Officials guilty in Obama, Clinton ballot petition fraud

[Stoley_XD]

"Because it does? Both sides of this issue agree that it would affect a significant number of people. It's not really in doubt. The Republican governor of Pennsylvania specifically said that voter ID laws are designed to help get Republicans elected.

What are you saying Democrat voters are both lazy and stupid?

No. Are you saying that?

Yes!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Back In Black]

The Republican governor of Pennsylvania specifically said that voter ID laws are designed to help get Republicans elected.

Actually, it couldn't be further from the truth. Mr. Heffay is making crap up.

Heffay may not quite have all the specifics straight, but he's far from making stuff up.

His statement was 100% false. You call it whatever you want, I call it making stuff up.

[Heffay]

Actually, it couldn't be further from the truth. Mr. Heffay is making crap up.

Heffay may not quite have all the specifics straight, but he's far from making stuff up.

His statement was 100% false. You call it whatever you want, I call it making stuff up.[/quote]

Deluding yourself doesn't make it false. The purpose of voter ID laws are very, very transparent.

I think that in Pennsylvania, they determined that it would affect about 300,000 people. Or maybe it was 700,000? I can't remember. It was a lot of elderly people though. And students. And poor.

I wonder how those groups typically vote?

[Back In Black]

His statement was 100% false. You call it whatever you want, I call it making stuff up.

Deluding yourself doesn't make it false. The purpose of voter ID laws are very, very transparent.

I think that in Pennsylvania, they determined that it would affect about 300,000 people. Or maybe it was 700,000? I can't remember. It was a lot of elderly people though. And students. And poor.

I wonder how those groups typically vote?

No, deluding myself doesn't make it false. Saying the Governor said it makes it false. Misquoting makes it false. What part of that do you not understand?? Talk about deluded. Good grief.

[tman]

I think that in Pennsylvania, they determined that it would affect about 300,000 people. Or maybe it was 700,000? I can't remember. It was a lot of elderly people though. And students. And poor.

I wonder how those groups typically vote?

There are 300,000-700,000 likely voters in Pennsylvania that don't have government issued picture ID? AND, are unable to obtain one? Do you know how silly that sounds?

[jshuberg]

I think that in Pennsylvania, they determined that it would affect about 300,000 people. Or maybe it was 700,000? I can't remember. It was a lot of elderly people though. And students. And poor.

No, it wasn't determined, it was guessed by someone with a political bias. Voter ID has gone all the way to the supreme court, which found that it does not disenfranchise anyone. Those making the argument that it does were unable to produce a single person that was actually disenfranchised. Not a single one. The numbers you cite are entirely theoretical, created by political hacks, and fall apart when subjected to the actual physical world.

You are a very good liberal. You continue to hold to the same beliefs in the presence of facts to the contrary. That's awesome.

[tman]

I think that in Pennsylvania, they determined that it would affect about 300,000 people. Or maybe it was 700,000? I can't remember. It was a lot of elderly people though. And students. And poor.

No, it wasn't determined, it was guessed by someone with a political bias. Voter ID has gone all the way to the supreme court, which found that it does not disenfranchise anyone. Those making the argument that it does were unable to produce a single person that was actually disenfranchised. Not a single one. The numbers you cite are entirely theoretical, created by political hacks, and fall apart when subjected to the actual physical world.

You are a very good liberal. You continue to hold to the same beliefs in the presence of facts to the contrary. That's awesome.

It seems kind of like the carry law. People on both sides think there will be extreme outcomes, and in reality....meh. Nothing really changes.

[Heffay]

I think that in Pennsylvania, they determined that it would affect about 300,000 people. Or maybe it was 700,000? I can't remember. It was a lot of elderly people though. And students. And poor.

I wonder how those groups typically vote?

There are 300,000-700,000 likely voters in Pennsylvania that don't have government issued picture ID? AND, are unable to obtain one? Do you know how silly that sounds?

Oh yeah, those numbers were completely inflated. It was a worst case scenario that didn't include people who could get an ID. It was just designed to show the number of people it would affect. If 90% of those could get the ID and solve their voting issues, it still affects a crap-ton of people. Enough to sway a lot of elections, both local and national.

And that's what voter ID is really about.

[jshuberg]

I do believe that requiring an ID to vote would significantly minimize voter fraud where an individual votes multiple times using multiple names.

A person can request a list of every person in the state who is registered to vote, as well as the elections that they actually voted in. This is public information, and it would be trivially easy to use it to produce a list of registered, but "unlikely" voters that could be impersonated with a low risk of being detected. Without an ID check, there is no way to quantify the extent to which this is happening. How do I know this kind of thing is happening? During the 2004 election there was already a signature next to my name in the roster when I went to vote. It pissed me off.

[tman]

Oh yeah, those numbers were completely inflated. It was a worst case scenario that didn't include people who could get an ID. It was just designed to show the number of people it would affect.

Huh? I think you lost me.


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

[Heffay]

that don't have government issued picture ID? AND, are unable to obtain one?

The numbers were worst case numbers for just the first part of your comment. The number of people who didn't have a solution was much less, although the number of people who would have just said "eh, **** it" would also be significant.

Which, once again, shows that voter ID is less about insuring the integrity of the election and more about keeping people from voting.

[jshuberg]

Which, once again, shows that voter ID is less about insuring the integrity of the election and more about keeping people from voting.

No, that's what you want it to mean. It's the conclusion that you've jumped to, despite the fact that all of these arguments were made before the Supreme Court, and determined to be without basis.

[Heffay]

Which, once again, shows that voter ID is less about insuring the integrity of the election and more about keeping people from voting.

No, that's what you want it to mean. It's the conclusion that you've jumped to, despite the fact that all of these arguments were made before the Supreme Court, and determined to be without basis.

No, the arguments have a solid basis. But they were not found to be unconstitutional if there is a way for people to get the IDs for free. Doesn't change that fact.

Again, the *purpose* of the laws are to make voting more difficult for those who generally vote democratic.

Just like states that are trying to do proportional electoral colleges are doing it to help elect republican presidents.

[jdege]

Again, the *purpose* of the laws are to make voting more difficult for those who legally shouldn't be voting at all. Yes, this will disparately effect the democrat party, but it does so only because the democrat party machine is better at election fraud than the republican.

[jshuberg]

No, the arguments have a solid basis

No, they do not. The petitioners had every opportunity to find someone who was actually disenfranchised by the voter ID law. They were unable to find a single, actual person who was unable to vote because of the ID requirement. Arguments claiming that the purpose is to disenfranchise people are based on presumptions and false logic, and are completely refuted by the facts. There has never been a single case of voter disenfranchisement because of voter ID that was found to be genuine by the courts.

It is highly suspected that requiring voters to present ID will in fact result in more Republican election victories. Not because good honest Democrats will be prevented from voting (which has been proven doesn't actually happen), but because voter fraud benefits Democrats, and in close elections the absence of fraud could cost Democrats elections. This is why Republicans are championing voter ID, and why Democrats are opposed to it. The whole "it disenfranchises voters" argument is nothing more than a smoke screen to make their opposition to voter ID appear reasonable to a gullible population.