• 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

My apologies for the brain fart before. I mistook you for another poster, an idiot of one. I can only half blame it on my Droid. Now that I am online with an actual screen that does not fit in my pocket I see my error. If we as one of the richest societies on Earth can't manage this kind of simple fix, well never mind. We can.

Translation: I thought you were AdamT so I automatically disagreed with you without thinking about what you wrote.

:2rofll:
 
Translation: I thought you were AdamT so I automatically disagreed with you without thinking about what you wrote.

:2rofll:
No you poor Ivy League genius, the translation would be: I've been running from your simple question for the last three days because I don't have an intelligent answer to it. As you can see my "answers" are getting more "genius" and more Ivy League the more I "think" about clever replies that don't answer the question. I wonder why my abortion of a basement thread makes me look like a moron in two different sections of the website, at the same time? I thought it would really cement my place in history as a genius Ivy League "Stellar Debater"! Only it does not seem to have earned me one single fan or "atta boy" much less even a single "like" from a single DP member. This is just how I envisioned it all when I thought up this brilliant series of "arguments" Ivy League Law School Genius sons of Janitors could do a better job of than I can. But I'll keep bringing the "win" on so strong for a few more days. Maybe then it will sink into my peers at DP just how genius an Ivy League "Steller Debater" I truly am!
 
Last edited:
I objected to the other study because it looked at only one state in two elections. The Alth study is probably the most thorough on the subject as it looks at TWENTY FIVE different states -- some with new voter ID laws, some with other new restrictions, and some with no changes.

IIRC you objected to the time frame of the study...not the area covered by it.


Well no ****, Sherlock. Any time someone applies data analysis to predict future results they are engaging in conjecture. Projections, by definition, involve conjecture. But this particular author bases her predictions on a broad survey of past results.

Unless she has the power of divination then no amount of analysis can tell the future. And when people make conjectures those conjectures are always tainted by personal opinion. As such her analysis is bunk.

The article says absolutely nothing of the kind. What an incredibly dishonest appraisal. All the article says is that, statistically, speaking, "minority and foreign-born voters are less likely to have a valid photo-ID. Therefore, these laws place a disproportionate and additional cost to voting for specific segments of the electorate." Nowhere in the article does it say, or even suggest, that it would be impossible for these people to obtain valid ID.

It may not say it...but it does imply it. And there is no "disproportionate" anything for the simple fact that voter ID laws apply to everyone. And the cost...what cost? The ID's are free.

Wow, another incredibly dishonest (or simply ignorant) analysis. The paper is about statistical methodology and they use two unrelated examples to demonstrate their model.

And you have no idea if they use real numbers or where they get their numbers from if they are real or even if those numbers are correct.

And so I see little point in going on. It's perfectly obvious that you either haven't bothered to read the articles, or you did and are simply too closed minded to address them seriously, or you just don't understand them. Either way you are a waste of time.

At least I am not putting forth studies that are based on conjecture and false assumptions. ;)
 
IIRC you objected to the time frame of the study...not the area covered by it.




Unless she has the power of divination then no amount of analysis can tell the future. And when people make conjectures those conjectures are always tainted by personal opinion. As such her analysis is bunk.



It may not say it...but it does imply it. And there is no "disproportionate" anything for the simple fact that voter ID laws apply to everyone. And the cost...what cost? The ID's are free.



And you have no idea if they use real numbers or where they get their numbers from if they are real or even if those numbers are correct.



At least I am not putting forth studies that are based on conjecture and false assumptions. ;)
Bu bu bu bu but people will be "inconvenienced" or something like that. These studies that he found links to with his Google searches are packed full of stats that prove that.:eek:uch:
 
Last edited:
Maggie said that states should do "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting". My point is that using photo ID does not qualify as doing "as much as possible to prevent unathorized voting". DNA testing, or fingerprint checks, would be far more effective at preventing unauthorized voting". This is no more a slippery slope argument than it is a strawman argument.

Explain to me how DNA proves citizenship and place of primary residence. Explain to me how fingerprint checks would prove anything at all about those who have never been fingerprinted.

To register to vote, people must provide two things: Proof of citizenship and that their primary residence is within the county where they are registered. DNA tests and fingerprints do neither.

You're digging yourself into a deep hole, trying to support the unsupportable just because you blurted it once before thinking it through. Do yourself a favor and move on.
 
IIRC you objected to the time frame of the study...not the area covered by it.

I objected to both.

Unless she has the power of divination then no amount of analysis can tell the future. And when people make conjectures those conjectures are always tainted by personal opinion. As such her analysis is bunk.

Then according to your logic ANY pojection about ANYTHING is utterly without merit. I guess we should stop listening to weather forecasters and economic forecasters and election prognosticators and all the rest. Certainly it would be absurd to listen to anyone who claims that photo IDs will reduce fraud, because that is based on nothing but virtually unsupported "divination" and "conjecture".

It may not say it...but it does imply it.

Oh for ****'s sake! :lol:

And you have no idea if they use real numbers or where they get their numbers from if they are real or even if those numbers are correct.

Actually I have a pretty good idea where they got their numbers, given that it was a peer reviewed and foot-noted article. :roll:

At least I am not putting forth studies that are based on conjecture and false assumptions. ;)

To the extent that you've put forth anything at all, that's exactly what you've done.
 
Last edited:
Explain to me how DNA proves citizenship and place of primary residence. Explain to me how fingerprint checks would prove anything at all about those who have never been fingerprinted.

To register to vote, people must provide two things: Proof of citizenship and that their primary residence is within the county where they are registered. DNA tests and fingerprints do neither.

You're digging yourself into a deep hole, trying to support the unsupportable just because you blurted it once before thinking it through. Do yourself a favor and move on.

It's pretty simple, really. If you really wanted to do "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting", you would have to do two things: one, you would have to ensure that only people who are legally authorized to vote are registered to vote, and two, you would have to ensure that the people actually casting ballots are registered and that they are who they say they are. A photo ID isn't a particularly secure way of ensuring identity, since fake IDs can be easily obtained. Boatloads of highschool and college students have them and use them every day. Faking a DNA test, or a fingerprint test, OTOH, is very difficult. That's why DNA and fingerprints are MUCH better evidence in court than eyewitness identifications, which are notoriously unreliable. This is why, in Florida, you can't just show an ID to take the bar exam. You actually have to go down the police station and have yourself fingerprinted. Then, when you take the exam, you have to put your thumbprint on the exam booklet. IDs are too easy to fake. If you're just using IDs, you aren't doing "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting".

I'll show you mine if you show me yours. After a five second Google search, here are some online websites where you can easily obtain pretty much any kind of fake ID you want:

Buy Fake ID Online . Com - Where to buy Fake IDs Novelty Fake Drivers License Identification
Fake ID Pro Fake IDs Novelty IDs Novelty Fake Identification Cards
Fake ID Cards created through TheIDShop, Novelty ID and False Identification.
Fake ID Free - Largest Drivers License Card Database
http://www.youfini****.com/

Okay, now you post the websites where I can buy fake DNA and fingerprits....

:popcorn2:

:popcorn2:
 
No you poor Ivy League genius, the translation would be: I've been running from your simple question for the last three days because I don't have an intelligent answer to it. As you can see my "answers" are getting more "genius" and more Ivy League the more I "think" about clever replies that don't answer the question. I wonder why my abortion of a basement thread makes me look like a moron in two different sections of the website, at the same time? I thought it would really cement my place in history as a genius Ivy League "Stellar Debater"! Only it does not seem to have earned me one single fan or "atta boy" much less even a single "like" from a single DP member. This is just how I envisioned it all when I thought up this brilliant series of "arguments" Ivy League Law School Genius sons of Janitors could do a better job of than I can. But I'll keep bringing the "win" on so strong for a few more days. Maybe then it will sink into my peers at DP just how genius an Ivy League "Steller Debater" I truly am!

Dude, what is with the Ivy League ****? You can't even get your insults right. :lol:
 
It's pretty simple, really. If you really wanted to do "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting", you would have to do two things: one, you would have to ensure that only people who are legally authorized to vote are registered to vote, and two, you would have to ensure that the people actually casting ballots are registered and that they are who they say they are. A photo ID isn't a particularly secure way of ensuring identity, since fake IDs can be easily obtained. Boatloads of highschool and college students have them and use them every day. Faking a DNA test, or a fingerprint test, OTOH, is very difficult. That's why DNA and fingerprints are MUCH better evidence in court than eyewitness identifications, which are notoriously unreliable. This is why, in Florida, you can't just show an ID to take the bar exam. You actually have to go down the police station and have yourself fingerprinted. Then, when you take the exam, you have to put your thumbprint on the exam booklet. IDs are too easy to fake. If you're just using IDs, you aren't doing "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting".

I'll show you mine if you show me yours. After a five second Google search, here are some online websites where you can easily obtain pretty much any kind of fake ID you want:

Buy Fake ID Online . Com - Where to buy Fake IDs Novelty Fake Drivers License Identification
Fake ID Pro Fake IDs Novelty IDs Novelty Fake Identification Cards
Fake ID Cards created through TheIDShop, Novelty ID and False Identification.
Fake ID Free - Largest Drivers License Card Database
http://www.youfini****.com/

Okay, now you post the websites where I can buy fake DNA and fingerprits....

:popcorn2:

:popcorn2:


In other words, you cannot explain how DNA and fingerprinting can reveal citizenship and primary place of residence, but are too embarrassed to admit it. We understand.
 
In other words, you cannot explain how DNA and fingerprinting can reveal citizenship and primary place of residence, but are too embarrassed to admit it. We understand.

In other words, I just explained it and you totally punted, even after you totally moved the goal posts. Stay under the floorboards. :lol:
 
Oh, btw....

The requirements for obtaining a driver's license varies by state. Some states are proposing legislation to prohibit the issuance of state issued identification to individuals who are unable to prove legal immigration status. Conversely, in other states it is possible for an illegal immigrant to obtain a driver's license, as no proof of legal immigration status is required.

Drivers Licenses and Social Security Numbers for Illegal Immigrants
 
It's pretty simple, really. If you really wanted to do "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting", you would have to do two things: one, you would have to ensure that only people who are legally authorized to vote are registered to vote, and two, you would have to ensure that the people actually casting ballots are registered and that they are who they say they are. A photo ID isn't a particularly secure way of ensuring identity, since fake IDs can be easily obtained. Boatloads of highschool and college students have them and use them every day. Faking a DNA test, or a fingerprint test, OTOH, is very difficult. That's why DNA and fingerprints are MUCH better evidence in court than eyewitness identifications, which are notoriously unreliable. This is why, in Florida, you can't just show an ID to take the bar exam. You actually have to go down the police station and have yourself fingerprinted. Then, when you take the exam, you have to put your thumbprint on the exam booklet. IDs are too easy to fake. If you're just using IDs, you aren't doing "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting".

I'll show you mine if you show me yours. After a five second Google search, here are some online websites where you can easily obtain pretty much any kind of fake ID you want:

Buy Fake ID Online . Com - Where to buy Fake IDs Novelty Fake Drivers License Identification
Fake ID Pro Fake IDs Novelty IDs Novelty Fake Identification Cards
Fake ID Cards created through TheIDShop, Novelty ID and False Identification.
Fake ID Free - Largest Drivers License Card Database
http://www.youfini****.com/

Okay, now you post the websites where I can buy fake DNA and fingerprits....

:popcorn2:

:popcorn2:

This is as stupid an argument against Voter I.D.'s as it is that we should do away with driver's licenses.
 
In other words, you cannot explain how DNA and fingerprinting can reveal citizenship and primary place of residence, but are too embarrassed to admit it. We understand.
Yip, our Ivy League "Stellar Debater" is not real good at debate. You notice how often the words "punt" and "reality" keep coming up? A lot of creative options for intelligent replies is not something this Google Commando has a lot of. But he sure can copy urls and paste 'em. ;)
 
Last edited:
This is as stupid an argument against Voter I.D.'s as it is that we should do away with driver's licenses.

No, it isn't, because no one (like you) asserted that we should do "as much as possible" to ensure driver indentification. Feel free to adjust your premise at any time, though.
 
Yip, our Ivy League "Stellar Debater" is not real good at debate. You notice how often the words "punt" and "reality" keep coming up? A lot of creative options for intelligent replies is not something this Google Commando has a lot of. But he sure can copy urls and paste 'em. ;)

What I notice is that you've developed an unhealthy obsession with yours truly. Is there a forum equivalent of a restraining order?
 
Dude, what is with the Ivy League ****? You can't even get your insults right. :lol:

some people Call Tulane the Yale of Louisiana
 
What I notice is that you've developed an unhealthy obsession with yours truly. Is there a forum equivalent of a restraining order?
But who outside of you cares what you claim to have noticed? You've had a month and several threads now to make some kind of an argument on this topic, instead of several weak attempts at one. Now that you can't even tell us what you think your argument is supposed to be, and after you ran downstairs and embarrassed yourself, you just keep recycling the same material that got you to this point in the thread. You have not noticed you have made an internet hack of yourself or that each post you add just illustrates that you really don't have anything intelligent to say. Every time someone corrects where you keep getting so much so wrong, you just ignore it and perform another pbrauer styled mind wipe on yourself. Again. Then you "come back" with even weaker smack talk than the pabulum you tried to start a basement thread with. You have not "noticed" that you can't explain to a single poster how a single one of the links to your, what is it now? Your 7 studies that supposedly support the three or four different directions you have tried to take your so called arguments in has not exactly convinced anyone to your moronic POV. You are not even passingly familiar with the conclusions of the "studies" you have copied the urls of. The only thing you really have kind of half assed argued in the last few days now is that voters will be inconvenienced by passing ID laws. And you have completely failed to "notice" that nobody much cares or thinks you have an intelligent point. Much like the never materialized disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters you keep making a centerpiece of your so called "arguments" following each of your fresh mind wipes, you have not "noticed" that you don't have a point or an argument you can explain or convince anyone is compelling.

Unfortunately Google Commandos like you always choose to keep arguing and striking furious little poses long past the point where the have proven they are shallow internet harpies.
 
Last edited:
I've never seen anyone go to such lenghts to try and justify their support for cheating... He just won't give up.
 
I've never seen anyone go to such lenghts to try and justify their support for cheating... He just won't give up.
He is exactly the kind of "Stellar Debater" that ran downstairs and started a thread about me. Now he just claimed I'm obsessed with him.:roll: To quote him, you can't make s**t this stupid up.
 
Last edited:
No, it isn't, because no one (like you) asserted that we should do "as much as possible" to ensure driver indentification. Feel free to adjust your premise at any time, though.

:rofl Yes, {ineffective) dear.
 
:rofl Yes, {ineffective) dear.

Yes, I think you probably didn't mean what you said, but since you haven't seen fit to correct yourself ... we're kind of stuck with your whacky statement. :shrug:
 
But who outside of you cares what you claim to have noticed? You've had a month and several threads now to make some kind of an argument on this topic, instead of several weak attempts at one. Now that you can't even tell us what you think your argument is supposed to be, and after you ran downstairs and embarrassed yourself, you just keep recycling the same material that got you to this point in the thread. You have not noticed you have made an internet hack of yourself or that each post you add just illustrates that you really don't have anything intelligent to say. Every time someone corrects where you keep getting so much so wrong, you just ignore it and perform another pbrauer styled mind wipe on yourself. Again. Then you "come back" with even weaker smack talk than the pabulum you tried to start a basement thread with. You have not "noticed" that you can't explain to a single poster how a single one of the links to your, what is it now? Your 7 studies that supposedly support the three or four different directions you have tried to take your so called arguments in has not exactly convinced anyone to your moronic POV. You are not even passingly familiar with the conclusions of the "studies" you have copied the urls of. The only thing you really have kind of half assed argued in the last few days now is that voters will be inconvenienced by passing ID laws. And you have completely failed to "notice" that nobody much cares or thinks you have an intelligent point. Much like the never materialized disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters you keep making a centerpiece of your so called "arguments" following each of your fresh mind wipes, you have not "noticed" that you don't have a point or an argument you can explain or convince anyone is compelling.

Unfortunately Google Commandos like you always choose to keep arguing and striking furious little poses long past the point where the have proven they are shallow internet harpies.

Maybe you should start a demented fan club? Or seek professional help. Something along those lines.
 
Maybe you should start a demented fan club? Or seek professional help. Something along those lines.
I don't think we could even pay people to join this hypothetical organization. Do you?
lather rinse repeat adamT.jpg
 
I don't think we could even pay people to join this hypothetical organization. Do you?

Wow, you do it for free?! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom