• 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

Republicans are trying to use voter ID laws to suppress Democratic voter turnout. That's why Democrats have a problem with it.

so all Republicans have ID's and Democrats don't? I cannot agree with your statement. It seems just political pandering then on the Dems part.

So why don't the Dems have a problem of showing ID for other actions? Are there not poor republicans, are there not minority republicans or indepentents?
 
Republicans are trying to use voter ID laws to suppress Democratic voter turnout. That's why Democrats have a problem with it.

To suppress "fraudulent" voter turnout. Regardless of who they vote for.

Are you suggesting that more fraud occurs with Democrat voters ? Or that more of those unable to obtain proper ID are likely to be Democrat voters ? If the latter, I will note that they have no problem with ID so as to qualify for EBT cards, State and federal housing assistance, buy cigarettes and booze, cash checks ...... etc.

Point being. Voter ID is all about fraud.

And it is why the Democrats howl so much about it. ;)
 
Republicans are trying to use voter ID laws to suppress Democratic voter turnout. That's why Democrats have a problem with it.

No.... Democrats have manufactured the phony excuse that republicans are trying to use voter ID laws to suppress Democratic voter turnout, so they can squash Republican efforts to protect the integrity of the American electoral process and continue to cheat.
 
I'm appalled that, according to Federal law, one doesn't even have to prove citizenship in order to vote. I hadn't thought about it, but it's absolutely ludicrous. W.T.F.?

I'm gobsmacked. This is the first time in my life that I've heard that federal law says non-citizens can vote. Hell, maybe we should be mailing absentee ballots in the millions all over the American hemisphere and Europe. That is completely ****ed up.

I thought this whole idiocy about ID's was stupid... I mean, of course, people have to show ID's in order to vote and of course their identities should be verified before they're allowed to vote... now this???

Just when I thought federal laws could be any stupider... :2mad:
 
so all Republicans have ID's and Democrats don't? I cannot agree with your statement. It seems just political pandering then on the Dems part.

So why don't the Dems have a problem of showing ID for other actions? Are there not poor republicans, are there not minority republicans or indepentents?

I think there have been at least half a dozen threads on this topic, but the bottom line is that most of the people who lack photo IDs just so happen to be in the demographics that normally vote Democratic (lower income, minorities, students).

So there is virtually no evidence that voter impersonation is a problem, but there is plenty of evidence that voter ID laws reduce primarily Democratic voter turnout. 2 + 2 = ?
 
I'm gobsmacked. This is the first time in my life that I've heard that federal law says non-citizens can vote.

That's not what federal law says. Try reading the actual words.
 
No.... Democrats have manufactured the phony excuse that republicans are trying to use voter ID laws to suppress Democratic voter turnout, so they can squash Republican efforts to protect the integrity of the American electoral process and continue to cheat.

Right, great point. Democrats don't want fair elections. :roll:

As mentioned countless times in these threads, there is virtually ZERO evidence that voter impersonation is an issue.
 
Right, great point. Democrats don't want fair elections. :roll:

As mentioned countless times in these threads, there is virtually ZERO evidence that voter impersonation is an issue.

Well, Liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens seems to think there have been ample examples of voter related fraud in our country's history, that more than justify requiring a legal ID to vote... But what does he, or the other 5 Justices that agreed with him, know about the law anyway??
 
Well, Liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens seems to think there have been ample examples of voter related fraud in our country's history, that more than justify requiring a legal ID to vote... But what does he, or the other 5 Justices that agreed with him, know about the law anyway??

Got a link?
 
I think there have been at least half a dozen threads on this topic, but the bottom line is that most of the people who lack photo IDs just so happen to be in the demographics that normally vote Democratic (lower income, minorities, students).

So there is virtually no evidence that voter impersonation is a problem, but there is plenty of evidence that voter ID laws reduce primarily Democratic voter turnout. 2 + 2 = ?

This claim is so phoney. The only ones who lack ID are the one's who are not who they are pretending to be. Further, where most voter fraud occurs, the fix is already in. In precincts that are already high Democrat, run by Democrats, and where fraud is often encouraged. We see it in the poor communities, where folks are all on entitlements, bought and paid for, but we also see it with voting involving college students, who sure as **** are not poor. But they are Democrats !
 
This claim is so phoney. The only ones who lack ID are the one's who are not who they are pretending to be.

That is such an idiotic statement it beggars the mind.
 
My feeling is that if someone so motivated to vote that he or she would risk imprisonment for perjury and voter fraud, and/or deportation ... they're probably a lot more patriotic than most actual Americans.

That is one idiotic statement.

That is such an idiotic statement it beggars the mind.

Illegal immigrants who vote in elections, any of them, are felons who are in this country illegally. So we let them vote to advance their illegal agenda? That's just bat**** insane.
 
Got a link?

Here is some of what he said:


It remains true, however, that flagrant examples
of such fraud in other parts of the country have been
documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected
historians and journalists,11 that occasional examples have
surfaced in recent years,12 and that Indiana’s own experi-
ence with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary
for East Chicago Mayor13—though perpetrated using
absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate
that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it
could affect the outcome of a close election.​


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf
 
That is one idiotic statement.



Illegal immigrants who vote in elections, any of them, are felons who are in this country illegally. So we let them vote to advance their illegal agenda? That's just bat**** insane.

Can you point to even one case where it was proven that an illegal alien voted?
 
Here is some of what he said:


It remains true, however, that flagrant examples
of such fraud in other parts of the country have been
documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected
historians and journalists,11 that occasional examples have
surfaced in recent years,12 and that Indiana’s own experi-
ence with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary
for East Chicago Mayor13—though perpetrated using
absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate
that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it
could affect the outcome of a close election.​


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf

Interesting that you chose not to include the preceding sentence: "The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. (emphasis added)"

The main example that Stevens cited of it occurring in the U.S. was from 1868. It was disputed whether the other examples actually constituted in-person voter fraud, with the exception of one instance. So basically it boils down to ONE example of in-person voter fraud in modern American history. Clearly that justifies the imposition of laws that would cost tens of millions of dollars to implement and would certainly result in hundreds of thousands -- probably millios -- of people who would otherwise vote not voting. Because there's one documented case of voter impersonation in modern memory, and no guarantee that it might not have happened anyway by virtue of a false ID. :roll:

Certainly this shocking evidence explains the Republicans' sudden fervor to reduce voter participation among traditionally Democratic voting citizens.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you chose not to include the preceding sentence: "The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. (emphasis added)"

The main example that Stevens cited of it occurring in the U.S. was from 1868. It was disputed whether the other examples actually constituted in-person voter fraud, with the exception of one instance. So basically it boils down to ONE example of in-person voter fraud in modern American history. Clearly that justifies the imposition of laws that would cost tens of millions of dollars to implement and would certainly result in hundreds of thousands -- probably millios -- of people who would otherwise vote not voting. Because there's one documented case of voter impersonation in modern memory, and no guarantee that it might not have happened anyway by virtue of a false ID. :roll:

Certainly this shocking evidence explains the Republicans' sudden fervor to reduce voter participation among traditionally Democratic voting citizens.

Excuse me, but you wanted me to back up my statement about Stevens and that is exactly what I did. That sentence is totally irrelevant to that point.

And by the way, do you know the main reason why Stevens voted to uphold the law? Because the plaintiffs couldn't produce as much as one example of anyone who was disenfranchised because of that law... NOT ONE. So you can take your "hundreds of thousands -- probably millions" of people, stuff them in a pipe, and smoke em up pal.
 
Can you point to even one case where it was proven that an illegal alien voted?

That, my dear, has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. But nice try. Typical talking point. "Prove there's fraud." I don't have to. I have to show my freakin' driver's license to use my pool pass. Having to prove one's citizenship? You think that's an affront? I think it's bat-**** insane that one doesn't have to. And never the twains shall meet.
 
That, my dear, has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. But nice try. Typical talking point. "Prove there's fraud." I don't have to. I have to show my freakin' driver's license to use my pool pass. Having to prove one's citizenship? You think that's an affront? I think it's bat-**** insane that one doesn't have to. And never the twains shall meet.

Uh, that is absolutely insane. You are actually saying that you want government to enact laws when there is absolutely no demonstrated problem? How about they pass a law requiring you to wear a helmet to protect you from falling space junk? I mean, it's never happened but it would just be CRAZY to take the chance! :roll:
 
Uh, that is absolutely insane. You are actually saying that you want government to enact laws when there is absolutely no demonstrated problem? How about they pass a law requiring you to wear a helmet to protect you from falling space junk? I mean, it's never happened but it would just be CRAZY to take the chance! :roll:

Yes. No.
12349
 
Uh, that is absolutely insane. You are actually saying that you want government to enact laws when there is absolutely no demonstrated problem? How about they pass a law requiring you to wear a helmet to protect you from falling space junk? I mean, it's never happened but it would just be CRAZY to take the chance! :roll:

No. We just are not pretending to be so foolish as to drink that liberal Kool-Ade.

Democrats and liberals are, on average, of far lower ethical standards than Conservatives. They cheat. They obfuscate. They whine and moan. And they shun accountability.

And the rest of us grow weary of it.
 
Uh, that is absolutely insane. You are actually saying that you want government to enact laws when there is absolutely no demonstrated problem? How about they pass a law requiring you to wear a helmet to protect you from falling space junk? I mean, it's never happened but it would just be CRAZY to take the chance! :roll:
There is a typical AdamT post, wherever did you get the bat***t insane idea that MaggieD said that? Besides that, your argument predicated upon the number of convictions and prosecutions, which in your simplistic view means there is no voter fraud? It has been addressed and debunked before in other threads. Trotting out that sad little facetious and highly disingenuous fluff again does not reconstitute it and make a intelligent point. Repeats and strawmen, bravo.
 
Can you point to even one case where it was proven that an illegal alien voted?

You asked, and now you know. It does happen. (I only posted one. didn't want to do all your work for you:lol:

LAKE COUNTY, Ill. - An illegal alien from the Philippines was arrested Thursday morning on a felony complaint charging her with 17 counts related to voter fraud in Lake County. The state charges resulted from a joint investigation conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Lake County State's Attorneys Office. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also provided assistance.

Maria Azada, 53, of Grayslake, Ill., was arrested March 17 by ICE HSI agents and a Lake County State's Attorneys special investigator. Azada faces 17 felony counts in Lake County Circuit Court of perjury, mutilation of election materials, and tampering with voting machines in connection with illegal voting by a non-U.S. citizen.

The investigation began in February 2009 when Azada admitted to a USCIS officer during an interview for an immigration benefit that she had voted in an election. It is illegal for foreign nationals to vote in national or state elections in the United States.


Illegal alien arrested, charged with voter fraud
 
You asked, and now you know. It does happen. (I only posted one. didn't want to do all your work for you:lol:

LAKE COUNTY, Ill. - An illegal alien from the Philippines was arrested Thursday morning on a felony complaint charging her with 17 counts related to voter fraud in Lake County. The state charges resulted from a joint investigation conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Lake County State's Attorneys Office. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also provided assistance.

Maria Azada, 53, of Grayslake, Ill., was arrested March 17 by ICE HSI agents and a Lake County State's Attorneys special investigator. Azada faces 17 felony counts in Lake County Circuit Court of perjury, mutilation of election materials, and tampering with voting machines in connection with illegal voting by a non-U.S. citizen.

The investigation began in February 2009 when Azada admitted to a USCIS officer during an interview for an immigration benefit that she had voted in an election. It is illegal for foreign nationals to vote in national or state elections in the United States.


Illegal alien arrested, charged with voter fraud

Of course that won't matter to AdamT, he is repeating a stance he has taken before, it was addressed and debunked then. So like many a true internet debater, he just wipes the whole affair from his brain ala pbrauer style and simply repeats the ploy, freshly ignorant about a single thing demonstrated and shown to him when last he trotted out the sad little dog that don't hunt.

Ah the internet.......................
 
Excuse me, but you wanted me to back up my statement about Stevens and that is exactly what I did. That sentence is totally irrelevant to that point.

And by the way, do you know the main reason why Stevens voted to uphold the law? Because the plaintiffs couldn't produce as much as one example of anyone who was disenfranchised because of that law... NOT ONE. So you can take your "hundreds of thousands -- probably millions" of people, stuff them in a pipe, and smoke em up pal.

So what, I wasn't supposed to comment on it?! I agree that neither side did a very good job of presenting their case, but there are several major studies, and other court cases, demonstrating that people are disenfranchised by voter ID laws. And just because they may not be unconstitutional doesn't mean that they are a good idea. Personally I think that "not unconstitutional" isn't a great rationale for government regulation.
 
Back
Top Bottom