If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Google) NewsFlash Judge decides illegal immigrants and dead people still allowed to vote in PA   (google.com) divider line 995
    More: NewsFlash, voter ID, dead people, League of Women Voters, provisional ballots, illegal immigrants, Pennsylvania Republicans, swing states, Tom Corbett  
•       •       •

13303 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Oct 2012 at 11:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

995 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 01:10:11 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Apparently, you've never met any illegal immigrants. The vast majority lay very low and rarely go anywhere or do anything out of their own circle.


actually i know TONS of them. All extremely hard working guys (and two gals). Would love to have them as bona fide citizens! Remember my position on immigration. Complete open borders.
 
2012-10-02 01:10:19 PM

OrygunFarker: To the Derpers:


Prove that illegals and dead people were voting illegally in the Penn. elections, and I'll stand with you.


The burden of proof has been lowered by the GOP- hypotheticals are now sufficient to prove need. Sorry bro. Sorry for us all.
 
2012-10-02 01:10:28 PM

Joe Blowme: Valid photo identification is required for the things that follow:

my answers in bold:

adopt a pet Not really
purchase a home Students and poor people usually rent, and old people have probably paid off their home years ago.
purchase an automobile Students, the elderly, and poor people frequently don't have a car and use public transit. I am 40 and I have never driven and I am not in one of the at-risk categories. If you grow up in a city, you don't need to drive.
purchase a gun not sure how many folks you think are affected by this want or need a gun
obtain a bank account have you seen the lines in check cashing places on payday? A surprising number of poor folks have no bank account
obtain a credit card see above
obtain a passport because when I think of people who can afford international travel, it's poor people, students, and the elderly
write a check nope, except for certain places that want ID, but usually take other forms that the voting folks DON'T take
make a credit card purchase see above
apply for a loan to purchase anything I didn't have an ID to get a student loan. Poor people and the elderly don't qualify for loans.
to prove your age There are plenty of ways to prove this without having the ID needed to vote
to get married see above answer
to receive a marriage license see above answer
to drive see answer about buying a car
to buy a house you said this already
to close on a house rephrasing the question doesn't make it a new question
to get medical care nope
to get on a plane see above question about international travel
to get insurance on anything Student, poor people, and the elderly usually don't have insurance
to get a job plenty of jobs you don't need an ID to get. And plenty of other forms of ID acceptable you can't use to vote.
to get a post office box what planet do you live on? I know like 3 people with PO boxes
to get a hunting license yes, rural folks are taken care of by the Republican Party
to get a fishing license plenty of ID forms that don't get accepted to vote
to get a business license I don't know many poor people, students, or elderly that start a new business
to cash a paycheck nope, or other forms of ID acceptable
rent an apartment sometimes yes, sometimes no
rent a hotel room no
rent a car already covered in the "drive a car" question
rent furniture no.
rent tools and equipment no
receive welfare Plenty of other forms of ID accepted
receive social security My father never needed his ID to get SS
receive food stamps see welfare question
buy cigarettes who checks this unless you look 15?
buy alcohol BWAAAHAHAHAHAAHAA yeah, right, whew, that was a good one
buy a bus ticket no
buy a cell phonestudents usually get it from their parents and the elderly and poor frequently don't have one
buy any antihistimine no
go in to a casino I have never need to show ID to get into a casino
go in to a bar on what planet?
go to college I didn't have a state ID until my Junior year
have your water turned on most cities don't restrict water delivery
have your electricity turned on no
have your cable turned on building antennas or college free cable
have your gas turned on electric stoves. And if a gas stove, no, you do not need ID
obtain trash pick up service Nope, plus, students and those living in apt buildings do not need this
pick up a package from the post office nope, you just need the slip
pick up a package from fed ex they deliver it or leave a slip, numbnuts
pick up a package from ups see above
pick up a prescription no

So the people without id to vote never do any of these thigs either, right?


FAIL
 
2012-10-02 01:11:08 PM

Eagles409: I love how liberals just assume that poor people and minorities are too stupid to get a free ID card.


Considering the assumptions that are inherent in the Pennsylvania law you must be doing backflips.
 
2012-10-02 01:11:10 PM

Cataholic: xaratherus: Only one of those is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right - and the party that predominantly supports voter ID law (Republican) has a history of fighting fervently against the gun control laws that require you to go through a thorough identification process and background checks before purchasing a firearm.

And that is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Getting a marriage license isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right?


Nope, it's not, actually. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
 
2012-10-02 01:11:13 PM

give me doughnuts: Joe Blowme: Valid photo identification is required for the things that follow:
adopt a pet
purchase a home
purchase an automobile
purchase a gun
obtain a bank account
obtain a credit card
obtain a passport
write a check
make a credit card purchase
apply for a loan to purchase anything
to prove your age
to get married
to receive a marriage license
to drive
to buy a house
to close on a house
to get medical care
to get on a plane
to get insurance on anything
to get a job
to get a post office box
to get a hunting license
to get a fishing license
to get a business license
to cash a paycheck
rent an apartment
rent a hotel room
rent a car
rent furniture
rent tools and equipment
receive welfare
receive social security
receive food stamps
buy cigarettes
buy alcohol
buy a bus ticket
buy a cell phone
buy any antihistimine
go in to a casino
go in to a bar
go to college
have your water turned on
have your electricity turned on
have your cable turned on
have your gas turned on
obtain trash pick up service
pick up a package from the post office
pick up a package from fed ex
pick up a package from ups
pick up a prescription

So the people without id to vote never do any of these thigs either, right?

All the stuff that is struck through are things I have done without needing to show either a picture ID, or ID of any sort. Any more false information to disseminate?


If I may interject, I just adopted 2 kittens yesterday, I needed to show photo ID. Everything else crossed out looks OK

Carry on.
 
2012-10-02 01:11:14 PM

Saruman_W: theknuckler_33: Saruman_W: What's so good about this? Is it so wrong to verify someone is who they say they are and properly registered before you vote? Seriously, it takes like 2 freakin' seconds to whip that card out.

You get carded when you buy a gun, or buy booze and all sorts of other crap... what's so different about casting in a vote to decide who runs out entire country for 4 more years?

In Pa., when you go to the polls, you give your name, they look up your name in the voting register where a copy of your signature from when your registered is displayed. You sign the line right next to your signature and the poll worker verifies that your signature matches the one from when you registered.

What is wrong with this?

That doesn't prove anything. People can go in there and be whoever they want to be, forge a signature and cast off a vote. Poll workers won't know the difference.


Really? You don't think you could compare two signatures and tell if they are the same or not? Or maybe you are suggesting that there are tons of people out there will top notch signature forging capabilities that know the names of various people in different polling locations and what their signatures look like, as well as knowing that the REAL person won't have already showed up or might show up later and blow the roof off the whole thing. Are you friggin' kidding me?

This "poor people don't have IDs bawwwww" crap is just a crutch. IDs are NOT expensive at all. Those opposed to this law only want to keep the steady flow of illegal voters to ensure the return of their Lord and Savior Barack Obama after the election.

Ah, you're an idiot. Sorry, didn't realize.
 
2012-10-02 01:11:22 PM

mr lawson: Dusk-You-n-Me: The guy who thinks google search results equal evidence is concerned, you guys.

So 7-20 million potential illegal votes does not concern you at all?


Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.

Now, why DOES it concern you? Remember to be specific, because if you can't come up with a good reason, you're overdue for ignore list in addition to a lot of paid shills on here.
 
2012-10-02 01:11:36 PM

you have pee hands: Rwa2play: You know how I know you've never read the reason why this was done in the first place?

No. Are you a wizard?

This ain't the same place it was in 1789, and the Constitution was never intended to be kept as a static document for a quarter of a millennium irrespective of changes in the world around it.


And that's why the Amendments are around.
 
2012-10-02 01:11:47 PM

mr lawson: Dusk-You-n-Me: The guy who thinks google search results equal evidence is concerned, you guys.

So 7-20 million potential illegal votes does not concern you at all?


No. Prove it's happening and you might have something. A google search to a bunch of right wing sites proves nothing.
 
2012-10-02 01:12:21 PM

Lionel Mandrake: iheartscotch: Lionel Mandrake: iheartscotch: I also said; Ids are required for a lot of important things. Why not voting?

Where there's no problem, no solution is needed.

Make the IDs free and easy to obtain and there is no problem.

This seems to come up every election; the laws tend to make replacing a lost Id free and easy. It's almost as though everybody procrastinated 4 or 2 or whatever number of years. Would you prefer blood scans as aposed to a physical id that you can loose?

It's not free and easy, especially for the elderly who, in addition to having a generally difficult time getting places and waiting in lines, often do not have or long ago lost their birth certificates, meaning more money and lines. I think young(er) people assume that because it's pretty easy for them, it must be no big deal for everyone, which is not true. But, still, and I can't stress this enough, voter ID laws address a problem that does not exist. Set a long-term goal to get everyone a photo ID card that is available to all free of charge, and we have no problem. Still, there is also no "problem" that it will solve.

/ also; have you been denying them your essence, mandrake?

For now, but one of these days I'm going to unleash all my essence at once. Boy will the wife be surprised.


Maybe we need to do the purple finger thing. I can see how it would be hard for old people. My granny would probably not have been able to replace an id.

I'd have to disagree; I think voter fraud happens. Wether it takes the form of extreme pressure from a boss or religion; or actual fraudulent votes I don't know; but the election is too important to some people for it never happen ever.

/ it's only paranoia if I'm wrong

// you should definetly unleash your essence all at once; your ham sandwich ratio will probably increase as a result
 
2012-10-02 01:12:44 PM

randomizetimer: What a wonderful country we live in where a judge can subvert democracy. The voter ID law was passed by a elected state legislature. And he did not overturn it, he just delayed its enforcement until next year. Sounds like someone paid the judge off.


You mean the judge reinstated democracy after the GOP attempted to subvert democracy (which is par for the course for them).
 
2012-10-02 01:12:52 PM

mr lawson: So 7-20 million potential illegal votes does not concern you at all?



That something can happen does not mean it will, or that it does in any significant way. The state of Pennsylvania couldn't provide any evidence of significant (and in their case, any at all) in-person voter fraud in court. You can't provide any evidence either. There is no problem to fix.
 
2012-10-02 01:14:00 PM

mr lawson: theknuckler_33: mr lawson: Lionel Mandrake: The argument is that it amounts to a poll tax, results in keeping eligible voters from voting, and addresses a non-existent "problem"

The way it is now it allows "INELIGIBLE" voters (illegals) to vote.

Do you believe ILLEGAL immigrants should be able to vote?

Conservatives demand that not a single illegal cast a ballot even if that means US citizens are unfairly prevented from voting.

Liberals demand that not a single US citizen by unfairly prevented from voting even if that means an illegal ballot can be cast.

Denying any US citizen their constitutionally protected right to vote under ANY circumstance is a despicable position to take especially in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that illegals are actually casting ballots.

This is the basic argument.
If there were a low number of Illegals, it would not be such a problem, There are aprox 7-20 million of them and that number can skew results.


Except for the fact that there is very little evidence that the illegals are actually casting ballots and what evidence there IS points to it being exceedingly rare. Throwing around that 7-20 million number as a number of ballots cast is disingenuous... and that is being kind.
 
2012-10-02 01:14:05 PM

m2313: randomizetimer: What a wonderful country we live in where a judge can subvert democracy. The voter ID law was passed by a elected state legislature. And he did not overturn it, he just delayed its enforcement until next year. Sounds like someone paid the judge off.

You mean the judge reinstated democracy after the GOP attempted to subvert democracy (which is par for the course for them).


It's as if "Checks and Balances" just mean "Paper used to denote an exchange of money" and "a way to weigh" to him.
 
2012-10-02 01:14:49 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: mr lawson: So 7-20 million potential illegal votes does not concern you at all?


That something can happen does not mean it will, or that it does in any significant way. The state of Pennsylvania couldn't provide any evidence of significant (and in their case, any at all) in-person voter fraud in court. You can't provide any evidence either. There is no problem to fix.


Yup. It's called a 'slippery slope' fallacy, and should be avoided in arguments as best as possible. Your argument, mr lawson, is essentially a form of political and legislative hypochondria.
 
2012-10-02 01:14:58 PM

cptjeff: Joe Blowme: Valid photo identification is required for the things that follow:

So the people without id to vote never do any of these thigs either, right?

Let's edit, shall we? Strikethrough on stuff that's wrong, stuff that doesn't apply to poor people deleted outright.

[snip]

Basically, your list is completely wrong. There are a hell of a lot of people who manage to live without photo ID, and the fact that you can't recognize that not everyone lives the same way you do does not speak well of your mental ability.


Let's be fair, here. Even with your strikethroughs, most of those items are still a PITA to do without ID. I agree with your assessment, but still think that living life without an ID is just making your life tougher in most cases. I think that was the original context of the statement -- not calling shenanigans, just admitting that life without ID was a bit astounding to contemplate.
 
2012-10-02 01:15:02 PM

theknuckler_33: mr lawson: theknuckler_33: mr lawson: Lionel Mandrake: The argument is that it amounts to a poll tax, results in keeping eligible voters from voting, and addresses a non-existent "problem"

The way it is now it allows "INELIGIBLE" voters (illegals) to vote.

Do you believe ILLEGAL immigrants should be able to vote?

Conservatives demand that not a single illegal cast a ballot even if that means US citizens are unfairly prevented from voting.

Liberals demand that not a single US citizen by unfairly prevented from voting even if that means an illegal ballot can be cast.

Denying any US citizen their constitutionally protected right to vote under ANY circumstance is a despicable position to take especially in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that illegals are actually casting ballots.

This is the basic argument.
If there were a low number of Illegals, it would not be such a problem, There are aprox 7-20 million of them and that number can skew results.

Except for the fact that there is very little evidence that the illegals are actually casting ballots and what evidence there IS points to it being exceedingly rare. Throwing around that 7-20 million number as a number of ballots cast is disingenuous... and that is being kind.


Too kind. It's paid shill territory. I'm waiting to hear his response before I put him on ignore though.
 
2012-10-02 01:15:36 PM

Rwa2play: And that's why the Amendments are around.


So what's your point, exactly?
 
2012-10-02 01:16:18 PM

justtray: Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.


and how would, dare i ask, evidence be procured with the current system?

How does one go about proving citizenship of a voter? Their word?
 
2012-10-02 01:16:32 PM

justtray: mr lawson: Dusk-You-n-Me: The guy who thinks google search results equal evidence is concerned, you guys.

So 7-20 million potential illegal votes does not concern you at all?

Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.

Now, why DOES it concern you? Remember to be specific, because if you can't come up with a good reason, you're overdue for ignore list in addition to a lot of paid shills on here.


So, you are looking to negotiate "widespread"?
You admit the existance of fraud.
But, you waffle.

/let's negotiate "actual" as in rape while we are at it
//and while on GOP paradigms, let's go to equal pay for genders
 
2012-10-02 01:17:46 PM

mr lawson: justtray: Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.

and how would, dare i ask, evidence be procured with the current system?

How does one go about proving citizenship of a voter? Their word?


Thats for you to show if you want to assert that there's voter fraud. If you can't, then how can you come to the conclusion it exists?
 
2012-10-02 01:17:57 PM

mr lawson: and how would, dare i ask, evidence be procured with the current system?


I thought google searches sufficed?
 
2012-10-02 01:18:12 PM

mr lawson: justtray: Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.

and how would, dare i ask, evidence be procured with the current system?


I'm not sure, but that's your problem. You are the one making the 'positive claim' - that voter fraud exists to such an extent that voter ID laws are a necessity to ensure valid election results. Thus, the burden of proof rests on you, not us.
 
2012-10-02 01:18:52 PM
This is unfair to Romney. He stopped running adds in PA because the fix was in.
 
2012-10-02 01:19:49 PM

snocone: justtray: mr lawson: Dusk-You-n-Me: The guy who thinks google search results equal evidence is concerned, you guys.

So 7-20 million potential illegal votes does not concern you at all?

Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.

Now, why DOES it concern you? Remember to be specific, because if you can't come up with a good reason, you're overdue for ignore list in addition to a lot of paid shills on here.

So, you are looking to negotiate "widespread"?
You admit the existance of fraud.
But, you waffle.

/let's negotiate "actual" as in rape while we are at it
//and while on GOP paradigms, let's go to equal pay for genders


By widespread, I mean, more than a handful of cases. The actual stats are like 0.00003%, something to the tune of one in a million. Widespread in this sense means "statistically significant." It's a valid statisitical and scientifitic term based on the margin of error to population.
 
2012-10-02 01:20:21 PM

theknuckler_33: Throwing around that 7-20 million number as a number of ballots cast is disingenuous... and that is being kind


Whoa...wait right there! Go back and look at what i said. I said POTENTIAL! I even bolded it to avoid this very type of attack.
 
2012-10-02 01:20:48 PM

SpiderQueenDemon: So yeah. The vagaries of party politics, assumed fraud and miscellaneous kerfuffle are no match for my Grandma.


Now that is a cool story.

Kudos to your grandma.
 
2012-10-02 01:21:17 PM
Lotta butt-hurt righties in this thread.
See their butts.
See them hurt.
Hurt, butts, hurt.
 
2012-10-02 01:22:19 PM

mr lawson: How does one go about proving citizenship of a voter? Their word?


You realize that giving your word/swearing is exactly how you get the VoterID card right? There is no other requirement but to swear that you don't have other ID. It is a meaningless exercise only meant to disenfranchise voters.
 
2012-10-02 01:22:45 PM

elchupacabra: Ok, assuming the rate of fraud is actually low and not an effect on elections, I'd ask why that would be the case?

Most of the people in here seem apt to assume the "other party" would stoop to any level to win, including commit voter fraud. So:

1. It's nearly impossible to commit voter fraud?
2. You can't commit enough fraud to swing an election?
3. We're willing to live with the risk in order to protect the rights of voters?
4. We'll always catch the "other party" cheating?

Not sure why the response seems to always be "do absolutely nothing" here.


It is infinitely easier to commit election fraud than it would be to commit voter fraud at any level large enough to have any effect whatsoever. If you program a backdoor into the vote counting system that allows you to modify the numbers, if you build voting machines and multiply the democratic votes by .97 and the republican votes by 1.03, for example. Or you can go with voter suppression, or voter intimidation, or voter confusion (the mailers saying that Democrats vote on Nov. 7, while Republicans vote on Nov. 6th, for example).

In person voter fraud, on the other hand, would take a massive mobilization in order to have even a tiny effect, and somebody would talk. Even if nobody talked, if it was happening at that high a level, somebody would notice. It just flat out doesn't work very well.

It doesn't happen because, even if you grant that somebody would go to extreme lengths to swing an election, it's an incredibly inefficient way of doing so. If you were actually trying to swing the outcome of an election, regardless of the legitimacy of the means, in person voter fraud would be at the bottom of the list. Absentee fraud, maybe, but voter ID laws don't come anywhere close to addressing that.
 
2012-10-02 01:23:06 PM

amindtat: How about in order to vote, you should be able to pass the citizenship test whether you are legal or illegal?


I'd actually really like to see that, phased in over a period of years. We'd begin by testing every candidate for public office, from dogcatcher to President. There are a number of candidates, on both sides, that would rapidly and harshly be weeded out.

Then we'd give people between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one the opportunity to apply for early voting privileges by passing the test, because if you can drive a car and be held subject to traffic laws, I think you should have the opportunity, if competent, to help decide who makes them. It's only fair.

From there, we slowly phase in the citizenship test suffrage requirement, and when groups complain of high flunk rates, we use that as a casus belli for improving education in this country -and not just the public schools for little kids, but continuing education for all adults.

It would also allow for learning disorders and disabilities to be better addressed at all levels, as a hidden dyslexic who'd gotten by for 60+ years with just a signature could suddenly get free, modern treatment and have the written language opened up to him. Beating illiteracy at a late age to pass the citizenship test would suddenly become an accomplishment, rather than a stigma, and we would finally, at long last, start to stomp out the ridiculous American idea that being poorly educated is anything but a filthy shame. The idea that the 'school of hard knocks' is just as good as being educated or that intelligent, well-read people are to be considered suspicious and despised has plagued us since Andrew Jackson and it's the biggest obstacle to our continued survival as a nation.

/completely farking serious
//if I hear one more barely-literate fool insisting that someone is an 'elitist' for reading a book or getting an education...
///you know what, let's require the C-test for gun ownership and driving a car after a few decades of needing it for suffrage, too.
 
2012-10-02 01:24:43 PM

mrshowrules: This is unfair to Romney. He stopped running adds in PA because the fix was in.


They've got this billboard in a couple places in southeast PA:

"Obama supports Gay Marriage and Abortion. Do you? Vote Republican."

I'm not sure that taking out a billboard advertising yourself as a bigot in Bucks County is all that savvy of a political move but there you go.
 
2012-10-02 01:24:44 PM

mr lawson: justtray: Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.

and how would, dare i ask, evidence be procured with the current system?

How does one go about proving citizenship of a voter? Their word?


You're freedom protecting GOP poll watchers can challenge any ballot if I am not mistaken. With the millions of illegals casting ballots in every presidential election, it is shocking that more illegal aliens going to polling stations, risking deportation, have not been detected by these diligent poll watchers.
 
2012-10-02 01:25:18 PM
Has anyone pointed out that the numbers of illegals currently voting hasn't been tabulated? And has anyone mentioned that the reason is that up until this law there was no way to know how widespread this fraud has been?

Because that's sort of key to understanding this entire debate.
 
2012-10-02 01:25:49 PM

skullkrusher: nice troll subs


You must be upset subs took your job in this thread.

teehee
 
2012-10-02 01:25:59 PM

mr lawson: Whoa...wait right there! Go back and look at what i said. I said POTENTIAL! I even bolded it to avoid this very type of attack.


Because in the absence of any sort of actual statistics regarding fraud it's just a big number for shock value which is senseless fearmongering.
 
2012-10-02 01:26:02 PM

justtray: Thats for you to show if you want to assert that there's voter fraud. If you can't, then how can you come to the conclusion it exists?


xaratherus: mr lawson: justtray: Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.

and how would, dare i ask, evidence be procured with the current system?

I'm not sure, but that's your problem. You are the one making the 'positive claim' - that voter fraud exists to such an extent that voter ID laws are a necessity to ensure valid election results. Thus, the burden of proof rests on you, not us.


two both you you..I really didn't have any idea on HOW to prove the claim...however, this link kinnda helps

Now it does NOT mean that these illegals are voting...but it does mean that they are on the voting roll.
 
2012-10-02 01:26:07 PM

mainstreet62:
If I may interject, I just adopted 2 kittens yesterday, I needed to show photo ID. Everything else crossed out looks OK

Carry on.


Hell no, you're not getting away that easy. We need photo identification of the kittens.
 
2012-10-02 01:27:07 PM

cptjeff: elchupacabra: Ok, assuming the rate of fraud is actually low and not an effect on elections, I'd ask why that would be the case?

Most of the people in here seem apt to assume the "other party" would stoop to any level to win, including commit voter fraud. So:

1. It's nearly impossible to commit voter fraud?
2. You can't commit enough fraud to swing an election?
3. We're willing to live with the risk in order to protect the rights of voters?
4. We'll always catch the "other party" cheating?

Not sure why the response seems to always be "do absolutely nothing" here.

It is infinitely easier to commit election fraud than it would be to commit voter fraud at any level large enough to have any effect whatsoever. If you program a backdoor into the vote counting system that allows you to modify the numbers, if you build voting machines and multiply the democratic votes by .97 and the republican votes by 1.03, for example. Or you can go with voter suppression, or voter intimidation, or voter confusion (the mailers saying that Democrats vote on Nov. 7, while Republicans vote on Nov. 6th, for example).

In person voter fraud, on the other hand, would take a massive mobilization in order to have even a tiny effect, and somebody would talk. Even if nobody talked, if it was happening at that high a level, somebody would notice. It just flat out doesn't work very well.

It doesn't happen because, even if you grant that somebody would go to extreme lengths to swing an election, it's an incredibly inefficient way of doing so. If you were actually trying to swing the outcome of an election, regardless of the legitimacy of the means, in person voter fraud would be at the bottom of the list. Absentee fraud, maybe, but voter ID laws don't come anywhere close to addressing that.


Thanks. So... I can see that throwing a national election using that method is probably infeasible -- although the illegals vote still is a question in my mind. What about regional/local? Governors and stuff.
 
2012-10-02 01:27:34 PM

justtray: snocone: justtray: mr lawson: Dusk-You-n-Me: The guy who thinks google search results equal evidence is concerned, you guys.

So 7-20 million potential illegal votes does not concern you at all?

Correct. Because there is no evidence of any widespread voting fraud.

Now, why DOES it concern you? Remember to be specific, because if you can't come up with a good reason, you're overdue for ignore list in addition to a lot of paid shills on here.

So, you are looking to negotiate "widespread"?
You admit the existance of fraud.
But, you waffle.

/let's negotiate "actual" as in rape while we are at it
//and while on GOP paradigms, let's go to equal pay for genders

By widespread, I mean, more than a handful of cases. The actual stats are like 0.00003%, something to the tune of one in a million. Widespread in this sense means "statistically significant." It's a valid statisitical and scientifitic term based on the margin of error to population.


You might want to take a look at the sourse of that there derp.
Like AGW, there is no longer any way to get actual data.

/guess my brain is like trying to actually rape a good christian woman. i just make it go away
 
2012-10-02 01:29:25 PM

Theaetetus: Marine1: Joe Blowme: Valid photo identification is required for the things that follow:
adopt a pet
purchase a home
purchase an automobile
purchase a gun
obtain a bank account
obtain a credit card
obtain a passport
write a check
make a credit card purchase
apply for a loan to purchase anything
to prove your age
to get married
to receive a marriage license
to drive
to buy a house
to close on a house
to get medical care
to get on a plane
to get insurance on anything
to get a job
to get a post office box
to get a hunting license
to get a fishing license
to get a business license
to cash a paycheck
rent an apartment
rent a hotel room
rent a car
rent furniture
rent tools and equipment
receive welfare
receive social security
receive food stamps
buy cigarettes
buy alcohol
buy a bus ticket
buy a cell phone
buy any antihistimine
go in to a casino
go in to a bar
go to college
have your water turned on
have your electricity turned on
have your cable turned on
have your gas turned on
obtain trash pick up service
pick up a package from the post office
pick up a package from fed ex
pick up a package from ups
pick up a prescription

So the people without id to vote never do any of these thigs either, right?

But, but, poor people never do any of that...

Again, items that are struck are things poor people don't typically do. Bolded items don't require photo ID. There is no third category.



You should un-strike hunting and fishing licenses. Many poor people get those. I've known several that depended on the meat. Might not apply as much to city dwelling poor.
 
2012-10-02 01:29:39 PM

snocone: You might want to take a look at the sourse of that there derp.
Like AGW, there is no longer any way to get actual data.


So it must be happening! Right?
 
2012-10-02 01:29:50 PM

theknuckler_33: You're freedom protecting GOP poll


ROFLMAO...
MY what?!?!?!

Libertarian dude.
/believes in total open borders
 
2012-10-02 01:30:02 PM

theknuckler_33: In Pa., when you go to the polls, you give your name, they look up your name in the voting register where a copy of your signature from when your registered is displayed. You sign the line right next to your signature and the poll worker verifies that your signature matches the one from when you registered.

What is wrong with this?

 

It lets too many Democrats vote.
 
2012-10-02 01:30:11 PM

I_C_Weener: I don't know any poor, elderly or college students who don't have ID. Is that a problem in Pennsylvania?


is the ID valid? Does it match the spelling EXACTLY as it appears on the voter registration?

Indiana, for people who voted in 2006, 10.7% of the people did not have a state issued ID or a drivers license. (Source, PDF) 13.9% did not have an ID that had their full legal name on it. 14.1% did not have a valid ID that exactly matched their voter registration.

Yes, it's a problem in Pennsylvania as well.
 
2012-10-02 01:30:32 PM
How do some of you manage to dress yourselves in the morning without lacking the critical thinking skills of putting on your socks before your shoes? It's amazing how ignorant people can be when they desperately want to support their team.
 
2012-10-02 01:31:09 PM

Leeds: Has anyone pointed out that the numbers of illegals currently voting hasn't been tabulated? And has anyone mentioned that the reason is that up until this law there was no way to know how widespread this fraud has been?

Because that's sort of key to understanding this entire debate.


Has anyone mentioned that Mr. Obama has deported more illegals in one term than Mr. Bush, the Lesser did in two?
 
2012-10-02 01:32:16 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-02 01:32:49 PM

2wolves: Leeds: Has anyone pointed out that the numbers of illegals currently voting hasn't been tabulated? And has anyone mentioned that the reason is that up until this law there was no way to know how widespread this fraud has been?

Because that's sort of key to understanding this entire debate.

Has anyone mentioned that Mr. Obama has deported more illegals in one term than Mr. Bush, the Lesser did in two?


Perhaps you are right and GWB was nicer to illegals. But the fact remains that they tend to support the Dems regardless of who would treat them better.
 
Displayed 50 of 995 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report