speak. I have a feeling that you would just emit an incessant, high-pitched whine that I could hear even over Frazzled's impersonation of Dachshund barking.
Nah. Frankly, I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to hear some of these hilarious assertions in real time.
Manchu wrote:I don't need to explain how we might mitigate the hypothetical disenfranchisement of poor black people because there is no justification for the laws that would require mitigation.
So...you're boxed in now and can't, because you're reduced to defending "the lazy" which isn't a valid disparate impact argument.
Woops off to watch my Poles get their heads handed to them yet again, by Brits today I think. My valiant Poles, so brave, with such an incompetent commander (helps if I had time to like read the rules...)
Manchu wrote:I don't need to explain how we might mitigate the hypothetical disenfranchisement of poor black people because there is no justification for the laws that would require mitigation.
So...you're boxed in now and can't, because you're reduced to defending "the lazy" which isn't a valid disparate impact argument.
Woops off to watch my Poles get their heads handed to them yet again, by Brits today I think. My valiant Poles, so brave, with such an incompetent commander (helps if I had time to like read the rules...)
First, I have made a distinction between those who are unwilling to vote and those who are unable. I will not otherwise respond to your attempt to troll me by pretending that I am saying old, poor, or black people are more lazy than anyone else.
Second, you are posing a question about mitigating damage. I am saying there is no need to inflict damage in the first place. You acknowledge that there is a harm but you refuse to justify why you need to cause it. Yes, I know you keep talking about voter fraud but I have shown you and you have not been able to contradict the fact that in-person voter fraud is not an issue.
I'll try another analogy: You insist that we talk about the best types of casts and I am telling you not to break the leg. You're saying that the leg may one day be broken so we'd best go ahead and break it anyway and figure out about casts.
Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: Another dance we've danced before -- racist intent is not required for racist result.
Again, there is no evidence that this will happen.
You're arguing for the sole sake or arguing. Your entire line of reasoning is based on a theoretical possibility and on prior Jim Crow laws.
Assuming a racist result is not an issue, is there a reason to not implement voter ID laws? The next argument I see is cost, is the cost so high that it's prohibitive? There are multiple forms of ID you can use such as a military ID and driver's license. The only number I can find quickly for number of registered drivers in the US is 106 million.
The only reasonable argument against it is that it is unnecessary as there is not a major problem with fraudulent voting. Most of the people you (Mancu) are arguing against will probably not agree with this, but you need to stop playing the race card with this as it is not applicable.
Amaya, I'm really not interested in the race card. A law that forces anybody to pay for anything will disproportionately affect the poor. Black people are disproportionately poor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:The only reasonable argument against it is that it is unnecessary as there is not a major problem with fraudulent voting.
It is not only unnecessary; it also hypothetically disenfranchises people and it "incidentally" puts a further obstacle in the way of mobilizing people who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates.
Manchu wrote:Amaya, I'm really not interested in the race card. A law that forces anybody to pay for anything will disproportionately affect the poor. Black people are disproportionately poor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:The only reasonable argument against it is that it is unnecessary as there is not a major problem with fraudulent voting.
It is not only unnecessary; it also hypothetically disenfranchises people and it "incidentally" puts a further obstacle in the way of mobilizing people who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates.
That is completely irrelevant as there significantly higher numbers of poor white people. In all likelihood, they vote Republican.
Blacks
- Higher % of poor
+ Closer to areas where they can acquire a form of voter ID - Vote Democrat
Whites
- Higher total numbers of poor
- Significant numbers in rural areas with less access to government services
- Vote Republican
If anything, this looks like it would hurt Republicans more...but it doesn't matter because the primary argument for implementing nation wide Voter ID laws is to counter fraudulent voting which is a massively overblown issue.
Lastly, yes, saying that this could theoretically impact blacks more than any other ethnic group is playing the race card, because that line of reasoning suggests that proponents of the law want it in order to disenfranchise minorities to weaken the Democratic voting base. You can argue the semantics, but it comes dangerously close to saying "Republics support this because they don't want minorities to vote."
