Election fraud prosecutions

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp? you tried to compare the right to bear arms to the right to have nuclear weapons, that was just plain sad.

Why not? I was just using CAD's "Logic".

But if there is the possibility of that being a legitimate argument they can allow people without IDs to cast a vote and then put their vote aside with all the other questionable votes and after then go back and count these votes latter. It is the same thing many places do with people who have moved and not re-registered before the election.
It allows everyone to vote, but puts safe guards in place to prevent fraud.

BTW from most studies the amount of fraud is very low. Either there is little fraud, or the people doing it are damn good to have not been caught or even suspected of it.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

Wrong, it was your "logic". Your "rights" and "tedious" - I simply applied the same "reasoning" to another "right" we have which is gun ownership.

Again, read from above. You tried to compare the process of getting a gun to the process of voting. Two different things. That is where your bad logic comes in.

Nope, it's yours as I've explained above. YOU are the one who stated it was "tedious" and since voting is a "right" it shouldn't be "tedious". So if your "logic" holds or is applied to other rights...? So yes, it is appropriate to question you on the "right" to bear arms. If there is tedium put in place by the gov't doesn't that infringe on our "right" according to your "logic"?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp? you tried to compare the right to bear arms to the right to have nuclear weapons, that was just plain sad.

Why not? I was just using CAD's "Logic".

But if there is the possibility of that being a legitimate argument they can allow people without IDs to cast a vote and then put their vote aside with all the other questionable votes and after then go back and count these votes latter. It is the same thing many places do with people who have moved and not re-registered before the election.
It allows everyone to vote, but puts safe guards in place to prevent fraud.

BTW from most studies the amount of fraud is very low. Either there is little fraud, or the people doing it are damn good to have not been caught or even suspected of it.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

Wrong, it was your "logic". Your "rights" and "tedious" - I simply applied the same "reasoning" to another "right" we have which is gun ownership.

Again, read from above. You tried to compare the process of getting a gun to the process of voting. Two different things. That is where your bad logic comes in.

Nope, it's yours as I've explained above. YOU are the one who stated it was "tedious" and since voting is a "right" it shouldn't be "tedious". So if your "logic" holds or is applied to other rights...? So yes, it is appropriate to question you on the "right" to bear arms. If there is tedium put in place by the gov't doesn't that infringe on our "right" according to your "logic"?

Again, you fail to understand. This is your quote.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

You are comparing apples to oranges here. You can not say that since I support lax IDrequirements on election day, I support lax ID requirements when it pertains to guns. They are two different things. Think about it. Tedoius for one process does not mean tedious for another. If you have one bad day during election day, or if you are running out of time, thats it. You can't vote for president for another 4 years. If you forget your ID when you go to pick up your gun, then you can come back the next day, or the day after that, or any time really. Apples to oranges.

Stop your straw mans please.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp? you tried to compare the right to bear arms to the right to have nuclear weapons, that was just plain sad.

Why not? I was just using CAD's "Logic".

But if there is the possibility of that being a legitimate argument they can allow people without IDs to cast a vote and then put their vote aside with all the other questionable votes and after then go back and count these votes latter. It is the same thing many places do with people who have moved and not re-registered before the election.
It allows everyone to vote, but puts safe guards in place to prevent fraud.

BTW from most studies the amount of fraud is very low. Either there is little fraud, or the people doing it are damn good to have not been caught or even suspected of it.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

Wrong, it was your "logic". Your "rights" and "tedious" - I simply applied the same "reasoning" to another "right" we have which is gun ownership.

Again, read from above. You tried to compare the process of getting a gun to the process of voting. Two different things. That is where your bad logic comes in.

Nope, it's yours as I've explained above. YOU are the one who stated it was "tedious" and since voting is a "right" it shouldn't be "tedious". So if your "logic" holds or is applied to other rights...? So yes, it is appropriate to question you on the "right" to bear arms. If there is tedium put in place by the gov't doesn't that infringe on our "right" according to your "logic"?

Again, you fail to understand. This is your quote.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

You are comparing apples to oranges here. You can not say that since I support lax IDrequirements on election day, I support lax ID requirements when it pertains to guns. They are two different things. Think about it. Tedoius for one process does not mean tedious for another. If you have one bad day during election day, or if you are running out of time, thats it. You can't vote for president for another 4 years. If you forget your ID when you go to pick up your gun, then you can come back the next day, or the day after that, or any time really. Apples to oranges.

Stop your straw mans please.

So it's OK for the same "tedious" ID check for one "right" but not another? They are both "rights" - true? How can an ID check be "tedious" and thus infringe on a "right" for one "right" but not the other? That "logic" doesn't hold up. It's like I stated before - your problem seems to be that you pick reasoning that you can't carry through with fully or be consistent with.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp? you tried to compare the right to bear arms to the right to have nuclear weapons, that was just plain sad.

Why not? I was just using CAD's "Logic".

But if there is the possibility of that being a legitimate argument they can allow people without IDs to cast a vote and then put their vote aside with all the other questionable votes and after then go back and count these votes latter. It is the same thing many places do with people who have moved and not re-registered before the election.
It allows everyone to vote, but puts safe guards in place to prevent fraud.

BTW from most studies the amount of fraud is very low. Either there is little fraud, or the people doing it are damn good to have not been caught or even suspected of it.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

Wrong, it was your "logic". Your "rights" and "tedious" - I simply applied the same "reasoning" to another "right" we have which is gun ownership.

Again, read from above. You tried to compare the process of getting a gun to the process of voting. Two different things. That is where your bad logic comes in.

Nope, it's yours as I've explained above. YOU are the one who stated it was "tedious" and since voting is a "right" it shouldn't be "tedious". So if your "logic" holds or is applied to other rights...? So yes, it is appropriate to question you on the "right" to bear arms. If there is tedium put in place by the gov't doesn't that infringe on our "right" according to your "logic"?

Again, you fail to understand. This is your quote.

Yes, voting is a right. Having someone show ID is not "tedious". But since it is to you, are you for allowing people to buy guns without showing ID since we have a "right" to bear arms? Or is that too tedious too?

You are comparing apples to oranges here. You can not say that since I support lax IDrequirements on election day, I support lax ID requirements when it pertains to guns. They are two different things. Think about it. Tedoius for one process does not mean tedious for another. If you have one bad day during election day, or if you are running out of time, thats it. You can't vote for president for another 4 years. If you forget your ID when you go to pick up your gun, then you can come back the next day, or the day after that, or any time really. Apples to oranges.

Stop your straw mans please.

So it's OK for the same "tedious" ID check for one "right" but not another? They are both "rights" - true? How can an ID check be "tedious" and thus infringe on a "right" for one "right" but not the other? That "logic" doesn't hold up. It's like I stated before - your problem seems to be that you pick reasoning that you can't carry through with fully or be consistent with.

Again, you compare APPLES TO ORANGES! Is the process of purchasing a gun the same as voting? Do you go through the exact same steps? Are the consequences the same? No. Thats why they are different. Thats why you can't apply something to one, and apply it to another. What you're doing is using strawman to back yourself up.

If the process of voting is exactly the same as guns, and you can somehow bring back dead people to life from someone being shot, then, yes, the ID check can be removed. However, they are different.

 

[GoPackGo]

People its 2007 ...how can you do anything without a photo id?

Photo ID's have been around for YEARS.

The whole idea that someone can't afford it is a red herring.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
People its 2007 ...how can you do anything without a photo id?

Photo ID's have been around for YEARS.

The whole idea that someone can't afford it is a red herring.

No, but you can forget your ID. You can be in a rush, and not have time to take pictures. Remember, you only have one day to vote. Requireing an ID on that day can be a deterrant to voters. ProfJohn ,for once, made a good point. You can take the votes the day, and ask for proof after.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

As I noted above, the fraud was massive and some may have slipped through. As to them being used? Dunno if this particular group had any that were actually used, however we do know that dead people vote so there definately IS a problem with people commiting fraud.

Massive fraud... there are 990,000 registered voters in King County Washington, which makes 1700 fraudulent registrations ~. 017% of the total...

"Massive" applies only in the realm of sensationalization for an agenda...

D

When Presidential elections can be decided by fewer than 600 votes 1700 is massive enough.


so fraud is OK in your book provided the numbers meet some imaginary threshhold? Or is it OK if your guy wins?


Want fraud, look at the spectacle in Washington state a few years back

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
People its 2007 ...how can you do anything without a photo id?

Photo ID's have been around for YEARS.

The whole idea that someone can't afford it is a red herring.

No, but you can forget your ID. You can be in a rush, and not have time to take pictures. Remember, you only have one day to vote. Requireing an ID on that day can be a deterrant to voters. ProfJohn ,for once, made a good point. You can take the votes the day, and ask for proof after.

Oh i dont have a problem with allowing the vote and getting ID later...

BUT!

How did they get to the polling place? Drive?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
People its 2007 ...how can you do anything without a photo id?

Photo ID's have been around for YEARS.

The whole idea that someone can't afford it is a red herring.

No, but you can forget your ID. You can be in a rush, and not have time to take pictures. Remember, you only have one day to vote. Requireing an ID on that day can be a deterrant to voters. ProfJohn ,for once, made a good point. You can take the votes the day, and ask for proof after.

Oh i dont have a problem with allowing the vote and getting ID later...

BUT!

How did they get to the polling place? Drive?

Walk. Take the subway.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Again, you compare APPLES TO ORANGES! Is the process of purchasing a gun the same as voting? Do you go through the exact same steps? Are the consequences the same? No. Thats why they are different. Thats why you can't apply something to one, and apply it to another. What you're doing is using strawman to back yourself up.

If the process of voting is exactly the same as guns, and you can somehow bring back dead people to life from someone being shot, then, yes, the ID check can be removed. However, they are different.

Nope, a "right" is a "right" - no? If you say one is infringed upon by requiring X, then would not requiring X for a different "right" be infringing upon it if you logic is sound?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp
Again, you compare APPLES TO ORANGES! Is the process of purchasing a gun the same as voting? Do you go through the exact same steps? Are the consequences the same? No. Thats why they are different. Thats why you can't apply something to one, and apply it to another. What you're doing is using strawman to back yourself up.

If the process of voting is exactly the same as guns, and you can somehow bring back dead people to life from someone being shot, then, yes, the ID check can be removed. However, they are different.

Nope, a "right" is a "right" - no? If you say one is infringed upon by requiring X, then would not requiring X for a different "right" be infringing upon it if you logic is sound?

No it isn't sound logic, because the two are different things. For example, if you disallow everyone from talking, you will not be disallowing anyone from owning a gun. They are different things CAD. Please get it into your head. You can not say Right 1=Right 2 so all things that apply to Right 1 should apply to Right 2. It doesn't work that way.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
People its 2007 ...how can you do anything without a photo id?

Photo ID's have been around for YEARS.

The whole idea that someone can't afford it is a red herring.

No, but you can forget your ID. You can be in a rush, and not have time to take pictures. Remember, you only have one day to vote. Requireing an ID on that day can be a deterrant to voters. ProfJohn ,for once, made a good point. You can take the votes the day, and ask for proof after.

i dunno about you, but i don't have one day to vote. i doubt i've ever voted on election day. the polls are open for the two weeks prior to election day. i've always managed to get my vote in during that time period.

i'm really confused about the 'not have time to take pictures' thing. do you mean at the DMV? because i don't suggest going to the DMV if you are in a rush.

and i don't know about you, but i rarely leave the house without my wallet containing my driver's license.

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .

i'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you accidentally hit the 8 key rather than the 7 key.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .

And freedom of speech only applies to the kind of speech that was available in the 1700's, so I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio, TV, internet, movies, etc...

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
People its 2007 ...how can you do anything without a photo id?

Photo ID's have been around for YEARS.

The whole idea that someone can't afford it is a red herring.

No, but you can forget your ID. You can be in a rush, and not have time to take pictures. Remember, you only have one day to vote. Requireing an ID on that day can be a deterrant to voters. ProfJohn ,for once, made a good point. You can take the votes the day, and ask for proof after.

i dunno about you, but i don't have one day to vote. i doubt i've ever voted on election day. the polls are open for the two weeks prior to election day. i've always managed to get my vote in during that time period.

i'm really confused about the 'not have time to take pictures' thing. do you mean at the DMV? because i don't suggest going to the DMV if you are in a rush.

and i don't know about you, but i rarely leave the house without my wallet containing my driver's license.

Great, it doesn't affect you, but it might affect someone else. The expansion of absentee voting and early voting measures are a good thing, we need more of that. We also need to laxen our requirements for actually casting a vote on Election Day. We can always count or discount a vote after.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .

And freedom of speech only applies to the kind of speech that was available in the 1700's, so I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio, TV, internet, movies, etc...

I think you're directing that to the wrong person. ElfFenix is the one suggesting that Nuclear Arms isn't included in the second ammendment because the Founding fathers thought it to mean infantry weapons, even though it doesn't say infantry weapons, but arms.

But then, if he were smart enough, he would see that my arguement was just mocking CAD's arguement about rights, tedious, and specifically, IDs for guns.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .

And freedom of speech only applies to the kind of speech that was available in the 1700's, so I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio, TV, internet, movies, etc...

I think you're directing that to the wrong person. ElfFenix is the one suggesting that Nuclear Arms isn't included in the second ammendment because the Founding fathers thought it to mean infantry weapons, even though it doesn't say infantry weapons, but arms.

But then, if he were smart enough, he would see that my arguement was just mocking CAD's arguement about rights, tedious, and specifically, IDs for guns.

Actually, that was your argument when you said "Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens".

You seem to think that if you make something too tedious then you are in affect taking away that right, which I happen to agree with. The disagreement comes when we have to decide what the definition is of "too tedious". Comparing that to having to show an ID when buying a gun, another one of our most important rights, is a valid comparison.

I don't think its too tedious to show an ID when buying a firearm, and I also don't think its too tedious to show an ID when voting. Chances are, if you are too lazy to get a photo ID, which is pretty much necessary to do anything in this country, you are probably going to be too lazy to even vote at all.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .

And freedom of speech only applies to the kind of speech that was available in the 1700's, so I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio, TV, internet, movies, etc...

I think you're directing that to the wrong person. ElfFenix is the one suggesting that Nuclear Arms isn't included in the second ammendment because the Founding fathers thought it to mean infantry weapons, even though it doesn't say infantry weapons, but arms.

But then, if he were smart enough, he would see that my arguement was just mocking CAD's arguement about rights, tedious, and specifically, IDs for guns.

Actually, that was your argument when you said "Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens".

You seem to think that if you make something too tedious then you are in affect taking away that right, which I happen to agree with. The disagreement comes when we have to decide what the definition is of "too tedious". Comparing that to having to show an ID when buying a gun, another one of our most important rights, is a valid comparison.

I don't think its too tedious to show an ID when buying a firearm, and I also don't think its too tedious to show an ID when voting. Chances are, if you are too lazy to get a photo ID, which is pretty much necessary to do anything in this country, you are probably going to be too lazy to even vote at all.

CAD's arguement was that since both guns and votes are rights, if one doesn't need an ID, then the other doesn't either because it would be too tedious. That wasn't my arguement. Mine was that voting is a right, if you make it too tedious, you will infringe on a person's right, and requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.

And no, CAD's position is not a valid comparison because the two procedures are totally different. You have a limited opportunity to actually vote. You can forget your ID. You can lose your ID. There's one day. If you forget it, then you're screwed. You can always put the ballet to the side, and validate if the vote is valid later. It won't hurt anyone, since there is a time from from the moment you cast your vote, to the moment the guy is elected.

On the other hand, you have as much time as you want to get a gun. If you miss out on the day to vote, then you're screwed for voting. If you forget your ID when you go get your gun, or apply for a gun licence, then you can always come back the next day, or the day after that, or the day after the next. The opportunity is still there! And also, if you do allow someone to not show an ID, and the guy kills someone with the gun becuase he faked something, you can't take the life back ever. You can throw away bad votes. You can't bring back people's lives. Hopefully, you will now see why it isn't a valid comparison at all.

Now, if you want to come up with your own reasoning on why people should be allowed to not show IDs when they purchase a gun, go ahead.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .

And freedom of speech only applies to the kind of speech that was available in the 1700's, so I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio, TV, internet, movies, etc...

I think you're directing that to the wrong person. ElfFenix is the one suggesting that Nuclear Arms isn't included in the second ammendment because the Founding fathers thought it to mean infantry weapons, even though it doesn't say infantry weapons, but arms.

But then, if he were smart enough, he would see that my arguement was just mocking CAD's arguement about rights, tedious, and specifically, IDs for guns.

Actually, that was your argument when you said "Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens".

You seem to think that if you make something too tedious then you are in affect taking away that right, which I happen to agree with. The disagreement comes when we have to decide what the definition is of "too tedious". Comparing that to having to show an ID when buying a gun, another one of our most important rights, is a valid comparison.

I don't think its too tedious to show an ID when buying a firearm, and I also don't think its too tedious to show an ID when voting. Chances are, if you are too lazy to get a photo ID, which is pretty much necessary to do anything in this country, you are probably going to be too lazy to even vote at all.

CAD's arguement was that since both guns and votes are rights, if one doesn't need an ID, then the other doesn't either because it would be too tedious. That wasn't my arguement. Mine was that voting is a right, if you make it too tedious, you will infringe on a person's right, and requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.

And no, CAD's position is not a valid comparison because the two procedures are totally different. You have a limited opportunity to actually vote. You can forget your ID. You can lose your ID. There's one day. If you forget it, then you're screwed. You can always put the ballet to the side, and validate if the vote is valid later. It won't hurt anyone, since there is a time from from the moment you cast your vote, to the moment the guy is elected.

On the other hand, you have as much time as you want to get a gun. If you miss out on the day to vote, then you're screwed for voting. If you forget your ID when you go get your gun, or apply for a gun licence, then you can always come back the next day, or the day after that, or the day after the next. The opportunity is still there! And also, if you do allow someone to not show an ID, and the guy kills someone with the gun becuase he faked something, you can't take the life back ever. You can throw away bad votes. You can't bring back people's lives. Hopefully, you will now see why it isn't a valid comparison at all.

Now, if you want to come up with your own reasoning on why people should be allowed to not show IDs when they purchase a gun, go ahead.

Umm... I said, "I don't think its too tedious to show an ID when buying a firearm, and I also don't think its too tedious to show an ID when voting"

Anyways, you say, "requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.". You don't think that also holds true for buying a firearm? I'm sure you could find some people out there that are deterred from buying a firearm legally because they have to show an ID...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp
CAD's arguement was that since both guns and votes are rights, if one doesn't need an ID, then the other doesn't either because it would be too tedious. That wasn't my arguement. Mine was that voting is a right, if you make it too tedious, you will infringe on a person's right, and requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.

And no, CAD's position is not a valid comparison because the two procedures are totally different. You have a limited opportunity to actually vote. You can forget your ID. You can lose your ID. There's one day. If you forget it, then you're screwed. You can always put the ballet to the side, and validate if the vote is valid later. It won't hurt anyone, since there is a time from from the moment you cast your vote, to the moment the guy is elected.

On the other hand, you have as much time as you want to get a gun. If you miss out on the day to vote, then you're screwed for voting. If you forget your ID when you go get your gun, or apply for a gun licence, then you can always come back the next day, or the day after that, or the day after the next. The opportunity is still there! And also, if you do allow someone to not show an ID, and the guy kills someone with the gun becuase he faked something, you can't take the life back ever. You can throw away bad votes. You can't bring back people's lives. Hopefully, you will now see why it isn't a valid comparison at all.

Now, if you want to come up with your own reasoning on why people should be allowed to not show IDs when they purchase a gun, go ahead.

No, my argument was not about guns - it was about your "logic" and how it doesn't hold together when applied to other "rights". guns was just an example of a specific "right"(one you still don't seem to understand) So in reality you are trying to argue about my "position" when you don't even realize it wasn't a "position", but rather an extention of your "logic". This isn't about guns and IDs - this is about voting "rights" and you calling it "tedious" thus claiming it is infringed upon. The extention of your "logic" to other "rights" doesn't wash - thus me pointing it out(just like the other thread).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .

And freedom of speech only applies to the kind of speech that was available in the 1700's, so I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio, TV, internet, movies, etc...

I think you're directing that to the wrong person. ElfFenix is the one suggesting that Nuclear Arms isn't included in the second ammendment because the Founding fathers thought it to mean infantry weapons, even though it doesn't say infantry weapons, but arms.

But then, if he were smart enough, he would see that my arguement was just mocking CAD's arguement about rights, tedious, and specifically, IDs for guns.

Actually, that was your argument when you said "Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens".

You seem to think that if you make something too tedious then you are in affect taking away that right, which I happen to agree with. The disagreement comes when we have to decide what the definition is of "too tedious". Comparing that to having to show an ID when buying a gun, another one of our most important rights, is a valid comparison.

I don't think its too tedious to show an ID when buying a firearm, and I also don't think its too tedious to show an ID when voting. Chances are, if you are too lazy to get a photo ID, which is pretty much necessary to do anything in this country, you are probably going to be too lazy to even vote at all.

CAD's arguement was that since both guns and votes are rights, if one doesn't need an ID, then the other doesn't either because it would be too tedious. That wasn't my arguement. Mine was that voting is a right, if you make it too tedious, you will infringe on a person's right, and requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.

And no, CAD's position is not a valid comparison because the two procedures are totally different. You have a limited opportunity to actually vote. You can forget your ID. You can lose your ID. There's one day. If you forget it, then you're screwed. You can always put the ballet to the side, and validate if the vote is valid later. It won't hurt anyone, since there is a time from from the moment you cast your vote, to the moment the guy is elected.

On the other hand, you have as much time as you want to get a gun. If you miss out on the day to vote, then you're screwed for voting. If you forget your ID when you go get your gun, or apply for a gun licence, then you can always come back the next day, or the day after that, or the day after the next. The opportunity is still there! And also, if you do allow someone to not show an ID, and the guy kills someone with the gun becuase he faked something, you can't take the life back ever. You can throw away bad votes. You can't bring back people's lives. Hopefully, you will now see why it isn't a valid comparison at all.

Now, if you want to come up with your own reasoning on why people should be allowed to not show IDs when they purchase a gun, go ahead.

Umm... I said, "I don't think its too tedious to show an ID when buying a firearm, and I also don't think its too tedious to show an ID when voting"

Anyways, you say, "requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.". You don't think that also holds true for buying a firearm? I'm sure you could find some people out there that are deterred from buying a firearm legally because they have to show an ID...

:thumbsup: Glad to see someone else understands the point here.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I guess the Nuclear Arms race that happened during the cold war didn't ever happen!

arms as used in the 2nd amendment refers to infantry weapons.

but straw man on.

Just refers to the primative guns you could get back in the late 1800s .

And freedom of speech only applies to the kind of speech that was available in the 1700's, so I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio, TV, internet, movies, etc...

I think you're directing that to the wrong person. ElfFenix is the one suggesting that Nuclear Arms isn't included in the second ammendment because the Founding fathers thought it to mean infantry weapons, even though it doesn't say infantry weapons, but arms.

But then, if he were smart enough, he would see that my arguement was just mocking CAD's arguement about rights, tedious, and specifically, IDs for guns.

Actually, that was your argument when you said "Voting is a right. Every citizen has a right to vote. If it is made too tedious, we are taking away the rights of our citizens".

You seem to think that if you make something too tedious then you are in affect taking away that right, which I happen to agree with. The disagreement comes when we have to decide what the definition is of "too tedious". Comparing that to having to show an ID when buying a gun, another one of our most important rights, is a valid comparison.

I don't think its too tedious to show an ID when buying a firearm, and I also don't think its too tedious to show an ID when voting. Chances are, if you are too lazy to get a photo ID, which is pretty much necessary to do anything in this country, you are probably going to be too lazy to even vote at all.

CAD's arguement was that since both guns and votes are rights, if one doesn't need an ID, then the other doesn't either because it would be too tedious. That wasn't my arguement. Mine was that voting is a right, if you make it too tedious, you will infringe on a person's right, and requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.

And no, CAD's position is not a valid comparison because the two procedures are totally different. You have a limited opportunity to actually vote. You can forget your ID. You can lose your ID. There's one day. If you forget it, then you're screwed. You can always put the ballet to the side, and validate if the vote is valid later. It won't hurt anyone, since there is a time from from the moment you cast your vote, to the moment the guy is elected.

On the other hand, you have as much time as you want to get a gun. If you miss out on the day to vote, then you're screwed for voting. If you forget your ID when you go get your gun, or apply for a gun licence, then you can always come back the next day, or the day after that, or the day after the next. The opportunity is still there! And also, if you do allow someone to not show an ID, and the guy kills someone with the gun becuase he faked something, you can't take the life back ever. You can throw away bad votes. You can't bring back people's lives. Hopefully, you will now see why it isn't a valid comparison at all.

Now, if you want to come up with your own reasoning on why people should be allowed to not show IDs when they purchase a gun, go ahead.

Umm... I said, "I don't think its too tedious to show an ID when buying a firearm, and I also don't think its too tedious to show an ID when voting"

Anyways, you say, "requiring IDs to cast a vote on election day(not made clear before, but I'm clarifying) would be a deterrent for some people, and make it tedoius.". You don't think that also holds true for buying a firearm? I'm sure you could find some people out there that are deterred from buying a firearm legally because they have to show an ID...

You need to prove that you're you somehow. Firearms are dangerous, they can kill people. If you accidentally give a gun to a criminal because you don't know who the criminal is, then you might be putting someone else's life on the line. Thats why we have the law.

And also, I don't support not ever proving that you're you. It just shouldn't be required to vote, because theres a one day window. Your vote can always be discounted if there is proof that you're not who you are. You don't have a one day window with guns. You have a big window, as long as you want. Don't have your ID with you? Come back tommorow, you can always pick it up then. Can't always say the same thing about voting.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hacp

I think you're directing that to the wrong person. ElfFenix is the one suggesting that Nuclear Arms isn't included in the second ammendment because the Founding fathers thought it to mean infantry weapons, even though it doesn't say infantry weapons, but arms.

But then, if he were smart enough, he would see that my arguement was just mocking CAD's arguement about rights, tedious, and specifically, IDs for guns.

no, i see what you're doing, and you're using a straw man extreme argument to try to say that your logic somehow doesn't apply to one right but does apply to another. i think you're doing a very poor job of it.


i also don't think it's possible to 'uncount' a vote, as you suggested. the only way to do that is to know who cast the particular vote. which is bad for various systematic reasons (private vote keeps supposedly keeps people from buying votes, people might also change their votes later, voter's remorse, if you will). also, how would you implement that system in a practical fashion? and without showing ID?

 

[Jhhnn]

From ElFenix-

but for elections of just thousands of voters or elections with very narrow margins, then it can be very significant. for city council seats, county commissioners, judges, state representative seats, primaries that are effectively the general election, etc., a couple hundred votes either way could be very significant.

Sure, a couple of hundred votes could be significant. In the Washington Governor's race, however, nobody could find more than 8 dead voters, with King County alone having nearly a million voters...

And reaching clear back to 1948 Texas to bolster your argument is no more illuminating. Texas politics were notoriously corrupt at the time, and there was a helluva lot more ballot box stuffing going on than a few of the deceased casting ballots... Their votes were merely part of a much larger scheme of internecine fighting among the Dems.

It's really very much up to each party to police their own primaries- there are sometimes no precinct judges from the other side to keep internal partisans honest... Trust me when I say that none of the players in that primary were lilly white- Coker's forces merely underestimated the number of bogus ballots required to win, Johnson's didn't... Lots of dead people voted in that election, as did damned near anybody else who actually didn't, for that matter.

As I pointed out earlier, anyway, dead voters exist in both parties, it's not exclusive to one or the other. I suspect they tend to balance each other out, and that the incidence really has no bearing on requiring photo ID to vote, anyway- all of the incidences of that in Washington, for example, were absentee... and consisted exclusively of the recently deceased... and who'd likely been registered voters at the same address for several election cycles...

The whole thing about dead voters is a total red herring, anyway, given that the only way to stop the little bit of it that happens is to require every voter to appear in person every election, which is unfair and unreasonable for a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons...

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hacp

I think you're directing that to the wrong person. ElfFenix is the one suggesting that Nuclear Arms isn't included in the second ammendment because the Founding fathers thought it to mean infantry weapons, even though it doesn't say infantry weapons, but arms.

But then, if he were smart enough, he would see that my arguement was just mocking CAD's arguement about rights, tedious, and specifically, IDs for guns.

no, i see what you're doing, and you're using a straw man extreme argument to try to say that your logic somehow doesn't apply to one right but does apply to another. i think you're doing a very poor job of it.

Again, you seem to be confused. This is my logic. Making a right too tedious will effectivly deny a person his/her rights.

I then said that I thought that requiring an ID to vote on election day could be tedious to some. CAD then used his strawman, saying that I needed to apply the same rules for voting as I would for gun control. The problem is that voting and gun control, while both rights, are not the same thing! They are two different things, and require two different approaches. Thats why you can't apply the same criteria for "too tedious" to both of them. I think you're smart enough to know this elfenix.

Here is an example, to show how idiotic CAD is. We would all agree that free speech is a right. Using CAD's example, I could say that registration should not be a requirement to speak. It would make speaking too tedious. Since speaking is a right, and voting is a right, would you say that we need to allow people to vote, even if they don't register?

i also don't think it's possible to 'uncount' a vote, as you suggested. the only way to do that is to know who cast the particular vote. which is bad for various systematic reasons (private vote keeps supposedly keeps people from buying votes, people might also change their votes later, voter's remorse, if you will). also, how would you implement that system in a practical fashion? and without showing ID?

Put the voters without an ID at the time in a box, confirm that the voters are actually who they are later? You don't count the votes until it is verified.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
People its 2007 ...how can you do anything without a photo id?

Photo ID's have been around for YEARS.

The whole idea that someone can't afford it is a red herring.

No, but you can forget your ID. You can be in a rush, and not have time to take pictures. Remember, you only have one day to vote. Requireing an ID on that day can be a deterrant to voters. ProfJohn ,for once, made a good point. You can take the votes the day, and ask for proof after.

Oh i dont have a problem with allowing the vote and getting ID later...

BUT!

How did they get to the polling place? Drive?

Walk. Take the subway.

Most cities DONT have subways.