• 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

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.......................

Yeh I know. Had to post though..
Id's are required for many transactions and for traveling. Dems seem to have no problem with ID's for those actions. It is a unrealistic stance to say it hurts the poor. States issue ID's for non drivers at little to no cost to help the less fortunate have some form of ID.
 
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.

Too bad if some people are disenfranchised. If they can't figure out how to get an I.D.? They're too stupid to vote. And I want proof, not a study!! that shows clearly that people are disenfranchised by the voter I.D. laws. You got none. You got studies. Sorry, doesn't wash.

Personally, I think anybody who believes people should be able to vote without identifying themselves at the polls holds a ridiculous position.
 
Uh, that is absolutely insane. You are actually saying that you want government to enact laws when there is absolutely no demonstrated problem?

No problem for democrats maybe, but the rest of us would rather insure that dead people, convicted felons and illegal aliens haven't voted BEFORE someone is declared the winner and takes office.


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:

Anything to legitimize opposition to laws stopping democrats from cheating.
 
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

Well, that's an arrest -- not a conviction. If connvicted she will likely serve prison time and/or be deported. Seems like a pretty good deterrent to me. And it is one example.

But we've been through all this before, and at the end of the day there are probably fewer than 100 cases of people being convicted of voter impersonation in the last 30 years. Is it worth spending tens of millions of dollars disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people to stop a handful of fraudulent votes? No, it isn't. This is only being done to disenfranchise Democratic voters. Same reason Republicans are so hell-bent on killing the unions.
 
Too bad if some people are disenfranchised. If they can't figure out how to get an I.D.? They're too stupid to vote. And I want proof, not a study!! that shows clearly that people are disenfranchised by the voter I.D. laws. You got none. You got studies. Sorry, doesn't wash.

Personally, I think anybody who believes people should be able to vote without identifying themselves at the polls holds a ridiculous position.

What do you think is in the studies? Hint: proof. Here's one: http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

And another study showing that, even if people are concerned about voter fraud, they aren't particularly convinced that photo ID laws will make a difference: http://hlr.rubystudio.com/media/pdf/ansolabehere_persily.pdf
 
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.......................

If only saying it made it so, you would be a stellar debater. As it stands, however, you can't support your argument. Not that some won't be swayed by a vague and false reference to unspecified posts past. :lol:
 
Too bad if some people are disenfranchised. If they can't figure out how to get an I.D.? They're too stupid to vote. And I want proof, not a study!! that shows clearly that people are disenfranchised by the voter I.D. laws. You got none. You got studies. Sorry, doesn't wash.

Personally, I think anybody who believes people should be able to vote without identifying themselves at the polls holds a ridiculous position.

Hey, maybe they should have to take a test, too, or pay a poll tax? Or run an obstacle course? If people are too lazy to get in shape and run an obstacle course why should YOU allow them to vote?

Give me a ****ing break. If you think that the government should pass laws to address problems that don't exist then you have a serious problem.
 
What do you think is in the studies? Hint: proof. Here's one: http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

And another study showing that, even if people are concerned about voter fraud, they aren't particularly convinced that photo ID laws will make a difference: http://hlr.rubystudio.com/media/pdf/ansolabehere_persily.pdf

I don't care about studies any more than those who oppose voter I.D.'s care about studies and actual proof. So take your studies and file them. It is common sense. Pure, simple common sense. It's not racist, it's not attempting to disenfranchise voters. It's just pure and simple common sense. Sorry most liberals don't have any. (And I never attack groups, btw. But in this instance? I am appalled.)

The fact that I can walk into my polling place, introduce myself and get a ballot? Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. And never the twains shall meet. I get it. But I will support any and all efforts by legislatures nationwide to get voter i.d. legislation through.
 
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.

Yeah. Frauds are disenfranchised. Not a credible study that says otherwise.
 
What this boils down to is Dem's want illegals to vote.

What it boils down to is a transparent, disgusting attempt by Republicans to reduce voter turnout among the poor, minorities, and the young. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they don't seem to be capable of experiencing that emotion.
 
I saw the headline on another board and posted it here. I did nothing more than that. so your attempt to attack me fails. and there are enough people here to know I am an attorney so you sort of fail again.

and yes the 9th is the most overturned circuit

Don't worry about Karl, failure is his specialty.
 
What this boils down to is Dem's want illegals to vote.

Since this appears to be a Dem v Rep issue, I tend to agree with you. I also think it's racist to believe that minorities are too stupid to get state-issued i.d.'s. But that's just me.
 
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.

AdamT is good at moving the goal posts when he doesn't get what he wants.
 
What it boils down to is a transparent, disgusting attempt by Republicans to reduce voter turnout among the poor, minorities, and the young. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they don't seem to be capable of experiencing that emotion.

I can and do experience shame, I am ashamed of you and all those like you.
 
What it boils down to is a transparent, disgusting attempt by Republicans to reduce voter turnout among the poor, minorities, and the young. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they don't seem to be capable of experiencing that emotion.

What it boils down to is ... well ... like a boil .. on the ass of the Republic. The deceit and second-rate ethics that make some folks liberals.
 
If only saying it made it so, you would be a stellar debater. As it stands, however, you can't support your argument. Not that some won't be swayed by a vague and false reference to unspecified posts past. :lol:
My argument is that you are trotting out your sad already debunked little argument again. It has already been debunked and addressed thoroughly in at least two other threads on this topic. Your stance is so puerile that it is basically the assertion that the number of convictions for voter fraud proves there is no voter fraud. At least not enough to justify addressing or doing anything about voter fraud. Yip it is that asinine, you have argued it unsuccessfully before, and you have been shown that there is voter fraud; repeatedly. The last couple of times it was "photo" ID you were on about. Now you have reworked your shtick to include all ID! The stance that there is no voter fraud is just mind numbingly stupid, but despite the fact that you have been over all of this before, you act as if you have not. Like I said, you did a prbauer styled mind wipe on yourself, again. The whole thing is just asinine and as a case in point I offer your own words on that matter:

Well, that's an arrest -- not a conviction. If connvicted she will likely serve prison time and/or be deported. Seems like a pretty good deterrent to me. And it is one example.

But we've been through all this before, and at the end of the day there are probably fewer than 100 cases of people being convicted of voter impersonation in the last 30 years. Is it worth spending tens of millions of dollars disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people to stop a handful of fraudulent votes? No, it isn't. This is only being done to disenfranchise Democratic voters. Same reason Republicans are so hell-bent on killing the unions.
I seriously suspect the subtle confirmation that I just quoted from you won't even occur to you. I like how you did another typical AdamT ploy and managed to somehow work "union killing" by those evil republicans into a voter id requirements thread. Man the hackery is strong with you.
 
Last edited:
What it boils down to is a transparent, disgusting attempt by Republicans to reduce voter turnout among the poor, minorities, and the young. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they don't seem to be capable of experiencing that emotion.

wait a minute, I am always being told that the smartest and best educated people are democrats and stupid benighted people vote GOP but now I am being told that Dem voters are too dim to get an ID?
 
wait a minute, I am always being told that the smartest and best educated people are democrats and stupid benighted people vote GOP but now I am being told that Dem voters are too dim to get an ID?

Liberals are uber-flexible. They can adapt to every victimhood on a moments notice ;)
 
Liberals are uber-flexible. They can adapt to every victimhood on a moments notice ;)
I don't think it has a thing to do with being liberal as much as to do with just being very young very naive and more than a little dishonest. You want to see some real hackery with super special videos to boot? Check out his "stellar debate" work in this thread starting at #33. He fled it to come to this one to spread more of his special stellar dust. The hackery from danarhea is just a bonus, though you will note it appealed to AdamT as well. So he struck the well known stellar debate tactic of opting to go into an "ignore" trance.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-us-presidential-election/123811-why-should-care-ann-romneys-resume-w-52-a-4.html#post1060401691
 
Last edited:
What it boils down to is a transparent, disgusting attempt by Republicans to reduce voter turnout among the poor, minorities, and the young. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they don't seem to be capable of experiencing that emotion.

Here is one for you. I think you stated that voter turnout is dismal in most election. You are stating many do not take the time to vote. Past elections, many States did not require voter ID, yet turnout was poor. So my question to you Dems, if voter ID is required, is it really stopping that many people? By your own statement, they most likely were not going to vote anyway.

Your stance is pure political bs. Guess Janet N. should be ashamed to require us to show a ID to fly. Why not just sign a paper saying I am who I said I was? What is the big deal?
 
Back
Top Bottom