|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
Yeah, we should all line up and trust the ultra-libs from THAT source.
Ask yourself if a 1.1% difference would have changed the outcome in the Florida ballot count between Bush/Gore in 2000. OF COURSE IT WOULD HAVE!!!
Fact is, most people want to have some form of ID check at the polls, but the Democrats are dead-set against it.
Ask yourself why they would be?
You can see linked above where there was an offer for free ID's in one state, but the Democrats would have nothing to do with it. |
I would take Harvard as a legitimate source over James O'Keefe every single day of the week. You do have to ask yourself though, as a conservative, if there is no proven problem with voter fraud why would you want the government to spend tax money to make free IDs for everyone? Again, where is the proof of wide spread voting fraud? I've given proof that it affects voter turnout from a widely respected source, you've given us James O'Keefe. I've also given a source that shows that Voting fraud isn't a wide spread problem. If you choose not to believe reports from two of the best universities in the world, than what will you believe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You still haven't answered why Democrats would be against voter ID if free ID's have been proposed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| You still haven't answered why Democrats would be against voter ID if free ID's have been proposed? |
Because it would drive down voter turnout for demographics that traditionally support them, which is also why the Republicans are for it.
I'm not strongly against it, but it seems to be a waste of money and time that could be much better spent else where. Again, unless it is able to be proven that voter fraud is a wide spread problem, this is all about politics and trying to get certain people to stay home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| You still haven't answered why Democrats would be against voter ID if free ID's have been proposed? |
Because it would drive down voter turnout for demographics that traditionally support them, which is also why the Republicans are for it.
I'm not strongly against it, but it seems to be a waste of money and time that could be much better spent else where. Again, unless it is able to be proven that voter fraud is a wide spread problem, this is all about politics and trying to get certain people to stay home. |
If it WERE only a tiny problem....then the Republicans wouldn't really care. But they seem to think voter fraud is wide spread enough to deny them an election. Plus if you are a legal citizen and want to vote then there is no reason not to get a FREE voter ID. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| You still haven't answered why Democrats would be against voter ID if free ID's have been proposed? |
Because it would drive down voter turnout for demographics that traditionally support them, which is also why the Republicans are for it.
I'm not strongly against it, but it seems to be a waste of money and time that could be much better spent else where. Again, unless it is able to be proven that voter fraud is a wide spread problem, this is all about politics and trying to get certain people to stay home. |
If it WERE only a tiny problem....then the Republicans wouldn't really care. But they seem to think voter fraud is wide spread enough to deny them an election. Plus if you are a legal citizen and want to vote then there is no reason not to get a FREE voter ID. |
That's disingenuous. They think that if a certain demographic stays home they can win more elections, and studies show that by enacting these laws those groups have a greater tendency to stay home. It really is that simple.
Why pay for something to fix a problem that isn't real? Until there is any legitimate proof of significant voter fraud there is no reason for the state to pay for the production and distributions of IDs expressly for the purpose of voting.
I would much rather spend the money on improved voting machines, improved oversight, and improved training for poll workers. These are the areas that have proven to cause the most trouble and miscounts. Just look at all the issues that there have been in the republican primaries with vote miscounts due to things like poor counting at caucuses, emails with vote totals being lost, etc. etc. not to mention things like the infamous hanging chad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| You still haven't answered why Democrats would be against voter ID if free ID's have been proposed? |
Because it would drive down voter turnout for demographics that traditionally support them, which is also why the Republicans are for it.
I'm not strongly against it, but it seems to be a waste of money and time that could be much better spent else where. Again, unless it is able to be proven that voter fraud is a wide spread problem, this is all about politics and trying to get certain people to stay home. |
If it WERE only a tiny problem....then the Republicans wouldn't really care. But they seem to think voter fraud is wide spread enough to deny them an election. Plus if you are a legal citizen and want to vote then there is no reason not to get a FREE voter ID. |
are you kidding?? for real?? there has been no - I repeat NO study whatsoever that has proven there is any kind of legitimate concern that warrants the use of a voter ID.
the Rethugican party - along with their crony baggers - only wish to further threaten, intimidate and harass already marginalized communities - which is common knowledge as to how they get their rocks off - by demanding more allegiance to yet another government regulation (further contributing to the fallacy that they hate big govt intruding on the affairs of the people)
moreover, the Democrats, Greens and others who also are against the voter ID do so on the basis of what the communities themselves have said. mostly the poor and the elderly, who have difficulty with transportation to govt offices in order to obtain the ids, or even obtaining the proper documentation of birth, which is also necessary.
what freakin' difference does it make if it's free if (1) you work a sad-ass job that you can't take off of to go to the office to get the id and (2) you can't afford to get there if, as in some rural areas, it's too far and you don't have a way and (3) see (1)!!!
personally, I've voted in a number of different states and abroad (absentee) and have never seen a way one could scam a polling place - you state your name, they look you up in the books, and you sign, then vote. one person- one vote. if you're not registered, you can't vote unless by affidavit, which will then be verified before counted. at registration your information is verified.
it's not rocket science but of course, again, the thugs who are really against people voting - especially since the high turnout in 2008 - are starting to see the light with regards to a better informed populace and do fear their grip on power weakening, however slight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| luckylady wrote: |
| the Rethugican party - along with their crony baggers - only wish to further threaten, intimidate and harass already marginalized communities - which is common knowledge as to how they get their rocks off - by demanding more allegiance to yet another government regulation (further contributing to the fallacy that they hate big govt intruding on the affairs of the people) |
Wow. So the Republicans are trying to disenfranchise minorities and the poor by requiring them to stop at a government building once every decade to verify their identity before they stop at a different government building to vote every two years. And this one visit per decade is a massive hardship compared to the arduous expedition they undertake every two years to vote. I had no idea.
| luckylady wrote: |
| personally, I've voted in a number of different states and abroad (absentee) and have never seen a way one could scam a polling place - you state your name, they look you up in the books, and you sign, then vote. one person- one vote. if you're not registered, you can't vote unless by affidavit, which will then be verified before counted. at registration your information is verified. |
Oh! So you have to know a person's name and address before you can say that you are that person and vote? And you have to simultaneously remember that name AND scribble it down before they'll give you a ballot?
It's clearly impossible to game that system, since even if I knew anyone's name and address, I'm sure I'd end up accidentally signing my own name.
Your fervor over such an irrational position that some Democrats hold only makes the rest of your party look bad. Don't you think there are plenty of Republicans gaming this ludicrously insecure system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
| the Rethugican party - along with their crony baggers - only wish to further threaten, intimidate and harass already marginalized communities - which is common knowledge as to how they get their rocks off - by demanding more allegiance to yet another government regulation (further contributing to the fallacy that they hate big govt intruding on the affairs of the people) |
Wow. So the Republicans are trying to disenfranchise minorities and the poor by requiring them to stop at a government building once every decade to verify their identity before they stop at a different government building to vote every two years. And this one visit per decade is a massive hardship compared to the arduous expedition they undertake every two years to vote. I had no idea.
| luckylady wrote: |
| personally, I've voted in a number of different states and abroad (absentee) and have never seen a way one could scam a polling place - you state your name, they look you up in the books, and you sign, then vote. one person- one vote. if you're not registered, you can't vote unless by affidavit, which will then be verified before counted. at registration your information is verified. |
Oh! So you have to know a person's name and address before you can say that you are that person and vote? And you have to simultaneously remember that name AND scribble it down before they'll give you a ballot?
It's clearly impossible to game that system, since even if I knew anyone's name and address, I'm sure I'd end up accidentally signing my own name.
Your fervor over such an irrational position that some Democrats hold only makes the rest of your party look bad. Don't you think there are plenty of Republicans gaming this ludicrously insecure system? |
This is all just talk until you have research to back any of it up. I'm still waiting for any proponent of the new laws to show me a study that proves that this isn't just an attempt to reduce voter turn out by certain demographic groups.
If one thinks about this rationally, who would risk a $10,000 fine and up to 5 years of jail for one vote. If you thought of this in terms of pure economics than you would see that the high potential cost far outweighs the extremely low potential reward. Honestly, who's position is irrational here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| You still haven't answered why Democrats would be against voter ID if free ID's have been proposed? |
Because it would drive down voter turnout for demographics that traditionally support them, which is also why the Republicans are for it.
I'm not strongly against it, but it seems to be a waste of money and time that could be much better spent else where. Again, unless it is able to be proven that voter fraud is a wide spread problem, this is all about politics and trying to get certain people to stay home. |
If it WERE only a tiny problem....then the Republicans wouldn't really care. But they seem to think voter fraud is wide spread enough to deny them an election. Plus if you are a legal citizen and want to vote then there is no reason not to get a FREE voter ID. |
You assign logic to a party that has made opposition to everything it's central policy point (including opposition to policy proposals of its own making). Could it be that thy don't think fraud is a problem so much as they realize that a lot of Democratic voters don't have photo ID? I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect here, but let's not assume that the GOP is a citing altruistically.
Having worked with a lot of low-information voters, there's a legitimate concern about making sure they know they need an ID and that getting one might be an onerous task. DMV's typically aren't located in poor neighborhoods, and requiring that people go and spend the better part of their day in order to vote at some point down the line is perhaps asking too much. Ideally, some sort of ID station would go to said individuals (or their neighborhoods), as otherwise you are proposing a sort of means test on voting.
I'm also curious as o how much you people think this could actually happen, if you're so concerned about it. There's no way that systematic voter fraud could take place without it being noticed, not in this day and age. So, if it's such a huge problem, that means that you must have legions of voters crazy enough to be going down to polling places (likely separat from their own) and voting for someone else. On top of this, in order for it to make a huge difference, you have to assume that the only people doing this (if it's so widespread that it's changing elections) are voting Democratic. Personally, it seems a bit far-fetched that there are enough crazy individuals out there to make a difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those of you arguing that it's just a tiny problem need to realize that just a few hundred votes in the right areas of a swing state can mean the difference between a presidential candidate getting the entire state's electoral votes. In the case of Florida, for example this CAN make a difference in the outcome of a national election, as happened in 2000.
Here's another gem for you... back in 2000, the Democrats tried to get the overseas military absentee votes thrown-out, because they knew they would trend towards Bush.
Nice. Here's how the ultra-liberal NY Times tried to make it sound a little less awful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/us/counting-vote-absentee-ballots-review-military-votes-florida-attorney-general.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
Oh! So you have to know a person's name and address before you can say that you are that person and vote? And you have to simultaneously remember that name AND scribble it down before they'll give you a ballot?
It's clearly impossible to game that system, since even if I knew anyone's name and address, I'm sure I'd end up accidentally signing my own name.
Your fervor over such an irrational position that some Democrats hold only makes the rest of your party look bad. Don't you think there are plenty of Republicans gaming this ludicrously insecure system? |
is it really that difficult for you to comprehend that once someone votes, no one else can claim that vote? so where is the fraud loophole? if someone walked into a polling place to vote, and then was told their vote was already there - THEN we'd be hearing about it, big time!!
either you seriously didn't think this through (likely) or you were so incredibly desparate to believe it's not, you went ahead with this pathetic attempt to discredit the obvious |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
Wow. So the Republicans are trying to disenfranchise minorities and the poor by requiring them to stop at a government building once every decade to verify their identity before they stop at a different government building to vote every two years. And this one visit per decade is a massive hardship compared to the arduous expedition they undertake every two years to vote. I had no idea.
|
of course you "had no idea" because you subscribe to the concept that you know everything there is to know about everyone and refuse to accept reality as fact, including that some people do NOT live in an area where there is a govt office they can easily visit due to the fact that not everyone lives in cities, or even towns, not everyone has transportation, or access to it (since public transportation would entail taxpayer funding, which of course Republicans are against) and that this is the fundamental issue for the elderly and poor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| luckylady wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
Oh! So you have to know a person's name and address before you can say that you are that person and vote? And you have to simultaneously remember that name AND scribble it down before they'll give you a ballot?
It's clearly impossible to game that system, since even if I knew anyone's name and address, I'm sure I'd end up accidentally signing my own name.
Your fervor over such an irrational position that some Democrats hold only makes the rest of your party look bad. Don't you think there are plenty of Republicans gaming this ludicrously insecure system? |
is it really that difficult for you to comprehend that once someone votes, no one else can claim that vote? so where is the fraud loophole? if someone walked into a polling place to vote, and then was told their vote was already there - THEN we'd be hearing about it, big time!!
|
How to commit fruad - the Democrats are experts. You just have to use the system regularly used for thousands of extra votes in Chicago and West Virginia - vote in the name of dead voters who are still on the rolls.
In Maine, the system was to wait until close elections were recounted in the State Capitol. The ballots were stored there and the Democrats controlled access to the ballots. The Democrat cabal added enough extra votes to the boxes under their control to win every recount.
For decades the Democrats won every recount - until two aides working for Speaker of the House, John Martin, were caught stuffing the ballot box of the next election to be recounted. He, of course, denied any knowledge, saying it was just two of his staff. Of course he only had a staff of two. The Democratic appointed judges let the two off with very light sentences or 30 days or so.
The Ds and Rs also both use the system of controlling the count. Since both parties have to supply election counters and observers, they just take over the local apparatus of the opposing party in areas that are lopsided toward the stronger party. Then they supply the election counters and observers for both sides and win every time.
Election fraud in the US is massive, widespread and much more difficult to control than just using voter IDs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
Those of you arguing that it's just a tiny problem need to realize that just a few hundred votes in the right areas of a swing state can mean the difference between a presidential candidate getting the entire state's electoral votes. In the case of Florida, for example this CAN make a difference in the outcome of a national election, as happened in 2000.
Here's another gem for you... back in 2000, the Democrats tried to get the overseas military absentee votes thrown-out, because they knew they would trend towards Bush.
Nice. Here's how the ultra-liberal NY Times tried to make it sound a little less awful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/us/counting-vote-absentee-ballots-review-military-votes-florida-attorney-general.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm |
Both sides try to disenfranchise as many of the other side's voters as possible. That doesn't legitimize the practice.
While a few hundred votes can certainly make a difference, I'd requirements could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters who lack the savvy or means to garner a government issued ID. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
Those of you arguing that it's just a tiny problem need to realize that just a few hundred votes in the right areas of a swing state can mean the difference between a presidential candidate getting the entire state's electoral votes. In the case of Florida, for example this CAN make a difference in the outcome of a national election, as happened in 2000.
Here's another gem for you... back in 2000, the Democrats tried to get the overseas military absentee votes thrown-out, because they knew they would trend towards Bush.
Nice. Here's how the ultra-liberal NY Times tried to make it sound a little less awful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/us/counting-vote-absentee-ballots-review-military-votes-florida-attorney-general.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm |
Both sides try to disenfranchise as many of the other side's voters as possible. That doesn't legitimize the practice.
While a few hundred votes can certainly make a difference,
I'd requirements could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters who lack the savvy or means to garner a government issued ID. |
Anyone who lacks the savvy to get a government voting ID shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway.
And since it's so easy and there are groups willing to help (if you have the savvy) the means is not a problem either, which gets us back to the fact that these people are just too dumb or lazy or both to get an ID and probably shouldn't be voting at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
