• 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

You show me someone who doesn't have a state I.D. or a driver's license, and I'll show you a probable illegal who more than likely has no business voting.
If they are illegals then they won't have any documents to request and there will be no cost involved. So what's the issue?

Next we'll be saying we have to chauffeur voters to the polling booths because some of them can't afford the gas.
Many of them can't and they do get chauffeured to the polls, or were you unaware of this? It's been that way for at least 30 years because that's when I was driving a cab and doing it. The city played a very small part in it, mostly it was charity from the cab company and the drivers. It was a voluntary program for us drivers.

But that's a different issue than the one-shot registration to vote. It wouldn't need to be continued. Once someone has provided the documents, they'll have the ID and the documents won't be needed again. Since it's such a small group being affected there shouldn't be any kind of burden for us do to this. Again, what's the issue?
 
Last edited:
Is that in the same part of the Constitution that calls for mandatory government-issued IDs? :lol:

a little confused i see,as the constitution does not say they arent allowed.the entire argument on your side has been that voter id cards infinge on voters rights,which has really not been proven,so then you argue on a negative saying since theirs insufficient proof of voter fraud its un need,where at the same time there is insufficient proof that it isnt a problem.

therefore the there isnt proof its a problem argument is on arguing a negative,against a negative.

well which is smarter,the side which says we should safeguard incase it happens,or the side that says wait until it happens then do something.as a general rule i follow expect the best prepare for the worst,whereas liberals seem to follow the expect the best prepare for the best,remember those fail to plan plan to fail,and prevention only works if its done before the fact,and utterly useless if you wait until the problem occurs to implement.
 
a little confused i see,as the constitution does not say they arent allowed.the entire argument on your side has been that voter id cards infinge on voters rights,which has really not been proven,so then you argue on a negative saying since theirs insufficient proof of voter fraud its un need,where at the same time there is insufficient proof that it isnt a problem.

therefore the there isnt proof its a problem argument is on arguing a negative,against a negative.

well which is smarter,the side which says we should safeguard incase it happens,or the side that says wait until it happens then do something.as a general rule i follow expect the best prepare for the worst,whereas liberals seem to follow the expect the best prepare for the best,remember those fail to plan plan to fail,and prevention only works if its done before the fact,and utterly useless if you wait until the problem occurs to implement.

Well the thing is, it has been proven that voter ID laws suppress hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes, while they appear to dissuade, at most, a handfull of fraudulent votes. So they make elections less representative, they cost a lot of money, and they inconvenience a lot of people. So generally speaking they are a really bad idea.
 
What's truly pathetic is that you have absolutely nothing of substance to say on the topic, but instead are 100% focused (stalker) on me. I gave you a chance to respond to my critique of your study, but you punted. Now you come simpering back to the table trying to pretend that I'm avoiding your trenchant arguments. :2rofll:

Truly pathetic.
Yes the hackery is strong with you, eclipsed only by your rank dishonesty. You have not responded to a single thing I or anyone else has posted that debunks you, particularly the post you begged us to answer for you, like oh say "a single example" of voter fraud. Probably you did that because not only was a single example given to you (by more than just me) but multiple ones were supplied. Makes it hard to keep acting like an idiot who has never heard of voter fraud if you have to acknowledge it does exist, much less in direct reply to a challenge from you to supply evidence of it. Your critique of one of the studies I went back and found for you from one of the other threads, ya know that you claimed you had never been shown? First off you could not even follow the basic English to grasp that I never said I had posted that study, but that it had been posted for you in other threads. Well not only was it not the first time you had been shown that study, but just like last time it was shown to you your so called "critique" was downright stupid. You seem to think that just because you can post idiotic replies that really are just you doing your nananananabobo shtick, this makes said reply brilliant, relevant and the work of someone not willing to act like a child. Your critique was dishonest on every level, trying to pretend that the only thing contained in it, or as you feebly tried to say, the "meat of it" was a 1984 NY grand jury case. Which is hardly the case, and of course I guess only you think that if you "dismiss" a well sourced study that has dozens of citations with a blog you have refuted a study! Yeah, it is that asinine, which is how I treated it. What kind of moron looks back upon himself posting a link to a blog and calls it his "critique" of a study? I mean you just never see posters at forums like this pointing to a blog, cribbing from it and claiming the thoughts and words of the author of that linked blog complaining about a single citation in a study, is not only his own critique of the study, but refutation of the study itself. No doubt you think posting blogs is an example of you being a "stellar debater"! Of course that is just you pretending. Again.

Now I'm stalking you huh? Like I said, never go full retard, no matter how easy and appealing to you the idea is. You were saying something about something "pathetic" were you, stellar debater? Cough cough, Watergate! Cough cough, Iran Contra! You know what will really help you come across as a "stellar debater"? Playing tag team wrestling buddy with Karl. Talk about going full retard.
 
Last edited:
Well the thing is, it has been proven that voter ID laws suppress hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes, while they appear to dissuade, at most, a handfull of fraudulent votes. So they make elections less representative, they cost a lot of money, and they inconvenience a lot of people. So generally speaking they are a really bad idea.

care to provide proof or just going off opinion?
 
a little confused i see,as the constitution does not say they arent allowed.the entire argument on your side has been that voter id cards infinge on voters rights,which has really not been proven, [...]
Actually, the SCOTUS opinion in the Indiana case did imply there was some voter burden but keep in mind Indiana issues free voter ID cards, as noted.

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons--e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate--is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk's office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners' right to the relief they seek. Pp. 13-16.
CRAWFORD et al. v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD et al | FindLaw

Regardless of that burden, it still upheld Indiana law with free voter ID cards.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and keep in mind that Indiana has the fourth worst voter participation levels in the US.
 
Yes the hackery is strong with you, eclipsed only by your rank dishonesty. You have not responded to a single thing I or anyone else has posted that debunks you, particularly the post you begged us to answer for you, like oh say "a single example" of voter fraud. Probably you did that because not only was a single example given to you (by more than just me) but multiple ones were supplied. Makes it hard to keep acting like an idiot who has never heard of voter fraud if you have to acknowledge it does exist, much less in direct reply to a challenge from you to supply evidence of it. Your critique of one of the studies I went back and found for you from one of the other threads, ya know that you claimed you had never been shown? First off you could not even follow the basic English to grasp that I never said I had posted that study, but that it had been posted for you in other threads. Well not only was it not the first time you had been shown that study, but just like last time it was shown to you your so called "critique" was downright stupid. You seem to think that just because you can post idiotic replies that really are just you doing your nananananabobo shtick, this makes said reply brilliant, relevant and the work of someone not willing to act like a child. Your critique was dishonest on every level, trying to pretend that the only thing contained in it, or as you feebly tried to say, the "meat of it" was a 1984 NY grand jury case. Which is hardly the case, and of course I guess only you think that if you "dismiss" a well sourced study that has dozens of citations with a blog you have refuted a study! Yeah, it is that asinine, which is how I treated it. What kind of moron looks back upon himself posting a link to a blog and calls it his "critique" of a study? I mean you just never see posters at forums like this pointing to a blog, cribbing from it and claiming the thoughts and words of the author of that linked blog complaining about a single citation in a study, is not only his own critique of the study, but refutation of the study itself. No doubt you think posting blogs is an example of you being a "stellar debater"! Of course that is just you pretending. Again.

Now I'm stalking you huh? Like I said, never go full retard, no matter how easy and appealing to you the idea is. You were saying something about something "pathetic" were you, stellar debater? Cough cough, Watergate! Cough cough, Iran Contra! You know what will really help you come across as a "stellar debater"? Playing tag team wrestling buddy with Karl. Talk about going full retard.

Moderator's Warning:
Gie, let's stop the personal attacks and refocus the discussion on the tantalizing topic of voter ID laws.
 
This thread is positive proof that common sense is no longer common.
 
This thread is positive proof that common sense is no longer common.
Hey now, we are trying to "refocus" on the subject of voter ID laws here by focusing on Watergate, Iran Contra, Bush v Gore, the Iraq WMD fiasco, the Great Recession and an internet blog that is supposed to pass for AdamT's "critique" on a study he has been exposed to several times!
 
Last edited:
Yes the hackery is strong with you, eclipsed only by your rank dishonesty. You have not responded to a single thing I or anyone else has posted that debunks you.

Stop right there, because that is one phenomenally huge LIE. As you know I responded to the Heritage article you posted and you have repeatedly, and insistently refused to address my criticism, i.e. you PUNTED. This seems to be your defining style of argument: pretend you've made a point that you haven't ... repeatedly advert back to a point that you never made ... pretend that I haven't addressed what little of substance you've said (very little indeed) ... launch fuor or five uncallled for ad hominem attacks ... and then feign outrage over some pretended offense.
 
Hey now, we are trying to "refocus" on the subject of voter ID laws here by focusing on Watergate, Iran Contra, Bush v Gore, the Iraq WMD fiasco, the Great Recession and an internet blog that is supposed to pass for AdamT's "critique" on a study he has been exposed to several times!

Which critique I am still waiting for you to address in your big-boy voice, if you have one....
 
Stop right there, because that is one phenomenally huge LIE. As you know I responded to the Heritage article you posted and you have repeatedly, and insistently refused to address my criticism, i.e. you PUNTED. This seems to be your defining style of argument: pretend you've made a point that you haven't ... repeatedly advert back to a point that you never made ... pretend that I haven't addressed what little of substance you've said (very little indeed) ... launch fuor or five uncallled for ad hominem attacks ... and then feign outrage over some pretended offense.

Have you heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black? You should look that up.
 
Have you heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black? You should look that up.

And there's the other bobbsey twin. :lol:
 
If they are illegals then they won't have any documents to request and there will be no cost involved. So what's the issue?

Many of them can't and they do get chauffeured to the polls, or were you unaware of this? It's been that way for at least 30 years because that's when I was driving a cab and doing it. The city played a very small part in it, mostly it was charity from the cab company and the drivers. It was a voluntary program for us drivers.

But that's a different issue than the one-shot registration to vote. It wouldn't need to be continued. Once someone has provided the documents, they'll have the ID and the documents won't be needed again. Since it's such a small group being affected there shouldn't be any kind of burden for us do to this. Again, what's the issue?

Mo, you misunderstand me. There isn't an issue with me. I completely support and will always advocate for needing to present a state i.d. in order to vote. Sorry if I confused you.

Well the thing is, it has been proven that voter ID laws suppress hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes, while they appear to dissuade, at most, a handfull of fraudulent votes. So they make elections less representative, they cost a lot of money, and they inconvenience a lot of people. So generally speaking they are a really bad idea.

"I didn't vote because I didn't get a state i.d." WTF cares? United States of America voters are entitled to a voting system that does as much as possible to prevent unauthorized people from voting. I can vote in ten different precincts in suburban Chicago on any given election day. Easy peasy. It shouldn't be. That you have a problem with it, that any American has a problem with it, is just unfreakin' believable.

Voter I.D.'s do not make elections less representative, they do not cost a lot of money, and they would be an inconvenience only to the very small amount of honest people who have neither a state I.D. or a driver's license. What is the left so damned afraid of???
 
Mo, you misunderstand me. There isn't an issue with me. I completely support and will always advocate for needing to present a state i.d. in order to vote. Sorry if I confused you.



"I didn't vote because I didn't get a state i.d." WTF cares? United States of America voters are entitled to a voting system that does as much as possible to prevent unauthorized people from voting. I can vote in ten different precincts in suburban Chicago on any given election day. Easy peasy. It shouldn't be. That you have a problem with it, that any American has a problem with it, is just unfreakin' believable.

Voter I.D.'s do not make elections less representative, they do not cost a lot of money, and they would be an inconvenience only to the very small amount of honest people who have neither a state I.D. or a driver's license. What is the left so damned afraid of???

Sorry Maggie, I was with you until What is the left so damned afraid of???. It is not the left. There are people on the left who, because republicans support it, oppose it. They are not capable of independent thought. Whenever an issue comes up they cannot make a decision until the opposing party or their own party makes a statement. In this case, Adam opposes it because conservatives support it. If conservatives opposed it, he would then support it. But it is not all liberals. Just the blind ones.
 
Mo, you misunderstand me. There isn't an issue with me. I completely support and will always advocate for needing to present a state i.d. in order to vote. Sorry if I confused you.



"I didn't vote because I didn't get a state i.d." WTF cares? United States of America voters are entitled to a voting system that does as much as possible to prevent unauthorized people from voting. I can vote in ten different precincts in suburban Chicago on any given election day. Easy peasy. It shouldn't be. That you have a problem with it, that any American has a problem with it, is just unfreakin' believable.

Voter I.D.'s do not make elections less representative, they do not cost a lot of money, and they would be an inconvenience only to the very small amount of honest people who have neither a state I.D. or a driver's license. What is the left so damned afraid of???

More absurd comments. If you really believe that we're entitled to a system "that does as much as possible to prevent unathorized voting", can I assume you would support a bill that requires everyone in the country to submit a DNA sample, followed by mandatory DNA collection at the polling place? It would probably cost a couple ten billion dollars, but hey, that shouldn't be any consideration if it means eliminating 10 or 20 fraudulent votes, right?
 
Sorry Maggie, I was with you until What is the left so damned afraid of???. It is not the left. There are people on the left who, because republicans support it, oppose it. They are not capable of independent thought. Whenever an issue comes up they cannot make a decision until the opposing party or their own party makes a statement. In this case, Adam opposes it because conservatives support it. If conservatives opposed it, he would then support it. But it is not all liberals. Just the blind ones.

Another wingnut mind reader -- just what the world needs.
 
Stop right there, because that is one phenomenally huge LIE. As you know I responded to the Heritage article you posted and you have repeatedly, and insistently refused to address my criticism, i.e. you PUNTED. This seems to be your defining style of argument: pretend you've made a point that you haven't ... repeatedly advert back to a point that you never made ... pretend that I haven't addressed what little of substance you've said (very little indeed) ... launch fuor or five uncallled for ad hominem attacks ... and then feign outrage over some pretended offense.

Which critique I am still waiting for you to address in your big-boy voice, if you have one....
As usual, you did another mind wipe and now you need me to explain more elementary stuff to you?
lather rinse repeat adamT.jpg

You just constitutionally are incapable of participating on this topic with anything approaching intellectual honesty, aren't you?

Have you heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black? You should look that up.

Eww, watch out. To use his own words, this "stellar debater" is going to reach into his grab bag of internet cliches, dodges and somersaults and "smack" you!
And there's the other bobbsey twin. :lol:
Not sure what that means?

Don't worry, he'll post a link to a blog that will 'splain it all for him.
 
More absurd comments. If you really believe that we're entitled to a system "that does as much as possible to prevent unathorized voting", can I assume you would support a bill that requires everyone in the country to submit a DNA sample, followed by mandatory DNA collection at the polling place? It would probably cost a couple ten billion dollars, but hey, that shouldn't be any consideration if it means eliminating 10 or 20 fraudulent votes, right?

that analogy is completely out of proportion with the topic,thats ok major logical fallacies like that only hurt your cause.
 
As usual, you did another mind wipe and now you need me to explain more elementary stuff to you?


You just constitutionally are incapable of participating on this topic with anything approaching intellectual honesty, aren't you?



Eww, watch out. To use his own words, this "stellar debater" is going to reach into his grab bag of internet cliches, dodges and somersaults and "smack" you!



Don't worry, he'll post a link to a blog that will 'splain it all for him.

And like muciti, you've really developed an unhealthy obsession with me. Why don't the two of you go start a thread in the basement where I can properly address your debating style?
 
Well the thing is, it has been proven that voter ID laws suppress hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes, while they appear to dissuade, at most, a handfull of fraudulent votes. So they make elections less representative, they cost a lot of money, and they inconvenience a lot of people. So generally speaking they are a really bad idea.

There is no proof that voter ID laws suppress anyone. Just a bunch of speculation. You're making the same arguements they made when they started making people register to vote. Yet there is no proof that it suppressed any voters.
 
that analogy is completely out of proportion with the topic,thats ok major logical fallacies like that only hurt your cause.

It wasn't an analogy, for starters. It was the logical extension of Maggie's argument -- that we should do "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting".

The fact is that every study I've ever seen on this topic says that, of the little fraud that actually occurs in our federal elections, almost all of it occurs as a result of malfeasance by poll workers or abuse of absentee ballots. So why aren't Republicans focusing on those problems? Does anyone have a theory?
 
Back
Top Bottom