JFK never should have been President

[Ryback_feed_me_more]

Why does it matter who is benefiting? Are you 5 years old? The only thing that matter is who benefits. It's not like there were a lot of cases of voter ID in recent years. So few that you went back over half a century for an example. Some olds don't have an ID for all kinds of stupid reasons.

And sometimes it's difficult to get one, apparently.

http://www.brennancenter.org/publica...identification


I'm thinking this is a problem that goes away in 10 years or so when the generation born before 1950 punches out.

How can you say that "the only thing that matters is who benefits"?

No.

The only thing that should matter is what is right. While the Republicans benefit from voter ID and Democrats benefit from the lack of it, that shouldn't be a factor in debating whether it is right or wrong.

You are acting like elections are a surprise and/or occur every day. Even if there is some effort required to obtain an ID, you have plenty of time to obtain one, and the cost of doing so is extremely minimal, to where it shouldn't even be a factor for poor people.

If you are going to claim that requiring ID to vote is so cruel and racist, then why isn't it cruel and racist to require ID for nearly everything else in life? The "voter ID is wrong" people might as well lobby that we shouldn't need ID for anything, and should just take everyone's word for who they are. At least that line of argument would be consistent.

While voting is a right that shouldn't be denied to anyone, it also requires some effort and those not making the effort can't claim to be discriminated against. For example, if I forget to register in time, I can't claim that my rights to vote are being violated when I show up to the polling place anyway. If I get too sick on election day to leave the house to vote, I can't scream that I was a victim of discrimination that they wouldn't bring the voting to my house, or that nobody would pick me up and drive me there.

This is just an attempt by the Democrats to get extra votes from people too lazy/weird/old to bother getting ID. They know the votes will mostly go their way, so they scream "racist" and accuse Republicans of manipulating things.

Voting is a right however its not a right you get to keep when your dead or legally disenfranchised due to felony convictions. Or if you are in this county illegally.. In fact last time I checked you had to be a US Citizen to vote in elections period.. The amount of democratic fraud perpetrated with dead people and those who have been allowed to register same day in many states who shouldnt be allowed to vote is why NC and other states are putting their foot down.. I lived in similar statesI know the discussions. Also as far as Im concerned college students from out of state shouldnt be voting in elections in the state they are in college if they are out of state students then they need to vote in the state they claim as residence..

[Ryback_feed_me_more]

You are probably correct about the 1960 election. A lot of dead people in Chicago voted that November. However, the instances of voter fraud in this country today are statistically minimal. Please cite one recent election in which voter fraud influenced the outcome. There aren't any.

I would argue that there was significant voter fraud during Obama's election in 2008 was it enough to tip the balance not necessarily however when you have admitted voter intimidation by Black Panthers followed by issues of dead people voting again it needs to stop. The arguements against voter ID are Bullshit.. You need an ID to buy liquor show if your getting certain prescriptions filled (all controlled prescriptions now require photo id per the DEA to be shown when filling or picking up). The excuses are endless other then the truth which is it stops people from voting who shouldnt be. It stops people voting multiple times (there were incidents of people same day voter registration voting in multiple locations with fake IDs in NC which is why they put a stop to same day registration). I would argue the people who bitch and moan about are likely already owners of an ID so whats the big deal to show it when you vote???? If you have it show it.. if you dont go get one.. PERIOD..

[DirtyB]

The amount of democratic fraud perpetrated with dead people

Any sources to back that up?

[Ryback_feed_me_more]

The amount of democratic fraud perpetrated with dead people

Any sources to back that up?

Heres one regarding the primary in CT in 2008

http://obambi.wordpress.com/2008/06/...-in-primaries/

OVER 8000 dead people voted in the primary nearly all for Obama.. Weird huh??

Of course the Secretary of State of CT denies their was fraud.. Well how the hell did over 8000 dead people vote.. Also see mention of the WA Governors election which was influenced potentially by dead voters..

[DirtyB]

Heres one regarding the primary in CT in 2008

http://obambi.wordpress.com/2008/06/...-in-primaries/

OVER 8000 dead people voted in the primary nearly all for Obama.. Weird huh??

Did you read that page? 8000 people didn't vote. There were 300 dead people's names crossed off the voter list.

Most importantly, the headline mentions Obama and the 2008 primaries, but the article doesn't. It's dated June 3, 2008 and talks about "last year's election" in Connecticut. The only elections in Connecticut in 2007 were municipal level elections, mostly for mayors. And the guy who discovered it says "there is no evidence of any election fraud".

That's the best source you have for claiming widespread Democratic voter fraud?

[big dick]

lol dirty b obliterates you guy's ... it's really funny to read.

[tony bagadonuts]

You're being an asshole and you're laughably wrong on this one so why don't you do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

I know it's very frustrating for you on the rare occasion that this site has a semi-intelligent thread.

Here's a link to your Seahawks thread-

http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ur-Face/page61

You can head back there and not feel stupid anymore.

Thank you Barold, PFA's resident "intellectual".



Try engaging your debate partners with something other than regurgitated verbosity and smug dismissals and you may yet be cured of your assholeness.

[DirtyB]

Try engaging your debate partners with something other than regurgitated verbosity and smug dismissals and you may yet be cured of your assholeness.

Nice job with the word "verbosity". Next time you might be able to use it correctly. My posts are among the shortest in this thread. And I'm not sure how asking people to back up their claims with sources is a dismissal. It's actually sort of the opposite.

[tony bagadonuts]

lol dirty b obliterates you guy's ... it's really funny to read.

Barry may be an ass sometimes, but he's still Dirty B and I'll probably feel bad later for ripping him even though he deserves it.

You on the other hand, I'm trying to remember even one post or thread made by you that is memorable and by golly I can't think of a single one. I can recall general faggotry but that's about it.

You still need to tight up your game nephew, it's weak.

[tony bagadonuts]

Try engaging your debate partners with something other than regurgitated verbosity and smug dismissals and you may yet be cured of your assholeness.

Nice job with the word "verbosity". Next time you might be able to use it correctly. My posts are among the shortest in this thread. And I'm not sure how asking people to back up their claims with sources is a dismissal. It's actually sort of the opposite.

It's used correctly guy, and it's not so much a comment on your posts on this thread as it is your posts in general when you're being a smug shit.

[DirtyB]

Nice job with the word "verbosity". Next time you might be able to use it correctly. My posts are among the shortest in this thread. And I'm not sure how asking people to back up their claims with sources is a dismissal. It's actually sort of the opposite.

It's used correctly guy, and it's not so much a comment on your posts on this thread as it is your posts in general when you're being a smug shit.

Ok. Good critique. That makes sense that you would be commenting on my full oeuvre.

I'm really trying to be kinder and less dismissive of people. Thank you for your help.

In the future, let's say there was a thread that I had zero posts in and was generally not a part of. If my first post in that thread called someone an "asshole" and told them to "shut the hell up.", that would really be considered dickish and dismissive, right? So I definitely shouldn't do that?

[Dan Druff]

If it could be shown that people who forget to register to vote in time would have otherwise voted Democratic, you can bet that the left would be screaming about the violation of these people's "rights", as well.

Both parties do what they can to win elections.

In this case, Republicans are pushing the voter ID thing because it benefits them, and Democrats are claiming it's racist and elitist because voter ID would hurt their totals. Both parties are motivated on this issue for the same reason.

I am trying to ignore this political angle-shooting, and am simply debating the right and wrong of it.

The bottom line is that you have a long time between elections, and obtaining ID is both cheap and accessible to everyone. While it may be more difficult for some (such as those without a vehicle and in a town with shoddy public transportation), it is nowhere near impossible, and you will find VERY FEW (if any) cases where someone wanted an ID and absolutely could not get one.

This is not a good enough reason to prevent the requiring of ID at the polling place.

Some felons cannot vote.
All people under 18 cannot vote.
No one is allowed to vote twice in the same election.

However, all three of these groups CAN vote, and do so rather easily, without a voter ID law in place.

If someone who shouldn't vote casts a ballot which opposes any of my voting choices, my rights as a voter have been violated. Why? Because my vote has been canceled out. And that's just as bad as preventing someone from voting.

Democrats love to say, "Voter fraud is not a problem" or "Republicans are just trying to get fewer people voting".

However, they are not arguing against the actual merits of requiring ID, aside from the silly argument that somehow people are unable to afford or obtain ID, despite having a year or more to do so.

[Gordman]

If it could be shown that people who forget to register to vote in time would have otherwise voted Democratic, you can bet that the left would be screaming about the violation of these people's "rights", as well.

Both parties do what they can to win elections.

In this case, Republicans are pushing the voter ID thing because it benefits them, and Democrats are claiming it's racist and elitist because voter ID would hurt their totals. Both parties are motivated on this issue for the same reason.

I am trying to ignore this political angle-shooting, and am simply debating the right and wrong of it.

The bottom line is that you have a long time between elections, and obtaining ID is both cheap and accessible to everyone. While it may be more difficult for some (such as those without a vehicle and in a town with shoddy public transportation), it is nowhere near impossible, and you will find VERY FEW (if any) cases where someone wanted an ID and absolutely could not get one.

This is not a good enough reason to prevent the requiring of ID at the polling place.

Some felons cannot vote.
All people under 18 cannot vote.
No one is allowed to vote twice in the same election.

However, all three of these groups CAN vote, and do so rather easily, without a voter ID law in place.

If someone who shouldn't vote casts a ballot which opposes any of my voting choices, my rights as a voter have been violated. Why? Because my vote has been canceled out. And that's just as bad as preventing someone from voting.

Democrats love to say, "Voter fraud is not a problem" or "Republicans are just trying to get fewer people voting".

However, they are not arguing against the actual merits of requiring ID, aside from the silly argument that somehow people are unable to afford or obtain ID, despite having a year or more to do so.

A few years ago around the time of the Governor recall election when voter id was required, many on the left were bitching that some simply wouldn't be able to afford the id. Well, part of the voter id bill included paying for id's for those who couldnt afford it. After all of the democrats bitching that certain people wouldn't be able to afford it, guess how many people actually took advantage of the benefit? ZERO

[DirtyB]

Democrats love to say, "Voter fraud is not a problem" or "Republicans are just trying to get fewer people voting".

However, they are not arguing against the actual merits of requiring ID, aside from the silly argument that somehow people are unable to afford or obtain ID, despite having a year or more to do so.

Your attempt to show that voter fraud IS a problem has not gone well.

It amuses me that Conservatives are tripping over themselves to add legislation and bureaucracy in order to address a problem that clearly doesn't exist. But when it's time to solve actual problems, like the 30,000 Americans killed by guns every year, the same Conservatives scream about their philosophical objections to unnecessary legislation and bureaucracy.

[Steve-O]

However, they are not arguing against the actual merits of requiring ID, aside from the silly argument that somehow people are unable to afford or obtain ID, despite having a year or more to do so.

Are you for a government issued national ID card? That would solve the perceived problem and do so in a way that wouldn't disenfranchise a single voter.

It would also modernize the incredibly ridiculous piece of paper with nine-digits; allow police to demand ID from anyone they lawfully stop; and help put a dent in the hiring of illegals.

This is a serious question. As a sometimes republican I've never understood why regular Republicans (not the "government lists are the devil" crowd) are against this.

[Hurdleking]

Druff, et al......if you truly are interested in what is "right" under our legal system please take the time to read Judge Richard Posner's recent opinion which, not to put too fine a point on it, eviscerates the argument for voter ids. Before you jump to a partisan conclusion know that Posner is a Reagan appointee who is truly one of the most cerebral and prolific appellate judges in our country.

[ltrainkoja]

Democrats love to say, "Voter fraud is not a problem" or "Republicans are just trying to get fewer people voting".

However, they are not arguing against the actual merits of requiring ID, aside from the silly argument that somehow people are unable to afford or obtain ID, despite having a year or more to do so.

Your attempt to show that voter fraud IS a problem has not gone well.

It amuses me that Conservatives are tripping over themselves to add legislation and bureaucracy in order to address a problem that clearly doesn't exist. But when it's time to solve actual problems, like the 30,000 Americans killed by guns every year, the same Conservatives scream about their philosophical objections to unnecessary legislation and bureaucracy.

It is amazing that we have kindergarten kids gunned down in Connecticut, shooting on military bases, and universities but zero gun control. I am not saying you can't have guns but some control. Republicans feel this is not an issue but lord forbid some poor person tried to participate in the democratic process with out paying a 20 to 50 dollar fee to the government for an id.

Druff you are usually level headed in your thought process but you logic on this issue is so flawed. I love how you say it is not impossible for poor people to get an id. Druff have you been poor a day in your life? Do you imply that you have a complete understanding of what it is like to be poor. Republicans are leading by trying to promote policies that do not negatively affect them. While claiming they understand the burden it presents to others. They do not.

It is also laughable that you state Democrats only oppose things that do not favor them. I literally laughed at the screen when I read your comment. The republicans have shut down the government twice because they did not like certain policies. They think that even though they are not in power, as decided by the American people, it is still the republican way or the highway. Republicans either get their way or they will take their ball and go home. The amount of Filibusters by republicans during Obama's time in office is more than all the filibusters in the history of our country combined. That's right -- start at George Washington and add up all the filibusters through W and it is less than the total under Obama. When it comes to suggesting only supporting ideas that help your base- Druff he who lives in glass houses should not throw stones

[Dan Druff]

However, they are not arguing against the actual merits of requiring ID, aside from the silly argument that somehow people are unable to afford or obtain ID, despite having a year or more to do so.

Are you for a government issued national ID card? That would solve the perceived problem and do so in a way that wouldn't disenfranchise a single voter.

It would also modernize the incredibly ridiculous piece of paper with nine-digits; allow police to demand ID from anyone they lawfully stop; and help put a dent in the hiring of illegals.

This is a serious question. As a sometimes republican I've never understood why regular Republicans (not the "government lists are the devil" crowd) are against this.

Yes, I am for this. I am not sure why Republicans are against this, unless perhaps they think it interferes with states' rights (though I don't agree that it does). It's also possible that Republicans opposing this quietly want illegals to still be able to work.

I wish everyone arguing with me here would stop trying to turn this into a partisan debate, but rather just discuss the voter ID thing on its own merits.

"It's not a problem" isn't a valid answer, because anything which allows people to impersonate others at the polls IS a problem.

"It will introduce bureaucracy" isn't a valid answer, because there is no bureaucracy. This would be incredibly easy to implement.

"They can't afford ID" isn't a valid answer for two reasons. One, an easy compromise could be reached (and has been, as Gordman pointed out) to pay for the IDs of low-income applicants. Two, the cost to obtain ID is so minimal that it is laughable that even the poorest person in America couldn't come up with $15 in a year's time.

"They can't obtain ID because it's too hard" is also not a valid answer. In a year's time, everyone can find the time and effort to get an ID.

"Republicans are doing this to keep people out of the polls" isn't a valid answer, because that's trying to debate intent rather than the right or wrong of the law itself.

[Dan Druff]

Druff, et al......if you truly are interested in what is "right" under our legal system please take the time to read Judge Richard Posner's recent opinion which, not to put too fine a point on it, eviscerates the argument for voter ids. Before you jump to a partisan conclusion know that Posner is a Reagan appointee who is truly one of the most cerebral and prolific appellate judges in our country.

I haven't read this, but I doubt it will change my mind. The bottom line is that not requiring ID to vote opens up a massive hole for potential voter fraud, and even if the actual occurrence of fraud is minimal, there is still no reason for the hole.

It's like saying builders in nice neighborhoods shouldn't install locks on the doors, because there's hardly any crime and it's a waste of everyone's time and money to have locks.

You don't need a crime epidemic to justify a simple and painless deterrent.

[Sanlmar]

Thank god there is the electoral college choosing the President for us. The popular vote amuses the masses.