Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:Is that how much you would charge?

No. Its double what I'd pay.

Manchu wrote:@Phanatik:

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?

Best,

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.

Only if the Democratic base is fraudulent voters.

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.

Best,

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).

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?

Cheers,

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.

People without ID still "function" in our society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:NOW THATS TROLLING.
You might take a breather Manchu.

Oh haha, sorry, I forgot the orkmoticon.

Manchu wrote:People without ID still "function" in our society.

How exactly? How do they do so legally?

If they are not acting legally I don't want them voting in the first place.

We already have laws to that effect, at least regarding felons, in nearly every state. Here in the Commonwealth, felons are permabanned.

Manchu wrote:We already have laws to that effect, at least regarding felons, in every state. Here in the Commonwealth, felons are permabanned.

Unless they register under another name...

Yes, even laws sometimes are not enough to keep people from being criminals.

Manchu wrote:Yes, even laws sometimes are not enough to keep people from being criminals.

Thats why we Judge Dredd!!! er...Manchu?

???

Manchu wrote:

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.?

Cheers,

@Frazzled: Well, he's tough but fair, you know, if you're a fascist.

Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: Well, he's tough but fair, you know, if you're a fascist.

well you know what they say. Some of my best friends are carneys.

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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

A old farts 65 or older can get one. If you're only 64, however, you're out of luck.

You continue to argue that the Democratic voting base is unable to acquire IDs, but have no evidence of this.

I don't know if you're arguing for the sake of arguing or what...

Manchu wrote:A old farts 65 or older can get one. If you're only 64, however, you're out of luck.

If you're only 64, you're not old either.

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?

Cheers,

Phanatik, I am 100% in favor of any loopholes that render voter ID requirements ineffective.

Yea you kinda do actually. You're the one throwing aroujnd that its racism.