2016 Election
Quote: ams288So no statistics to back up the claim.
Just as you have no actual statistics to actually back up that people are actually not able to get an ID and vote in any great number.
The AARP? In the bag for the liberals.
One guy saying it would help Romney win? So what. Means nothing--just like the supposed one guy who supposedly said something racial to one person of color at a Tea Party event must mean that the Tea Party is racist. Only it was never proven.
Unless someone lives totally off the grid and has for all of there life, do you really, truly believe it is that hard of a process to get an ID? It isn't.
Quote: RonCJust as you have no actual statistics to actually back up that people are actually not able to get an ID and vote in any great number.
Why should I have to prove how many people don't have an ID/easy access to an ID before your side provides any significant voter fraud data?
After all, the voter fraud is what these damn laws are supposedly combating in the first place!!!! Why is there no data backing them up?
The answer was a resounding "NO!"
There was one hilarious Town Hall article trying to argue that it was. But not stats in it. :(
Man, I'd hate to be on your side and have to defend the idea that it is a legitimate problem.
Quote: RonCJust as you have no actual statistics to actually back up that people are actually not able to get an ID and vote in any great number.
The AARP? In the bag for the liberals.
One guy saying it would help Romney win? So what. Means nothing--just like the supposed one guy who supposedly said something racial to one person of color at a Tea Party event must mean that the Tea Party is racist. Only it was never proven.
Unless someone lives totally off the grid and has for all of there life, do you really, truly believe it is that hard of a process to get an ID? It isn't.
Texas own data saying hispanics are more adversely affected by the law http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/texas%E2%80%99s-own-data-reveal-discriminatory-impact-id-law . Here is some more http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/03/21/racial-and-ethnic-differences-in-access-to-photo-id-in-texas/ . This shows that some people would be affected negatively for what is largely a non issue. It has not been shown that the kind of voter fraud that could be prevented by voter ID has ever had a significant effect on election results.
Quote: ams288Why should I have to prove how many people don't have an ID/easy access to an ID before your side provides any significant voter fraud data?
Because having to show ID for various things is an accepted part of modern life. To get by without one is harder to believe than voter fraud, which has a long history in the USA. It is far harder to believe any real number of people survive without an ID than it is to believe more than just the one poll worker committed fraud.
Besides, isn't assuring a clean election more important than forcing someone who doesn't work to go and get an ID?
for voting, how do they collect welfare, buy liquor
and cigarettes, drive a car, go to an emergency room,
deal with cops, get a drink at a bar, apply for food
stamps, apply for a job, get utilities accounts, rent
apartments, or a hundred other things, if they have no ID.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause having to show ID for various things is an accepted part of modern life. To get by without one is harder to believe than voter fraud, which has a long history in the USA.
A long history? Have the outcomes of any elections been affected by voter fraud? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
You are so stuck on the issue of whether or not people can get by in life without an ID. That is irrelevant. First you need to prove that voter fraud exists to warrant these laws, but it doesn't, so you keep talking about IDs and jobs and tax returns.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause having to show ID for various things is an accepted part of modern life. To get by without one is harder to believe than voter fraud, which has a long history in the USA. It is far harder to believe any real number of people survive without an ID than it is to believe more than just the one poll worker committed fraud.
Besides, isn't assuring a clean election more important than forcing someone who doesn't work to go and get an ID?
You don't have to imagine people don't have ID there are cases where it was shown a large chunk of people don't have ID and are yet eligible to vote. Yet there has not been anything to show that voter fraud that could be stopped with ID requirements have had any affect on the outcome of an election. Also woman who have valid licenses maybe unable to vote http://www.npr.org/2013/10/30/241891800/texas-voter-id-law-creates-a-problem-for-some-women . This is a fairly standard thing and yet could easily prevent many women from voting. Couldn't find hard numbers with just a cursory glance but if need be I could search harder.
Quote: ams288A long history? Have the outcomes of any elections been affected by voter fraud? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
Yes. Read some history. Election fraud in Kansas might have helped hasten the Civil War.
Quote:First you need to prove that voter fraud exists to warrant these laws, but it doesn't, so you keep talking about IDs and jobs and tax returns.
Not at all. ID is a required part of life in the USA. And here is a news flash, the extent of fraud is usually not known until it is enforced for. This is the reason I explained about the tax returns.
If you are going to play on this level you really need to stop arguing like a 5 year old. ID will ensure a cleaner election. Unless you are ready to show that is not the case all you will keep doing is insisting there is no good reason to require ID.
Hey, since they do not have ID minorities must not drive, perhaps we should drive them to the polls.
But if it is cold and since a person with no ID does not work they may have no jacket, so should we bring a polling station to their home?
Quote: ams288A long history? Have the outcomes of any elections been affected by voter fraud? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
.
Have to be careful with that one. Elections have been affected by voter fraud but not the kind that could be stopped by ID requirements. I mean losing or destroying some ballots from a district or something of that nature has happened historically but it is basically always done by ballot workers. You also have a few other things using election officials but again these are not stopped by IDs.
Quote: AZDuffmanYes. Read some history. Election fraud in Kansas might have helped hasten the Civil War.
Well there's an excellent reason for voter ID laws if I've ever heard one!
Quote: AZDuffmanNot at all. ID is a required part of life in the USA. And here is a news flash, the extent of fraud is usually not known until it is enforced for. This is the reason I explained about the tax returns.
If you are going to play on this level you really need to stop arguing like a 5 year old. ID will ensure a cleaner election. Unless you are ready to show that is not the case all you will keep doing is insisting there is no good reason to require ID.
Ahhh, so you can't prove that there IS voter fraud, but I have to prove there ISN'T voter fraud in order for my case to be heard. Strong argument you've got there.
Quote: treetopbuddyI happen to believe that only land owners should be allowed to vote. Seriously.
I believe only brain owners should be able to vote.
...which would mean 90% of the Democrat vote would become ineligible. lol
Quote: ams288I just Googled "Is voter fraud a problem?"
The answer was a resounding "NO!"
There was one hilarious Town Hall article trying to argue that it was. But not stats in it. :(
Man, I'd hate to be on your side and have to defend the idea that it is a legitimate problem.
For those of you who wonder why I respond to most libs the way I do, here's a perfect example of why. Can anyone really expect a legitimate debate with this guy?
Quote: ams288Why should I have to prove how many people don't have an ID/easy access to an ID before your side provides any significant voter fraud data?
After all, the voter fraud is what these damn laws are supposedly combating in the first place!!!! Why is there no data backing them up?
Come on! Are you serious? If I'm not allowed to ask someone for ID, how am I to determine if they are voting fraudulently? Not very effectively! I tend to agree with you that it is "probably" not a big problem, but I can't understand not requiring proof that the person voting is eligible to do so. And I will happily agree with some others that would make obtaining whatever proof is necessary to vote free, that is, paid for by taxpayer dollars.
I haven't forgotten ACORN or a lot of the other things that were going on around the elections. You saw the tapes; there were people telling folks to do all kinds of things that, had they done them, would be blatant examples of voter fraud. The tapes can't be denied. So there is a difference between the actual amount of voter fraud that has been proven (in court) and how much was attempted or done (everyone speeds--how many people get speeding tickets?)....and how much was possible based on the things happening around the 2008 election.
Why is it wrong to try and shut the door on ALL voter fraud and make sure only those who should be allowed to vote are allowed to vote? It isn't, of course, but you can argue the other side and remain in disagreement.
Quote: ams288If you go back to what my post was actually in response to, it was RonC's odd claim that democrats "Democrats want the minorities to think Republicans don't want them to vote."
Now I'd LOVE to see some facts backing that up!
No one has (or will be able to) provide any data showing a voter fraud problem in this country.
Simply because, in your view, there is no perceivable problem does not mean that precautions should not be taken.
While many laws are created in hindsight, there are many that are created due to foresight.
Voter ID laws, as I said before, are intended to prevent as many minorities from voting to help Republicans win elections.
You seem to be extremely narrow-minded on this subject. The situation is very different in my voting district.
You want facts proving that?
Here's the video again:
I fail to observe any "fact" being presented here.
What are the legalities surrounding voting?
One must be of legal voting age.
One must be a legal citizen of the jurisdiction holding the election.
The individual must satisfy eligibility requirements. (Ask a convicted felon if s/he is allowed to vote.)
The individual casting the vote may only vote once.
And, of course, the individual must actually be the one to cast the vote.
Your objection to the state of Texas allowing a "gun permit" as valid identification, yet not allowing student ID, is a very weak argument.
To generalize your objection: "Most gun permit holders are Republican, and most students are Democrat."
I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, as you are using false logic for your argument.
Regarding student ID as a valid form of identification for the process of voting, please allow me to provide two actual scenarios.
1. I graduated high school at age 16, and entered college at age 17.
The college which I attended provided a very simple form of ID. It contained a photo of me, stated my name, had the name of the university, and an "expiration date" (end of spring semester). It did not contain my date of birth, nor did it provide information regarding whether I was "in-state" or "out-of-state".
Should an official allow me to vote using this student ID?
2. My son resides in one state, attends "summer school" in another state, and attends regular fall/spring semesters in yet another state.
Assuming "weak" forms of student ID, should my son should be able to potentially vote three different times in a national election? Should he be able to participate in the politics of a state in which he does not reside?
It really is a situation of the vetting process.
Not all states require "gun permits", but those states that have such a system in place are more apt to accept the permit as acceptable ID simply because the applicant has been thoroughly vetted.
There will be no question concerning the age of the applicant.
There will be no question concerning legal residence of the applicant.
There will be no question concerning eligibility to vote (ever heard of a convicted felon passing a background check for such a permit?).
It really depends upon the laws of the state in question. Simply because one is a resident of a state does not necessarily make that individual a US citizen.
I know several individuals who hold a state-issued driver's license that are not US citizens. Should those individuals be allowed to participate in the decision-making process of a country in which they are not a citizen?
As has been already mentioned, voter ID laws exist to keep elections clean and fair for all involved. The laws (and thus acceptable forms of ID) will vary from one state to another.
I'm sorry, that is not such an odd claim. If I convince a group that the other group does not want them to do something, I am also working towards strengthening my grasp on that group.
Do you think Democrats WANT minorities to believe Republicans want them to vote?
I think that "Democrats" and "Minorities" are not mutually exclusive and they each can figure out on their own if Republicans are trying to deny them the right to vote.Quote: RonCDo you think Democrats WANT minorities to believe Republicans want them to vote?
Quote: s2dbakerI think that "Democrats" and "Minorities" are not mutually exclusive and they each can figure out on their own if Republicans are trying to deny them the right to vote.
So Democrats never say anything about these policies to benefit their own side of the argument?
Again, you are smarter than that...
Quote: s2dbakerI think that "Democrats" and "Minorities" are not mutually exclusive and they each can figure out on their own if Republicans are trying to deny them the right to vote.
When have Republicans denied people the right to vote? You seem to have your history confused as it was Democrats who put in literacy tests, poll taxes, and plain old intimidation to keep minorities from voting. All Republicans are asking is everyone show ID, which everyone has anyways.
You're adorable. Flattery will get you everywhere :)Quote: RonCSo Democrats never say anything about these policies to benefit their own side of the argument?
Again, you are smarter than that...
Democrats promote their causes and so do Republicans but let's look at what you said; the original statement to which I responded:
Now, I ask you, is that the same as Democrats protecting voting rights from Republican attacks? No, it's not. It's dishonest to suggest it.Quote: RonCNo, Democrats want the minorities to think Republicans don't want them to vote so that they never have to think about how the years of liberal/progressive policies have hurt their cause and they can just worry about those big old nasty Republicans. If they keep the minorities or whoever thinking that Republicans are bad and don't want them to vote, they believe they will not have to explain what things are not getting better for them...
Quote: RonCWhy is it wrong to try and shut the door on ALL voter fraud and make sure only those who should be allowed to vote are allowed to vote? .
Okay, I say we create a STRICT national voter ID and gun registry. We'll dump the other gun regs.
There's evidence everyday that guns are being used by people who shouldn't be getting them. It's way more conclusive than voter fraud, so you're getting a hellava deal to catch the fraud in voting.
DEAL?
Quote: rxwineOkay, I say we create a STRICT national voter ID and gun registry. We'll dump the other gun regs.
There's evidence everyday that guns are being used by people who shouldn't be getting them. It's way more conclusive than voter fraud, so you're getting a hellava deal to catch the fraud in voting.
DEAL?
I'm glad I've been drinking. Now I can just smile and give a wink, instead of launching a 4 page rant against what is very obviously a joke.
Oh, rx. You so funny ;)
The subject is voter ID, yet Mr. Tangent brings up guns?????? *facepalm*Quote: rxwineThere's evidence everyday that guns are being used by people who shouldn't be getting them. It's way more conclusive than voter fraud, so you're getting a hellava deal to catch the fraud in voting.
The only question now is whether or not Mr. Tangent will go off on yet another tangent or if he'll post another picture tangent. lol!
Quote: rxwineOkay, I say we create a STRICT national voter ID and gun registry. We'll dump the other gun regs.
There's evidence everyday that guns are being used by people who shouldn't be getting them. It's way more conclusive than voter fraud, so you're getting a hellava deal to catch the fraud in voting.
DEAL?
The people who are doing illegal things with guns are not the ones who would follow the gun laws. Have you heard of Chicago? Strict gun laws. Loads of crime.
Voter fraud/potential voter fraud can't be looked at the same way as gun control.
Now someone else is trying to go from voter ID to gun control. Who the hell knows where this one will end up? (I do expect a picture tangent though...lol)
Quote: Beethoven9thI can't remember his name at the moment, but he was the asexual kid) Anyway, the asexual changed the subject numerous times when he was losing.
Seriously the asexual? You couldn't take the 30 seconds to check my name or hell just say that random guy no you have to say that asexaul. What is with you and sexaulity? And yet of course all those times you said your kind or your group you were referring to liberals and not asexuals right.
Ah, that's right, you're the guy. Sorry, I couldn't remember your username. Thanks. (I just need to edit my previous post now)Quote: TwirdmanSeriously the asexual? You couldn't take the 30 seconds to check my name or hell just say that random guy no you have to say that asexaul.
Yes, that is correct. Those references were to liberals in general.Quote: TwirdmanAnd yet of course all those times you said your kind or your group you were referring to liberals and not asexuals right.
Quote: Beethoven9th
Yes, that is correct. Those references were to liberals in general.
Yeah of course they were thats why the first word that jumped to your mind to describe me was that asexual.
Quote: RonCThe people who are doing illegal things with guns are not the ones who would follow the gun laws. Have you heard of Chicago? Strict gun laws. Loads of crime.
Voter fraud/potential voter fraud can't be looked at the same way as gun control.
Perhaps, but I can't take you seriously when you say: "Why is it wrong to try and shut the door on ALL voter fraud and make sure only those who should be allowed to vote are allowed to vote?"
You capitalized "ALL" like one should be doing all one can to make sure rights are upheld and not abused.
ONLY rights you care about, and don't pretend otherwise.
Quote: TwirdmanYeah of course they were thats why the first word that jumped to your mind to describe me was that asexual.
C'mon, you're reading a bit too much into this. There are many libs on this board, but only one asexual. I just said that so I could be more precise, that's all.
Quote: Beethoven9thC'mon, you're reading a bit too much into this. There are many libs on this board, but only one asexual. I just said that so I could be more precise, that's all.
Or you could have spent 45 seconds finding my name. Seriously I've posted in this thread and you commented on it knowing exactly who I was. It is seriously really offensive to refer to someone by just that and their sexuality especially given you know talking about my sexuality annoys me and I've basically asked you to stop doing it before.
Quote: Beethoven9thCalm down, you said you were proud of it before. Had no idea that you were so "annoyed" by it. Geez.
When did I say I was proud of it sexuality is not something to be proud of it simply is. Also I'm of the firm opinion that a persons private life should be for the most part private so even if I was "proud" I wouldn't want it constantly brought up. And you know its crap about not knowing I was annoyed by it. I've expressed annoyance at it multiple times and you've seen and responded to those post. Don't lie about it. You say things to annoy people even though you know it annoys them and that's your right but don't pretend that's not what you are doing.
Quote: Twirdman...but don't pretend that's not what you are doing.
Who's pretending?
Quote: Beethoven9thWho's pretending?
Right you never do anything just to provoke people even though you know it upsets them.
Quote: TwirdmanRight you never do anything just to provoke people even though you know it upsets them.
Anything will upset an overly sensitive person.
Quote: rxwinePerhaps, but I can't take you seriously when you say: "Why is it wrong to try and shut the door on ALL voter fraud and make sure only those who should be allowed to vote are allowed to vote?"
You capitalized "ALL" like one should be doing all one can to make sure rights are upheld and not abused.
ONLY rights you care about, and don't pretend otherwise.
There are disagreements about what "rights" we have and how far they extend, of course. Some would say we have the right to do anything anywhere. Some would seek to cut off rights in the Bill of Rights. Some would seek to have a "living Constitution" which seems to be code for we'll change how we use it whenever we want even though there is a specific procedure for changing it. Having a disagreement with someone over whether something is a "right" or not is not the same as caring about "ONLY the rights you care about"...no, we just disagree on whether some things are actually rights or not.
In this instance, specifically, I don't want any legal voter turned away but I want all voters to be ones who are properly registered and identified in accordance with state and federal law. I said "ALL" because there is potential for voter fraud in areas other than on-site IDs on election day--absentee ballots, false registrations (ACORN), and other things.
+1Quote: RonCSome would seek to have a "living Constitution" which seems to be code for we'll change how we use it whenever we want even though there is a specific procedure for changing it.
Geez, so it took Cher 6 years to figure out what the rest of us knew from the beginning? *facepalm*
Quote: Beethoven9thCHER NO LONGER TRUSTS GOVERNMENT IN AGE OF OBAMA
Geez, so it took Cher 6 years to figure out what the rest of us knew from the beginning? *facepalm*
I know, isn't it priceless? You lose the airhead
vote from Cher and Madonna and Streisand and
you know you're in serious trouble. When the
truly stupid desert you, when you can't fool
even them any longer, time to move on.
* If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.
* If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. A Democrat demands that those he doesn’t like be shut down.
* If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.
* If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
* If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
* If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
* If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
Can easily substitute "liberal" or "progressive" for "Democrat" since they're pretty much all the same.
Credit to my mom for sharing the above with me.
Quote: Pabo
* If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. A Democrat demands that those he doesn’t like be shut down.
Find this one hilarous given the repeated calls to remove Martin Bashir from the air. Or there are still calls to remove Bill Mahr from the air. There was demands that Payless fire Ellen Degeneres and the list goes on.
But how about the other way.
If a Democrat doesn't like abortion she doesn't get one, if a Republican doesn't like abortion she makes sure no one can get one.
Or if a democrat doesn't like drugs he doesn't use them, if a Republican doesn't like drugs he makes sure everyone who uses them is arrested.
If a Democrat doesn't like a president they try to beat him in an election, if a Republican doesn't like a president he demands impeachment.
These are all silly of course just as yours were. The truth is these issues are incredibly complicated and multifaceted and trying to reduce anyone of them to a pithy one liner shows a lack of any deep thought. Sound bites might be what win elections but they almost always lack any form of substance.
+10Quote: PaboQuite interesting--and humorous--to read the back-and-forth on this thread. Essentially, the difference between Republican (which I am) and Democrat can be summed up thusly:
* If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.
* If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. A Democrat demands that those he doesn’t like be shut down.
* If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.
* If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
* If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
* If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
* If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
Can easily substitute "liberal" or "progressive" for "Democrat" since they're pretty much all the same.
Credit to my mom for sharing the above with me.
Totally agree!
Quote: PaboNo sense of humor, eh Twirdman? So sad. Don't take it personally. At least, try not to.
No its just not funny. Oh haha look at all these things I say that don't correspond to reality. Making a straw man to mock is not humor.
Quote: TwirdmanNo its just not funny. Oh haha look at all these things I say that don't correspond to reality. Making a straw man to mock is not humor.
I'm not mocking. Jeez, lighten up, guy. Then again, a lack of a sense of humor does appear to be a characteristic of most liberals/progressives/Democrats that I know.
Quote: PaboBy the way, did you hear the filthy comments from Martin Bashir? He should be kicked off the air. I'd demand the same if he were Republican. As for Bill Marhr, I haven't heard many calling for his removal from the air. I don't care for him, so I choose not to watch his show. But this is America so you and the few dozen others in his audience are free to watch to your hearts' content. I like Ellen. She's funny and entertaining.
OK so Martin Bashir should be removed from the air what do you feel about Rush Limbaugh. He has said far more offensive things then Martin Bashir and yes I agree with you that what Bashir said was despicable, deserving to be firing questionable but I understand it, but why the double standard. I mean you don't like what he said why not just change the channel as you said Republicans do. Oh and I'm not a fan of Mahr not that funny but trust me plenty have called for his removal like Palin after Mahr said retard.
Quote: Twirdman
If a Democrat doesn't like abortion she doesn't get one, if a Republican doesn't like abortion she makes sure no one can get one.
Or if a democrat doesn't like drugs he doesn't use them, if a Republican doesn't like drugs he makes sure everyone who uses them is arrested.
If a Democrat doesn't like a president they try to beat him in an election, if a Republican doesn't like a president he demands impeachment..
No, if a Republican doesn't like abortion she makes sure
she doesn't get pregnant in the first place.
If a Republican doesn't like drugs it doesn't matter, they're
against the law anyway.
If a Republican see's a president break the law, he calls for
his impeachment, as should the Democrats.
Republicans are about personal responsibility, the Left
is about no responsibility. Blame others, blame Bush,
but never blame them.
