Voter Fraud Fraud

Ah yes, that reminds me, so when are you going to answer my question? How many legitimate voters denied the franchise on behalf of voter ID is too many?

Everything is if you look at it right.
Some imagination you have, mister writer man.

So, you will only be interested in making sure that voter fraud doesn't occur ONLY IF it already has occurred?


As far as verified fraudulent votes, weren't the Dems stating that in the 2000 Florida election? That if those weren't counted, Gore would have won?

That's still a loaded question for which you've provided no logical support at all, so I'm still not answering it, and therefore and furthermore and let me not leave out the for good measure.

Naturally, garamet has taken notice of this.

No, was that what he was referencing? I cash checks using an ATM, usually. Deposit the check, withdraw some spending money. I thought it was funny that an ATM would even be able to verify photo ID. I always viewed those check cashing places as ripoffs.

Actually, you are.

Not requiring an ID can and does allow an illegitimate voter to cancel out the votes of legitimate voters.

Okay, you're depositing money. Is that in a checking account? Were you required to show an ID when you opened the account? I was.

D'UR!! You don't know what cashing a check means????

You know that for a fact? What are the odds that, without ID being required, every fraudulent vote is detected?

"We need a way to detect how big a problem this is."
"There's no problem!"
"We have no accurate way to determine that."
"See?!"

[?=This][/?]

And that seems unreasonable to you.

I mean, let's pass legislation barring unicorns from entering the country. Unicorns can pose a real danger, what with those long pointy horns and all. And they'll tear up your garden worse than any deer. As far back as 1956, James Thurber tried to warn us about unicorns' predilection for roses.

We can raise your taxes for the express purpose of protecting America from illegal unicorns. And a year after the laws are implemented, you'll be able to say "See? There are no unicorns - the law must be working!"

In short, you won't worry until the crime is committed and then wail and gnash your teeth that something wasn't done to prevent it.

Tell me, do you always lock the barn door after the horse has escaped from the stall?

Philip K. Dick is laughing at you.

Is your tinfoil hat grounded? Because the odds of your being struck by lightning are 1 in 700,000. The incidence of voter fraud over a five-year period was found to be 86 out of 300,000,000.

That's 0.0000142 vs. 0.0000002.

Or, to put it another way: You want to prevent crimes that haven't happened, but that you think might happen, before they happen. Based on what?

dp

Is that dynamic inclusive of the fact that, without voter ID, there exists no significant mechanism for detecting fraudulent votes and that those 86 out of 300,000,000 are the ones that are so blatantly obvious that no effective system for detecting them was even necessary?

You should also be lobbying for anti-unicorn legislation.

Or convincing us you actually vote, and aren't just

Or explaining why the only thing that'll satisfy you is photo ID, when there are other options.

Or putting a dollar amount on how much you think the taxpayer should shell out per capita.

Or joining Black Dove in ghost-hunting.

Did you know a car is stolen in California every three minutes? Must be the unicorns.

When someone spots 86 unicorns, I will.

Why would you want me to convince you of that? You don't seem to believe in proving eligibility to vote, so why would you want proof that I vote?

You still haven't disclosed what you think those other options are. Biometrics? I thought you wanted to keep costs down?

Done that twice now.

Met the ghost of Stephen Foster at the Hotel Paradise.

If only cars weren't registered, then we'd never know when they're stolen. And then cars would never be stolen, would they?

Why not just come clean and 'fess up? You want illegals, ex-cons and dead people voting Democrat. Shit, this isn't grade school, you can admit that you don't have a problem with cheating. Go ahead, you'll feel better.

You've been cribbing from Captain X's test paper, haven't you?

Instead of doing that, draw up your master plan. "How skinofevil Stopped Voter Fraud in America while Creating Smaller Gubmint and Cutting Taxes Simultaneously."

Or just go back to playing with your fonts.

In short, unless it's something on your agenda, something that you care about , it don't need doing

Thanks for your concern dear.

That's already done.

So where the hell's Dukat Dukat? He should've stuck around to enjoy this thread thread.

Clearly untrue, if you're demanding an ID that some people already have, while others don't. Especially since you're changing the rules, so you can count on many people simply not knowing that they need to meet a new requirement.

Clearly, there are quite a few people that should be locked up, just in case. We don't want to encourage them to commit a crime by waiting for it to happen. Mass incarceration!

I see that Granny forget to take her meds again.

And since it's an ID everyone can get, you're just plain wrong. There's not a DMV, MVD or any combination of those three letters that has a different criteria for dispensing identification to any one person than it does for dispensing identification to any other person.

In order to prove disenfranchisement by requiring identification, you have to prove discriminatory practices when it comes to issuing identification. It has to cost certain people more to get it, or they have to meet more/stricter criteria than others to be issued ID. That's what you have to demonstrate in order for your whinging about 'disenfranchisement' to carry any weight at all.

Can you show that blacks have to pay more than whites for a state ID card? Can you show that they have to produce documents to establish their identity that whites don't in order to get that card?

Because if you can't, then there's no disenfranchisement. Nobody has to go any harder a road than anybody else to get state ID. Nobody will be disenfranchised.

Nope. I don't live in the US, and everyone who does seems to be either 100% certain that not everyone can get the required ID, or 100% certain that they can. So I really don't know about that. But in terms of effort, if one group already typically has the required ID, and the other has to get it in order to vote, that's a clear difference. Especially, and I can't for the life of me guess why you left that part out when you quoted my post, if you're introducing a new requirement, so people need to find out about it in the first place.

Is it likely that most people will find out? Sure. But is it likely that the people who don't find out about it are less than 86 in 300,000,000?

I'd ask you why you perceive that it needs doing, but I doubt you'd be able to answer that, either.

I think it just scares you more than everything else that scares you because it's one of a few things you can't comfort yourself with by saying "If it breaks into my house, I can shoot it."