O'Keefe Voter Fraud Investigation: Young Man Offered Holder's Ballot

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2012

haymarket said:
And as the sun begins to set, it looks like yet another in a long series of days where no verifiable data is presented demonstrating voter fraud convictions to any significant degree warranting this type of action.

Maybe tomorrow? Cue the little girl

"Annie" (1982) - Tomorrow - YouTube

Here's a question for you haymarket. Just how are statistics like this suppose to be compiled if there is no way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are?

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Quag said:
Watch the video again. The guy proved how easy it was, That is the barn door being wide open [...]

The guy didn't vote. The barn door is imaginary; you have been tricked by charlatan O'Keefe & Co.

If there really was a barn door, there would be plenty of real animals passing thru, and therefore no need for a fringe right wing videographer disguised as a jackass.

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Quag said:
One has nothing to do with the other. Voter ID IS required in Canada and is NOT onerous so why should it be onerous in the USA. [...]

Why should it be required in the USA? What known, actual problem will it solve?

At this point in time you should note that identification is generally required at some point in the voting process, often during registration, although the identification requirements may not be strict (e.g., something as simple as a utility bill to prove location of residence). During the actual voting process, the voter will probably be checked against a list to ensure that they are registered, although no further ID may be required at that time other than a signature (I provide this info since you entered the debate without prior common knowledge).

As far as onerous goes, isn't that subjective? I don't think it is onerous for a gov't camera to be installed inside your home to monitor your activities; apparently you do. Should my definition of onerous be imposed upon you?

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

ARealConservative said:
[...] If my vote is being undermined by fraud, I have no way of knowing that I am being disenfranchised. nobody can step forward and prove the problem exists, that doesn't mean the problem isn't there.

If you have no evidence of a problem, then a scientifically minded individual would conclude that the problem likely does not exist, or is miniscule in nature.

ARealConservative said:
as a scientifically minded individual [...]

Facts not in evidence.

Quag · Apr 12, 2012

The guy didn't vote. The barn door is imaginary; you have been tricked by charlatan O'Keefe & Co.

If there really was a barn door, there would be plenty of real animals passing thru, and therefore no need for a fringe right wing videographer disguised as a jackass.

I have to disagree. There was nothign stopping him from proceeding. NOTHING. A little while back a reporter went through airport security with a fake bomb, He showed that there was a hole in the system. The bomb didnt need to be real to show where the failing was. Just like this guy just had to go the the point where there was nothing stopping him from voting in anothers name to prove it can be done. HE DID NOT ACTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE!
I do not see how you cannot see that.

Again tell me why requiring ID is bad. I do not want to hear the crap about no proof of widespread election fraud that is a red herring and nothing to do with squat!
I want to hear that it will cost the state large amoutns of $$$ or prevent lots of people from voting. So far I have only heard that a small handfull of people had problems due to difficulties obtaining ID. That is something that could/should be adressed but does not change the basic premise of asking why is it bad. Tweak the getting ID bit. It is not a problem here in Canada is your system so utterly alien from ours that it will cause problems there? If so how?

If you can provide a good explanation I will accept it I am not a doctinarian. I have not heard anything come close yet.

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Quag said:
I haver said how many times now I do not approuve of VOTER PHOTO ID cards. I said simply show ID we do it here in Canada, you have stated that as well. So where is the problem with showing ID? [...]

And there is the problem of joining a debate without a grounding in the existing facts:

In the U.S., the Republican Party is pushing a coordinated state-by-state legislative process to require a state-issued photo ID in order to vote (typically, a driver's license, or a similar photo ID card for those who do not drive). According to at least one academic study, millions do not currently have a suitable ID, and will have to apply for one, providing probably two forms of evidence that they are indeed a U.S. citizen (probably including a certified birth certificate).

At this point you should keep in mind that many in the Republican Party (or whom consider themselves ideological conservatives) do not consider the U.S. president to have a valid birth certificate, so if he applied for the required photo ID to vote he would be denied.

Again, academic studies indicate that the majority of those who currently do not have the required photo ID are the poor and the minorities and the aged, most of whom tend to vote for the Democratic Party.

Now you should understand why the Republican Party proposed these new voter ID laws to solve a 'fraud' problem that they cannot even prove exists . . . . .

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
That is irrelevent. If they are so lazy as to have a difficult time getting their asses off the couch to vote then that is their problem. Not anyone elses. Perhaps the exercise of going to the DMV will do them some good. [...]

And therein lies the underlying right wing meme pushing these new laws... according to the right,

1. people without jobs are lazy
2. people without jobs are on welfare
3. people without jobs on welfare vote for Democrats
4. let's make it harder for lazy people (without jobs or on welfare) to vote.

The right wants to make it more difficult to vote, plain and simple. That has been their game plan for decades; caging lists, etc... they claim to want to stop illegal votes, when their actions are always framed to stop Democratic votes.

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Caine said:
Is it a troll post because it hurts someone's widdle feewings?

It wasn't a troll post. It is reality, half the excuses made by people are made because they are trying to cover up that they are too lazy.

Bolded Above:

Alternate Meaning: Troll post.

Quag · Apr 12, 2012

A voter PHOTO ID card was not mentioned in this topic untill after my first post. If you go back and read my first post I asked for someone to explain why asking for ID would be bad. I mentioned I was not American and was asking for clarification. I think it would be reasonable, considering it was never mentioned before my post for someone to explain that asking for ID was specifially speaking of a VOTER PHOTO ID card. It wasn't.

I did not join this thread to argue on dogmatic grounds I didn't understand this debate and sincerly asked for someone to explain it to me. We are neighbours and I consider myself somewhat informed on the USA, I did not understand this at all and wanted to knwo more.

Take away This voter photo ID, look at what Canada requires. Do you think our system is onerous and disenfranchises people? Why would a system such as ours (the ID bit not our political system, that is a whole different can of worms) be bad in the USA?

I agree any system that would disnfranchise a lot of people would be bad, I just dont see why it should.

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Here's a question for you haymarket. Just how are statistics like this suppose to be compiled if there is no way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are?

Simply because you do not know how to detect/investigate voter fraud does not mean that everyone else is equally challenged.

How can you tell the Earth is actually orbiting the Sun, and not the other way around? Therefore, how do you know that the scientists aren't lying to us, like they are about global warming? :2razz:

Quag · Apr 12, 2012

And therein lies the underlying right wing meme pushing these new laws... according to the right,

1. people without jobs are lazy
2. people without jobs are on welfare
3. people without jobs on welfare vote for Democrats
4. let's make it harder for lazy people (without jobs or on welfare) to vote.

The right wants to make it more difficult to vote, plain and simple. That has been their game plan for decades; caging lists, etc... they claim to want to stop illegal votes, when their actions are always framed to stop Democratic votes.

Just to refer to my above post as an outsider looking in I hear the same thing from both sides GOP and DEM, the other guy just wants to do this to gain an advantage, kinda sad. I like to think most peopel are in the middle and don't consider the extreme whackos to be credible but lets face there are whackos on both sides and they always get heard out of all proportion to their support (I hope) The internet makes this easier. I hear each side continually defend their guy/gal often with such banalaties as oh yeah that was kinda bad but look at what so and so on the other side said/did.
Seriously BOTH sides do this continually. I listen to talk radio on my commute (i know nut jobs) but Best talk radio is when the right wing one and left wing one are talking on the same subject. flipping back and forth, listening to the opposite spins is rather amusing. Then I always have to switch back to local to get the traffic, ohh the evil evil traffic.

Sorry bit off topic this post but It seems this thread is heading that way.

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2012

Karl said:
And therein lies the underlying right wing meme pushing these new laws... according to the right,

1. people without jobs are lazy
2. people without jobs are on welfare
3. people without jobs on welfare vote for Democrats
4. let's make it harder for lazy people (without jobs or on welfare) to vote.

The right wants to make it more difficult to vote, plain and simple. That has been their game plan for decades; caging lists, etc... they claim to want to stop illegal votes, when their actions are always framed to stop Democratic votes.

Funny how you got all that from that post when it said nothing of the kind. It is not hard, at all, to drive, walk, ride a bus or with a friend to the DMV.

Not to mention that post was in reference to someone that basically said that it was hard enough to get people to go out an vote instead of sitting on their asses on a couch.

BTW, you should prolly know that I am poor and though I am a stay at home dad (ie i don't have a job) and yet I don't vote democrat or republican. I vote based on who I think would be better for the job. Even if that means voting for someone other than the two primary people running for office. (Oh look! A poor person that has ID and thinks its easy to get ID!) Just for reference as to how poor we are my wife brings in 23k-25k per year...gross.

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Quag said:
I have to disagree. There was nothign stopping him from proceeding. NOTHING. [...]

The fear of prosecution stopped him. That alone is evidence that nothing further is needed.

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Funny how you got all that from that post when it said nothing of the kind. It is not hard, at all, to drive, walk, ride a bus or with a friend to the DMV. [...]

Why should anyone have to walk, drive, ride a bus or a friend (that last one might be interesting) to the DMV to solve a problem that no one can prove exists?

Caine · Apr 12, 2012

Karl said:
Why should anyone have to walk, drive, ride a bus or a friend (that last one might be interesting) to the DMV to solve a problem that no one can prove exists?

Why should anyone have to walk,drive, ride a bus or a friend to get to the polling place so they can vote?

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2012

Karl said:
The fear of prosecution stopped him. That alone is evidence that nothing further is needed.

The "fear of prosecution stopped him" because he wasn't actually trying to break the law. Just make a point. That doesn't mean that others that are not trying to make a point will not ignore the law.

Seriously if unscrupulous people were that afraid of breaking the law why the hell is it that there is crime happening all the freaking time? Sorry but your arguement falls flat in the face of reality.

Quag · Apr 12, 2012

The fear of prosecution stopped him. That alone is evidence that nothing further is needed.

If he had voted and not posted the video exactly how was he supposed to have been prosecuted? He only feared prosecution because he intended to post the video. Sorry this arguement make no sense.
To to prosecute someone you need to know:
A)there was a crime
- how would this have been discovered if he hadn't posted the vieo?
B) someone to prosecute
- even if they discovered the crime how would they discover the identity of the perpetrator without him posting it?
C) evidence of guilt/confession
- without video no evidence, though his posting of it could be considered a confession AND evidence.

Yes deterents stop many people from committing crimes, but not all! but By your logic no one would ever commit any crime because they might get caught. This we KNOW is false, crimes unfortunately are committed every day.

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2012

Caine said:
Why should anyone have to walk,drive, ride a bus or a friend to get to the polling place so they can vote?

LMAO so what do you propose? That people be allowed to vote from their home computer? Good god what an insane statement. :roll:

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Quag said:
Just to refer to my above post as an outsider looking in I hear the same thing from both sides GOP and DEM [...]

The GOP has been pushing the lazy welfare meme for three decades; it began with Ronald Reagan's 'welfare queen' (driving a Cadillac to the welfare office or some such), which is a stereotype for minorities, whom the GOP would like to prevent from voting (since, for example, some 86% of blacks vote Democratic every presidential election).

This latest coordinated photo voter ID law is their newest effort. Since they have no proof of actual fraud that the law would prevent, they have to work the 'common sense' :roll: angle while calling those that currently do not 'qualify' as "lazy" (again, code for welfare, shiftless, = minority).

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2012

Karl said:
The GOP has been pushing the lazy welfare meme for three decades; it began with Ronald Reagan's 'welfare queen' (driving a Cadillac to the welfare office or some such), which is a stereotype for minorities, whom the GOP would like to prevent from voting (since, for example, some 86% of blacks vote Democratic every presidential election).

This latest coordinated photo voter ID law is their newest effort. Since they have no proof of actual fraud that the law would prevent, they have to work the 'common sense' :roll: angle while calling those that currently do not 'qualify' as "lazy" (again, code for welfare, shiftless, = minority).

I'll give you the same question I asked Haymarket....

"Just how are statistics like this suppose to be compiled if there is no way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are?"

Bold: Funny that you say that considering a lot of the voter ID laws that I have seen that are coming out give out FREE ID and requireing no ID for absentee ballots. How is that preventing anyone from voting? Sorry but again, reality shows you to be wrong.

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Quag said:
If he had voted and not posted the video exactly how was he supposed to have been prosecuted? [...]

When you have to go hypothetical, you know that you don't have an argument based on facts, right? In any case...

1. When the person he voted for showed up at the polling place and tried to vote -- at which point the real person would have been told that he had already voted (they keep track of who has voted). At which point the real person, and the poll worker, knows that something fishy is going on.

2. When the imposter's signature did not match the real person's signature (I'm not sure if this is checked in all states, but then again it is not my task to disprove hypotheticals).

But so far the right can't even come up with an example of either of those things happening, so a logical deduction would be that it is not happening.

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2012

Karl said:
When you have to go hypothetical, you know that you don't have an argument based on facts, right? In any case...

1. When the person he voted for showed up at the polling place and tried to vote -- at which point the real person would have been told that he had already voted (they keep track of who has voted). At which point the real person, and the poll worker, knows that something fishy is going on.

2. When the imposter's signature did not match the real person's signature (I'm not sure if this is checked in all states, but then again it is not my task to disprove hypotheticals).

But so far the right can't even come up with an example of either of those things happening, so a logical deduction would be that it is not happening.

1: Not everyone pre-registers to vote, as such there is no signature to compare to.

2: Do you expect those that work at the polls to remember every single person that comes in out of thousands of people? Not to mention the real person could quite possibly go to a different polling area and/or a different person in the same polling station.

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
I'll give you the same question I asked Haymarket....

"Just how are statistics like this suppose to be compiled if there is no way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are?"

Bold: Funny that you say that considering a lot of the voter ID laws that I have seen that are coming out give out FREE ID and requireing no ID for absentee ballots. How is that preventing anyone from voting? Sorry but again, reality shows you to be wrong.

Your posts show zero contact with reality, but instead occupy a fuzzy world where lack of proof of A is proof of not A (when A itself does not even exist). I think there was a Star Trek episode on this . . . .

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2012

Karl said:
Your posts show zero contact with reality, but instead occupy a fuzzy world where lack of proof of A is proof of not A (when A itself does not even exist). I think there was a Star Trek episode on this . . . .

Evasion alert!!!

How about you actually answer my question instead of evading it?

Karl · Apr 12, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
1: Not everyone pre-registers to vote, as such there is no signature to compare to.

2: Do you expect those that work at the polls to remember every single person that comes in out of thousands of people? Not to mention the real person could quite possibly go to a different polling area and/or a different person in the same polling station.

I understand that you have many questions about the voting process, which your posts indicate an unfamiliarity with, but I suggest you contact your local officials for answers and enlightenment instead of just making stuff up.

Election Day voter registration allows eligible voters to register on election day, usually by showing valid identification to a poll worker, who checks the identification, consults the registration list, and, if they are not registered, registers them on the spot.

Election Day voter registration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia