• 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!

Photo ID to vote?

Photo ID to vote?


  • Total voters
    92
Just another example of why your so called argument is poor and unpersuasive. It consist of asking silly questions that have nothing to do with my comments. I'm sure you would love to sit back, pose a thousand questions you think are very thoughtful and then at the end of the day pat your own back for such a well stated "argument". Still a poor and unpersuasive argument and it is that simple. As I said, if you decide you are up to addressing what I did say rather than the way I turned your own words back on you (guess it was over your head despite how obvious it was) and explaining how voters will be disenfranchised, please do so. At this point you clearly can't do that, despite how much your trumpet your so called "thought".

Here let me rephrase. That's what I thought six hours ago when I asked. You can't detail how anyone will be disenfranchised by requiring an ID to vote. Good night.

I have already a posted a link to study that explains how 5 million voters would be disenfranchised. The question I asked speaks directly to the lack of need for a photo ID law.

By your being unable to list a single example of any other criminal fraud that is currently prevented as well, you are acknowledging, whether you realize it or not, this not a burning issue.
 
Last edited:
I have already a posted a link to study that explains how 5 million voters would be disenfranchised.

I have already posted a link showing that the study from 2006 does not jive with the results from the actual elections from 2008. You are desperately comparing a "guess" from a study in 2006, to actual results from the 2008 elections. It was reported from the 15 states that already have voter ID laws that effects on voter turn out was less than a percent. No 5 million disfranchised voters.

You can keep ignoring it though. I understand. ;)

Good reading as well...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333650886790480.html
 
Last edited:
I have already posted a link showing that the study from 2006 does not jive with the results from the actual elections from 2008. You are desperately comparing a "guess" from a study in 2006, to actual results from the 2008 elections. It was reported from the 15 states that already have voter ID laws that effects on voter turn out was less than a percent. No 5 million disfranchised voters.

You can keep ignoring it though. I understand. ;)

Good reading as well...

Kris W. Kobach: The Case for Voter ID - WSJ.com

As I noted the last time you printed this right wing opinion piece. Photo ID laws have nothing to do with the cases of absentee voting fraud they speak of. Your red font was more convincing! LOL!

There is no criminal fraud that we do a better job of preventing in the US than voter fraud.
 
On average, less than 17.2 out of 190 million voters..... omg, it will devastate our voting system!!!! Totally worth disenfranchising 5 million eligible voters. :roll:
Let me see…..
17.2 million out of 190 million = 10%.
5 million out of 190 million = 2%
Mathematically, you lose.
 
Let me see…..
17.2 million out of 190 million = 10%.
5 million out of 190 million = 2%
Mathematically, you lose.

LOL! You misread the study, it is 17.2 people out of 190 million voters.
 
As I noted the last time you printed this right wing opinion piece.

Never posted this article before from the "Wall Street Journal." You are talking about the piece I posted from that right wing rag the "New York Times." :lol:

Photo ID laws have nothing to do with the cases of absentee voting fraud they speak of. Your red font was more convincing! LOL!

Ummm... I have not mentioned absentee ballots at all, for any reason.

So far instead of answering anything at all you just launch into some kind of insane rant that has nothing to do with anything, anyone is saying.

There is no criminal fraud that we do a better job of preventing in the US than voter fraud.

This again has nothing to do with this post. As for your statement their is always room for improvement. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
LOL! You misread the study, it is 17.2 people out of 190 million voters.
I was using your words, not the words of some study you think I am aware of, or care about.

Are you are trying to tell me that there were only 17.2 illegal votes out of 190 million votes in any recent election?
 
I was using your words, not the words of some study you think I am aware of, or care about.

Are you are trying to tell me that there were only 17.2 illegal votes out of 190 million votes in any recent election?

Between 2002 and 2006 according to the study 120 people were arrested and 86 convicted of Federal vote fraud in a national election. Irrelevant I know, but Catawba's partisan fallacy arguments knows no bounds.
 
I was using your words, not the words of some study you think I am aware of, or care about.

Are you are trying to tell me that there were only 17.2 illegal votes out of 190 million votes in any recent election?

Sure, why would I expect you to read the actual study before you weighed in with your words of wisdom?

My words were 17.2 which you assumed meant million rather than individuals.

Do you have anything to add to the topic discussion, or are you here to argue over your misunderstanding of a subject you have no interest in learning more about?
 
Between 2002 and 2006 according to the study 120 people were arrested and 86 convicted of Federal vote fraud in a national election.

Over a five year period, that's right, that averages 17.2 people a year convicted out of 190 million voters.

Great googly moogly!!!!
 
Sure, why would I expect you to read the actual study before you weighed in with your words of wisdom?
Um, I dunno, cuz I have no clue what study you speak of? Do you really think I read every link you post? Been there, done that, know better.


My words were 17.2 which you assumed meant million rather than individuals.
Here is your exact quote:
On average, less than 17.2 out of 190 million voters..... omg, it will devastate our voting system!!!! Totally worth disenfranchising 5 million eligible voters. :roll:
You didn’t do well with word problems in math, did you?


Do you have anything to add to the topic discussion, or are you here to argue over your misunderstanding of a subject you have no interest in learning more about?
I’ll add more as I see fit. Why are you trying to disenfranchise me here on this forum? Seems you are all in favor of the right of others to have a voice until it carries a different tone than you want to listen to.

I thought you were a saint who was on a mission to protect the voices of others, why are you in a hurry to silence me?
 
Last edited:
Over a five year period, that's right, that averages 17.2 people a year convicted out of 190 million voters.

Great googly moogly!!!!
Do you live in another dimension where the only crimes committed equal those arrested or convicted? Come on Catawba, even you know this is beyond laughable.

And you dare ask me what I have to offer after you attack my opinion based on such dog terds like this? Get a life dude.
 
Last edited:
Over a five year period, that's right, that averages 17.2 people a year convicted out of 190 million voters.

Great googly moogly!!!!

Only 2 national elections were held in that 5 year period. Again you keep ignoring that like the amount of time somehow makes it better, lol.
 
Only 2 national elections were held in that 5 year period. Again you keep ignoring that like the amount of time somehow makes it better, lol.

The idea that there are only 17.2 illegal votes out of 190 million (his numbers) isn't even worth further consideration. Even he knows he looks like a fool for standing by such claims.
 
Do you live in another dimension where the only crimes committed equal those arrested or convicted? Come on Catawba, even you know this is beyond laughable.

And you dare ask me what I have to offer after you attack my opinion based on such dog terds like this? Get a life dude.

Actually, with voter fraud, that is indeed the way you know the crime was committed. Unlike murder, there is no body to show there was crime even if nobody is ever arrested or convicted. Unlike arson where we have the charred hulk of a building reeking of gasoline which shows a crime was committed even if nobody is ever arrested or convicted. There is no empty cash drawer till or smashed jewelry store windows with empty displays devoid of their valuable merchandise.

We only know that voter fraud has occurred when we get a conviction for it.

Even in a case where we have more votes cast than voters, there may not be any fraud due to technical problems.

Regardless if you like it or not, that is the reality of voter fraud.
 
The idea that there are only 17.2 illegal votes out of 190 million (his numbers) isn't even worth further consideration. Even he knows he looks like a fool for standing by such claims.

Take it up with the Bush Justice Dept. that did the 5 year study.
 
The idea that there are only 17.2 illegal votes out of 190 million (his numbers) isn't even worth further consideration. Even he knows he looks like a fool for standing by such claims.
Clearly he does not know that, as he has doubled down on the double dumb claim.

Take it up with the Bush Justice Dept. that did the 5 year study.
He does not need to, the only person on planet Earth trying to make the "17.2" people claim is you. The poor argument grows ever more unpersuasive (or intelligent) with each post.
 
Last edited:
I see I made it too difficult to follow using If-then.

So following your own language becomes too difficult for you? Go back and look at your own post 636. Look at the two in front of it for context. You obviously don't even know what you wrote.

You established some terms, I applied them and then you called me a liar for using your own terms.

Amazing really.

Perhaps now you can explain why any American would be happy to have their fellow Americans disenfranchised as you describe in this statement

If reasonable requirements equals disenfranchising then perhaps we should be happy they are not voting.
 
Last edited:
I was using your words, not the words of some study you think I am aware of, or care about.

Are you are trying to tell me that there were only 17.2 illegal votes out of 190 million votes in any recent election?
I wonder who cast one-fifth of a vote? Don't we normally vote in natural numbers?
 
Actually, with voter fraud, that is indeed the way you know the crime was committed.. . .

We only know that voter fraud has occurred when we get a conviction for it.

Even in a case where we have more votes cast than voters, there may not be any fraud due to technical problems.

Regardless if you like it or not, that is the reality of voter fraud.

So how much voter fraud do we not know about because the crime went un-charged? When a democrat wins through voter fraud but the attorney general is also a democrat and does not investigate, much less bring forth charges then how would we know?
 
HUH?

"Jeff Van Drew campaign’s in District 1 has apparently been paying a political operative who has submitted large amounts of fraudulent and forged vote by mail ballot applications in an attempt to commit voter fraud in Cumberland County, including trying to register minors and felons. And on some occasions, Jeff Van Drew was physically present when it might have occurred...

An application filled out by a 14 year old (voting age is 18).
-An application filled out by a 17 year old (voting age is 18).
-Multiple applications filled out by persons who are not registered.
-Multiple applications filled out convicted felons actively on parole or probations.
-Applications submitted by people who live as far away asNewark, who obviously do not live in the district
-Forging signatures of registered voters who refused to sign the application"

Did the Van Drew Campaign Finance & Help Commit Voter Fraud in Cumberland County? | Save Jersey
 
More HUH?

In an article in the Christian Science Monitor (10/19/08), obvious voter fraud was cited in:

•Lake County, Indiana where officials stopped processing about 5,000 applications after the first 2,100 looked bogus.
•In Nevada, ACORN, which was paid $800,000 by Obama and to "Get Out the Vote" registrations included the names of Dallas cowboy stars. ACORN's offices in Nevada were raided by the Secretary of State and all their records confiscated. The raid was undertaken because officials believed there were other phony registrations that workers were not catching. ACORN investigation are on-going in 14 states.
•Ohio was found to have 200,000 new registrants that showed mismatches with records in other government databases.
•Tests comparing different statewide voter databases have found people registering in two states simultaneously.


Read more at Suite101: Voter Fraud Watch in United States:: Department of Justice to Monitor Polls in 23 States on Election Day | Suite101.com Voter Fraud Watch in United States:: Department of Justice to Monitor Polls in 23 States on Election Day | Suite101.com
 
Back
Top Bottom