• 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!

You’ll Need an ID to Prove You’re a Democrat but Not to Vote

The fact is there is no reason to be required to have an ID just like there was no reason to have it in the past.

Yeah, because in the past we didn't have an identity theft problem, just like we don't in modern times. :roll:
 
Perhaps this will answer your question.....

In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

When 1,099 Felons Vote In A Race Won By 312 Ballots - Byron York - Page 1


That's fine. Do you have evidence that all of them voted for Franken? Of course not.

If you actually followed that recount (which I heard about it everyday), most of the wrangling was over absentee ballots. As is usual in recounts.
 
What all 13 of them? The first of them got up in court and said under oath that he voted for Norm Coleman? Do some homework.

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.....snip~

When 1,099 Felons Vote In A Race Won By 312 Ballots - Byron York - Page 1


Hmmmmm.....were you saying something about Ocean's 13?
f_doh.gif
 
Yeah, because in the past we didn't have an identity theft problem, just like we don't in modern times. :roll:

And by having voter ID, we'd get rid of all fake IDs? Doubt it.
 
That's fine. Do you have evidence that all of them voted for Franken? Of course not.

If you actually followed that recount (which I heard about it everyday), most of the wrangling was over absentee ballots. As is usual in recounts.

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.....snip~

When 1,099 Felons Vote In A Race Won By 312 Ballots - Byron York - Page 1


rolleyes20.gif
 
Yeah, because in the past we didn't have an identity theft problem, just like we don't in modern times. :roll:

What ID do we use that was created for that purpose?
 
Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.....snip~

Actually, it requires a big leap. You have to make the leap and assume that every one of those people voted for Al Franken. At least one said he didn't, so we know that's not true. 243 votes, even if you assume that 220 were fro Franken does not make for a 312 vote victory on it's own.

One of the famous ballots in that was a write in vote for "Lizard People." Guess they really meant Coleman, right? Because as I recall, he was trying to get that counted for him.
 
And by having voter ID, we'd get rid of all fake IDs? Doubt it.

I love people that push for more types of ID and don't realize they don't do anything to stop criminals.
 
There's a huge field goal move...

Why? If you want to steal someone's identity, wouldn't you go to the trouble of getting a fake ID? Wouldn't you just take that with you when you go to vote?
 
That's fine. Do you have evidence that all of them voted for Franken? Of course not.

What difference would it make who they voted for?
 
I love people that push for more types of ID and don't realize they don't do anything to stop criminals.

I don't often agree with you, but here I do. If you wanted to pretend to be someone for voting purposes, you get a fake ID. Probably from the same guy who sold you a gun without a permit.
 
Yes, as I pointed out by discounting your own "what if?" -- which was the point of my own. I thought that was clear. I guess not. Do you think that yours are valid and mine are not?

Yes, mine are valid and yours are not, because voter ID laws affect lots of INDIVIDUAL people. Ergo, the response to your "what it it's not?" question is "then they won't have any problem with the voter ID law." That still leaves open the question of what happens to people for whom it DOES affect.

Funny, here are the acceptable forms of ID under the PA law:

Did you not know this, or are you purposely falsely implying that acceptable IDs can come ONLY from DOT locations?

We are talking about people who DON'T already have any of those forms of ID. If they need to get an ID solely to vote, presumably they'll go with the one that's cheapest and easiest to obtain (i.e. a driver's license). They aren't going to shell out over $100 for a passport they won't use, or join the army, or go back to college, or get a municipal job just so that they have a voter ID.

And besides, nice confinement to a single example of one jurisdiction.

:roll:
And once again you fail to understand how to have a logical discussion. If there is even one jurisdiction in the entire state for which this will be a problem, then it shouldn't go into effect (especially a jurisdiction as large as Philadelphia). The whole point of the law is that it will hit urban/minority areas like Philadelphia harder than it will hit rural ****splat, PA.

No, it's delusional race-card mental vomit.

"Delusional race-card mental vomit" = What Jim Crow advocates say when they get called on their Jim Crow advocacy. :roll:
 
What difference would it make who they voted for?

Because he's crying over 243 votes. Franken won by 312. In order to overturn the result, all of those votes, plus 70 more would have to be for Franken, and not counted.
 
Thats not counting all those Problem Cemetaries in Chicago and the Surrounding Suburbs where they discoved bodies of Homeless people that some how voted while being dead for over 20 years.

Course I miss those good old days where the Chicago Irish Cops would get in line and vote 2 and 3 times, while grabbing an extra donut or two. Do you think they became confused from the Glazed Frosting covering their eyes?
f_whistle.gif
 
Great how that works. "I characterize things in such a way where you can have only one viewpoint, and any other viewpoint is evil."

Nope I specifically listed plenty of issues where other viewpoints might be perfectly legitimate. Taking rights away from other Americans based upon their race, however, is not one of them.

:roll: It must be quite a thing to view the world through such "evil" filters all the time. No penetrating such a wall of self-assuredness, though.

The fact that you don't even pretend to be concerned about voter impersonation is quite telling of your motives. If this is such a huge problem, then you would be able to present some EVIDENCE of said problem rather than just attacking the evil liberals.
 
Because he's crying over 243 votes. Franken won by 312. In order to overturn the result, all of those votes, plus 70 more would have to be for Franken, and not counted.

I'm relatively sure he's far more concerned about 1099 felons voting the race, point being that the fraudulent votes were greater than the margin of victory, whoever it was who happened to win.
 
To me, this is about preventing illegal immigrants from voting in OUR elections. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with one party or another. I couldn't care less about that garbage.

Mike Turzai of Pennsylvania does. And he actually has some power to make it happen for exactly the reasons he wants it to happen. To pretend otherwise is just playing ostrich on the beach.
 
Because he's crying over 243 votes. Franken won by 312. In order to overturn the result, all of those votes, plus 70 more would have to be for Franken, and not counted.

It's not about trying to overturn it. It's about proving that the Demo deliberately Committed Voter Fraud in Minnesota. which with all those convictions. Just how does the Demo party get out of it.....Besides lieing to the AMerican People or Even the Minnesota People.
 
You’ll Need an ID to Prove You’re a Democrat but Not to Vote

You

Of course you need an ID to get into the Democratic National Convention. Security there has to be pretty tight, don't you think?
 
Perhaps this will answer your question.....

In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

When 1,099 Felons Vote In A Race Won By 312 Ballots - Byron York - Page 1

Nothing in your article suggests that they impersonated another voter though. If they were just allowed to vote because their names were not purged from the voter rolls as they should have been, then requiring a voter ID will not prevent this from happening again.
 
Yes, mine are valid and yours are not, because voter ID laws affect lots of INDIVIDUAL people. Ergo, the response to your "what it it's not?"

Oh, please. My "what if" was exactly the same one as yours, and quite purposely so. So, in effect, if yours is valid is mine is not, it's because you think I'm a knuckle-dragging troglodyte and that your farts smell like Febreze.


We are talking about people who DON'T already have any of those forms of ID. If they need to get an ID solely to vote, presumably they'll go with the one that's cheapest and easiest to obtain (i.e. a driver's license). They aren't going to shell out over $100 for a passport they won't use, or join the army, or go back to college, or get a municipal job just so that they have a voter ID.

There were more options than even that.


:roll:
And once again you fail to understand how to have a logical discussion. If there is even one jurisdiction in the entire state for which this will be a problem, then it shouldn't go into effect (especially a jurisdiction as large as Philadelphia). The whole point of the law is that it will hit urban/minority areas like Philadelphia harder than it will hit rural ****splat, PA.

Not when you characterized the problem as one of "states."


"Delusional race-card mental vomit" = What Jim Crow advocates say when they get called on their Jim Crow advocacy. :roll:

Why should I bother having a conversation with some so venomously unhinged? I think I'll get off this crazy train now.
 
I'm relatively sure he's far more concerned about 1099 felons voting the race, point being that the fraudulent votes were greater than the margin of victory, whoever it was who happened to win.

But wouldn't it make sense to basically assume that the votes split about the same as the other votes, which would be approximately 50% either way?

Even for that to be a problem, you have to assume that Franken won that vote by a 70-30 margin. Which is a big assumption, IMO, unless you are a rabid partisan who only believes that Democrats are capable of skulduggery.
 
But wouldn't it make sense to basically assume that the votes split about the same as the other votes, which would be approximately 50% either way?

Even for that to be a problem, you have to assume that Franken won that vote by a 70-30 margin. Which is a big assumption, IMO, unless you are a rabid partisan who only believes that Democrats are capable of skulduggery.


Who cares how it splits, or who won? They were 1099 felons ineligible to vote. That is a problem all by itself, directly relevant to this discussion.
 
It's not about trying to overturn it. It's about proving that the Demo deliberately Committed Voter Fraud in Minnesota. which with all those convictions. Just how does the Demo party get out of it.....Besides lieing to the AMerican People or Even the Minnesota People.

So of the 1099 illegal votes, you know for a fact that Franken got 70% of it?
 
Back
Top Bottom