Do you believe that if you listen to the facts and respond to intelligent posts fully your brain will explode?
For me, it's just kind of a common sense issue. Every time I buy alcohol, I have to present an ID to verify who I am. It's just simple verification, and requiring it to vote - since we require it for so many other things - is perfectly reasonable. I mean hell, I have to pay a fee to get a permit to carry, a right clearly enshrined in the Constitution, and in most states I need to have a photo ID to buy a pistol - what's the big deal about requiring one to vote, when almost no one lacks such an ID and the voter ID laws make it super-easy and FREE to get such an ID?
I wouldn't bother. He's made tons of outlandish claims without ever backing himself up. He referred simply to the Brennan Center website (no study), and I had to provide the Brennan study for him, and I promptly showed him that it was debunked twice by the Heritage Foundation (after the first debunking, the Brennan Center issued a second modified study that was subsequently also debunked), and I provided studies from three universities that disagreed with the Brennan Center study (that he didn't supply). And he dismissed all five studies challenging the Brennan study, because the National Republican Lawyers Association cited them.
You know that avoiding serious debate doesn't change the facts, that there is no voter impersonation fraud to speak of. And we know why you want Voter ID laws, because GOP leaders have admitted it, it's to stop minorities from voting. So, instead of trying to deflect, why don't you address the real issue?
really? are you serious? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you can cover your eyes and block your ears, you might not see or hear what is right in front of you, but it's there. I provided the Brennan study that you did not, so it remains that you have yet to provide A SINGLE study, whereas I've provided you one study, and links to five studies debunking that one single study that you think verifies your position. nor did I say I do have any - you have a serious problem with straw men. But if you think that is sufficient reason to NOT have strict voting regulations... I GUARANTEE that's going to fly in the face of your rationale on nearly every other 'proactive' action of the government. So fired? I've calmly provided the facts, even your 'facts' (which were subsequently disproven by studies done by three universities and two by the Heritage Foundation). You're the one all fired, determined to prevent any photo verification, even if the states cover all costs related to getting the ID and provide voters ample time to acquire one. You have a real knack for making very specific claims and not providing any source whatsoever. And each time when asked, you've failed to back any of your specific factual claims up. So I ask you again, back yourself up goober. I'm honestly getting annoyed with your unsubstantiated claims, straw men, and extraneous rants. How about this - tell me why you're opposed to any voter ID laws, under any circumstances. look, if you're having that much difficulty reading the studies that have ACTUALLY been provided (you haven't provided any studies yet, I've provided a link which contains links to five, and I've been kind enough to provide the study that you SHOULD have put forward). You believe that there "isn't any" voter impersonation. You've got your head in a hole. More importantly, I want to know why you require proof of rampant voter fraud before you'll agree to common sense regulations. I'm sure you're fine with restricting civilian rights to own new automatic firearms that haven't been the cause of any problems. ^_^
Agreed, we should focus, not on individual votes that might be fraudulent (not saying we should make no attempt, but the resources devoted versus the crimes committed will be miniscule), but upon insuring that those who count the votes are monitored, and that the vote count (especially in the case of the electronic voting machines) is not tampered with. That is where the real danger of voter fraud lies, and in those cases, I don't think that the penalties can ever be too high. People caught hacking into a vote tally, for instance, should be strung up IMO.
Something doesn't exist and you want me to prove it doesn't exist....that's impossible However if it does exist, it is possible to prove it does exist, ball's in your court....Show me the voter impersonation! You ask why I am opposed to a program designed to prevent something that does not exist....think about that You pretend to be concerned about "voter fraud" Heres the former governor of Florida saying it's not about voter fraud, it's all about suppressing minority turnout http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/n...s/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/
Eh that seems a bit too harsh, but I agree that's where we should put most of our attention in fraud prevention - but there is no good reason to NOT have photo ID laws, if properly implemeneted. Even Carter and Clinton have supported them, it's pretty common sense legislation, which is why 60% of Democrats support it. The key is making sure that obtaining the ID is free and easy. Also I'm from my phone, which is why I'm not copying and pasting links for the above claims, but if anyone needs it I can provide the links later when I'm at my desktop.
More straw men and extraneous tangents. Give it a rest goober. Try responding to arguments actually made, don't just parrot partisan talking points. You've find one such partisan point, that this one Republican said voter ID is about suppressing minority turnout, but Clinton and Carter have backed it - whoopty doo, fortunately for me I can make my own arguments and don't pretend that one guy speaks for an entire party when his statements contradict the entire party. You haven't backed up one of your claims, and now you suggest that I'm a racist and my intent is to suppress the minority vote. You're flailing so badly, it's readily apparent that you're out of your league. Troi out.
I don't see the issue in just taking a picture at registration and matching it up at the polling booth. Is this not just as effective? I guess twins might be able to cheat the system, but they'd be able to do that with ID anyway.
I think that would accomplish the same goal, but be less cost effective. Having to take a photo of every voter at the booth and match it? Versus just checking a government issued photo ID, which 99% already have? It seems more costly, and more Orwellian. But I really don't think this is or should be a big issue. 78% of American voters support voter ID laws, including a majority of all major political groups (Republicans/Democrat/Moderates/Independents). As far as I can tell, there's just a small group who have the misconception that this will severely hinder one party's election performance, which isn't the case.
I agree. If I were hellbent on perverting an election, and I didn't have Carrot Top Adelson's vast gambling profits to fritter away, I would be covertly financing a team of uber-geeks (possibly in cahoots with whatever foreign entities would wish to place compliant extremists in office) to shift the totals accordingly, and/or doctor especially vulnerable absentee ballot compilations. Anyone who has a clear understanding of the process and is not given to wacky conspiracy theories knows that the picture ID pretext is merely a thinly-veiled attempt to disenfranchise undesirable voters, since it addresses no demonstrable problem for which such a bureaucratic imposition could be justified.
Dude, you have set up the strawman that Voter ID being a burden is the main argument against it, and you have linked to Republican lawyer blogs to show that it isn't......Nice, I'll bet that convinces you...it isn't much of a burden to most people...it only prevents a few American citizens from voting.... The point is, there is no voter impersonation to speak of, it isn't a problem, the current procedures have reduced it to ZERO. And you haven't shown otherwise, because you can't because it doesn't exist. Why should the government take action, that is a burden to citizens, no matter how small a burden, to prevent something that isn't happening, and most likely will never happen? Because, it's not being done to prevent a non existent form of voter fraud, it's being done to suppress minority votes, I linked to GOP officials admitting this.
The spectacle of Republicans demanding another layer of government bureaucracy to solve a problem that they cannot show exists via an easily circumvented "solution" (flashing real or bogus pictures at poll nannies) is quite amusing, actually. Did each of the Founding Fathers have to schlep a miniature portrait to the polls before he would be allowed to cast his ballot? Would some venerable elderly crone drop a stitch whilst verifying that it is, indeed, a genuine Charles Willson Peale?
Really? YOU: "massive organized voter fraud simply doesn't exist" post #29 YOU: "So show me enough voter impersonation taking place to justify voter ID laws. You can't because there isn't any." post #29 [you've made a bunch of these kinds of statements, that there "isn't any", and I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were referring to mass voter fraud, but if you mean that there isn't any period, then you've got your head in the whole and are a VF denier, denying the facts presented by both the study you tried to cite, and the some half dozen I've provided]. Also, let's just take note of one of the lies - YOU: "You know this debate has been going on for some time, and you haven't presented a single fact or a single link.... I have linked to all kinds of data, how many times do I have to link to the data, before you believe it, or rather you'll dismiss it, because it comes from a university, and all universities are leftist, or it comes from the government, and you don't believe the government." post #25 [the first link you posted was in #25, and it wasn't to a single study, and the study didn't verify any of your statements. - oh, and of course your rampant strawmen in that post exemplifies nearly every other post you've made here.] As I've demonstrated, you have some ridiculous obsession with making straw men arguments and getting personal, you haven't provided a lick of evidence, and have refused to read a lick of the plethora of evidence I've presented. In short, you've got your head in a hole, and try as I may I can't pull you out.
What we have around here is a bunch of whiney liberals who don't like their "sacred cow"(voter fraud) being exposed! With millions and millions of illegals in this country, any patriotic American should be in favor of Voter ID! Opinions against it are based on lies and liberal mollycoddling!
So show me the massive voter impersonation that justifies these laws... I really couldn't care about Republican Lawyer Blogs that you cite as proof to destroy the strawmen that you erect... I'll take the word of GOP officials that the party isn't concerned with voter fraud, and is mainly trying to suppress Democratic votes. - - - Updated - - - Expose it then, there is a record of everyone who voted in the last election, including their name and address, go prove they weren't entitled to vote, or that they don't really exist....
Screw that. Undermining an election should be deemed an act of treason and treated as such. Since this never happens, the democrats should gladly join in the effort to make it a capital offense.
LOL! dude, you've gone back and forth, denying what you've said multiple times, and here you just do it again. Wasn't it just your last post in which you said that you never said anything about massive voter fraud? You've made it abundantly clear that you're not interested in genuine discussion, only in petty partisan politics. I don't do your petty partisan politics - you're welcome to keep rolling in the mud by yourself.
Nice dodge, I almost fell for it........not really I've said from the beginning that there is no reason to have these voter ID laws, as voter impersonation just doesn't happen in a way that affects election results. The number of voter impersonations is less than the errors introduced by counting technologies, way less. In Pennsylvania, where they enacted such a law, there has never been a case of voter impersonation, going back to when William Penn was still alive. And the GOP said the law was designed to deliver Pennsylvania to Romney.....How? by eliminating that which doesn't exist? Or by cutting into the minority vote, Romney still lost because he wasn't what America wanted, but that's besides the point.
The fact is that voter impersonation at the polls is so rare that no election has ever been affected by it. Voter ID laws only address voter impersonation at the polls and no other forms of voter fraud. The real issue is that States that have passed Voter ID laws have generally been unable to ever document any historical cases of voter impersonation at the polls ever occurring even once and have never been able to claim it is even a potential problem that would affect the outcome of an election.
