• 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!

Do you favor background checks on voters?

Federalist said:
If the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else.
Click to expand...

You apparently missed my post that you reproduced... again..... Please do present your evidence of voter fraud that would indicate we have any sort of problem that needs to be dealt with in this manner.
 
haymarket said:
You apparently missed my post that you reproduced... again..... Please do present your evidence of voter fraud that would indicate we have any sort of problem that needs to be dealt with in this manner.
Click to expand...

Please reproduce the quote in which I claimed to have evidence of voter fraud.
 
Federalist said:
Please reproduce the quote in which I claimed to have evidence of voter fraud.
Click to expand...

that is what is so downright weird about your participation here. My reply in 24 was to Bob Blaylock who did indeed discuss fraud. I asked him to shoe evidence it was a problem that needed a solution.

You then responded to my challenge to him in your own post 25

If the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else.
Click to expand...

So apparently you did not look favorable on my challenge to Blaylock and decided to chime in on his side. Are you now saying that are NOT supporting Blaylock and his accusations and there is no evidence of election fraud that needs a solution?

Pick one because you cannot have it both ways.
 
haymarket said:
that is what is so downright weird about your participation here. My reply in 24 was to Bob Blaylock who did indeed discuss fraud. I asked him to shoe evidence it was a problem that needed a solution.

You then responded to my challenge to him in your own post 25

So apparently you did not look favorable on my challenge to Blaylock and decided to chime in on his side. Are you now saying that are NOT supporting Blaylock and his accusations and there is no evidence of election fraud that needs a solution?

Pick one because you cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

No idea what you're talking about.

Here's what I said:
Federalist said:
If the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else.
Click to expand...

If you have a problem with that statement, go ahead and tell me what it is.
 
haymarket said:
Please do present your evidence of voter fraud that would indicate we have any sort of problem that needs to be dealt with in this manner.
Click to expand...

Do I HAVE to link you to the Black Panthers website?

Don't think I won't.
 
joko104 said:
Why is it necessary to prove a problem exists? It would seem the rational approach to matters of government would be to avoid problems in the first place.
Click to expand...

If we can't accurate define a problem, then how do we create the most effective solutions. As the old saying goes..."If it ain't broke...why fix it?" Why bring government more into our lives than necessary?
 
Federalist said:
No idea what you're talking about.

Here's what I said:

If you have a problem with that statement, go ahead and tell me what it is.
Click to expand...

The problem you seem to have was evidenced by my thorough explanation in post 28. I challenged Blaylock to cite evidence of voter election fraud and you chimed in talking about voting problems and stealing votes. Again, if you feel Blaylock and his point are correct, and you feel there is a problem with election voter fraud - feel free to present your evidence that there is indeed a problem that needs to be dealt with.
 
Gipper said:
Do I HAVE to link you to the Black Panthers website?

Don't think I won't.
Click to expand...

By all means - link to any verifiable evidence you have of voter fraud which would merit dealing with it with new laws. Please do.
 
haymarket said:
The problem you seem to have was evidenced by my thorough explanation in post 28. I challenged Blaylock to cite evidence of voter election fraud and you chimed in talking about voting problems and stealing votes. Again, if you feel Blaylock and his point are correct, and you feel there is a problem with election voter fraud - feel free to present your evidence that there is indeed a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're on about. I said that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else. Are you saying you disagree with this statement?
 
Federalist said:
I have no idea what you're on about. I said that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else. Are you saying you disagree with this statement?
Click to expand...

So you are speaking in the abstract about a hypothetical that haunts you as a nightmare rather than citing any real problem. And your post should in no way shape or from be taken as support for Blaylock when he was challenged to support his claims even though you replied to me when challenging him to do so.

Got it. :roll:
 
haymarket said:
So you are speaking in the abstract about a hypothetical that haunts you as a nightmare rather than citing any real problem.
Click to expand...

Please quote me where I said that it haunts me like a nightmare.

And your post should in no way shape or from be taken as support for Blaylock when he was challenged to support his claims even though you replied to me when challenging him to do so.

Got it. :roll:
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're ranting about. I said that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else.

If you disagree with what I said, please explain why. Otherwise, I don't need a recap of the goings on in this thread.
 
Federalist said:
I have no idea what you're ranting about. I said that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else.
I don't need a recap of the goings on in this thread.
Click to expand...

You obviously badly needed it as you came completely off the rails on page 3 and seemed to forget what you were replying to.

So all this stealing votes is some hypothetical nightmare that seems to be haunting you rather than an actual real world problem. Got it.

btw - when I say it haunts you - that is my characterization of your temperament on this issue. Nobody ever said you said it so nobody has to quote you. Of course, you knew that when you tried to pretend otherwise.
 
haymarket said:
You obviously badly needed it as you came completely off the rails on page 3 and seemed to forget what you were replying to.

So all this stealing votes is some hypothetical nightmare that seems to be haunting you rather than an actual real world problem. Got it.

btw - when I say it haunts you - that is my characterization of your temperament on this issue. Nobody ever said you said it so nobody has to quote you. Of course, you knew that when you tried to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

You seem to be getting a little upset. I'm not sure why. I simply pointed out that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else. Are you upset because you think my statement is not true?
 
Federalist said:
Please quote me where I said that it haunts me like a nightmare.



I have no idea what you're ranting about. I said that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else.

If you disagree with what I said, please explain why. Otherwise, I don't need a recap of the goings on in this thread.
Click to expand...

Without some viable statistics as to the number of infractions...why is every person who votes automatically assumed to be guilty of a crime? So far...all I am aware of is the assumption that there is a problem, which has yet been proven to exist.

When people get alarmed that over unproven allegations...usually "FEAR" sets in and knee-jerk emotional demands start to ensue.

F=future

E=events

A=appearing

R=real

Before we can solve a problem. A problem has to be defined.

The power of creating solutions usually lay in the hands of those who are capable of defining a problem...which is verifiable, proven and valid.
 
Removable Mind said:
Without some viable statistics as to the number of infractions...why is every person who votes automatically assumed to be guilty of a crime?
Click to expand...

Guilty of a crime? I'm not sure I follow you.

My point is simply that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else.
 
Federalist said:
Guilty of a crime? I'm not sure I follow you.

My point is simply that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else.
Click to expand...

I do see your point But shouldn't stealing anything be some sort of a crime.

As of now...I'm not seeing any evidence that there is an actual problem. At least not to any significance. Significant would mean that there is an altering effect. Or that the change in results is obvious and verifiable.

I have as of late heard a lot of doomsayers make claims of a terrible incident of voter fraud....but they don't provide any significant evidence...just scattered incidents.
 
Adagio said:
Voting is a right is it not? Banking flying, buying booze etc are not rights. They're privileges. You don't need an ID to exercise a right.
Click to expand...


You mean like buying a firearm?
 
Federalist said:
I have no idea what you're on about. I said that if the person casting his vote is not who he claims to be, then this is a problem. By voting, he would be stealing a vote from somebody else. Are you saying you disagree with this statement?
Click to expand...

It is notable that those on the far wrong side, which is the side that most obviously would benefit from voter fraud, are those who most vehemently deny that there is or could be any such problem, regardless of what evidence they are ever shown to the contrary.


I know of one example. The 1996 California 46th Congressional District election. Loretta Sanchez, running for Congress against incumbent Bob Dornan, ran a campaign that specifically encouraged illegal aliens to vote for her. She won the election by a very narrow margin—less than a thousand votes. An investigation found that there were at least six hundred of those votes that were cast illegally, by non-citizens (not enough to overturn the election result), and there were some credible indications that there may have been as many as 4700 illegal votes, but these were not adequately investigated.

Regardless of whatever else one believes, one has to admit that there is a very strong likelihood that the outcome of this election was changed by voter fraud.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom