PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama election staffers have no problem with vote early and vote often.


jjjayb
10-10-2012, 07:01 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tBa7SZ8FK-Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/q_iJfnbMzI0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mnchiefsguy
10-10-2012, 07:44 PM
But we don't need to show ID at the polls, Direckshun said so......

Brainiac
10-11-2012, 05:49 AM
If you don't vote at least twice for Obama, you're a racist.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 06:04 AM
But we don't need to show ID at the polls, Direckshun said so......

Did you watch the videos? Voter ID requirements wouldn't seem to prevent the type of fraud the videos show.

Actually, I think Direckshun and other opponents of voter ID requirements have been more than willing to acknowledge that fraud, although not occurring to a significant degree in-person, can be widespread through absentee and mail-in ballots.

Don't be stupid.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 06:20 AM
Did you watch the videos? Voter ID requirements wouldn't seem to prevent the type of fraud the videos show.

Actually, I think Direckshun and other opponents of voter ID requirements have been more than willing to acknowledge that fraud, although not occurring to a significant degree in-person, can be widespread through absentee and mail-in ballots.

Don't be stupid.

But registering by mail does allow illegal voting because no ID is ever required. And do you think these same staffers, who think nothing of voting twice, wouldn't allow someone to register without ID?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 07:08 AM
But registering by mail does allow illegal voting because no ID is ever required. And do you think these same staffers, who think nothing of voting twice, wouldn't allow someone to register without ID?

I think you are conflating two different things: 1) voting and 2) registering to vote.

As you just acknowledged, you don't need a photo ID to register to vote. You fill out a form provided by the state and mail it in. You need to write either your driver's license or the last four digits of your SS on the form and swear that you are able to vote.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 07:55 AM
I think you are conflating two different things: 1) voting and 2) registering to vote.

As you just acknowledged, you don't need a photo ID to register to vote. You fill out a form provided by the state and mail it in. You need to write either your driver's license or the last four digits of your SS on the form and swear that you are able to vote.

Oh, yes. I swear, I'm eligible to vote! I would never lie about that!

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 07:58 AM
I think you are conflating two different things: 1) voting and 2) registering to vote.

As you just acknowledged, you don't need a photo ID to register to vote. You fill out a form provided by the state and mail it in. You need to write either your driver's license or the last four digits of your SS on the form and swear that you are able to vote.

Funny, because here is a copy of the first registration by mail from I found when searching google. It is from Wisconsin.

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/gab_forms/4/gab_131_voter_registration_app_rev_2012_06_filla_89481.pdf

Notice anything? Oh, the spot to check for "i don't have a license or ssn.".

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:00 AM
Oh, yes. I swear, I'm eligible to vote! I would never lie about that!

Huh? You're making no sense. Is your problem with mail-in voter registration?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:01 AM
Funny, because here is a copy of the first registration by mail from I found when searching google. It is from Wisconsin.

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/gab_forms/4/gab_131_voter_registration_app_rev_2012_06_filla_89481.pdf

Notice anything? Oh, the spot to check for "i don't have a license or ssn.".

WHAT IS YOUR POINT!?!?

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 08:04 AM
Hmm,

Here's Missouri's

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/register2vote/Jackson.pdf


Same thing. It says if you do not have a drivers license or SSN, leave it blank.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 08:06 AM
WHAT IS YOUR POINT!?!?

My point, is that it is VERY easy to fradulently register, then vote. Because there is NO necessity to prove your identity. In these videos, you can clearly see that fraud is not that big of a deal to these paid Obama staffers. Do you REALLY think that the hoopla about requiring ID to vote is about disenfranchment of poor voters? But keep burying your head in the sand.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:06 AM
Hmm,

Here's Missouri's

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/register2vote/Jackson.pdf


Same thing. It says if you do not have a drivers license or SSN, leave it blank.

Are you trying to say that if you simply check that box, you will still get registered the same as any other person who does provide their Driver's License/SS?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:09 AM
My point, is that it is VERY easy to fradulently register, then vote. Because there is NO necessity to prove your identity. In these videos, you can clearly see that fraud is not that big of a deal to these paid Obama staffers. Do you REALLY think that the hoopla about requiring ID to vote is about disenfranchment of poor voters? But keep burying your head in the sand.

Of course it's about disenfranchisement of eligible voters! Ending voter fraud is a pretext for the disenfranchisement of poor, usually minority, voters who tend to vote Democrat.

Registration might be easy to fraud. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CURRENT LAW REFORM MOVEMENT IS DOING.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 08:09 AM
Are you trying to say that if you simply check that box, you will still get registered the same as any other person who does provide their Driver's License/SS?

Yes. Does it say otherwise? You only need to provide proof of residence to register. SSN or Driver's license are NOT required to register. But keep pushing that falsehood.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 08:17 AM
Of course it's about disenfranchisement of eligible voters! Ending voter fraud is a pretext for the disenfranchisement of poor, usually minority, voters who tend to vote Democrat.

Registration might be easy to fraud. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CURRENT LAW REFORM MOVEMENT IS DOING.

Yes, that is what it's doing. As you can clearly see, it's very easy to register fraudualenty. The whole defense you have been giving for not having to show ID at the polls, is that you have to show ID when you register. You've been proposing this as a foolproof system that negates the need for ID at the polls. That's clearly not true. As it is right now, I can very easily register under a different name than the one I'm currently registered under and vote more than once. So now what's your defense?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:17 AM
Yes. Does it say otherwise? You only need to provide proof of residence to register. SSN or Driver's license are NOT required to register. But keep pushing that falsehood.

No, you're filed into an "incomplete status" or "pending status" registration. If your state does allow you to vote with that status, you most likely have to prove with additional documentation your eligibility to vote. You can call your state's Secretary of State to find this information out instead of making it up.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:22 AM
Yes, that is what it's doing. As you can clearly see, it's very easy to register fraudualenty. The whole defense you have been giving for not having to show ID at the polls, is that you have to show ID when you register. You've been proposing this as a foolproof system that negates the need for ID at the polls. That's clearly not true. As it is right now, I can very easily register under a different name than the one I'm currently registered under and vote more than once. So now what's your defense?

No, the current law reform movement is over in-person voting.

Do you know the basic facts of the controversy?

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 08:28 AM
No, the current law reform movement is over in-person voting.

Do you know the basic facts of the controversy?

Of course I do. Don't be dense. Your defense for not requiring government issued ID during in person voting has been that you need it during registration. But this isn't true.

mikey23545
10-11-2012, 08:32 AM
Of course I do. Don't be dense. Your defense for not requiring government issued ID during in person voting has been that you need it during registration. But this isn't true.

Like any ambulance-chasing shyster, his defense boils down to arguing over the meaning of the word "is".

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:36 AM
Of course I do. Don't be dense. Your defense for not requiring government issued ID during in person voting has been that you need it during registration. But this isn't true.

You have shown no grasp of either the controversy about the in-person ID laws or the difference between registering to vote and actually voting. I don't think you're qualified to comment with any credibility about this issue.

You post a video that demonstrates voting registration fraud. Do you want to tackle registration fraud? Or do you really just want to enact laws right before an election that unproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:38 AM
Like any ambulance-chasing shyster, his defense boils down to arguing over the meaning of the word "is".

I'm not a personal injury lawyer. I'm not even commenting on the wisdom of in-person voter ID laws, which I'm not exactly against.

I'm against the idea that "Y is fraud," therefore, "X is fraud" when there's a real difference between Y and X.

HonestChieffan
10-11-2012, 08:38 AM
I just looked at Iowas process. You can register by mail and you can use either drivers lic number or SS number to register. With all the phoney SS numbers out there id bet its easy to slip through. And the lead time is 10 days so you know the verification process is less than complete

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:40 AM
I just looked at Iowas process. You can register by mail and you can use either drivers lic number or SS number to register. With all the phoney SS numbers out there id bet its easy to slip through. And the lead time is 10 days so you know the verification process is less than complete

So let's talk about voter registration fraud, then!

What's your solution for a fair voting registration system? A DNA database? Stricter penalties to disincentivize fraud? A year long waiting process so the bureaucratic system can check multiple forms of evidence for everyone that registers?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:48 AM
Or is there a reason (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/30/3027663/republicans-play-defense-over.html) the Republicans on this forum don't want to deal with voter registration fraud?

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 08:52 AM
Oh no. Let's deal with it. I disagree with allowing 3rd party groups to have registration drives. As you can see from both Republicans now and Democrats, it leads to fraud. See, some of us have principles that aren't defined by party line.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:54 AM
Oh no. Let's deal with it. I disagree with allowing 3rd party groups to have registration drives. As you can see from both Republicans now and Democrats, it leads to fraud. See, some of us have principles that aren't defined by party line.

And your solution to dealing with it is to ban 3rd parties from doing registration drives? Leave it just to the parties?

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 08:54 AM
You have shown no grasp of either the controversy about the in-person ID laws or the difference between registering to vote and actually voting. I don't think you're qualified to comment with any credibility about this issue.

You post a video that demonstrates voting registration fraud. Do you want to tackle registration fraud? Or do you really just want to enact laws right before an election that unproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters?

I have no grasp? The MAJORITY of United States Citizens believe there should be voter ID laws. Whereas a majority of Democrats do not. The majority of Americans who believe voter ID laws should be passed (myself included) feel it is far too easy to vote fraudulantly. The democrats who don't want this passed, feel that it would be disenfranchising poor voters, because it would be waaaay to hard to get a state issued ID. Pretty much sums it up right? Next.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 08:58 AM
I have no grasp? The MAJORITY of United States Citizens believe there should be voter ID laws. Whereas a majority of Democrats do not. The majority of Americans who believe voter ID laws should be passed (myself included) feel it is far too easy to vote fraudulantly. The democrats who don't want this passed, feel that it would be disenfranchising poor voters, because it would be waaaay to hard to get a state issued ID. Pretty much sums it up right? Next.

I'm not saying you don't have a grasp. I'm saying that you have shown no grasp. Voter ID laws are fine if they are enacted in a fair process, but not in a bum-rush overhaul that ends up cutting out significant percentages of legal, American citizens from exercising one of the fundamental freedoms this country allegedly stands for.

mikey23545
10-11-2012, 09:06 AM
Of course it's about disenfranchisement of eligible voters! Ending voter fraud is a pretext for the disenfranchisement of poor, usually minority, voters who tend to vote Democrat.


"A subsequent United States Department of Justice report which surveyed homicide statistics between 1974 and 2004 stated that of the crimes surveyed, 52.1% of the offenders were Black, 45.9% were White, and 2% were Other Races. Of the victims in those same crimes, 51% were White, 46.9% were Black, and 2.1% were Other Races. The report further noted that, "most murders are intraracial", with 86% of White murders committed by Whites, and 94% of Black murders committed by Blacks.[6] It should be noted that the document does not provide any details concerning what races or ethnicities are included in the designations "White", "Black", or "Other Races".'


So I guess this statistic proves that laws against homicide are enacted to discriminate against blacks, who tend to be Democrats, right?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 09:09 AM
"A subsequent United States Department of Justice report which surveyed homicide statistics between 1974 and 2004 stated that of the crimes surveyed, 52.1% of the offenders were Black, 45.9% were White, and 2% were Other Races. Of the victims in those same crimes, 51% were White, 46.9% were Black, and 2.1% were Other Races. The report further noted that, "most murders are intraracial", with 86% of White murders committed by Whites, and 94% of Black murders committed by Blacks.[6] It should be noted that the document does not provide any details concerning what races or ethnicities are included in the designations "White", "Black", or "Other Races".'


So I guess this statistic proves that laws against homicide are enacted to discriminate against blacks, who tend to be Democrats, right?

Obviously. Also, there's obviously no such thing as pretext. Can't exist.

mikey23545
10-11-2012, 10:14 AM
Obviously. Also, there's obviously no such thing as pretext. Can't exist.

In other words, after having your dick knocked in the dirt, you're just going to stick it in your pocket and slink home.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 11:09 AM
In other words, after having your dick knocked in the dirt, you're just going to stick it in your pocket and slink home.

You've made a pitiful analogy. Homicide laws have existed for centuries. They were not enacted as a pretext to lock up black people and they don't continue to exist as a pretext to lock up black people. Homicide laws exist for good reason: when someone kills another person, they should be punished because it is just and it deters further homicides.

On the other hand, voter ID laws are very new, and they were enacted as a pretext to disenfranchise demographics that tend to vote Democrat. The voter ID laws are backed by very little evidence of in-person voter fraud, and they negatively affect completely lawful citizens who deserve to vote for their representatives.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 12:26 PM
You've made a pitiful analogy. Homicide laws have existed for centuries. They were not enacted as a pretext to lock up black people and they don't continue to exist as a pretext to lock up black people. Homicide laws exist for good reason: when someone kills another person, they should be punished because it is just and it deters further homicides.

On the other hand, voter ID laws are very new, and they were enacted as a pretext to disenfranchise demographics that tend to vote Democrat. The voter ID laws are backed by very little evidence of in-person voter fraud, and they negatively affect completely lawful citizens who deserve to vote for their representatives.

You got some proof for the bolded part of your statement, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Here are some of things that you need a photo ID for:

buy alcohol… beer or hard liquor
writing a check at most places
applying for credit
closing on a loan
getting a passport
getting on an airplane
adopting a pet
open a bank account
get medical care
serve on jury duty (in most places)
buying a car
rent a car
register a car
buy cigarettes, tobacco products…. if you look young enough
purchasing certain prescription drugs and in some states – it is required to purchase certain cold medicine
cash transactions of $5,000 or more

So if you need an ID for all of those, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for an ID when voting?

alpha_omega
10-11-2012, 12:48 PM
....So if you need an ID for all of those, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for an ID when voting?


Ha, reasonable is irrelevant...didn't you get the memo?

RedNeckRaider
10-11-2012, 12:48 PM
You got some proof for the bolded part of your statement, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Here are some of things that you need a photo ID for:

buy alcohol… beer or hard liquor
writing a check at most places
applying for credit
closing on a loan
getting a passport
getting on an airplane
adopting a pet
open a bank account
get medical care
serve on jury duty (in most places)
buying a car
rent a car,
register a car
buy cigarettes, tobacco products…. if you look young enough
purchasing certain prescription drugs and in some states – it is required to purchase certain cold medicine
cash transactions of $5,000 or more

So if you need an ID for all of those, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for an ID when voting?
In some states you have to have a photo ID no matter your age to be in a bar. The fight against this is silly plain and simple. If you cannot manage to produce a photo ID you suck at life and not being able to vote is the least of your problems~

La literatura
10-11-2012, 12:49 PM
You got some proof for the bolded part of your statement, or are you just talking out of your ass?

You have to use the power of inference. It's very rare that a person publicly announces the underlining motivation behind the pretext. A very telling and remarkable moment was the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House announcing that the new measures would allow Mitt Romney to win the state. That's almost like a person who immediately after chiseling away the black districts outside of city limits in a new redistricting scheme goes, "There, now we can probably get a few respectable citizens elected to the City of Pleasantville Council."

Here are some of things that you need a photo ID for:

So if you need an ID for all of those, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for an ID when voting?

Yes, I think it is reasonable to ask for an ID. I have no problem with moving towards those requirements. However, the way we move there has to be in recognition of the fundamental right that voting is. When thousands of legal citizens' right to vote is being threatened, and a lot of people aren't going to be able to get their photo IDs in time for the election, then we need to realize that their fundamental freedom trumps our desire to align voting procedure with alcohol purchases.

Why do you think these laws have been struck down by courts? It's because the procedure of their enactment has been unreasonable!

La literatura
10-11-2012, 12:52 PM
Ha, reasonable is irrelevant...didn't you get the memo?

Let's put the test on you: How much do you care about reasonableness? Do you think the judicial orders dealing with these laws have been reasonable?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 12:54 PM
One poster says to me: "Voter ID laws are not intended to disenfranchise anyone, stupid."

The voting ID laws were designed to disenfranchise minorities, old people, and poor people who tend to vote Democratic. The argument of In-Person Voter Fraud was a pretext for that underlying design.

A similar thing occurred in the Jim Crow era. Measures were enacted that established literacy levels or property requirements to vote. Nobody said, "We are enacting this law to stop the blacks from voting." Instead, they said things like "We just want a smart electorate to decide who should be the leaders of our state/city/etc" or "Property gives people a stake in the community. Propertyless people don't have a stake, so they don't care to make a good decision." These concerns were pretexts for the underlying design to stop black people from having a say in elections.

You people are aware of this history, correct? This was taught in your school, right? You've read some books about American political history and pretextual measures, right?

RedNeckRaider
10-11-2012, 12:58 PM
The voting ID laws were designed to disenfranchise minorities, old people, and poor people who tend to vote Democratic. The argument of In-Person Voter Fraud was a pretext for that underlying design.

As I have said, if you cannot produce a photo ID you suck at life. Those people have bigger problems than voting. I support their rights but have no problem admitting I would rather the did not vote or reproduce for that matter~

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:05 PM
As I have said, if you cannot produce a photo ID you suck at life. Those people have bigger problems than voting. I support their rights but have no problem admitting I would rather the did not vote or reproduce for that matter~

Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 01:08 PM
One poster says to me: "Voter ID laws are not intended to disenfranchise anyone, stupid."

The voting ID laws were designed to disenfranchise minorities, old people, and poor people who tend to vote Democratic. The argument of In-Person Voter Fraud was a pretext for that underlying design.

A similar thing occurred in the Jim Crow era. Measures were enacted that established literacy levels or property requirements to vote. Nobody said, "We are enacting this law to stop the blacks from voting." Instead, they said things like "We just want a smart electorate to decide who should be the leaders of our state/city/etc" or "Property gives people a stake in the community. Propertyless people don't have a stake, so they don't care to make a good decision." These concerns were pretexts for the underlying design to stop black people from having a say in elections.

You people are aware of this history, correct? This was taught in your school, right? You've read some books about American political history and pretextual measures, right?


So you maintain that the sole purpose that these laws were proposed is to disenfranchise voters. That at no time did any of these state legislators (over 30 of them) considered protecting the legitimacy of the actual election?

You sure do like playing that race card.

Comparing the current laws to Jim Crow is disingenuous at best.

I also fail to see how making a reasonable requirement of voting (a photo ID), is someone disenfranchising and racist. Do minorities not cash checks? Do they not get mortgages? Do they not buy cold medicine? Should we change those laws, and not require any form of ID for anything at all?

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 01:10 PM
Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

Again, I fail to see how a photo ID is an "undue burden". You need a photo ID to collect welfare and food stamps as well...should we stop that, since it disenfranchises the unemployed?

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 01:11 PM
Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

I do not think that is RR's principle at all...but I cannot speak for him. He just disagrees with the definition of "undue burdens"

RedNeckRaider
10-11-2012, 01:11 PM
Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

Read my post again Jensen. I said I support their rights~

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 01:15 PM
So what he is saying is that the MAJORITY of America are racists. Because the majority of Americans think ID laws are needed. That's why you and I agree with this law. Not because we think it will prevent fraud, but because we don't want poor black democrats to vote. If you didn't know you were a racist, you are. Just ask Literature.

ROYC75
10-11-2012, 01:16 PM
Cheating to win is an American right, it's mandatory if you are a liberal democrat. When one has no values or morals, cheating becomes a way of life.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:16 PM
So you maintain that the sole purpose that these laws were proposed is to disenfranchise voters. That at no time did any of these state legislators (over 30 of them) considered protecting the legitimacy of the actual election?

You sure do like playing that race card.

Comparing the current laws to Jim Crow is disingenuous at best.

I also fail to see how making a reasonable requirement of voting (a photo ID), is someone disenfranchising and racist. Do minorities not cash checks? Do they not get mortgages? Do they not buy cold medicine? Should we change those laws, and not require any form of ID for anything at all?

No, I think there were several purposes, and one was most likely to prevent in-person voting fraud. But we know that in-person voting fraud is very rare. Where there is voting fraud is in mail-in voting. But the amount of times people have come to the voting booth and said that they were someone they really weren't has barely ever happened, if ever. (The reasons for that should be rather obvious: that kind of fraud faces a serious penalty, and the chances of being caught are very good: if you claim to be someone on the registration list, and that actually someone comes into vote, you're fucked; and since voting rolls are public after the election, the person you alleged to be can see that someone stole his identity).

Because of how rare in-person voting fraud is, and because of how widespread the problem of not immediately having a voter ID was for many minorities, poor, and older citizens, the driving purpose of these laws becomes clear to any person who isn't hopelessly naive or dishonest: this was a way that could disenfranchise many likely Democratic voters on election night.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:18 PM
Again, I fail to see how a photo ID is an "undue burden". You need a photo ID to collect welfare and food stamps as well...should we stop that, since it disenfranchises the unemployed?

Have you read the judicial orders or opinions on these cases? Do you care about those opinions? Maybe that will help you understand why the enactment of these laws so close to the 2012 election became undue burdens to such a degree that the courts have said, "You can probably make these laws, but not like how you did here and now."

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:20 PM
Read my post again Jensen. I said I support their rights~

Great! You definitely seem to be a huge pillar of support for people's right to vote. Keep up the terrific work!

RedNeckRaider
10-11-2012, 01:23 PM
So what he is saying is that the MAJORITY of America are racists. Because the majority of Americans think ID laws are needed. That's why you and I agree with this law. Not because we think it will prevent fraud, but because we don't want poor black democrats to vote. If you didn't know you were a racist, you are. Just ask Literature.

The laws needed to be changed. Until they are we have to deal with the laws in place. IMO those who are claiming to defend the poor in this debate know they are full of shit. They do however have very solid footing in this debate. The law is the law and if one person is denied their right to vote that person must be defended~

RedNeckRaider
10-11-2012, 01:24 PM
Great! You definitely seem to be a huge pillar of support for people's right to vote. Keep up the terrific work!

Whatever Jensen~

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:26 PM
So what he is saying is that the MAJORITY of America are racists. Because the majority of Americans think ID laws are needed. That's why you and I agree with this law. Not because we think it will prevent fraud, but because we don't want poor black democrats to vote. If you didn't know you were a racist, you are. Just ask Literature.

I think a majority of people fall into one or more of these categories: 1) don't mind disenfranchising likely Democratic voters, 2) have a false perception that there's a ton of voter fraud going on in our elections and want to do something about it because they hear about it on the media, or 3) think that voter ID laws are a reasonable procedure.

I also think that aside from the first group of people, and some who fall only into the second group, and almost everyone entirely in the third group would realize that there needs to be a fair advanced-warning process in place for these measures.

And I think Republican lawmakers have a vested interest in the first group of people. Because one less Democrat voting is one more advantage to their keeping their jobs. But perhaps I'm a little too cynical of some Republican politicians.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 01:28 PM
The laws needed to be changed. Until they are we have to deal with the laws in place. IMO those who are claiming to defend the poor in this debate know they are full of shit. They do however have very solid footing in this debate. The law is the law and if one person is denied their right to vote that person must be defended~

The timing of the laws, and the manner of payment seem to be the main hangups on these laws. I am on record stating that if someone cannot afford a photo ID, and the state is requiring one, that the state has the burden of supplying that ID free of charge to those who cannot afford it. The other concern appears to be that given the proximity of the election, that enough time needs to be given so that those who wish to get said ID have an opportunity to do so. Legislators, as they typically do, passed the laws too late in their sessions to get them enacted in time.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:30 PM
The timing of the laws, and the manner of payment seem to be the main hangups on these laws. I am on record stating that if someone cannot afford a photo ID, and the state is requiring one, that the state has the burden of supplying that ID free of charge to those who cannot afford it. The other concern appears to be that given the proximity of the election, that enough time needs to be given so that those who wish to get said ID have an opportunity to do so. Legislators, as they typically do, passed the laws too late in their sessions to get them enacted in time.

Do you seriously think that was an accident?

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 01:32 PM
I think a majority of people fall into one or more of these categories: 1) don't mind disenfranchising likely Democratic voters, 2) have a false perception that there's a ton of voter fraud going on in our elections and want to do something about it because they hear about it on the media, or 3) think that voter ID laws are a reasonable procedure.

I also think that aside from the first group of people, and some who fall only into the second group, and almost everyone entirely in the third group would realize that there needs to be a fair advanced-warning process in place for these measures.

And I think Republican lawmakers have a vested interest in the first group of people. Because one less Democrat voting is one more advantage to their keeping their jobs. But perhaps I'm a little too cynical of some Republican politicians.

You conveniently left out category #4..Those that don't mind illegals and voter fraud because those votes heavily factor Democrats and allow them to keep their jobs. You cannot have category 1 without category 4.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:34 PM
You conveniently left out category #4..Those that don't mind illegals and voter fraud because those votes heavily factor Democrats and allow them to keep their jobs. You cannot have category 1 without category 4.

In-person voter fraud does not happen enough to give any party an advantage in elections! What part of this aren't you understanding?

RedNeckRaider
10-11-2012, 01:34 PM
The timing of the laws, and the manner of payment seem to be the main hangups on these laws. I am on record stating that if someone cannot afford a photo ID, and the state is requiring one, that the state has the burden of supplying that ID free of charge to those who cannot afford it. The other concern appears to be that given the proximity of the election, that enough time needs to be given so that those who wish to get said ID have an opportunity to do so. Legislators, as they typically do, passed the laws too late in their sessions to get them enacted in time.

You and I are on the same page~

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 01:35 PM
Do you seriously think that was an accident?

Given that the Democrats in said legislatures did everything in their power to prevent those bills from being passed, I think it is just a result of the legislative process....any highly contested bill is going to take longer to pass...committee delays, long debates on the floor, attempts to hold the bill by certain legislators, etc.

Thinking that somehow the Republicans in those states magically held those bills to the last minute and snuck them under the radar is, frankly, tin-foil hat material.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:48 PM
Given that the Democrats in said legislatures did everything in their power to prevent those bills from being passed, I think it is just a result of the legislative process....any highly contested bill is going to take longer to pass...committee delays, long debates on the floor, attempts to hold the bill by certain legislators, etc.

Thinking that somehow the Republicans in those states magically held those bills to the last minute and snuck them under the radar is, frankly, tin-foil hat material.

Do you realize you can look up the legislative history of these laws?

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 01:50 PM
No, I think there were several purposes, and one was most likely to prevent in-person voting fraud. But we know that in-person voting fraud is very rare. Where there is voting fraud is in mail-in voting. But the amount of times people have come to the voting booth and said that they were someone they really weren't has barely ever happened, if ever. (The reasons for that should be rather obvious: that kind of fraud faces a serious penalty, and the chances of being caught are very good: if you claim to be someone on the registration list, and that actually someone comes into vote, you're ****ed; and since voting rolls are public after the election, the person you alleged to be can see that someone stole his identity).

Because of how rare in-person voting fraud is, and because of how widespread the problem of not immediately having a voter ID was for many minorities, poor, and older citizens, the driving purpose of these laws becomes clear to any person who isn't hopelessly naive or dishonest: this was a way that could disenfranchise many likely Democratic voters on election night.

There is no way to either prove or disprove that in-person voter fraud is rare. When you can register and vote without proving you are a real person, how could you prove it happened?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 01:57 PM
There is no way to either prove or disprove that in-person voter fraud is rare.

Maybe that explains why Pennsylvania was asked to provide evidence in support of their law to the courts, and Pennsylvania said, "Um, we can't. Just trust us." Imagine a judge hearing that. "You have no evidence that it's a problem, but you're enacting a law that significantly burdens thousands of voters for the purpose of stopping that problem?"

"Yes, your honor. You see, this could help Mitt Romney win presi -- I mean, the integrity of the electoral process demands it."

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 01:57 PM
There is no way to either prove or disprove that in-person voter fraud is rare. When you can register and vote without proving you are a real person, how could you prove it happened?

Just like there is no way that you can prove that requiring a photo ID is an unreasonable burden and will disenfranchise legitimate voters. But for some reason, we must accept that to be a universal truth.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 02:05 PM
Just like there is no way that you can prove that requiring a photo ID is an unreasonable burden and will disenfranchise legitimate voters. But for some reason, we must accept that to be a universal truth.

You haven't read the plaintiff's brief or the judge's opinion, have you? Were you aware there was an actual hearing over this issue in PA? Did you know a judge read more information than you've ever read on this subject and made a decision about it?

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 02:06 PM
Maybe that explains why Pennsylvania was asked to provide evidence in support of their law to the courts, and Pennsylvania said, "Um, we can't. Just trust us." Imagine a judge hearing that. "You have no evidence that it's a problem, but you're enacting a law that significantly burdens thousands of voters for the purpose of stopping that problem?"

"Yes, your honor. You see, this could help Mitt Romney win presi -- I mean, the integrity of the electoral process demands it."

Again, If you have left yourself no way to prove it, how do you prove it? Try doing spot checks at the polls and see what you come up with.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 02:08 PM
Again, If you have left yourself no way to prove it, how do you prove it? Try doing spot checks at the polls and see what you come up with.

You don't have to do that. Here's what you do: purchase the voting rolls afterwards. This will show you who voted in the district. Then actually go to every person on the roll and see if they voted. If they say no, then you know there was in-person voter fraud.

How much of the voting process is a complete mystery to you, by the way?

ROYC75
10-11-2012, 02:15 PM
In-person voter fraud does not happen enough to give any party an advantage in elections! What part of this aren't you understanding?

But how long do we keep turning a blind eye before it does trip an election ? Someday it will affect a local election because of the extra doubling of voters.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 02:27 PM
But how long do we keep turning a blind eye before it does trip an election ? Someday it will affect a local election because of the extra doubling of voters.

Why would someone do in-person voter fraud and risk the high chance of getting caught, when they could just focus their efforts on at-home mail-in voter fraud? It makes zero sense. Please explain what you mean by turning a blind eye. What are we turning a blind eye to?

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 02:34 PM
Why would someone do in-person voter fraud and risk the high chance of getting caught, when they could just focus their efforts on at-home mail-in voter fraud? It makes zero sense. Please explain what you mean by turning a blind eye. What are we turning a blind eye to?

If it makes zero sense, why was ACORN trying so hard then? Many states started debating this issue after all of the shit ACORN did during the last Presidential election.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 02:38 PM
You don't have to do that. Here's what you do: purchase the voting rolls afterwards. This will show you who voted in the district. Then actually go to every person on the roll and see if they voted. If they say no, then you know there was in-person voter fraud.

How much of the voting process is a complete mystery to you, by the way?

If I register as John Smith, and vote as John Smith even though my name is not John Smith, you can ask me if I voted all you want and you still wouldn't know it was fradulant.

How much of life is a complete mystery to you kid?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 02:42 PM
If it makes zero sense, why was ACORN trying so hard then? Many states started debating this issue after all of the shit ACORN did during the last Presidential election.

Anything in particular from ACORN?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 02:45 PM
If I register as John Smith, and vote as John Smith even though my name is not John Smith, you can ask me if I voted all you want and you still wouldn't know it was fradulant.

How much of life is a complete mystery to you kid?

Flesh this out for me. You've got your registration form in front of you. You fill out John Smith, even though your name isn't John Smith. What's your next step?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 02:47 PM
If I register as John Smith, and vote as John Smith even though my name is not John Smith, you can ask me if I voted all you want and you still wouldn't know it was fradulant.

How much of life is a complete mystery to you kid?

I've discovered in life that a lot of people like to pretend they know what they're talking about, even though they've never spent a minute of their time actually searching for the truth of it. It's okay to some degree. There's a lot of information to process in the world. We can't be experts in everything. But it's hard to excuse a person who doesn't know but acts like he knows.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 03:01 PM
Anything in particular from ACORN?

Well, here is what google popped up in a simple search:

I only read the first couple of paragraphs for each one, but they seemed pretty self explanatory:


http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344577/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/10/acorn-employees-tell-fbi-of-deliberate-election-fraud-according-to-new-documents/


Are you trying to say ACORN was innocent of the charges levied against it? Charges that a judge reviewed and heard evidence for in Nevada? Charges that ACORN officials were convicted of?

La literatura
10-11-2012, 03:05 PM
Are you trying to say ACORN was innocent of the charges levied against it?

You know why you're a douchebag? Because I ask you one question, and you imply that I'm in denial. You're a weasel. I never said anything hinting on the guilt or innocence of ACORN in any charge, you piece of shit.

How would you appreciate if I said things like, "Are you trying to say that black people don't deserve to vote?" when I ask you about the voter ID requirements? You'd probably be frustrated because it's dishonest to imply.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 03:05 PM
Flesh this out for me. You've got your registration form in front of you. You fill out John Smith, even though your name isn't John Smith. What's your next step?

Send it in, along with proof of residence. A utility bill would be an acceptable form of proof of residence.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 03:05 PM
Well, here is what google popped up in a simple search:

I only read the first couple of paragraphs for each one, but they seemed pretty self explanatory:


http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344577/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/10/acorn-employees-tell-fbi-of-deliberate-election-fraud-according-to-new-documents/


Are you trying to say ACORN was innocent of the charges levied against it? Charges that a judge reviewed and heard evidence for in Nevada? Charges that ACORN officials were convicted of?

Read those articles, and then we can talk about the charges.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 03:06 PM
I've discovered in life that a lot of people like to pretend they know what they're talking about, even though they've never spent a minute of their time actually searching for the truth of it. It's okay to some degree. There's a lot of information to process in the world. We can't be experts in everything. But it's hard to excuse a person who doesn't know but acts like he knows.

Look in the mirror much?

KC Dan
10-11-2012, 03:07 PM
Look in your mom's mirror much?
fyp

La literatura
10-11-2012, 03:07 PM
Look in the mirror much?

Multiple times a day.

jjjayb
10-11-2012, 03:13 PM
Multiple times a day.

Sorry for you.

By the way. One of these Obama staffers was fired today. Amazing to me how many of them thought absolutely NOTHING of voting twice. I wonder how much that happens in the Kansas City area. I'm probably still registered to vote in Missouri, as well as my current registration in Kansas.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 03:13 PM
You know why you're a douchebag? Because I ask you one question, and you imply that I'm in denial. You're a weasel. I never said anything hinting on the guilt or innocence of ACORN in any charge, you piece of shit.

How would you appreciate if I said things like, "Are you trying to say that black people don't deserve to vote?" when I ask you about the voter ID requirements? You'd probably be frustrated because it's dishonest to imply.

Says the guy who implies that anyone who supports the "undue burden" of having an ID at the polls is doing so because of politics, and not out of a desire to keep our elections clean.

Says the guy who implied that RR did not support the rights of the poor or minorities to vote, as you did earlier in this thread.

Get off of your high horse.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 03:15 PM
Says the guy who implies that anyone who supports the "undue burden" of having an ID at the polls is doing so because of politics, and not out of a desire to keep our elections clean.

Says the guy who implied that RR did not support the rights of the poor or minorities to vote, as you did earlier in this thread.

Get off of your high horse.

Now I can tell that you're done arguing, and you've turned to lying. Until you clean up the act, I think we're through here.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 03:15 PM
Sorry for you.

By the way. One of these Obama staffers was fired today. Amazing to me how many of them thought absolutely NOTHING of voting twice. I wonder how much that happens in the Kansas City area. I'm probably still registered to vote in Missouri, as well as my current registration in Kansas.

The multiple registrations actually brings up a very fixable problem. There should be some kind of national database for registered voters...so that when one person registers in Kansas, let's say, and supplies their s.s. #, etc., then that info can be entered into the database, and any other state that person was registered in could then remove that person from there voter roles. Not sure how complicated, or how expensive, such a system would be, but it would be worth looking into.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 03:19 PM
Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

Did you, or did you not, post that?

Did you, or did you not, follow that post up with this bit of sarcasm:

Great! You definitely seem to be a huge pillar of support for people's right to vote. Keep up the terrific work!

Sure looks like you implied RR did not support the right of minorities to vote to me.

Look in the mirror, you will see a liar staring back at you.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 03:24 PM
Did you, or did you not, post that?

Did you, or did you not, follow that post up with this bit of sarcasm:



Sure looks like you implied RR did not support the right of minorities to vote to me.

Look in the mirror, you will see a liar staring back at you.

Okay, you're not lying. You're just stupid. No, that doesn't imply that RR doesn't support the right of minorities to vote. It implies that RR doesn't care much about vocally supporting the right of minorities to vote. That might be a little too nuanced for you to process, but I'm not going to spend much time going over why they're different.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 03:27 PM
Okay, you're not lying. You're just stupid. No, that doesn't imply that RR doesn't support the right of minorities to vote. It implies that RR doesn't care much about vocally supporting the right of minorities to vote. That might be a little too nuanced for you to process, but I'm not going to spend much time going over why they're different.

In other words, you try to avoid admitting your lie by parsing words and splitting hairs....got it.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 03:28 PM
In other words, you try to avoid admitting your lie by parsing words and splitting hairs....got it.

Words: they matter and they don't all mean the same thing. The more you know . . .

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 03:34 PM
Words: they matter and they don't all mean the same thing. The more you know . . .

Well, apparently RR thought you were saying the same thing, since he posted this:

Read my post again Jensen. I said I support their rights~


So perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, after all, words do matter.

La literatura
10-11-2012, 03:45 PM
Well, apparently RR thought you were saying the same thing, since he posted this:




So perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, after all, words do matter.

Yes, RR re-emphasized that he supports the right to vote. I can still reply sarcastically to him about his support without implying that he doesn't support the right of minorities to vote. I hate to be rude, but I can't walk you through 12 years of elementary school right now.

mnchiefsguy
10-11-2012, 03:48 PM
Yes, RR re-emphasized that he supports the right to vote. I can still reply sarcastically to him about his support without implying that he doesn't support the right of minorities to vote. I hate to be rude, but I can't walk you through 12 years of elementary school right now.

Your sarcasm implies that you do not believe his statement to be true...ergo, you implied he does not support the right of minorities to vote.

I hate to be rude, but you clearly need to venture out into the real world and figure out how sarcasm works.

Have a Nice Day!

alanm
10-11-2012, 04:26 PM
But how long do we keep turning a blind eye before it does trip an election ? Someday it will affect a local election because of the extra doubling of voters.Please Roy.. One need look no further than Chicago politics and elections and the Democrat machine to have your answer to that. ;)

cardken2
10-11-2012, 04:58 PM
Voter fraud has been going on for years on both sides of the aisle. Dead voters, illegal voters, ect,ect. Unless you are going to get serious about a voting registration card/number. Then you can never control it, and thus why it is done. Both sides will never sign off on anything like it because this is how elections are run, don't be nieve.

whoman69
10-12-2012, 11:53 AM
Voter fraud has been going on for years on both sides of the aisle. Dead voters, illegal voters, ect,ect. Unless you are going to get serious about a voting registration card/number. Then you can never control it, and thus why it is done. Both sides will never sign off on anything like it because this is how elections are run, don't be nieve.

No proof of that at all. The Bush administration went all out to look for voter fraud and found 30 cases, most of those being clerical mistakes, not fraud.

There was one famous case that was not pursued. Seems there was an ex-Governor of Massachusetts who voted in the 2010 senatoral election even though he had moved his primary residence to California. By Massachusetts law, that person should not have been able to vote.