• 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!

O'Keefe Voter Fraud Investigation: Young Man Offered Holder's Ballot

Just wanting to see if you would be foolish enough to bully your way through your research failure.

You were :lamo (the people in question were charged, not convicted). And that's not all -- it was a voter petition, not an election (actual voter fraud).... i.e., a photo voter ID law would not have prevented it.
You've got a round trip ticket on the Fail Train, my man :2razz:
train2.gif
Shame your own train is very short and has no rails. I was specifically asked to provide evidence of voter fraud. I did that...in abundance. Not 'just' registration fraud (lord...when people discount that it just makes them so pathetic) but real live honest to goodness cases of fraudulent voting. Done deal. Oh...but wait...you want in person fraud. Between 2004 and 2005...only in districts that are even numbered...and in the r-t range.

Sorry...your allies are dirty and you have been hugging them. Your playmates have been rolling around in pig**** and you are coated in their funk. The process is corrupt and you have no one to blame but yourself.
 
It took all of about 3 minutes to link to numerous articles on voter fraud. [...]
Well then, in the future you should spend more time, and perhaps your fail will not be so great, for you only found one confirmed person that would have been deterred from committing voter fraud by a gov't photo ID card requirement like the one the Republicans, courtesy of ALEC, are trying to institute.

Your ad hominems only contribute to your failure to make a reasoned, rational argument.
 
Well then, in the future you should spend more time, and perhaps your fail will not be so great, for you only found one confirmed person that would have been deterred from committing voter fraud by a gov't photo ID card requirement like the one the Republicans, courtesy of ALEC, are trying to institute.

Your ad hominems only contribute to your failure to make a reasoned, rational argument.
really? see..I wasnt responding to you...I was responding to a specific request and more than met the challenge.

(edit:I have to add its funny as hell who chimed in to 'like' your post) :lamo
 
Last edited:
Where did I say I support a govt issued photo voter ID? I merely asked where is the problem with requiring ID. [...]
I already told you. (refresher: there is no reasonable basis for what the Republicans are proposing... the problem they want to 'fix' has not been shown to exist).

If you want to simply argue generalities, what is the problem with putting a government camera inside your home?

Or strip searching you whenever they like?
 
Last edited:
If you want to simply argue generalities, what is the problem with putting a government camera inside your home?

Or strip searching you whenever they like?

HUH? this is non sequitur. How does asking someone to provide ID to exercise their right to vote have anything to do with cameras inside your home or strip searching people?
 
really? see..I wasnt responding to you...I was responding to a specific request and more than met the challenge.

The well-known (well-worn) topic is fraud that would be eliminated by the Republican plans for gov't issued photo ID at the polls.

Of course, since you can't provide evidence of that type of fraud, you have to inundate us with other types of fraud that would not be eliminated by the Republican 'solution'. If you think that is a good argument, or if you now plan to hide your failure behind the transparent veil of semantics, well . . . . you only dig the proverbial hole deeper.

Let us know if you'll be needing a ladder :mrgreen:
 
The well-known (well-worn) topic is fraud that would be eliminated by the Republican plans for gov't issued photo ID at the polls.

Of course, since you can't provide evidence of that type of fraud, you have to inundate us with other types of fraud that would not be eliminated by the Republican 'solution'. If you think that is a good argument, or if you now plan to hide your failure behind the transparent veil of semantics, well . . . . you only dig the proverbial hole deeper.

Let us know if you'll be needing a ladder :mrgreen:
Precisely what I mean...its a specific TYPE of fraud....like I said...you guys are a crack-up! :lamo

But at least we have agreement...there IS INDEED voter fraud and on a regular basis...not 'just' registration fraud occuring but real live honest to goodness voter fraud...right?
 
HUH? this is non sequitur. How does asking someone to provide ID to exercise their right to vote have anything to do with cameras inside your home or strip searching people?
Because there is no known problem that any of those three gov't acts will ameliorate.
 
Precisely what I mean...its a specific TYPE of fraud....like I said...you guys are a crack-up! :lamo

But at least we have agreement...there IS INDEED voter fraud and on a regular basis...not 'just' registration fraud occuring but real live honest to goodness voter fraud...right?
There is no evidence of any voter fraud that would be eliminated by the Republican ID plan... other than your one Filipina grandmother (who may not have even known she wasn't supposed to vote, making it not even fraud).

But since we can assume that the Republicans know such a nationwide plan would tend to disenfranchise millions of probably Democratic voters, and since we have at least one university study that confirms such would happen, it is important that we implement the Republican plan even if there is no evidence it would reduce voter fraud, correct?

Will you be needing a step ladder or an extension ladder? :)


P.S.... I'm done for the night, received an old Barry Goldwater DVD that might be interesting. If you're going to be digging after dark, get a lantern ;)
 
Last edited:
There is no evidence of any voter fraud that would be eliminated by the Republican ID plan... other than your one Filipina grandmother (who may not have even known she wasn't supposed to vote, making it not even fraud).

But since we can assume that the Republicans know such a nationwide plan would tend to disenfranchise millions of probably Democratic voters, and since we have at least one university study that confirms such would happen, it is important that we implement the Republican plan even if there is no evidence it would reduce voter fraud, correct?

Will you be needing a step ladder or an extension ladder? :)
I know...having an ID is...so disfranchising...right? Thats so pathetic. :lamo

Laws requiring IDs MIGHT at least stop SOME of those democrats that insist on illegal filling out ballots at polling stations. Good first step, although...you know...disgusting vermin WILL find a way...

(and Im off to theater...maybe your eunich 'liker' will step up and attempt to fill your shoes while you are gone. After all...you did for him. But lets be honest...those shoes you filled...we arent really talking about a Herculean tasking)
 
Last edited:
Um no... the cameras in the home and strip searches are invasive and pointless. As one of our Prime ministers said so eloquently. The state has no buisness in the bedrooms of the nation.
However when you are voting you are doing something public, ie taking part in the selection process of the people who will run the country. There is absolutely no way you can come close to comparing it to placing cameras in peoples homes or randomly strip searching them. It could be considered similar to requiring a drivers licence when you drive however.

BTW I would be against creating a seperate photo ID for voting. I think that would be a waste of taxpayer $$$. But I don't see how requiring some form of ID would be onerous. Again see the link posted above on what canada requires.

I do not think you need proof of massive voter fraud to think this is a good idea. All you need is proof of the possibility, then if measures can be easily enacted to countervent this then why not? Again I would be against issuing a photo Voter ID card as it would make life more difficult and is a compelte waste of $$$. I will repeat I"m not American I don't pretend to know what is proposed but from reading OP and subsequnt posts no mention of this voter photo ID came up untill jsut recently.
 
Last edited:
There are people unable to get IDs because they lack the paperwork required to get them. Getting that paperwork often requires an ID.

Disenfranchisement is very cumbersome.


In my years in law enforcement.... Ive never met a person over the age of 18 who couldn't get an ID.

I've met plenty of people who are too lazy to get one...... or "haven't gotten around to it"..... or "I don't really need it".
 
In my years in law enforcement.... Ive never met a person over the age of 18 who couldn't get an ID.

I've met plenty of people who are too lazy to get one...... or "haven't gotten around to it"..... or "I don't really need it".

Except that with voting, the ID must match the person registered to vote. Not that it can't be faked, but its a step or two beyond what you allude to. Walk into a 7-11 to buy some beer with a fake ID, and your ID isn't compared to any list.
 
Except that with voting, the ID must match the person registered to vote. Not that it can't be faked, but its a step or two beyond what you allude to. Walk into a 7-11 to buy some beer with a fake ID, and your ID isn't compared to any list.

I wasn't talking about comparing the ID against anything.

I was just talking about those who claim that they can't get an ID period.
 
Say...some may view this differently...but me...I try to stay positive, look for the positives and see the bright side of life. So...can we take from this that we now do fully accept that there IS INDEED voter fraud (seeing as how I posted 8 separate incidents including over 50 people from a single brief Google search), though we may ultimately disagree on how much actually occurs? Sheesh...it would so nice to be able to finally resolve THAT.

Partisans usually see only one side of the story. The other side is people who are prevented or discouraged form voting because of the law and it's telling when your reply failed to address that. I provided statistics of a bigger picture, if you want to play count the anecdotal evidence, play it with thinkprogress who counted 9 to your 8: REPORT: Nine People Denied Voting Rights By Voter ID Laws | ThinkProgress

Happy now?
 
Partisans usually see only one side of the story. The other side is people who are prevented or discouraged form voting because of the law and it's telling when your reply failed to address that. I provided statistics of a bigger picture, if you want to play count the anecdotal evidence, play it with thinkprogress who counted 9 to your 8: REPORT: Nine People Denied Voting Rights By Voter ID Laws | ThinkProgress

Happy now?


8 "Incidents" which include more than one person in some of those "incidents"...

and nine people.

Your Math Rulez All!
 
Just because people don't have ID's does not mean that they cannot get one.

Unless they don't have all the documents required or are too hassled by all of it. I had to run around getting letters from my school and the bank to get the license. Basically, they make it harder for the group of people who just might put off voting all together, all so that they can prevent a type of fraud that is estimated to be less than 0.0001. If the demographics of those likely to be discouraged by the law is true and you vote Republican, your vote is definitely going to be more effectiveness with the law, but it's through raising a barrier to voting - the effect is as good as disenfranchising.
 
Unless they don't have all the documents required or are too hassled by all of it. I had to run around getting letters from my school and the bank to get the license. Basically, they make it harder for the group of people who just might put off voting all together, all so that they can prevent a type of fraud that is estimated to be less than 0.0001. If the demographics of those likely to be discouraged by the law is true and you vote Republican, your vote is definitely going to be more effectiveness with the law, but it's through raising a barrier to voting - the effect is as good as disenfranchising.

Bolded Above:

Alternate Meaning: Too Lazy to get one.
 
The state of North Carolina requires a whole TWO (2) documents to show who you are and 1 to show residency to obtain a basic "ID" card.

All this stuff about school and blah to get your driver's license is meaningless.

Even homeless folks can get an ID card with those above documents and 10 bucks.
 
8 "Incidents" which include more than one person in some of those "incidents"...

and nine people.

Your Math Rulez All!


Telling that you think that the anecdotal evidence is to be taken seriously. It's not my maths that's the problem, it's your lack of understanding of statistics.

BTW, he showed cases of vote buying and absentee ballots, which would not be addressed by the photo ID requirement. Thinkprogress at least document the people who were actually affected by the photo ID requirement. It just highlight the bull**** surrounding the issue. The Republicans is not tackling the absentee ballot issue, since those voters favour them, instead they go after the voters that are known to favour the Democrats. The Democrats play the same game, and both sides work by disenfranchsing the people who they think won't vote for them instead of trying to come up with policy that would pull these voters towards them.
 
The state of North Carolina requires a whole TWO (2) documents to show who you are and 1 to show residency to obtain a basic "ID" card.

All this stuff about school and blah to get your driver's license is meaningless.

Even homeless folks can get an ID card with those above documents and 10 bucks.

Tell that to the 96 years old whose application was denied because she didn't have her marriage certificate. Your "years in law enforcement" means nothing when the facts plainly contradict your claim.
 
Tell that to the 96 years old whose application was denied because she didn't have her marriage certificate. Your "years in law enforcement" means nothing when the facts plainly contradict your claim.

Umm... whut?

Don't need a marriage certificate to get an ID in North Carolina.

You did read where I said that in my post you replied to right?

EDIT: I just realized you tossed me a bone to which you would reply with info about her name change. Didn't think of that at first. She could very easily go GET her Marriage certificate from the Register of Deeds.
 
Last edited:
Um no... the cameras in the home and strip searches are invasive and pointless. As one of our Prime ministers said so eloquently. The state has no buisness in the bedrooms of the nation.
However when you are voting you are doing something public, ie taking part in the selection process of the people who will run the country. There is absolutely no way you can come close to comparing it to placing cameras in peoples homes or randomly strip searching them. It could be considered similar to requiring a drivers licence when you drive however.

BTW I would be against creating a seperate photo ID for voting. I think that would be a waste of taxpayer $$$. But I don't see how requiring some form of ID would be onerous. Again see the link posted above on what canada requires.

I do not think you need proof of massive voter fraud to think this is a good idea. All you need is proof of the possibility, then if measures can be easily enacted to countervent this then why not? Again I would be against issuing a photo Voter ID card as it would make life more difficult and is a compelte waste of $$$. I will repeat I"m not American I don't pretend to know what is proposed but from reading OP and subsequnt posts no mention of this voter photo ID came up untill jsut recently.

No, you need to show that the cost of doing so would not outweight the gain, the cost in this case is the people who would be prevented or discouraged from voting by the law VS the gain of stopping actual or any imaginary fraud that can be stopped by this law. A lot of the fraud that are done would not be stopped by the law, while the number of people who could be prevented or discouraged from voting by the law can be quite high.
 
Umm... whut?

Don't need a marriage certificate to get an ID in North Carolina.

You did read where I said that in my post you replied to right?

EDIT: I just realized you tossed me a bone to which you would reply with info about her name change. Didn't think of that at first. She could very easily go GET her Marriage certificate from the Register of Deeds.

Tell that to the 96 years old whose application was denied. The issue is not valid just in N Carolina.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to the 96 years old whose application was denied. The issue is not valid just in N Carolina.

Okay... Tell me where to find her and I will!
 
Back
Top Bottom