• 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!

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

No, it didn't, since no vote was cast.

Additionally, the imposter chickened out and did not provide the required signature (which would or could have been used by the poll worker to verify his claim to be who he said he was).

You see, once again, you don't know how the system works and you wind up being confused about what is happening. Watching right wing 'sting' videos and thinking that they are telling you the full story will cause that.
Click to expand...
You have repeatedly made the same ridiculous arguement. It has no basis in reality, like pretty much all your other arguements. The guy went as far as he could before commiting a crime. There was nothing stopping him from committing that crime, thus he proved it COULD be done. your attempts at muddle the issue are fooling no one but yourself.

when 2 people are arguing [...]
While you may be arguing, you're not arguing about the topic at hand -- which is, GOP efforts to implement a widespread requirement for state-issued photo ID be presented when trying to vote (see, since the term "photo voter ID" confused you, I have simplified it for you)... even if your identity and eligibility have already been determined, often by other methods, when registering to vote (and since I have to cover all the bases for those that refuse to inform themselves prior to trying to 'argue', in general terms you have to be registered in order to vote).

That is what the GOP is trying to do, and that is why O'Keefe is running around making juvenile videos to support their efforts, which is why we have threads like this.
Click to expand...

No that is not what the thread is about please try to reread the OP then try reading it again. Ok now go get your mother to explain to you what the thread is about. Cause lets face it you haven't been able to figure it out for yourself. Just because YOU want it to be about the GOP plan that does not make it so. Come out of fantasy land if you are able to. Again even if this thread was solely about the GOP plan (IT IS NOT) why would offering a third option make me ignorant? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
So while I HAVE been arguing the topic at hand you have been going off on wild semantic contortions.

Can't wait to see how you pick and choose which part of my post you will once again completely misunderstand.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
[...] The progressives already setup a system of identification every single person. Every person at birth is required now to get a social security number and as you move through life, you find more and more entities requiring you provide this number.
Click to expand...
1. A social security number is not required at birth. However, feel free to quote and cite the exact federal regulation if you disagree.

2. The bill requiring a social security number for children -- in order to claim them as a tax deduction -- was the Tax Reform Act of 1986, passed during... drum roll please... the Reagan administration.
 
Quag said:
You have repeatedly made the same ridiculous arguement. It has no basis in reality, like pretty much all your other arguements. The guy went as far as he could before commiting a crime. There was nothing stopping him from committing that crime, thus he proved it COULD be done.
Click to expand...
You COULD provide a rational argument. However, there is no evidence of it having been done (at least in this thread).

Also, the GOP COULD provide evidence of the type of voter fraud that they claim a state-issued photo ID will prevent. However, they have not.

A scholarly institution COULD present a survey documenting an analysis of the number of people who do not have these ID's, and may be disenfranchised by them. Oops -- they HAVE done that. Well, glad to see at least one side of the argument has a leg to stand on :2wave:

Studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.

[...] A 2009 study in Indiana found that of the citizen adult population, 81.4% of all white eligible adults had access to a driver’s license, compared to only 55.2% of black eligible adults.

Voter ID | Brennan Center for Justice
Click to expand...
 
Karl said:
1. A social security number is not required at birth. However, feel free to quote and cite the exact federal regulation if you disagree.

2. The bill requiring a social security number for children -- in order to claim them as a tax deduction -- was the Tax Reform Act of 1986, passed during... drum roll please... the Reagan administration.
Click to expand...

A social security number is required to claim them. To hire them. To insure them., and only became a tool available because drum roll please – progressives created the system that implemented it.
 
ARealConservative said:
A social security number is required to claim them. To hire them. To insure them [...]
Click to expand...
You'd feel less foolish if you'd said that originally, instead of:

ARealConservative said:
[...] Every person at birth is required now to get a social security number [...]
Click to expand...

:mrgreen:

In any case, you can probably still get thru life without a Social Security number; agreed, there will be some challenges. But if the GOP has their way you won't be able to vote unless you have a gov't-issued photo ID. No how, no way, no sir.
 
Karl said:
You'd feel less foolish if you'd said that originally, instead of:



:mrgreen:

In any case, you can probably still get thru life without a Social Security number; agreed, there will be some challenges. But if the GOP has their way you won't be able to vote unless you have a gov't-issued photo ID. No how, no way, no sir.
Click to expand...

You would look like less of a jerk if you took the time to understand what a person is saying.

You can live on the street without a social security number. Way to make a solid point. Whatever would we do without your brilliance?

I guess anything to make your idiotic rf id post a distant memory is good for you.
 
Karl You have tried to use the exact same arguement yourself to prove the GOP want to steal elections by disenfracnhising democrats.
No point in going there again.

I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said I supported a state voter photo ID. In fact the only person still talking about that is YOU!
I have offered another solution that others have commented on as a rational idea to be discussed. YOU however refuse do anything but claim I am ignorant and thus my input should be ignored because you only want to talk about a state voter photo ID card. REALITY check only you are talking about that on this thread. The GOP did not start this thread and neither did you. Again if there is a proven hole/breach in a system (any system will do, we could be talking about a municipalality's water supply) the only logical thing to do would be to look at that what could be done to secure the breach and whether there is a cost/benefit ratio in favor of any and all solutions. Sometimes the best solution is to leave things alone but refusing to even look at any solutions is just living in a state of denial. I agree the GOP plan fails the cost/benefit analysis that is why I am not talking about it. YOU however seem only to want to talk about that solution because you, like me think it fails the cost/benefit analysis. To refuse to look at alternatives is the reason you are acting like a zealot or fanatic.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
You would look like less of a jerk if you took the time to understand what a person is saying. You can live on the street without a social security number. Way to make a solid point. Whatever would we do without your brilliance?
Click to expand...
If you think that one would be limited to living on the street, then you lack imagination. Or are desperate to cover up your prior error:

ARealConservative said:
[...] Every person at birth is required now to get a social security number [...]
Click to expand...

Tip: the best way to handle an error is to forget it and quit trying to get in the last word or 'rework' it (which only serves to continue putting the error in the forefront, as I am happy to do ;) ).

ARealConservative said:
I guess anything to make your idiotic rf id post a distant memory is good for you.
Click to expand...
That was intended to satirize the GOP efforts to identify everyone. Again, it seems that a lack of imagination is in play . . . . .
 
Quag said:
[...] I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said I supported a state voter photo ID. [...]
Click to expand...
Who said said said said said said said that you did?
confuse.gif


I understand that you have been trying to provide an alternate solution, even though the debate in the U.S. is and has been about the GOP solution, but like the GOP you have failed to identify/quantify a problem (other than imagining things). Even if you did come up with proof of a significant problem, if your alternative solution did not disproportionately affect minorities then the GOP would not be interested in it.
 
Karl said:
Who said said said said said said said that you did?
confuse.gif


I understand that you have been trying to provide an alternate solution, even though the debate in the U.S. is and has been about the GOP solution, but like the GOP you have failed to identify/quantify a problem (other than imagining things). Even if you did come up with proof of a significant problem, if your alternative solution did not disproportionately affect minorities then the GOP would not be interested in it.
Click to expand...

logical fallacy,lets see if you can catch it:2razz:
 
OpportunityCost said:
Im ****ing sick and tired of liberals playing dumb, deaf and blind on this subject.
The system is set up so that it is nearly impossible to catch anyone doing so.
How can you catch anyone when the system is set up so that there is no way to question a voter's identity?
Click to expand...

There is a way and I have explained it already. Requiring photo ID changes none of that. Read back.

If you can't prove that there's a problem of any significance, it's not playing "dumb deaf and blind" to say that you have no prove of any problem of significance, it's stating fact.

Do you lock your doors at home? If you have never been robbed, why do you? After all, no proof you are going to get robbed right?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what happens in some places I've lived in, it's a small village, everyone knows everyone, almost no crime, people don't feel the need to lock their doors. You know what it's called when you make people scare of a problem that you can't prove exists? It's called fear mongering. It's usually done by people who hope to benefit from it.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Again we do this here in Canada (and many other jurisidctions) and there is no problem with the cost nor with people being disenfranchised. I do not see how it would become either expensive or disenfranchising in the states to use a system such as ours for voter ID.
Click to expand...

So what if you "do not see"? It's not up to you.


Agreed it is possible, but it will add another level of difficulty/cost to anyone trying to perpetrate such a fraud. Requiring voter ID (again I am using Canadian standards, really shouldn't have to keep repeating that but some ppl here are intentionally blind to what my posts actually say)adds that extra level of security making it more difficult. I don't know how stringent voter registration is in the USA, but I think that it should obviously have a certain standard. Ie you shouldnt be just able to walk in or mail in a request for voter registration without any proof of eligibility. I seriously doubt it would be possible to ever make a system 100% fraud proof but you should try tomake it as safe as possible with regards to cost/rights.
Click to expand...

Registration is separate from voting itself. We are discussing the US situation, I really fail to see how the Canadian standard has relevance here when it's not going to implemented in the US.
 
ARealConservative said:
I know people are stealing, I admitted to not knowing how much.
Click to expand...

So if it's a few cents, how much money and time are you willing to spend trying stop that few cents from being lost?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Funny I could turn that completely around and say the same thing about the democrat position. Yeah, I think you are going back on ignore.

No wonder you wanted to start a thread to redefine racism. You wanted to define it so you could throw the race card at every conservative policy idea you see.
Click to expand...

You say you could but you have shown yourself to be unable to make any sort of case in that regard.

I do not remember throwing race at "every conservative idea" I see. Perhaps you can link to that?

And if a conservative idea does impact race, it is right and proper to mention it. Nobody should have any problem with that in any way shape or form.

It seems you fear exposure of some conservative ideas to the harsh glare of sunlight.
 
Last edited:
Registration is separate from voting itself. We are discussing the US situation, I really fail to see how the Canadian standard has relevance here when it's not going to implemented in the US.
Click to expand...

Actually registration and voting go hand in hand you cannot seperate the two. If you have lax standards of registration and lax standards on voter identification you are inviting a problem. if you have stong voter registration standards you can probably weaken the voter identification standards without too much difficulty. vice versa isn't quite as good but still better than lax all around. As to it not going to be implemented in the USA, ATM no, it wont. But that doesn't mean ppl can't call/email or whatever their representatives voicing a third option. This does have an efect if enough ppl push for it. I am not saying you americans are morons for not using Canadian standards but to deny the possibility of another option that has no negative effects seems silly. When any subject is discussed all options should be considered.

You are right how your system works is not up to me, that is up to you and your fellow 300 million or so fellow americans. Would you refuse to even consider an idea that came from someone outside your country? If so why?
You, unlike certain others on this thread seem reasonable. I understand your points and I agree a photo ID for voting in the USA would have more negative than positive effects. But does my not being an american mean I cannot possibly have anything productive to say?
 
nonpareil said:
So if it's a few cents, how much money and time are you willing to spend trying stop that few cents from being lost?
Click to expand...

the scientific approach is to figure out how much is being stolen before writing it off as trivial. you say a few cents, but you don't know that.


Let's use your idiocy in the money itself. We don't know how much is being stolen via counterfeiting. It's a waste of money putting all those protections into the bills we print just to save a few cents.

that obviously sounds pretty stupid, because it is.
 
Quag said:
Actually registration and voting go hand in hand you cannot seperate the two. If you have lax standards of registration and lax standards on voter identification you are inviting a problem. if you have stong voter registration standards you can probably weaken the voter identification standards without too much difficulty. vice versa isn't quite as good but still better than lax all around. As to it not going to be implemented in the USA, ATM no, it wont. But that doesn't mean ppl can't call/email or whatever their representatives voicing a third option. This does have an efect if enough ppl push for it. I am not saying you americans are morons for not using Canadian standards but to deny the possibility of another option that has no negative effects seems silly. When any subject is discussed all options should be considered.
Click to expand...

That they go hand in hand doesn't change the fact that they are separate. It's a two step process. You're right that strengthening the registration process would lessen fraud, the kind which we have documented too, but the photo ID requirement doesn't address that. Some States also require evidence of citizenship for registration, and that also has its own problems.


You are right how your system works is not up to me, that is up to you and your fellow 300 million or so fellow americans. Would you refuse to even consider an idea that came from someone outside your country? If so why?
You, unlike certain others on this thread seem reasonable. I understand your points and I agree a photo ID for voting in the USA would have more negative than positive effects. But does my not being an american mean I cannot possibly have anything productive to say?
Click to expand...

It's not about "refusing to even consider an idea", it's about the fact that the legislation that are being proposed by the States requiring IDs isn't that. Since it's not being proposed, discussing it is kind of pointless, isn't it? It's not like by discussing it here, we can make it appear in the legislation.
 
ARealConservative said:
the scientific approach is to figure out how much is being stolen before writing it off as trivial. you say a few cents, but you don't know that.
Click to expand...

At least one party attempted to estimate that and it appears to be small. If no one knows anything, it's the opposite of scientific to assume that it's a big problem without evidence. Furthermore, the photo ID requirement will not allow anyone to figure out "how much is being stolen" << that's part of the idiocy of the arguement as I have explained.



Let's use your idiocy in the money itself. We don't know how much is being stolen via counterfeiting. It's a waste of money putting all those protections into the bills we print just to save a few cents.

that obviously sounds pretty stupid, because it is.
Click to expand...

We know it's a lot for a start, it's up to hundreds of millions of dollars (for example 2007-2008 $103m were removed). Right away your analogy fails. So it's not me being stupid here. If it's a problem so small, and the costs of fixing it is so much higher, then it would idiotic to spend all that money fixing something that costs so much less than the solution. The second thing that fails is that the solution does not address the problem. The frauds that's been documented would not be solved by the photo ID requirement.
 
nonpareil said:
At least one party attempted to estimate that and it appears to be small. If no one knows anything, it's the opposite of scientific to assume that it's a big problem without evidence. Furthermore, the photo ID requirement will not allow anyone to figure out "how much is being stolen" << that's part of the idiocy of the arguement as I have explained.
Click to expand...

one party tried to minimize the problem by pretending it isn't a problem.

disenfranchisement already exists, and will always exist but your solution to do nothing to improve the process is idiotic.
 
ARealConservative said:
one party tried to minimize the problem by pretending it isn't a problem.

disenfranchisement already exists, and will always exist but your solution to do nothing to improve the process is idiotic.
Click to expand...

It would seem all Americans would want ID when voting if only to recognize how important each vote is, the historical struggles which went into achieving the right to vote, and to protect the integrity of a system so few in this world get to enjoy.

That people would put party politics ahead of a secure electoral system strongly suggests that the system is already in jeopardy.
 
Grant said:
It would seem all Americans would want ID when voting if only to recognize how important each vote is, the historical struggles which went into achieving the right to vote, and to protect the integrity of a system so few in this world get to enjoy.

That people would put party politics ahead of a secure electoral system strongly suggests that the system is already in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

This claim to be so worried about voter disenfranchisement is so shallow and transparent anyway.

The two major parties do everything in their power to increase voter apathy. About 50% vote in presidential elections, and other elections are far, far lower in appeal.

If the two major parties really cared about giving voters what they want, they wouldn’t fight so hard to keep third party politicians off the ballots, and we would certainly see a higher percentage of the population voting.
 
ARealConservative said:
one party tried to minimize the problem by pretending it isn't a problem.
Click to expand...

True, but the "one party has a problem" thing is what gets me. Some people here are definitely naive or blind enough to think that Republicans never engage in voter fraud. But let's be real, we know they do it too.

So when this other "one party" blows this up into a big problem, and says "Here's a better solution," don't you wonder if they're just trying to change the rules so that only they can committ fraud? Are they, in a sense, trying to rig the election in their favor?

disenfranchisement already exists, and will always exist
Click to expand...

Yes, it always will. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Same goes for fraud. So many people are working on the assumption that those who are disenfranchised with this idea will tend to vote Democrat. I don't know how true that is, but if that's true, is it any wonder that Republicans would want them disenfranchised? To a hard-core Republican, the only good Democrat is one that can't vote.
 
rocket88 said:
True, but the "one party has a problem" thing is what gets me. Some people here are definitely naive or blind enough to think that Republicans never engage in voter fraud. But let's be real, we know they do it too.

So when this other "one party" blows this up into a big problem, and says "Here's a better solution," don't you wonder if they're just trying to change the rules so that only they can committ fraud? Are they, in a sense, trying to rig the election in their favor?

Yes, it always will. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Same goes for fraud. So many people are working on the assumption that those who are disenfranchised with this idea will tend to vote Democrat. I don't know how true that is, but if that's true, is it any wonder that Republicans would want them disenfranchised? To a hard-core Republican, the only good Democrat is one that can't vote.
Click to expand...


distrust of politicians is certainly warranted

But this thread goes well beyond that. I as an individual point out that the system has virtually no protection in place today to minimize vote fraud and am arguing that we need an improved system.
 
rocket88 said:
True, but the "one party has a problem" thing is what gets me. Some people here are definitely naive or blind enough to think that Republicans never engage in voter fraud. But let's be real, we know they do it too.
Click to expand...

All the more reason for voter I.D. and measures that will assure the public that the system is honest, that every vote is worthwhile and counts for something.
So when this other "one party" blows this up into a big problem, and says "Here's a better solution," don't you wonder if they're just trying to change the rules so that only they can committ fraud? Are they, in a sense, trying to rig the election in their favor?
Click to expand...

Then that is even a greater reason why the public should demand changes where no politician, or their hacks, can rig the vote. They should be marching in the streets, demanding that this most symbolic act of freedom be protected from political chicanery.

Yes, it always will. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Same goes for fraud. So many people are working on the assumption that those who are disenfranchised with this idea will tend to vote Democrat. I don't know how true that is, but if that's true, is it any wonder that Republicans would want them disenfranchised? To a hard-core Republican, the only good Democrat is one that can't vote.
Click to expand...

If people could get their heads away from their political teams for a moment they might consider putting their country and the protection of citizen's rights and freedoms first. If the American people can't even do that then the Republic gets a fail, for sure.
 
ARealConservative said:
one party tried to minimize the problem by pretending it isn't a problem.
Click to expand...

No, they did a study to look at all the cases of in person voter fraud that ever come up. That is the closest to scientific of all the evidence available.


disenfranchisement already exists, and will always exist but your solution to do nothing to improve the process is idiotic.
Click to expand...


How many times do I have to explain it? If it costs more than it saves, it's idiotic to use it. "Improvement" implies that it eliminates frauds at a larger number than it disenfranchises, and I have explained why this solution doesn't do that many times already.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom