• 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!

South Carolina's Attorney General detects voter fraud during primaries

:lamo You guys are cracking me up. I made the following comment in response to someone else's comment that dead people voting doesn't effect elections and then you fellows proceeded to argue against anything and everything except for my ACTUAL POINT.

tomfoo13ry said:
"Not common enough to actually effect an election." Really? That makes me wonder why in 2006 the election for the state senator from my district was voided because dead people were casting votes. The "winning" candidate "won" by 13 votes. Perhaps your statement isn't entirely accurate?

Electoral fraud is real, it happens, and has the potential to affect the outcome of elections. Honest people everywhere should demand that elections are kept on the up and up instead of making weak excuses.
Click to expand...

I never once referred to it as "voter fraud", I don't give a **** about voter IDs, and I sure as hell don't want to disenfranchise any voters but you boys have fun with your circle jerk arguing against things that I never said. :2wave:
 
tomfoo13ry said:
:lamo You guys are cracking me up. I made the following comment in response to someone else's comment that dead people voting doesn't effect elections and then you fellows proceeded to argue against anything and everything except for my ACTUAL POINT.



I never once referred to it as "voter fraud", I don't give a **** about voter IDs, and I sure as hell don't want to disenfranchise any voters but you boys have fun with your circle jerk arguing against things that I never said. :2wave:
Click to expand...

The theme of the thread, however, suggests that others think these "dead voters" could be prevented by voter ID laws, but the article you provide props up our point that the cases of fraud found almost NEVER refer to illegitimate voters, but instead fraudulent poll workers or voter error.

And I'll bet you $10,000 of Romney's money that (if ever actually investigated), that's what they'll find in South Carolina - but when it's not voters who did it, you'll never hear about it again, because it doesn't shore up the arguments of those who want to have voter ID laws.

So, I don't know if anyone is in your circle jerk, but you interjected your story into our argument, so thanks for helping us prove our point, even though you didn't intend to.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
The theme of the thread, however, suggests that others think these "dead voters" could be prevented by voter ID laws, but the article you provide props up our point that the cases of fraud found almost NEVER refer to illegitimate voters, but instead fraudulent poll workers or voter error.
Click to expand...
What article did I provide? I don't believe I introduced any articles. I merely gave an example where dead people voting effected an election which directly contradicted the statement to which I was responding.

FilmFestGuy said:
And I'll bet you $10,000 of Romney's money that (if ever actually investigated), that's what they'll find in South Carolina - but when it's not voters who did it, you'll never hear about it again, because it doesn't shore up the arguments of those who want to have voter ID laws.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the prediction. It isn't relevant to any of the comments that I made but thanks anyway.

FilmFestGuy said:
So, I don't know if anyone is in your circle jerk, but you interjected your story into our argument, so thanks for helping us prove our point, even though you didn't intend to.
Click to expand...
I took issue with a single, solitary erroneous comment that was made by another poster. You fellows then took it upon yourself to introduce several strawmen when replying to my comment. One intellectually dishonest poster even went so far as to imply that I want to "disenfranchise poor voters".

As far as "interjecting [my] story into [your] argument," I responded to a comment made by Paschendale and then everyone BUT Paschendale decided to respond to me by arguing against points that I never made and had no intention of making...so who exactly was interjecting?
 
tomfoo13ry said:
What article did I provide? I don't believe I introduced any articles. I merely gave an example where dead people voting effected an election which directly contradicted the statement to which I was responding.


Thanks for the prediction. It isn't relevant to any of the comments that I made but thanks anyway.


I took issue with a single, solitary erroneous comment that was made by another poster. You fellows then took it upon yourself to introduce several strawmen when replying to my comment. One intellectually dishonest poster even went so far as to imply that I want to "disenfranchise poor voters".

As far as "interjecting [my] story into [your] argument," I responded to a comment made by Paschendale and then everyone BUT Paschendale decided to respond to me by arguing against points that I never made and had no intention of making...so who exactly was interjecting?
Click to expand...

Perhaps we've just crossed channels then. If so, sorry.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Uh, the article said there were fraudulent voters in the Republican Primary. Thus, if this is about cheating, it would be about Republicans cheating...

So, I got my "facts" from the article you posted, since it was about a Republican Primary.
Click to expand...


Nope...SC is an open primary state...That means that demo's can come on in and do what they do.


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom