• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

AdamT said:
I took exception to a lot of what you wrote, which is obvious from reading my post. It's just dishonest for you to pretend that I agreed with you, and you know it. Smacks of desperation.
Click to expand...

It's real simple... Are the 5 points you posted fact or speculation/opinion?

Except for #2, they are speculation/opinion as I posted. With the exception of #5, you did not refute that. All you did was make excuses for why posted them.

It comes down to "YES" or "NO"... Yes, they are factual or no they are not factual.

Obviously Republicans aren't going to admit that they don't think there's a real fraud problem and they're really only interested in suppressing Democratic voter turnout. They're not THAT stupid. :roll:
Click to expand...

And obviously you don't have one stinking shred of concrete evidence to back up that accusation, yet you still proclaim it as fact. It is an opinion... a partisan, politically motivated, steaming pile of liberal conjecture designed to justify your opposition to preventing voter fraud.
 
AdamT said:
I took exception to a lot of what you wrote, which is obvious from reading my post. It's just dishonest for you to pretend that I agreed with you, and you know it. Smacks of desperation.

Obviously Republicans aren't going to admit that they don't think there's a real fraud problem and they're really only interested in suppressing Democratic voter turnout. They're not THAT stupid. :roll:
Click to expand...

And most democrats aren't stupid enough to trust people to vote without some form of photo identification either.

Poll shows majority of Americans think voter ID laws are necessary | TheBlaze.com

“Overall, 70 percent of Americans say voter ID laws are needed to stop illegal voting. That’s far more than the 26 percent who see the laws as a hindrance to legal voting.
Click to expand...
 
Adam, you are really a piece of work. You use conjecture and partisan opinion, to try and prove your opinions and partisan conjecture are factual.

You just keep spinning in circles and frankly, I've come to the conclusion you are incapable of honest discussion. All you do is keep posting the same baseless garbage post after post, irregardless of whether it's applicable, credible or factual.

The day you discover that political talking points are a lousy substitute for logic and simple common sense, get back to me and we'll have a real discussion.
 
Grim17 said:
Adam, you are really a piece of work. You use conjecture and partisan opinion, to try and prove your opinions and partisan conjecture are factual.

You just keep spinning in circles and frankly, I've come to the conclusion you are incapable of honest discussion. All you do is keep posting the same baseless garbage post after post, irregardless of whether it's applicable, credible or factual.

The day you discover that political talking points are a lousy substitute for logic and simple common sense, get back to me and we'll have a real discussion.
Click to expand...

You've proven yourself to be so dishonest on this subject that I'm afraid I just have to tune you out. If anyone thinks I've agreed with Grim's theory, raise your hand. :roll:

If you want to be taken seriously, address the election commission report and subsequent expurgation of same. It's that new information you've been craving (but apparently ignoring).
 
Last edited:
People too incompetent to have a photo ID are the ones least likely to be able to make a well reasoned choice.
 
AdamT said:
If anyone thinks I've agreed with Grim's theory, raise your hand. :roll:
Click to expand...

If you didn't, then you are saying those 5 points you posted are factual.... That makes you a liar... Bye Adam.
 
Grim17 said:
If you didn't, then you are saying those 5 points you posted are factual.... That makes you a liar... Bye Adam.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, per usual. Don't let the door hit you....
 
TurtleDude said:
People too incompetent to have a photo ID are the ones least likely to be able to make a well reasoned choice.
Click to expand...

That is precisely the kind of voters the left is counting on... Well, them and of course illegal aliens, convicted felons, dead people and those who exercise their right to vote as many times as possible each election.
 
Grim17 said:
That is precisely the kind of voters the left is counting on... Well, them and of course illegal aliens, convicted felons, dead people and those who exercise their right to vote as many times as possible each election.
Click to expand...

One, whether someone is informed or not is not a valid criterion for whether they should be allowed to vote. And two, you have NO evidence to back up any of your claims.

Just as a for-example, Texas, which has a large illegal population, had only five ALLEGATIONS of voter impersonation over the course of two elections in which more than 13 million votes were cast. Texas did not release the result of its investigation (though you can bet they would have if there was really fraud). Cheating rarely seen at polls - San Antonio Express-News

But you'll obviously stick with your, "I know it's there because they can't find it" theory. :lol:
 
well i decide to have some fun on google and try and figure out how voter fraud is investigated,and funny enough there doesnt seem to be any results on google showing how they actually check for voter fraud,just studies saying they did it.


quite funny that we get to know how police investigators come to their conclusions but i couldnt find anything for the methods of determining voter fraud,just 8 million websites on o keefe
 
beerftw said:
well i decide to have some fun on google and try and figure out how voter fraud is investigated,and funny enough there doesnt seem to be any results on google showing how they actually check for voter fraud,just studies saying they did it.


quite funny that we get to know how police investigators come to their conclusions but i couldnt find anything for the methods of determining voter fraud,just 8 million websites on o keefe
Click to expand...
I don't know what the study says or anything else, I just did a little checking about methodology and came up with this on the second or third try.

Methodology is section 3e I think ... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070411voters_draft_report.pdf
 
MoSurveyor said:
I don't know what the study says or anything else, I just did a little checking about methodology and came up with this on the second or third try.

Methodology is section 3e I think ... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070411voters_draft_report.pdf
Click to expand...

according to that study,voter fraud is only investigated if its reported or suspected.it appears on a nationwide level of all the votes cast only a small number are checked for voter fraud,from areas known for fraud and compared to areas not known for fraud.

oddly enough looking into the methods used,its no surprise that no one investigates thoroughly,as with the many different types of voting systems we have and the number of voters,to actually get an accurate number on voter fraud looks like it would cost billions per election.

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Pew_Upgrading_Voter_Registration.pdf

heres a study that shows how inaccurate our voting system is and even compares it to canadas automated system
 
AdamT said:
Again, I've posted at least seven studies and articles, most of them three or four times. What they show is that most of the people who lack proper ID are poor, and/or minorities, and/or younger people -- all of which groups disproportionately vote Democratic.
Click to expand...
Now the two links to studies you have provided, that you were in command of yet which you can't explain how they "support" the argument you can't even figure out that you are making, has grown to seven? So that makes seven links you looked up on Google but cant read very well or explain a thing about? What next, another seven links you are not familiar with a single thing from?

AdamT said:
Pretending that I agree with you when I've written obvious caveats isn't going to get you very far. As far as the evidence you asked for, I've posted it at least four times now. WTF is up with you people?
Click to expand...
Not only can't you post a single "study" that supports your so called "argument", you can't what even say what your argument is supposed to be. The hackery is strong with you, this obviously must be a product of Ivy League education, which you touted as the source of your brilliant "arguments". Only problem is that Romper Room looks more like the source of your education and probably setting the bar a bit high for your "stellar debate skills".

Now don't worry AdamT, we all know that you will just
lather rinse repeat adamT.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
An interesting study but ...

Did I miss the part about voter IDs being beneficial?


Ed:
Not that it really matters to me as long as we help the poor get their voter ID's. I was just wondering since I've been following the other line of conversation in this thread.
Click to expand...
Well since it does not matter to you, if you have been following the conversation or keeping up with the subject, you know that the "poor" getting ID's provided for them for free is not really a problem. In fact thanks to the Supreme Court it is a matter of law. Which means really that the only place this is a matter for discussion is on internet message boards where posters can pretend not to be acquainted with this most simple and verifiable of facts. Did I, nay let me make that WE try to make this argument about voter ID being "beneficial" or is that just another permutation of an argument that has nothing to do with the subject, also known widely as a diversion or trying to change the subject? Do tell.
 
Gie said:
Well since it does not matter to you, if you have been following the conversation or keeping up with the subject, you know that the "poor" getting ID's provided for them for free is not really a problem. In fact thanks to the Supreme Court it is a matter of law. Which means really that the only place this is a matter for discussion is on internet message boards where posters can pretend not to be acquainted with this most simple and verifiable of facts. Did I, nay let me make that WE try to make this argument about voter ID being "beneficial" or is that just another permutation of an argument that has nothing to do with the subject, also known widely as a diversion or trying to change the subject? Do tell.
Click to expand...
I am well aware of the SCOTUS case - I'm the one that linked the Indiana decision the last time I dropped in on one of these threads.
(Ed: In fact, I linked it here a few pages back, too.)


As for as the "free" part we both know that's crap. Play your stupid games with AdamT if you want but I don't play like that.
We need the ID's, I've already said as much earlier in this thread.
I've also stated would should help the poor if needed to get the documentation. I did not say we HAD TO or were REQUIRED TO, I said we SHOULD because that's the right thing to do if we're going to require the IDs.

As for how much that documentation costs:
In the end we're talking about getting one government agency/department to transfer data, probably already in digital format, to another government agency, who would probably prefer it in digital format. So what kind of cost are we actually looking at here? Five minutes of time for some government records clerk to tap in some information, tap in the address of the county/state that needs it, then hit ENTER. And this is a some huge issue? Wake up - let's quit fighting about the bull**** and get it done for crying out loud! We're wasting more time & money arguing over the issues than it would take to just solve the problem. Of course, neither side could claim a huge political victory that way but BOTH could claim some and go away happy.
Man! :crazy3:
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I am well aware of the SCOTUS case - I'm the one that linked the Indiana decision the last time I dropped in on one of these threads.
(Ed: In fact, I linked it here a few pages back, too.)


As for as the "free" part we both know that's crap. Play your stupid games with AdamT if you want but I don't play like that.
We need the ID's, I've already said as much earlier in this thread.
I've also stated would should help the poor if needed to get the documentation. I did not say we HAD TO or were REQUIRED TO, I said we SHOULD because that's the right thing to do if we're going to require the IDs.

As for how much that documentation costs:
In the end we're talking about getting one government agency/department to transfer data, probably already in digital format, to another government agency, who would probably prefer it in digital format. So what kind of cost are we actually looking at here? Five minutes of time for some government records clerk to tap in some information, tap in the address of the county/state that needs it, then hit ENTER. And this is a some huge issue? Wake up - let's quit fighting about the bull**** and get it done for crying out loud! We're wasting more time & money arguing over the issues than it would take to just solve the problem. Of course, neither side could claim a huge political victory that way but BOTH could claim some and go away happy.
Man! :crazy3:
Click to expand...
You mean that you know that the SCOTUS ruling requires that these ID's be given free to those who supposedly can't afford them, right? Because I did not enter into a stupid argument with you or AdamT about the cost of them to society. Aside from that yeah what you just said.
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
You mean that you know that the SCOTUS ruling requires that these ID's be given free to those who supposedly can't afford them, right? Because I did not enter into a stupid argument with you or AdamT about the cost of them to society. Aside from that yeah what you just said.
Click to expand...
It's the cost to society of the supporting documents that many seem unable to accept - and I don't know why. Sure, it costs the people a lot of money to get the things but it's just (in most cases) digital data that's sitting in one government database that needs copying to another government database. We don't need to give the people stamped hard-copies or anything, all we need is verification that what they're saying is true and the digital data will accomplish that with almost no cost.
 
AdamT said:
It is a truism that DNA is a more reliable identifier than photo ID. It follows that if states should do whatever they can to protect the integrity of elections (Maggie's premise) then they should use DNA rather than IDs.
Click to expand...

Maggie never brought up DNA. Maggie brought up ID cards... which is actually the topic of this thread. You brought up DNA trying to use a slippery slope argument to refute something she never said.

And frankly, it was a foolish slippery slope argument at that, unless there's some way DNA results can prove legal citizenship and primary residence, which is what voters are asked to prove before being registered to vote. The ID card merely provides a measure of proof that the person who actually registered legally to vote is the same person standing at the polls waiting for a ballot.
 
DiAnna said:
Maggie never brought up DNA. Maggie brought up ID cards... which is actually the topic of this thread. You brought up DNA trying to use a slippery slope argument to refute something she never said.

And frankly, it was a foolish slippery slope argument at that, unless there's some way DNA results can prove legal citizenship and primary residence, which is what voters are asked to prove before being registered to vote. The ID card merely provides a measure of proof that the person who actually registered legally to vote is the same person standing at the polls waiting for a ballot.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Diana. Once the right stops trying to answer the left's objection that basically says "prove there's voter fraud," the right is left in the honorable position of saying, "It's pure common sense." Which it is. And the left is in the position of making the kinds of jumps in hyperbolic logic that were made here...those which make no sense at all

I don't care which side is or is not committing voter fraud. I don't even care if there's proof there is any voter fraud. It makes no difference. It is pure a simple logic that voters should have to prove that they are who they say they are when they cast a ballot. Sans that? The votes of legitimate voters in the United States of America are being diluted by those who may not be entitled to vote at all.
 
DiAnna said:
Maggie never brought up DNA. Maggie brought up ID cards... which is actually the topic of this thread. You brought up DNA trying to use a slippery slope argument to refute something she never said.

And frankly, it was a foolish slippery slope argument at that, unless there's some way DNA results can prove legal citizenship and primary residence, which is what voters are asked to prove before being registered to vote. The ID card merely provides a measure of proof that the person who actually registered legally to vote is the same person standing at the polls waiting for a ballot.
Click to expand...

Maggie said that states should do "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting". My point is that using photo ID does not qualify as doing "as much as possible to prevent unathorized voting". DNA testing, or fingerprint checks, would be far more effective at preventing unauthorized voting". This is no more a slippery slope argument than it is a strawman argument.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't even care if there's proof there is any voter fraud. It makes no difference. It is pure a simple logic that voters should have to prove that they are who they say they are when they cast a ballot. Sans that? The votes of legitimate voters in the United States of America are being diluted by those who may not be entitled to vote at all.
Click to expand...

Sure, what could be more "logical" than spending tens of millions of dollars, inconveniencing millions of people, and reducing legitimate voter turnout by the millions to stop a supposed problem for which there is no evidence?

You can't make this **** up! :lamo
 
Gie said:
Now the two links to studies you have provided, that you were in command of yet which you can't explain how they "support" the argument you can't even figure out that you are making, has grown to seven? So that makes seven links you looked up on Google but cant read very well or explain a thing about? What next, another seven links you are not familiar with a single thing from?


Not only can't you post a single "study" that supports your so called "argument", you can't what even say what your argument is supposed to be. The hackery is strong with you, this obviously must be a product of Ivy League education, which you touted as the source of your brilliant "arguments". Only problem is that Romper Room looks more like the source of your education and probably setting the bar a bit high for your "stellar debate skills".
Click to expand...

So your new strategy is to deny reality? Pretend that I haven't posted links that I've posted multiple times? Fail once again to address the data? Post idiotic clipart for the umpteenth time as if you're being clever? That's my punter.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's the cost to society of the supporting documents that many seem unable to accept - and I don't know why. Sure, it costs the people a lot of money to get the things but it's just (in most cases) digital data that's sitting in one government database that needs copying to another government database. We don't need to give the people stamped hard-copies or anything, all we need is verification that what they're saying is true and the digital data will accomplish that with almost no cost.
Click to expand...
My apologies for the brain fart before. I mistook you for another poster, an idiot of one. I can only half blame it on my Droid. Now that I am online with an actual screen that does not fit in my pocket I see my error. If we as one of the richest societies on Earth can't manage this kind of simple fix, well never mind. We can.

AdamT said:
So your new strategy is to deny reality? Pretend that I haven't posted links that I've posted multiple times? Fail once again to address the data? Post idiotic clipart for the umpteenth time as if you're being clever? That's my punter.
Click to expand...
That is the 4th or 5th time you have gone to your "deny reality" question in this thread. Meaning that you define reality by what AdamT deems reality. Which is not a real strong case for much of anything. But does demonstrate that you only have a few rudimentary options available to you. Despite your self inflated claims to all that Ivy League law schools would make available to you.

Pssst. Think anyone can tell you don't have an intelligent answer to the question at hand? What is your argument supposed to be? Is your new hackish stratejery to deny the reality of that question? The reality that you keep reading it, responding to it but the only thing you can some up with is to repeat that you have posted "links" multiple times? I mean, that is kind of the point ain't it? That is all you can do, post links you copied. You can't explain how they are "packed with data that supports your arguments" and you can't explain to a single person how one of your links is relevant to the topic. So yeah, sure, somebody really special is "denying" reality. What a brilliant stratejery you have there.

AdamT said:
Sure, what could be more "logical" than spending tens of millions of dollars, inconveniencing millions of people, and reducing legitimate voter turnout by the millions to stop a supposed problem for which there is no evidence?

You can't make this **** up! :lamo
Click to expand...
Hey Maggie. You can't make this s**t up, this punter's argument has now shifted yet again, ala Ivy League Law School Hackery 101 "Stellar Debate" Theory to the "inconvenience" gasp. People, nay voters will be inconvenienced!

The end of the world as well as the AdamT, Ivy League scholar facade is nigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom