Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[carpedm9587]

I don't really see "the right" rushing into minority communities gathering up the "disenfranchised" to get them to vote. I think it's fairly common knowledge that these folks would vote Democrat.

This is true. The left pushes into minority communities, and the right pushes into rural, working-class, and religious communities. Each political parties works to "get out the vote" of the people they think will support them. How much they actually support those people AFTER the fact is open to debate. In my experience, neither side does much to continue to support those communities. The goal today appears to be "win the office at any cost," and then the folks on the street are forgotten until the next election cycle. In this dynamic, I do not see a great deal of difference. The right continuously promises their constituents "fiscal responsibility" and continually fails to deliver. The left continually promises their constituents "support for the poor and disenfranchised," and continually fails to deliver. The right promises "moral responsibility," and continuously fails to deliver. The left promises "an age of equality" and consistently fails to deliver.

I don't see either party following through on much of anything. In part, I believe it is because the parties now refuse to work with one another to find reasonable compromises, and the electorate has taken on the arrogrant position that if they cannot have it entirely their way - then the system is "rigged" or "corrupt" or "unfair."

We have a VERY immature electorate, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

Do any of those people NOT have an ID or need one in their lives? or should I just tell you "those are examples not arguments?" - you just tossed out anecdotes yourself. I didn't use any anecdotes, I used an example of reasons why people need IDs. There are a lot MORE reasons.

In fact, Sparko - you are right. I was responding to "anecdotes" with "countering anecdotes." As I have noted multiple times, none of this proves anything. So I point back to the studies I have provided earlier. I have seen nothing from you to coounter them.

Do I need to point them all out to you so you can nitpick them away too?

Sparko - if you have such a low opinion of my discussion/debate tactics, why on earth do you keep responding? Write me off as a quack and be done with it. Or call me a hypocrite and dismiss my positions. I don't understand why you feel a need to respond when you do not think my posts are intended in a spirit of honest debate and disagreement.

You like to nitpic away anything anyone says instead of just accepting their point in total. The point is people need IDs to function in their lives. You can't get by without one.

And this is not true, Sparko. People cannot function as YOU do - but they can function. And you cannot wish away the results of the studies - that say 2% of the electorate will be impacted by such Voter ID initiatives if they are implemented without a corresponding attempt to get all people IDs before they become mandatory.

Since you are the one claiming there are millions of citizens running around without IDs I think it is up to YOU to show who they are and why they don't have IDs. Show me some that don't fit those categories.

I provided the link to the studies.

yeah the study which you can't be bothered to find the link to? Still waiting on that.

so a study that "projects" and "predicts" and yet can't actually show these disenfranchized voters? right.

Again, I will provide the link the the Brennan site that links to the dozens of studies that establish what I have outlined. https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...ter-fraud-myth

neither have I from you. and statistical analysis based predictions don't cut it.

They cut it if they are based on solid research, have been peer-reviewed, and are mathematically sound, Sparko. If you do not think they are, then I invite you to point to the research that refutes them. I'm sorry, but your objections and assertions are simply not going to cut it. If you can provide refuting research to these, I will most definitely look at it. If all you have is continued assertions that "it can't be so because of X," I think I'll fall back on the formal research, and not someone's clearly biased opinions that have not been supported with more than anecdote.

What YOU choose to do is entirely up to you.

[carpedm9587]

Examples are not evidence. isn't that what you like to say?

Your claim, Sparko, was that "You have always had to prove your citizenship to vote. from the beginning." To refute this claim, I need only find one instance when it has not. I have lived in ten voting districts since I have been old enough to vote: Vermont (3 districts), New York, Delaware, Massachusetts (3 districts), and Louisiana (2 districts). In NONE of them was I required to provide proof of citizenship. Now, if I were to try to use this experience to prove that "proof of citizenship is not required in most voting districts," you would be correct to cite my claim that examples are not arguments. Ten out of ten is a strong indicator that "most" may be true, but it could also be a fluke and proves nothing; my experiences are not sufficient to make that case. But they ARE enough to show that your claim is false.

I do note that I have not moved in 26 years now, and when I look at Vermont VoterID requirements today, they now include a form of ID (license or passport). I have not checked the other states in which I have lived, but I suspect that may now be the case in others as well. It was not when I registered to vote in these various districts 26-40 years ago.

This is basic logic, Sparko. Are you REALLY going to refute it? Perhaps by claiming that I am simply lying so I can score a point? Again, if you think so little of my honesty, why not simply disconnect. It makes no sense to continue a discussion with a liar, a hypocrite, and someone who is making irrational arguments.

[Sparko]

In fact, Sparko - you are right. I was responding to "anecdotes" with "countering anecdotes." As I have noted multiple times, none of this proves anything. So I point back to the studies I have provided earlier. I have seen nothing from you to coounter them.

Sparko - if you have such a low opinion of my discussion/debate tactics, why on earth do you keep responding? Write me off as a quack and be done with it. Or call me a hypocrite and dismiss my positions. I don't understand why you feel a need to respond when you do not think my posts are intended in a spirit of honest debate and disagreement.

because I am trying to get you to change and not do it.

I did not give "anecdotes" I gave a list of things you need to have an ID to function in today's society with. You responded with "nuh-uh I know people who dont"

You can't even get a legitimate job without an ID, Carpe. You have to either prove you are a citizen or have a green card to get a social security number to get a legitimate job and pay taxes. So if you ARE a citizen and you work in this society and pay your taxes you will already have some way to prove you are a citizen and get a photo ID.

And this is not true, Sparko. People cannot function as YOU do - but they can function.

Sure, as perhaps a housewife who depends on her husband to work, or being a criminal, or being an illegal and getting paid under the table, or something like that.

And you cannot wish away the results of the studies - that say 2% of the electorate will be impacted by such Voter ID initiatives if they are implemented without a corresponding attempt to get all people IDs before they become mandatory.



I provided the link to the studies.

So you keep claiming. Yet you can't find it. Or be bothered to look it up again? You seem to remember the stats but not the actual study. I even told you I would read it if you provided the link to me.

Again, I will provide the link the the Brennan site that links to the dozens of studies that establish what I have outlined. https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...ter-fraud-myth

wow now you want to drown me in crap in an attempt to overload?

Not only did you not link to a particular study and quote support for what you have been claiming, you merely supplied a link to an entire web site dedicated to debunking voter fraud. Should I just post back a link to a counter site?

Arguing by weblink is against our rules. You can use links to support what you are arguing but not just post an entire website.

example: a 1995 study shows that people traditionally have voted with beef jerky and don't need no stinking ID cards. See page 2 of this study www.beefjerkyvotersrule.com/1995/study/beefy.pdf

[carpedm9587]

because I am trying to get you to change and not do it.

Sparko - I am providing evidence-based arguments. I'm not going to change that process because you don't happen to like it.

I did not give "anecdotes" I gave a list of things you need to have an ID to function in today's society with. You responded with "nuh-uh I know people who dont"

You can't even get a legitimate job without an ID, Carpe. You have to either prove you are a citizen or have a green card to get a social security number to get a legitimate job and pay taxes. So if you ARE a citizen and you work in this society and pay your taxes you will already have some way to prove you are a citizen and get a photo ID.

When your claim is "you have to have it," then I only need a single incidence of where you DON'T need to have it to refute the position, Sparko. For the scale of the problem, I point you to the studies I have now linked to multiple times. My anecdotes will not be sufficient to prove "scale."

Sure, as perhaps a housewife who depends on her husband to work, or being a criminal, or being an illegal and getting paid under the table, or something like that.

Those are some examples...

So you keep claiming. Yet you can't find it. Or be bothered to look it up again? You seem to remember the stats but not the actual study. I even told you I would read it if you provided the link to me.

I have now linked to it in four separate posts, Sparko. I'm not sure what exactly it is you're expecting of me. But here is is for a fifth time: https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...ter-fraud-myth

wow now you want to drown me in crap in an attempt to overload?

Since you clearly have not read even one of the linked studies - I don't see how you are in any position to rate them as "crap," Sparko. And given that response, you might not want to even waste your time with them. It seems doubtful that you are going to read them with an open mind. Why not simply say, "I'm not going to look and I have already made up my mind" and be done with it? Your arguments are certainly not enough to convince me - and if you have no desire to explore your own views with an open mind, just be done with it, man.

Not only did you not link to a particular study and quote support for what you have been claiming, you merely supplied a link to an entire web site dedicated to debunking voter fraud. Should I just post back a link to a counter site?

If you bother to scroll down the site, you will find links to well over a dozen studies related to the point.

Arguing by weblink is against our rules. You can use links to support what you are arguing but not just post an entire website.

I have summarized the points of the various studies, quoted the statistics, and applied them to the database argument that was provided earlier. I'm not sure what more you want. However, if you feel I am violating terms of service, then simply delete my posts, Sparko. You're a mod. You have that authority.

example: a 1995 study shows that people traditionally have voted with beef jerky and don't need no stinking ID cards. See page 2 of this study www.beefjerkyvotersrule.com/1995/study/beefy.pdf

See my previous posts for my uses of the data within the studies.

[Cow Poke]

OK, just for grins, how would you "study" the number of people who run red lights in the middle of the night (or even in the day) at intersections were nobody else is around?

Could you look at the court docket for that municipality, and accurately extrapolate the number of red light runners based on the number of people actually cited, tried and convicted (or voluntarily paid the fine)? Would you agree there are far more red light runners than the "paid a fine" number would indicate?

Or speeding. You think we could accurately extrapolate the number of people who speed in any municipality based on the number of people who were actually stopped, cited, and paid a fine? I think you'd agree the number would be FAR greater than those actually "caught".

This is pretty much what you're doing when you're only looking at "proven cases of voter fraud". There is no system in place that actually tracks - real time - whether a person is qualified to vote, has voted already in another precinct, is who he/she claims to be, etc.

It stands to reason, however, that those States with Voter ID would make it less likely for somebody to be tempted to cheat, just like the presence of that radar car on the side of the highway discourages speeders (at least temporarily).

So, help me out - what studies are there that are not primarily based on "who got caught"?

[Cow Poke]

By the way, who's Roy Moore?

[carpedm9587]

OK, just for grins, how would you "study" the number of people who run red lights in the middle of the night (or even in the day) at intersections were nobody else is around?

If nobody else is around (in any form), you can't. However, you CAN study it by placing "people-proxies" at the interesections (e.g., road sensors, cameras, etc.).

Could you look at the court docket for that municipality, and accurately extrapolate the number of red light runners based on the number of people actually cited, tried and convicted (or voluntarily paid the fine)? Would you agree there are far more red light runners than the "paid a fine" number would indicate?

If you have no way to actually measure the phenomenon - then you would have no choice but to use basic statistical analysis, examining the data related to normal red light behavior, and attempting to weight the data. The problem with that, unfortunately, is there is a variable introduced for which the weighting cannot be adjusted. Weighting helps to extrapolate total behavior on the basis of observed/known behavior. But when people are NOT observed, their behavior changes - so the weighting would have to include a factor for this behavior. The more such weighting factors you have to introduce, the less confident the study becomes about the reliability of the resulting numbers.

One way to verify the projections is to make them - and then test them in the field using these kind of covert detectors.

Or speeding. You think we could accurately extrapolate the number of people who speed in any municipality based on the number of people who were actually stopped, cited, and paid a fine? I think you'd agree the number would be FAR greater than those actually "caught".

Yes - the number of people who speed is greater than those who do not. I have no doubt. Proper weighting should come close to an estimate, but that estimate is most "solid" when it is verified with spot tests.

This is pretty much what you're doing when you're only looking at "proven cases of voter fraud". There is no system in place that actually tracks - real time - whether a person is qualified to vote, has voted already in another precinct, is who he/she claims to be, etc.

OK - once again - you (and Teal) are arguing against a position I have not taken and am not defending. The statement "the database of voter fraud incidents is not adequate to show that voter fraud is happening at a statistically significant level" is not the same as "the database proves voter fraud is not happening at a statistically significant level." I have said the former. I have not said the latter.

It stands to reason, however, that those States with Voter ID would make it less likely for somebody to be tempted to cheat, just like the presence of that radar car on the side of the highway discourages speeders (at least temporarily).

Less likely yes. How MUCH less likely is a matter for debate. One thing the database shows us is that most indicted instances of voter fraud would NOT be solved by voter IDs (see Guacamole's post). So if that ratio holds for the non-indicted cases, depending on the total volume, that suggests VoterIDs (as currently rolled out) ar enot going to make much of a dent. And the POINT of my case is that you cannot justify an initiative that has projected studies-based impacts at levels like 2% to solve a problem for which there is no statistical evidence of occurence at significant levels. FIRST prove that the level of occurrence is statistically significant enough to warrant that level of disenfranchisement, THEN I will buy in to implementation "now." Otherwise, as I have noted multiple times, I have no problem with spending the tax dollars to implement the program (even though there is little evidence it will solve anything), but it needs to be done in a manner that will NOT disenfranchise voters. OR, you need to show that the projected level of disenfranchisement will not occur.

So, help me out - what studies are there that are not primarily based on "who got caught"?

Again, I point you, as I did Sparko, to the list of studies on the Brennan website: https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...ter-fraud-myth

[Cow Poke]

If nobody else is around (in any form), you can't. However, you CAN study it by placing "people-proxies" at the interesections (e.g., road sensors, cameras, etc.).

And you really think that would be economically feasible? Maybe as much, if not more, than providing photo IDs to the "disenfranchised"?

If you have no way to actually measure the phenomenon - then you would have no choice but to use basic statistical analysis, examining the data related to normal red light behavior, and attempting to weight the data. The problem with that, unfortunately, is there is a variable introduced for which the weighting cannot be adjusted. Weighting helps to extrapolate total behavior on the basis of observed/known behavior. But when people are NOT observed, their behavior changes - so the weighting would have to include a factor for this behavior. The more such weighting factors you have to introduce, the less confident the study becomes about the reliability of the resulting numbers.

Pretty much like it would be really difficult to monitor the legitimacy of people voting without some... say... method to determine who they are. If they knew you were watching, they'd probably change their behavior.

One way to verify the projections is to make them - and then test them in the field using these kind of covert detectors.

Like poll monitors?

Yes - the number of people who speed is greater than those who do not. I have no doubt. Proper weighting should come close to an estimate, but that estimate is most "solid" when it is verified with spot tests.

So, yeah, no way to know, really, but anecdotally, we all know it happens every day.

OK - once again - you (and Teal) are mis-stating my position. At no point have I argued that the number of detected

detected..... you had to go to the bathroom before finishing? I hate it when that happens.

And, no, I'm not mis-stating [sic] your position - I'm simply stating that we really have no idea how much fraud is out there, because there's no way to know that without actually monitoring it.

[carpedm9587]

By the way, who's Roy Moore?

Didn't he used to have a horse and a wife named Dale?

[Cow Poke]

Didn't he used to have a horse and a wife named Dale?

His horse and wife were one and the same?

[carpedm9587]

And you really think that would be economically feasible?

Umm.. to put sampling detectors at intersections? I used to do that. Absolutely.

Maybe as much, if not more, than providing photo IDs to the "disenfranchised"?

Not sure I get your point...

Pretty much like it would be really difficult to monitor the legitimacy of people voting without some... say... method to determine who they are. If they knew you were watching, they'd probably change their behavior.

The problem, CP, is that how believe behave running lights when folks are around is not the same as when there are no folks around. It skews the numbers. Detecting equipment need not be visible, so it can measure this phenomenon.

Like poll monitors?

Possibly. The problem with poll monitors is they cannot do what they do and simultaneously be invisible (at least, as far as I know) - so detecting "unwatched" behaviour is extremelty difficult, if not impossible in this circunstance.

So, yeah, no way to know, really, but anecdotally, we all know it happens every day.

No - we don't. We suspect it - but we have no study I have ever seen that establishes the frequency of it to be statistically significant. If the right is so committed to this being the reality - then just do the bloody studies and document the reality! If not - then you're speculating based on anecdotes, and I do not see such speculation as adequate to justify the level of disenfranchisement the studies project.

detected..... you had to go to the bathroom before finishing? I hate it when that happens.

Nahh.. I needed to cut/paste something and chose to "save" and then go back and edit. I should have known you were lurking...

And, no, I'm not mis-stating [sic] your position - I'm simply stating that we really have no idea how much fraud is out there, because there's no way to know that without actually monitoring it.

On THAT we agree - and my point is you cannot justify an intrusive change that disenfranchises voters on the basis of speculation. Document it. Study it. Make the case. Then you can justify the change. If you cannot, then you are obligated to make the changes in as non-intrusive a fashion as possible. So if the best anyone on the right can do is point to a 1088-entry database that covers 16 years, there is not adequate evidence there to justify impacting the voting rights of 2-4.5 million people, especially when there is a simple mechanism for both implementing the voter ID program AND avoiding that disenfranchisement: create the infrastructure and implement it - THEN make it mandatory.

And though I think the Voter ID system will not actually solve very much of any existing voter fraud, I regognize it has a value: people's confidence in the electoral system. THAT has a value. As an analogy, I built my own home. When I was working with my foundation contractor, he gave me three choices for the crawl-space support system: steel beams (very expensive), lally columns (very inexpensive, adjustable, and unobtrusive), and concrete pillars (about $200 more than the lally columns). I chose the concrete pillars. The contractor worked hard to convince me the lally column were the best choice. Finally, he asked me how I could justify spending $200 more dollars when a cheaper, better alternative presented itself. I answered, "Chuck, I'm probably going to live in this house for at least 30 years. $200 is less than a buck a month. I'm willing to spend an extra buck a month for that feeling of stability I will experience each morning when I am drinking my coffee knowing my butt is being supported by a 10-inch column of stone, instead of a 2-inch column of steel that's busily rusting in my crawl space." He thought it made no sense. It did to me.

Likewise, if a major chunk of our electorate would "feel better" about the Voter ID system, and it would give them more confidence about our election system, that's reason enough for me to do it - even if it doesn't actually solve any significant part of a voter fraud problem that hasn't even been shown to exist. But if the problem cannot be shown to exist at a significant enough level, it needs to be implemented in a way that does not negatively impact current voters.

I simply do not see that requirement as unreasonable.

[carpedm9587]

His horse and wife were one and the same?

No - his horse and his wife were both named "Dale," silly!

For want of a comma, the kingdom was lost.

I used to know a man with a wooden leg named Fred!

[Teallaura]

I am going to clarify what I said one last time. I said that voter ID is a solution to a problem which has yet to be shown to occur at statistically significant levels. Someone provided a link to the database to prove voter fraud occurred. I objected to that interpretation as mathematically unjustified for the reasons stated. At no point did I say voter fraud was proven NOT to occur at a statistical level. There is a difference between "voter fraud has not been shown to occur at a statistically significant level" and "voter fraud is not occurring at a statistically significant level." I said the former. I do not recall ever saying the latter.

We appear to be agreeing violently.

No, we aren't. No data means you don't draw a conclusion - at all. You've already concluded that there is no voter fraud problem - you've stated it was statistically insignificant when called on the claim and only when forced to admit that the studies you yourself cited didn't actually tell us anything about voter fraud.

I agree it should be statistically significant - if and when properly measured. A bunch of conviction only based studies are not rational measures of voter fraud so the statistical significance tells nothing.

What I do know is we do have historic instances of very significant voter fraud. We have at least one Democrat claiming systemic voter fraud (really hoping that one is just a nut) and that voter fraud has been a major concern multiple times in history. Denying that it exists is foolish. Since the majority of Americans who can vote legally already have ID and free IDs are available/can be made available to the rest, the argument that Voter ID is necessarily disenfranchising is also foolish.

[carpedm9587]

No, we aren't. No data means you don't draw a conclusion - at all. You've already concluded that there is no voter fraud problem - you've stated it was statistically insignificant when called on the claim and only when forced to admit that the studies you yourself cited didn't actually tell us anything about voter fraud.

I agree it should be statistically significant - if and when properly measured. A bunch of conviction only based studies are not rational measures of voter fraud so the statistical significance tells nothing.

What I do know is we do have historic instances of very significant voter fraud. We have at least one Democrat claiming systemic voter fraud (really hoping that one is just a nut) and that voter fraud has been a major concern multiple times in history. Denying that it exists is foolish. Since the majority of Americans who can vote legally already have ID and free IDs are available/can be made available to the rest, the argument that Voter ID is necessarily disenfranchising is also foolish.

I give up, Teal. I've highlighted your error. I have said nothing of the sort, which is the problem with your response. You're arguing against a position I have not taken and do not support. I did not say voter fraud has not occurred. I said the claim that it HAS occurred at statistically significant levels has not been adequately supported, so cannot be used as the baseline for decisions. If you do not see the difference between those statements, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

To be fair - I have been sloppy with my use of language in other contexts, and had to eat my words - so there is a chance I may have spoken too loosely somewhere in this thread. I am not finding it, but if that is the case, it should be simple for you to show me where I actually said that. If not, then it seems reasonable for you to accept the fact that you are NOT accurately reflecting my position.

Meanwhile, until you are actually responding to MY position, it makes no sense for me to respond further. I cannot defend a position I do not hold.

Edited to Add: OK - I will partially eat my words. In post #1517 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post498676) I was sloppy with my language, and used the "phrase voter fraud is statistically insignificant." I should have edited more carefully, because the gist of the post was the same as my other ones: the database is not enough to make the claim that the rate of voter fraud is statistically significant. That was 120ish posts ago - and every post since then I have been very clear in my language. So if your entire response to me is based on that post - I can see why you are reacting. Why you refuse to accept what I have actually been saying for the last 100+ posts I do not understand. But I stand by my statement above - until your responses are about what I am actually saying - I have no further response.