JFK never should have been President

[Dan Druff]

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.

Where did I claim that requiring an ID is cruel and racist? Do you know you have a habit of assigning views to people when they haven't expressed those views?



Frankly, I just like freedom more than you. I don't want to tread on someone if they don't want to get an ID.

Nobody is being forced to get an ID.

If you want to live off the grid with no ID, that is your right.

But then you have to give up certain elements of civilized life such as voting, driving, obtaining credit, flying, etc.

You can't have it both ways where you don't want ID but want the benefits of having ID.

We have a semi-modern Presidential election decided by voter fraud. I guess today's Democrats realize that most people are too young to remember 1960, so they can sell the "voter fraud can't happen" idea more easily.

I prefer practical prevention rather than leaving security holes wide open and saying, "We will worry about this after something bad happens."

[lol wow]

druff is your license picture the best picture of you is that why you love it so much

[Dan Druff]

druff is your license picture the best picture of you is that why you love it so much

What license picture?

[lol wow]

also druffs completely correct and when dirty b is getting carjacked by black people and they use his credit card at a foot locker and capriottis you know hes loving those id laws

[lol wow]

if i had to ballpark it your 2011 license picture that you love whipping out cuz you just had a good you day that day

[DirtyB]

We also haven't a US airliner downed by a terrorist attack in over 10 years. Should we also abandon airline security?

I just addressed that. Nobody is proposing making the current rules weaker. I thought you were smart enough to grasp the difference. I guess not.

It amazes me that Democrats basically want a big election hole left wide open, simply because it benefits them to do so.

What "hole"? I asked you to provide a shred of evidence that any "hole" currently exists and you couldn't do it. Or do you think that nobody has had any interest or incentive to throw an election in the past 50 years?

Here. I'll even help you out. Here is one example of voter fraud. You just have to come up with one more.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/gop_...slie_rutledge/

[lol wow]

why are you crying about people needing an id barrold you love government

[Dan Druff]

We also haven't a US airliner downed by a terrorist attack in over 10 years. Should we also abandon airline security?

I just addressed that. Nobody is proposing making the current rules weaker. I thought you were smart enough to grasp the difference. I guess not.

Any attempt to require voter ID is being thwarted. The current rules are not relevant. The only thing relevant here is what is right.

It amazes me that Democrats basically want a big election hole left wide open, simply because it benefits them to do so.

What "hole"? I asked you to provide a shred of evidence that any "hole" currently exists and you couldn't do it. Or do you think that nobody has had any interest or incentive to throw an election in the past 50 years?

Here. I'll even help you out. Here is one example of voter fraud. You just have to come up with one more.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/gop_...slie_rutledge/

I still don't understand the point of this exercise.

Why allow it to occur at all when there is an easy solution to stop it?

The fact that you think that there isn't an incentive to commit voter fraud in close elections is mind-boggling. It is well known that dirty political operatives will often do whatever it takes to win.

Voter fraud is often difficult to detect and prove. In 1960, the instances of it were so blatant that it was easy to come to that conclusion. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen anymore.

I am still trying to understand why it's such a violation of anyone's rights to require them to get ID to vote, when acquiring such ID is accessible to anyone, especially given enough time.

[DirtyB]

The fact that you think that there isn't an incentive to commit voter fraud in close elections is mind-boggling. It is well known that dirty political operatives will often do whatever it takes to win.

You read that wrong, chief.

My point was that there IS a huge incentive to cheat. But in the past 50 years of the current regulations, there have been zero proven cases. The only serious accusation I've seen was Saxby Chambliss overcoming a huge polling deficit to win a Georgia Senate seat after a mysterious software patch was applied only to the voting machines in downtown Atlanta.

You say that there's a huge "hole" in the current process. I asked you to support your claim with evidence, and you clearly can't.

[sonatine]

I guess the reason people ignore the JFK fraud and fixate on the Bush fraud is because JFK was a brilliant humanitarian and Bush was a vile, murderous criminal.

[lol wow]

bush THE GOAT

[lol wow]

he literally allowed for your freedom to be a weird possibly horrible delivery ordering we need to talk about some of your recent choices human being when he threw that strike after 9 11

deal with it son

[lol wow]

people he lived in portland and im not even sure he visited the portland soup truck that is literally what were dealing with here

[Crowe Diddly]

When voter fraud happens, it invariably happens on the counting side, not the voting side. That's why the ID laws don't solve anything. They wouldn't have prevented the examples Druff presented, as far as I know. Votes were bought, stolen, and added after the fact, but not a whole lot of illegitimate voters who would have been prevented from voting because of an ID law.

[BHS]

Republicans are trying to make it harder to vote, to solve a problem that clearly does not exist. And in a shocking coincidence, the rules Republicans are proposing to solve a problem that clearly doesn't exist, would largely prevent minorities and poor people from voting.

Cmon Druff - Which party stands to gain here?

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

A whole thread because it finally set in for OP that the next Pres. will be a Democrat.

[Crowe Diddly]

http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...h-IDing-voters

[Dan Druff]

Republicans are trying to make it harder to vote, to solve a problem that clearly does not exist. And in a shocking coincidence, the rules Republicans are proposing to solve a problem that clearly doesn't exist, would largely prevent minorities and poor people from voting.

Cmon Druff - Which party stands to gain here?

I haven't denied that Republicans will gain.

Why does that change anything?

The party gaining should have no relevance upon whether it's right or wrong.

[Gordman]

If the election isn't super close and high-profile, nobody looks for it.

Besides, whether it has happened recently or not, that doesn't mean you should open the door to it. Do you remember what a mess the 2000 election was? Much of the controversy came down to local procedures with vote-counting, hanging chads, recounts, and other things that nobody ever considered would be a factor in a US Presidential election.

I think it's foolish to take the attitude of, "We are going to open the door to voter fraud and only worry about it once it actually occurs. We won't bother preventing it because that could be construed as racist and/or help Republicans."

It's laughable that Democrats are actually saying that it's reasonable that people should just be able to show up to a polling place, say, "Yeah, I'm that guy, and while I can't prove it, you aren't allowed to make me prove it. Now let me vote."

Nothing else in 2014 society works like that. You always need ID.

You thought that by typing a bunch of words I wouldn't notice that you couldn't come up with a single example to support your argument?

If someone was proposing loosing the requirements for voting, your post would make sense. But Republicans are trying to make it harder to vote, to solve a problem that clearly does not exist. And in a shocking coincidence, the rules Republicans are proposing to solve a problem that clearly doesn't exist, would largely prevent minorities and poor people from voting.

funny how i remember how there are at least a couple of instances in recent years just in my state where people have been convicted and incarcerated for voter fraud. Heck, i even remember one where a shitload of absentee ballots were fucked with and the address was traced back to one address....which turned out to be a fucking parking lot. im not going to waste my time doing searching that should be fairly easy especially with Google these days.

The left in my state has been and still is hell fucking bent on doing everything they can to have Scott Walker replaced. Some of the shit they have pulled especially during the failed recall is appalling and simply fucking uncalled for. To say they haven't snuck in bogus votes somewhere along the line is pretty damn unlikely in my book.
Even if there were a number of instances where voter fraud has been proven, the democrats response is usually "well, it doesn't matter anyway because it wouldn't have been enough to sway an election"

This is a bullshit response.

People who want a fair election should be striving to make voter fraud 0%. Period.
Sure, no matter what someone does there is always a potential for fraud either way, but to say "well its just a couple of cases...bla bla bla" is bullshit, undermines the voting process, and damages voting confidence.

Finally, to say that there is little or no voter fraud imo is the same thing as saying the only people who speed on the highway are the ones who get caught. We ALL know that simply isn't true...but yet there is no "proof".

[GrenadaRoger]

People don't think the 2000 election was about voter fraud. It was about a partisan Supreme Court.

All the restrictive voter id laws are being put in place by republicans to make it harder for minorities to vote. You can find plenty of quotes by the authors of these bills where they unabashedly brag that they are making it easier for Republicans to win elections. Why are you so defensive about it? Everyone knows that if you make it harder to vote, Republicans do better. It's just a fact.

2004 Election also had problems, especially in Ohio...read the 2005 Congressional Report "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio"

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/...yersreport.pdf

cliff: republicans did quite a bit to discourage voter turn out in areas expected to vote for democrats


but, as you Pol Sci 150 instructer told you, the US ruling elite do not want everyone to vote--because if that happened, the country would be far more socialist....ask yourself why the US does not fine people for not voting? Australia does, $100, and they have voter turn outs well over 90% v the US getting a heavy turn out of 65% for a presidential election...