Simple question for those that oppose voter ID

[PaintMyHouse]

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Ac...nd Documents/LetsAsk4ConsumerGuidehighres.pdf

Page? Paragraph?

Go fish.

Pass...

 

[GWV5903]

Show us where it requires it?

You're the idiot who argues with fence post...

If fence posts lied and posted on Internet political boards, you'd be correct. Based on the posts here, I think fence post is an upgraded status.

Thanks for clarifying my point, I knew you would find a way...

 

[Mojo2]

Near as I can tell, conservatives aren't really that interested in voter fraud. If they were, they'd be supporting some sort of verification for those who use absentee ballots like they do for those who use the poling booth. But because it is their constituencies who primarily use absentee ballots, they're silent. That makes one think this is about voter suppression and conservatives' attempts at denying people the vote.

Rather than trying to shift the onus on us (intended) you should be telling us why you support making voter fraud easier.

Strawman, and a bad one...

Wrong and moot point.

The idea of voting regulations is to make sure elections are conducted fairly, impartially, efficiently, timely, lawfully and accurately.

What you support defeats that philosophy.

Photo ID, your side argued, was an unreasonable voting requirement and/or racist.

But, that same requirement is made for those applying for Obamacare.

So, tell us is Obamacare unreasonable or is it racist?

 

[Mojo2]

Page? Paragraph?

Go fish.

Pass...

Lazy or do you concede?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Rather than trying to shift the onus on us (intended) you should be telling us why you support making voter fraud easier.

Strawman, and a bad one...

Wrong and moot point.

The idea of voting regulations is to make sure elections are conducted fairly, impartially, efficiently, timely, lawfully and accurately.

What you support defeats that philosophy.

Photo ID, your side argued, was an unreasonable voting requirement and/or racist.

But, that same requirement is made for those applying for Obamacare.

So, tell us is Obamacare unreasonable or is it racist?

I will help. Your Strawman is thus, since he opposes changing the process we've used for 220 years, he supports Voter Fraud.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Absent a valid state-issued ID, how do you positively verify the claim that the person at the poll is indeed the person on the voter registration roll?

We could use a signature like we have for hundreds of years

My friend was denied his right to vote because someone used his name and signed his name. Nope, that doesn't work.

Really?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Go fish.

Pass...

Lazy or do you concede?

Neither. You can't support your position so I'm moving on. That's what you do in Rational Debate.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're the idiot who argues with fence post...

If fence posts lied and posted on Internet political boards, you'd be correct. Based on the posts here, I think fence post is an upgraded status.

Thanks for clarifying my point, I knew you would find a way...

That is my nature.

 

[Toro]

Of course he doesn't. Those voters tend to be GOP.

Near as I can tell, conservatives aren't really that interested in voter fraud. If they were, they'd be supporting some sort of verification for those who use absentee ballots like they do for those who use the poling booth. But because it is their constituencies who primarily use absentee ballots, they're silent. That makes one think this is about voter suppression and conservatives' attempts at denying people the vote.

Rather than trying to shift the onus on us (intended) you should be telling us why you support making voter fraud easier.

Why do you support making fraud easier by not doing anything about fraud through absentee ballots?

My comment is about conservatives' motives. Conservatives' motives aren't about voter fraud. Conservatives' motives are about reduced voting for those who don't vote conservative.

If conservatives were serious about reducing voter fraud, they'd propose a solution to fraud through absentee balloting. But conservatives don't because they benefit from absentee ballots.

How about this; all voting must be verified by photo ID. That effectively bans absentee ballots. What do you say?

 

[Mojo2]

Strawman, and a bad one...

Wrong and moot point.

The idea of voting regulations is to make sure elections are conducted fairly, impartially, efficiently, timely, lawfully and accurately.

What you support defeats that philosophy.

Photo ID, your side argued, was an unreasonable voting requirement and/or racist.

But, that same requirement is made for those applying for Obamacare.

So, tell us is Obamacare unreasonable or is it racist?

I will help. Your Strawman is thus, since he opposes changing the process we've used for 220 years, he supports Voter Fraud.

And because your side opposes the Constitution we've followed for those same many years doesn't that make you treasonous or at LEAST anti-American by wanting to change it's interpretation?

The Progressives rejected the Founders’ principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights. Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders’ intent.

Constitution 101 - Part 1 - Lecture - Hillsdale College Online Courses

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am OK with voter iID. If it is free and anyone who wants one can get it with zero cost or inconvenience of any kind.

Any cost or hardship? No fucking way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wrong and moot point.

The idea of voting regulations is to make sure elections are conducted fairly, impartially, efficiently, timely, lawfully and accurately.

What you support defeats that philosophy.

Photo ID, your side argued, was an unreasonable voting requirement and/or racist.

But, that same requirement is made for those applying for Obamacare.

So, tell us is Obamacare unreasonable or is it racist?

I will help. Your Strawman is thus, since he opposes changing the process we've used for 220 years, he supports Voter Fraud.

And because your side opposes the Constitution we've followed for those same many years doesn't that make you treasonous or at LEAST anti-American by wanting to change it's interpretation?

The Progressives rejected the Founders’ principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights. Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders’ intent.

Constitution 101 - Part 1 - Lecture - Hillsdale College Online Courses

I'm a Liberal. Oppose it? It's Ours, We wrote.

And their Con101 should be Prop101, as in Propaganda.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP asks what way other than ID can ensure voter fraud does not take place. I replied a live signature compared against the signature on your registration

I live in NJ and they verify my signature.

Like I said, not everyone has an ID, everyone has a signature

So you're saying your poll workers are handwriting experts? How much do they get paid?

You are saying they are ID experts

It is easier to fake an ID than it is to fake a signature

True.

Assuming the actual voter hasn’t already signed to begin with.

And when a voter goes to get his ballot, he must announce who he is to the poll worker, who in turn locates the voter’s name on the approved registration log. The poll worker will then highlight or place an ‘x’ next to where the voter is to sign.

It’s not as if the person attempting to commit ‘fraud’ gets to look over the log first and sign where someone hasn’t already signed.

Again, voter ‘fraud’ is not only virtually non-existent, it’s also nearly impossible to pull-off in such numbers as to effect the outcome of any election.

 

[Mojo2]

Near as I can tell, conservatives aren't really that interested in voter fraud. If they were, they'd be supporting some sort of verification for those who use absentee ballots like they do for those who use the poling booth. But because it is their constituencies who primarily use absentee ballots, they're silent. That makes one think this is about voter suppression and conservatives' attempts at denying people the vote.

Rather than trying to shift the onus on us (intended) you should be telling us why you support making voter fraud easier.

Why do you support making fraud easier by not doing anything about fraud through absentee ballots?

My comment is about conservatives' motives. Conservatives' motives aren't about voter fraud. Conservatives' motives are about reduced voting for those who don't vote conservative.

If conservatives were serious about reducing voter fraud, they'd propose a solution to fraud through absentee balloting. But conservatives don't because they benefit from absentee ballots.

How about this; all voting must be verified by photo ID. That effectively bans absentee ballots. What do you say?

I'm for making the voting laws as tight as is needed to assure the integrity of the voting process.

You must be thinking of Boehner and the old GOP guys who believe the way to help turn America around is to be just a c*nt hair to the Right of the Democrats.

Although, in this adversarial relationship between the Dems and the GOP I can understand how they wouldn't be thrilled about unilaterally giving up the area of possible voting irregularity that benefits them if the Dems don't also eliminate the area of voting irregularity that benefits Progressive candidates and ballot measures.

 

[Toro]

I'm for making the voting laws as tight as is needed to assure the integrity of the voting process.

Great. You support proposals to assure the integrity of the voting process that hurts conservatives and not just liberals and I'll be right behind you.

Thus far, there is little evidence your conservative brethren are with you.

 

[Mojo2]

I will help. Your Strawman is thus, since he opposes changing the process we've used for 220 years, he supports Voter Fraud.

And because your side opposes the Constitution we've followed for those same many years doesn't that make you treasonous or at LEAST anti-American by wanting to change it's interpretation?

The Progressives rejected the Founders’ principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights. Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders’ intent.

Constitution 101 - Part 1 - Lecture - Hillsdale College Online Courses

I'm a Liberal. Oppose it? It's Ours, We wrote.

And their Con101 should be Prop101, as in Propaganda.

And Al Gore invented the internet.



You call anything and anyone who opposes your perverse ideology propaganda or a biased partisan of the other side.

Just like when the vaunted, Nate Silver, accurately predicted the Dem's victories in the past few elections and you guys LOVED him.

But when he predicted a GOP takeover in Congress Silver suddenly became an assh*le.

Silver Speaks. Democrats Despair.

The FiveThirtyEight whiz forecasts a Democratic defeat in 2014, and liberals are furious.

Nate Silver?s 2014 Senate prediction: The FiveThirtyEight whiz forecasts Democratic defeat, and Democrats are furious.

Anyone who loves America and the Constitution loves Hillsdale's Constitution 101.

You don't because you hate America and you want to screw around with the founder's intent.

It's like a silly headstrong woman who insists on knocking down a load bearing wall in her house and has no idea that the wall is needed to keep the roof from collapsing.

How many times do you think you can get away with mucking up America before it can't be fixed?

This is your pattern.

Look here:

[ TITLE: AMERICA 1967 ]

VO: But at the very moment when Sayyed Qutb’s ideas seemed dead and buried, Leo Strauss’ ideas about how to transform America were about to become powerful and influential, because the liberal political order that had dominated America since the war started to collapse.

[ TITLE: 11pm, JULY 25th 1967 ]

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Law and order have broken down in Detroit, Michigan. Pillage, looting, murder…

VO: Only a few years before, President Johnson had promised policies that would create a new and a better world in America. He had called it “the Great Society.”

[ TITLE: President LYNDON JOHNSON, 1964 ]

JOHNSON: The Great Society is in place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind. It is a place where the City of Man…

VO: But now, in the wake of some of the worst riots ever seen in America, that dream seemed to have ended in violence and hatred. One prominent liberal journalist called Irving Kristol began to question whether it might actually be the policies themselves that were causing social breakdown.

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just like when the vaunted, Nate Silver, accurately predicted the Dem's victories in the past few elections and you guys LOVED him.

But when he predicted a GOP takeover in Congress Silver suddenly became an assh*le.

He's exactly what he was before, probably right.

As for the rest, God only knows if you had a point in there, it couldn't be found.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals go around telling us "black, asian and hispanic people" are too stupid, lazy and/or poor to have an ID card....but of course they aren't "racists" for saying that.

It is a LIE many people don't have an ID card...they have one to cash a check, get their welfare handout, enroll for Medicaid/Medicare, etc....

Is 1776 sane? His posts require insanity to be rule out.

 

[ron4342]

Absent a valid state-issued ID, how do you positively verify the claim that the person at the poll is indeed the person on the voter registration roll?

Every time one of you zealots take up the cry for voter ID there is one question that is always asked AND IGNORED! How many cases of voter fraud have there been? Over, and over, and over it has been shown that voter fraud is virtually non-existent. Yet wingnuts want to spend millions and millions of dollars to fix a problem that does not exist and then they want to pat themselves on the back for being fiscally responsible.
One of the worst states for voter fraud is Kansas. Between 2000 and 2012 there have been about 100 cases of fraud. Bear in mind that this is over a 12 year period and involves millions and millions of votes being cast. The percentage of cases involving voter fraud in Kansas is well, well below .1% and yet the republicans want to throw money at this to fix a problem that does not exist.

"A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures, including Maine’s, to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.
The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000.
With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters."

You can jump up and down and scream all you wish but the bottom line is that your cries about voter fraud are just a ploy to try to take the vote away from those who would not vote conservative."
https://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/12/politics/voter-fraud-nearly-non-existent-data-show/

Voter ID laws: A state-by-state map reveals how much voter fraud there is in the United States?almost none.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just like when the vaunted, Nate Silver, accurately predicted the Dem's victories in the past few elections and you guys LOVED him.

But when he predicted a GOP takeover in Congress Silver suddenly became an assh*le.

He's exactly what he was before, probably right.

As for the rest, God only knows if you had a point in there, it couldn't be found.

Yep. Nate is not an asshole now. He is looking at the numbers. His ability to predict the outcome of the election will only improve as the day draws nearer.

What Mojo2 is reacting to is a reaction by politicos on the D side who are concerned about optics. In true nutter fashion, Mojo2 has now come to believe that every person who appreciated Silver's work in the past suddenly hates the guy.

It doesn't matter that most of the USMB liberals have not expressed any such opinion. For Mojo2.....we all despise Silver.

Cool, huh?