Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[carpedm9587]

ps it is not an example. It was a relevant observation. People have to eat. Which means if the poor need IDs just to get food stamps and social help, and they apparently seem to be able to do that, then they have IDs and the whole situation regarding voting IDs is a farce.

You are citing all sorts of "maybe" this and "maybe" that without any evidence other than your personal impression, Sparko. That's arguing by example. I provided a link in my first response to this topic to a study that quantified the impact of the VoterID laws with research. All of the objections you raise don't do anything to contradict the findings of the study. If you're going to be convincing, you're goinbg to have to deal with the data.

[carpedm9587]

Also I wanted to say:

If there are some people who cannot meet the criteria to get a photo ID or to vote, I am OK with that. There will always be people who do not meet the criteria to accomplish something, even if it is a constitutional right.

Heck only about half of the people who CAN vote actually bother to in the first place. It is not like we need the votes of those who are unable to vote if we can't even get those who are able to actually vote. Work on that first.

Ummm... no. Sorry. You don't disenfranchise potentially millions of people to prevent hundreds from committing fraud. The math is just not justified. And that's ESPECIALLY true when the initiative skews the polling outcomes to solve a problem that is statistically insignificant. An average of slightly more than one instance of voter fraud per year per state, most of which (see Quacamole's post) would not be solved with a VoterID program does not justify the disenfranchisement of all of these people - especially when there is a means for implementing a voterID system that does NOT so disenfranchise.

Tghere simply is no rational justification for it - unless the TRUE justification IS to skew the polls. Then it makes sense - AND I consider it unethical, unamerican, and unpatriotic (the latter being somewhat redundant ).

[Sparko]

Ummm... no. Sorry. You don't disenfranchise potentially millions of people to prevent hundreds from committing fraud. The math is just not justified. And that's ESPECIALLY true when the initiative skews the polling outcomes to solve a problem that is statistically insignificant. An average of slightly more than one instance of voter fraud per year per state, most of which (see Quacamole's post) would not be solved with a VoterID program does not justify the disenfranchisement of all of these people - especially when there is a means for implementing a voterID system that does NOT so disenfranchise.

Tghere simply is no rational justification for it - unless the TRUE justification IS to skew the polls. Then it makes sense - AND I consider it unethical, unamerican, and unpatriotic (the latter being somewhat redundant ).

they are not being disenfranchised. They just are not meeting the criteria necessary to vote. You have to have some minimum standards. Like you have to be a citizen to vote. You have to be 21 years old. You have to be a resident in a specific political location (county, district) in order to vote in those elections. And you have to be able to prove that you meet those criteria. If you can't you can't vote. That is not "disenfranchisement" that is just basic law and common sense.

I am all for making it as easy as possible to help anyone who want to vote to meet those criteria and get to vote, but it is a simple fact that not everyone will be able to do so, no matter how easy you make it for them. But you don't eliminate the criteria to accommodate them. You don't say well we just don't care if someone is a citizen or not. Because we have to care.

[rogue06]

To what extent has it been shown to be a problem. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that there isn't good evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Two-votes Guacamole

Oh boy, where to start...


How about the study conducted in 2014 by a team of researchers from Old Dominion University and George Mason University which estimated that roughly 6.4% of non-citizens voted during the 2008 presidential election with an estimated 80% of them voting in favor of the Democrats (See Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?)

This appears to be confirmed by others such as veteran pollster John McLaughlin did a survey in 2013 which asked 800 likely Hispanic voters whether or not they were American citizens. A full 13% admitted they were not. You have to wonder how many were non-citizens but didn't admit it.

You can read about both of those here.

There have been numerous state and local studies which uncovered numerous examples of voter fraud over the past few years such as the one in North Carolina where the state board of elections found 35,750 cases of double voting in 2012 -- people registered to vote there and in another state and who cast votes in both states. And that is just in the 28 states which participated in the 2014 Interstate Crosscheck meaning the number is probably much higher^[1]

And let's not forget how the DNC and Hillary campaign were caught red-handed funding professional rioters to go to Trump campaign rallies to cause disturbances so that their sycophants in the press could declare that it was Trump's fault for being polarizing or attracting violent elements.

Robert Creamer, a convicted felon^[1] who is the husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsk (D-Ill.) a member of House Democratic leadership being the Chief Deputy Whip, and runs a political consulting firm that worked closely with the DNC and the Hillary campaign, was recorded boasting of orchestrating political violence designed to disrupt Trump rallies. Or as CNN put it, the video showed "Creamer and other operatives purportedly discussing methods for inciting violence at rallies for the Republican nominee."

According to the Chicago Sun Times, "White House visitor logs show Creamer has made 340 visits since Obama took office in January 2009" and it appears that at least 45 of those meetings were with Obama

The same goes for Scott Foval, the National Field Director for Americans United for Change, who as NPR (hardly a right wing source) said, ""

Further he boasted that his rent-a-mobs were responsible for forcing Trump to cancel a campaign rally in Chicago last March although Aaron Black, an associate with Democracy Partners (Creamer's firm) who bragged that he was the "deputy rapid response director for the DNC for all things Trump on the ground," also took credit for it saying, "So the Chicago protest, when they shut all that, that was us. It was more [Creamer] than me."

Interestingly, the Washington Post (another news organization that only Starlight can characterize as right wing) noted that rent-a-mobs were being hired to protest Trump from the very day he day he officially announced his presidential candidacy in June 2015, saying that "George Soros is the usual suspect, for a variety of reasons" was likely responsible. In typical Post fashion they were far more concerned about Trump saying there were thousands of protesters rather than hundreds, that it took awhile for them to get paid and how much it cost Soros to hire these professional protesters to follow Trump.

And even after all that, MSNBC, the news outlet that the Obama Administration proclaimed in 2009 they "loved," were claiming this month that the paid protester is a "myth" which they find "deeply amusing":




As an aside, it should be noted that Creamer and Foval also discuss methods of committing voter fraud. Foval described how operatives could commit voter fraud by shipping in out of state people to vote saying that "You can prove conspiracy if there's a bus. If there are cars, it's much harder to prove." According to the Washington Times he openly admits that Democrats have been doing this for decades:




1. who served only 5 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to tax fraud and operating a check kiting scheme responsible for $2.3 million in bank fraud. Must be nice having a wife with major political connections.

Please pay attention to the bolded part. Note how they admit to orchestrating massive voter fraud and how easy it is to do.











1.

[rogue06]

Ummm... no. Sorry. You don't disenfranchise potentially millions of people to prevent hundreds from committing fraud. The math is just not justified. And that's ESPECIALLY true when the initiative skews the polling outcomes to solve a problem that is statistically insignificant. An average of slightly more than one instance of voter fraud per year per state, most of which (see Quacamole's post) would not be solved with a VoterID program does not justify the disenfranchisement of all of these people - especially when there is a means for implementing a voterID system that does NOT so disenfranchise.

Tghere simply is no rational justification for it - unless the TRUE justification IS to skew the polls. Then it makes sense - AND I consider it unethical, unamerican, and unpatriotic (the latter being somewhat redundant ).

Disenfranchised huh?

Then can you please explain why former President Bill Clinton along with the civil rights icon Andrew Young have come out in favor of requiring picture IDs to vote which pretty much guts this myth that it is some diabolical Republican plot to disenfranchise the poor and minorities?



And while you're at it please explain that in addition recent polling indicates that 60% of Democrats, 65% of Hispanics and 59% of blacks support voter ID laws.

[Teallaura]

This is the only thing I could find - it actually doesn't support the idea that voter id results in disenfranchisement - it supports the idea that Democrats will lose votes.

I don't see another link and I've searched the thread several different ways (suggestion - it would be really great if we could search by username). Do you remember anything specific you said in the post?

[rogue06]

This is the only thing I could find - it actually doesn't support the idea that voter id results in disenfranchisement - it supports the idea that Democrats will lose votes.

Of course that is disenfranchisement. What else would you call it when the dead are denied their constitutional right to vote?

[carpedm9587]

This is the only thing I could find - it actually doesn't support the idea that voter id results in disenfranchisement - it supports the idea that Democrats will lose votes.

I don't see another link and I've searched the thread several different ways (suggestion - it would be really great if we could search by username). Do you remember anything specific you said in the post?

Actually - it notes that BOTH Republicans and Democrats will lose votes, but the net impact would be an average 1.2% shift in outcomes, in favor of Republicans (i.e., Democrats would lose more voters than Republicans) - and cites the sources for the research.

And where do you think those losses come from - if not from voters being taken off the rolls for lack of an ability/resources to secure an ID? That too is discussed in the linked research.

[carpedm9587]

Of course that is disenfranchisement. What else would you call it when the dead are denied their constitutional right to vote?

Again - please provide the evidence that fraudulent votes are being cast in the name of the dead at any statistically significant level.

The presence of the names of people who are deceased on voter registration rolls is NOT evidence that actual voter fraud is occurring.

[Raphael]

One of the biggest problems at the moment is that it is almost impossible to detect voter fraud and other "irregularities". We simply don't have sufficient measures in place to meaningfully gather the evidence, so nobody really knows to what extent it is or isn't happening.

I hate to tell you this, but insisting that voters have Voter ID won't it easier to detect fraud. Unless you're DNA tagging each voter and then matching that up, people who really want to commit voter fraud will find a way to do it.

[carpedm9587]

Disenfranchised huh?

Then can you please explain why former President Bill Clinton along with the civil rights icon Andrew Young have come out in favor of requiring picture IDs to vote which pretty much guts this myth that it is some diabolical Republican plot to disenfranchise the poor and minorities?



And while you're at it please explain that in addition recent polling indicates that 60% of Democrats, 65% of Hispanics and 59% of blacks support voter ID laws.

First of all - I never said I was against VoterID laws (see my previous posts). And statistics about how many support it doesn't counter the data that outlines how many will be disenfranchsed if the voter ID laws are implemented without regard to those who will indeed be disenfranchised. Your mixing apples and oranges. I f I were polled, I would say I support VoterID laws. That does NOT mean I want them implemented in a way that disenfranchises people when there are ways to implement them that don't.

You folks keep arguing againstt hings I'm not saying - and providing arguments that don't refute the underlying point. At this point, I've basically repeated myself multiple times, so it's long past time I step away. Last word to ya'll - if you so desire.

[Teallaura]

Actually - it notes that BOTH Republicans and Democrats will lose votes, but the net impact would be an average 1.2% shift in outcomes, in favor of Republicans (i.e., Democrats would lose more voters than Republicans) - and cites the sources for the research.

And where do you think those losses come from - if not from voters being taken off the rolls for lack of an ability/resources to secure an ID? That too is discussed in the linked research.

No, it's not discussed in that link that I saw. It discussed statistical methodology and concluded that Democrats would lose votes but not a huge number.

[Juvenal]

... there were thousands of protesters rather than hundreds, that it took awhile for them to get paid and how much it cost Soros to hire these professional protesters to follow Trump.

The hundreds, not thousands, cited in the WaPo story, represented roughly two-thirds of the three hundred or so Trump supporters at his announcement, known to be recruited and paid late by Trump, not protestors questionably recruited and paid by Soros.

Rogue, when you keep on getting stuff this wrong ... it decreases the value of interacting with you on anything political.

[Darth Executor]

And where do you think those losses come from - if not from voters being taken off the rolls for lack of an ability/resources to secure an ID?

They could come from voter fraud. But for the most part they'd probably come from people who can't be bothered, which just goes to show you what kind of people vote Democrat in the first place.

[rogue06]

I hate to tell you this, but insisting that voters have Voter ID won't it easier to detect fraud. Unless you're DNA tagging each voter and then matching that up, people who really want to commit voter fraud will find a way to do it.

A photo ID should suffice, after all it works fine with things like driver's licenses and passports.

Will it stop all fraud? No. But it will probably dissuade many who don't do it on a regular basis but are prompted by a specific election. Besides, since when do we decide not to do something because it won't be 100% effective?