• 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

It is a truism that DNA is a more reliable identifier than photo ID. It follows that if states should do whatever they can to protect the integrity of elections (Maggie's premise) then they should use DNA rather than IDs.

dna being more accurate wasnt your argument though,now you seem to think you can redefine your own words to suit your argument,were you hoping no one could go back and retrieve them

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?

didnt think i would remember did you.
 
Sorry, but that is bull****. There are many studies that have looked at voter participation before and after voter ID laws were passed and in fact they do show reduced voter participation after the laws passed in most cases. The effect can be reduced or eliminated by providing free IDs and with the help of voter education campaigns, but those seem to be short-term effects.

Provide them then. I have yet to see any link that you have posted that wasn't based on speculation or false premises.

Still waiting AdamT. Got anything yet?
 
Hey Adam, just look at the facts and then tell me what they say to you:

1. Does voter fraud happen? Yes
2. Is it proved and prosecuted very often? No.
3. Is voter fraud difficult to catch? Yes
4. Even if detected after the fact, is it difficult to catch the person(s) involved? Yes, very difficult.
5. Is it easy without having to show an ID, to vote under a name other than your own? Yes, as the latest hidden videos have shown.
6. Has there been wide spread cases of voter registration fraud in recent years? Yes, ACORN has faced legal action in at least 13 states since 2004.
7. When you combine #5 and #6, would it be easy and low risk to commit voter fraud? Yes.
8. Is a legal ID required to receive: legal employment, A Pell grant, student loan, college enrollment, welfare assistance, government housing, food stamps, SCHIP benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, ACCESS, subsidized prescription drugs and Social Security retirement/disability benefits? Yes
9. Does #8 apply to most elderly, poor and young people? Yes
10. Are those the same groups of people that the left argues will be disenfranchised? Yes


This is where common sense comes into play, and it says to me quite clearly that requiring a legal ID to vote would substantially protect the integrity of our election process... Something that every American, regardless of political affiliation or ideology, should whole heartedly support. It also tells me that since it's not a hardship requiring a legal ID for all of the benefits listed in #8, it's also not a hardship to require one to vote.

So using common sense, what does all that information tell you?
 
And there you have the right wind ideology in a nutshell -- if they deem you as having failed to meet their standards, then you deserve no rights (to vote, in this instance).

you probably think that its proper for 10 people on the dole to vote up the forced handouts of the one person who funds those 10? I hate pure democracy for good reasons
 
Still waiting AdamT. Got anything yet?

Read the thread. I've posted two studies at least twice, and the second time I posted those two I posted four or five more. :roll:
 
Hey Adam, just look at the facts and then tell me what they say to you:

1. Does voter fraud happen? Yes
2. Is it proved and prosecuted very often? No.
3. Is voter fraud difficult to catch? Yes
4. Even if detected after the fact, is it difficult to catch the person(s) involved? Yes, very difficult.
5. Is it easy without having to show an ID, to vote under a name other than your own? Yes, as the latest hidden videos have shown.
6. Has there been wide spread cases of voter registration fraud in recent years? Yes, ACORN has faced legal action in at least 13 states since 2004.
7. When you combine #5 and #6, would it be easy and low risk to commit voter fraud? Yes.
8. Is a legal ID required to receive: legal employment, A Pell grant, student loan, college enrollment, welfare assistance, government housing, food stamps, SCHIP benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, ACCESS, subsidized prescription drugs and Social Security retirement/disability benefits? Yes
9. Does #8 apply to most elderly, poor and young people? Yes
10. Are those the same groups of people that the left argues will be disenfranchised? Yes


This is where common sense comes into play, and it says to me quite clearly that requiring a legal ID to vote would substantially protect the integrity of our election process... Something that every American, regardless of political affiliation or ideology, should whole heartedly support. It also tells me that since it's not a hardship requiring a legal ID for all of the benefits listed in #8, it's also not a hardship to require one to vote.

So using common sense, what does all that information tell you?

Again, this is pure stupidity. Your argument for ID laws is that voter impersonation is rarely seen.

Try this instead:

1. is voter impersonation extraordinarily rare? Yes.
2. has voter impersonation ever been shown to change the outcome of an election? No.
3. do voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of people who would otherwise vote? Yes.
4. accordingly, are these laws an idiotic waste of time and money? Yes.
5. are they actually nothing more than a transparent attempt to suppress the Democratic vote? YES.
 
Again, this is pure stupidity. Your argument for ID laws is that voter impersonation is rarely seen.

Try this instead:

1. is voter impersonation extraordinarily rare? Yes.
2. has voter impersonation ever been shown to change the outcome of an election? No.
3. do voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of people who would otherwise vote? Yes.
4. accordingly, are these laws an idiotic waste of time and money? Yes.
5. are they actually nothing more than a transparent attempt to suppress the Democratic vote? YES.

whos more stupid,the person who argues using a negative or the person who counters his argument with another negative?????
 
whos more stupid,the person who argues using a negative or the person who counters his argument with another negative?????

The person who constantly missuses terms that he doesn't understand.
 
The person who constantly missuses terms that he doesn't understand.

again with your misunderstandings,not only have you fought to redefine your own words to fit into a definition not even close,you still defy your own mistakes,nice job you would make a model president,they are good at avoiding questions and denying faults as well.
 
again with your misunderstandings,not only have you fought to redefine your own words to fit into a definition not even close,you still defy your own mistakes,nice job you would make a model president,they are good at avoiding questions and denying faults as well.

You are becoming more incoherent by the minute. Which is saying something....
 
You are becoming more incoherent by the minute. Which is saying something....

quite impossible,as you have failed to realize your own faults,instead trying to redefine your own words to fit a definition of your choosing.

expecting people not to notice is incoherent on your part.
 
quite impossible,as you have failed to realize your own faults,instead trying to redefine your own words to fit a definition of your choosing.

expecting people not to notice is incoherent on your part.

I'll drop out of this particular line of inquiry as sort of mercy killing, lest you embarrass yourself further. :lol:
 
I'll drop out of this particular line of inquiry as sort of mercy killing, lest you embarrass yourself further. :lol:

you cant embarrass the ignorant and you cant save the poster who lost to the ignorant,therefor i am the lesser of two ignorants and i win:2razz:
 
Again, this is pure stupidity. Your argument for ID laws is that voter impersonation is rarely seen.

Were the things I listed factual or not? If not please explain... If they were, then your response defies logic.


As for your list, let me correct it a bit in red:

Try this instead:

1. is voter impersonation extraordinarily rare? Yes. False. People getting caught doing it is rare and since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know the frequency in which it takes place.
2. has voter impersonation ever been shown to change the outcome of an election? No. Since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know whether it has actually effected an elections outcome or not.
3. do voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of people who would otherwise vote? Yes. False. That is an opinion on your part based on speculation, not something that has been determined factual based on substantive evidence.
4. accordingly, are these laws an idiotic waste of time and money? Yes. That is another opinion that you based on your previous opinion, neither of which is supported by any factual, concrete evidence.
5. are they actually nothing more than a transparent attempt to suppress the Democratic vote? YES. That is a baseless accusation motivated by liberal/progressive political beliefs, that's totally vacant of facts or substance.

As you see, nothing you presented is factual except #2, and it was based on a misleading premise.

On the other hand, every one of those I listed are absolutely factual except #7, which is a logical conclusion rendered using the known facts and simple common sense.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that to even come close to resembling someone with a legitimate argument.
 
Last edited:
Read the thread. I've posted two studies at least twice, and the second time I posted those two I posted four or five more. :roll:

And I responded to the second one already (post 229), a few posts down from where you posted those links again. Like I already said, they're nothing more than speculation and based off of false premises. You claimed to have proof...studies based on speculation and false premises are not proof.
 
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.
You didn't confuse me but I seem to have confused you with my earlier comment. I don't oppose voter ID's either but I do believe we should help people who can't afford it to get that first ID card. (And my concern isn't as much for immigrants as it is old people on a fixed income.) The proponents claim the number of legitimate but poor voters without current ID, like a driver's license, is minute. If that's the case then I have to wonder why there is such an outcry against helping these people get their cards? As far as I can tell that's the only legitimate gripe the opponents have, so let's help those people for crying out loud so we can get past this and move on! :peace
 
You didn't confuse me but I seem to have confused you with my earlier comment. I don't oppose voter ID's either but I do believe we should help people who can't afford it to get that first ID card. (And my concern isn't as much for immigrants as it is old people on a fixed income.) The proponents claim the number of legitimate but poor voters without current ID, like a driver's license, is minute. If that's the case then I have to wonder why there is such an outcry against helping these people get their cards? As far as I can tell that's the only legitimate gripe the opponents have, so let's help those people for crying out loud so we can get past this and move on! :peace

There is no outcry by the proponents against helping them get their cards. That is just the opponents talking point. I have continueally pointed out that the voter ID laws being enacted provide free ID's and even if they can't get those for whatever reason those people can still vote via absentee ballots, which solves their claim of "disenfranchising minorities". Those that are against voter ID laws have just ignored that point. But they don't ignore it enough to the point where they don't use it. They use it by saying that it just costs money, supposedly more money than it is worth because supposedly "there isn't any evidence of massive voter fraud". Which yeah, there may not be evidence of "massive voter fraud". But we do know voter fraud happens. We also know that it is damn near impossible to track with any reliability. Something which they do not acknowledge.

Anyways to sum it up....They basically say that what ever voter fraud is going on it is not such a problem that we need to spend all that extra money on it via laws, security, free ID's. In otherwords they would rather let the voter fraud that is going on continue than have to spend money to fix the problem. Which to me is just an excuse. A very poor excuse at that.
 
Last edited:
Done. Why don't you come join me and bring your little record player.
Well that was pathetic. Let's get back to your "big" challenge to me!

Well, post your abortion of a basement thread I think you will be a strong candidate for Asshat of the Year 2012. It will take some work but I have no doubt that should you and your psyche have the fortitude to survive here that long, there will be no end of campaign staff. Just in case you are thinking that the basement is your kind of stage.

Sure you could use these links, if only you could explain how your use of each proves something. Aside from like 10 billion other (to use your words) "stellar debaters" you can operate an internet search engine and copy and paste links. If I am not mistaken, not only is this skill set common to most preteens in America, but even in some cases children as young as 5!

Now getting back to your so called proofs. I do so love when someone who is supposedly in command of the facts of a study they used as a source, like you, has so much command of that "study packed with data that supports my argument" he can't even state which study from his source, the Brenan Center in this case, it is he citing. This tends to happen to Google Commandos like you.

Too bad what you claimed to have proof of for the last month is not what "voter attitude" is. What you have actually provided ample proof of, now downstairs and upstairs, is that you can supply months work of hackish post that hardly befit a person that has accomplished the educational achievements you have brought up as being yours. Namely Ivy League. So sure, lets go back downstairs and talk about delusions of grandeur.
 
Last edited:
There is no outcry by the proponents against helping them get their cards. That is just the opponents talking point. I have continueally pointed out that the voter ID laws being enacted provide free ID's [...]
Well, if everything stopped right here I suspect there wouldn't be a issue.

The problem is, it doesn't stop right here - you have to add in all the ifs/ands/ors/buts.

[...] and even if they can't get those for whatever reason those people can still vote via absentee ballots, which solves their claim of "disenfranchising minorities".
There shouldn't be any reason they can't vote, that's the whole point I'm trying to make. If they need photo IDs then lets make sure that those that can't afford them can still get them. Why does there have to be any conditional other than poverty? Isn't that bad enough?


The opponents say voter IDs reduce voter turnout, which is probably true to some small extent. They also say some poor people have trouble getting the ID's for monetary reasons, which I'm sure is true.

The proponents say voter IDs don't reduce turnout, which is probably true in general. They also say there just aren't that many poor people out there who can legally vote that can't afford to get the ID.

Compromise: Require the ID and help the poor get it, if needed.



If the proponents are right and there aren't that many poor people that can otherwise legally vote then there shouldn't be a problem providing the means for those few to get the ID.

If the opponents are right and there are a lot of poor people that could otherwise legally vote then it'll cost us some money to ensure that the voting system in America is honest and reliable - and so what? Isn't that what we all want?


Ed:
And here's another point to keep in mind. 99.9999% of these documents we're talking about is just a matter of getting one government department to talk to another government department. It's not like we're buying iPods here or something, it's government data being copied to another part of the government. How crazy is all this when you sit back and take in the Big Picture?
 
Last edited:
Well, if everything stopped right here I suspect there wouldn't be a issue.

The problem is, it doesn't stop right here - you have to add in all the ifs/ands/ors/buts.

There shouldn't be any reason they can't vote, that's the whole point I'm trying to make. If they need photo IDs then lets make sure that those that can't afford them can still get them. Why does there have to be any conditional other than poverty? Isn't that bad enough?

The opponents say voter IDs reduce voter turnout, which is probably true to some extent. They also say some poor people have trouble getting the ID's for monetary reasons.

The proponents say voter IDs don't reduce turnout, which is probably true in general. They also say there just aren't that many poor people out there who can legally vote that can't afford the ID.

Compromise: Require the ID and help the poor get it, if needed.



If the proponents are right and there aren't that many poor people that can otherwise legally vote then there shouldn't be a problem providing the means for those few to get the ID.

If the opponents are right and there are a lot of poor people that could otherwise legally vote then it'll cost us some money to ensure that the voting system in America is honest and reliable - and so what? Isn't that what we all want?

I'm honestly not getting what you are talking about. Are you talking about getting the ID itself? Or are you talking about getting the documents that prove you are who you say you are? I can only assume the latter since the ID's themselves are free?
 
I'm honestly not getting what you are talking about. Are you talking about getting the ID itself? Or are you talking about getting the documents that prove you are who you say you are? I can only assume the latter since the ID's themselves are free?
It's whatever it takes to get the ID in the hands of the voter. If that takes other documents then, yes, those would have to count as well. I'll copy my edit of the above post (too late to be included in your response), it might put the whole thing into better perspective:

[Ed:]
And here's another point to keep in mind. 99.9999% of these documents we're talking about is just a matter of getting one government department to talk to another government department. It's not like we're buying iPods here or something, it's government data being copied to another part of the government. How crazy is all this when you sit back and take [a look at] the Big Picture?
 
Last edited:
Well that was pathetic. Let's get back to your "big" challenge to me!


Well, post your abortion of a basement thread I think you will be a strong candidate for Asshat of the Year 2012. It will take some work but I have no doubt that should you and your psyche have the fortitude to survive here that long, there will be no end of campaign staff. Just in case you are thinking that the basement is your kind of stage.

Sure you could use these links, if only you could explain how your use of each proves something. Aside from like 10 billion other (to use your words) "stellar debaters" you can operate an internet search engine and copy and paste links. If I am not mistaken, not only is this skill set common to most preteens in America, but even in some cases children as young as 5!

Now getting back to your so called proofs. I do so love when someone who is supposedly in command of the facts of a study they used as a source, like you, has so much command of that "study packed with data that supports my argument" he can't even state which study from his source, the Brenan Center in this case, it is he citing. This tends to happen to Google Commandos like you.

Too bad what you claimed to have proof of for the last month is not what "voter attitude" is. What you have actually provided ample proof of, now downstairs and upstairs, is that you can supply months work of hackish post that hardly befit a person that has accomplished the educational achievements you have brought up as being yours. Namely Ivy League. So sure, lets go back downstairs and talk about delusions of grandeur.

All of which ^^^^^ taken together, adds up to yet another

PPK%20Punt%20photo.jpg
 
All of which ^^^^^ taken together, adds up to yet another

PPK%20Punt%20photo.jpg
Just for the record, posting a self portrait? Again?

Now to provide obviously much needed assistance to the needy, what "stellar debaters" do is cite a study and elaborate on the points in it that relate to their "debate" of the topic. Only naive morons play the here is a link to 7,000 "studies" that support my argument idiocy. Aside from the fact that you can't articulately keep track of your own argument, you have not been able to correlate a single claim of yours with even one of the links to the "studies" you have supplied. That was before you ran downstairs and crapped on the rug.

Let us say that we just dropped everything that has come before now in this thread. What is your argument supposed to be?
 
Back
Top Bottom