Jim Cramer's Dad couldn't vote in PA because of VoterID

[Jhhnn]

Try again, this time will less fail. Not showing your date of birth when ordered to do so lands you in jail as a draft dodger. Stop pretending to be more stupid than you actually are.

You really do play to your strengths well...it is no surprise you fail so often when you are so good at it.

The only requirement for being drafted was that you report as ordered, to submit. No ID necessary, other than the paperwork provided by the Selective Service, which was based on the information supplied when you registered, which required no ID, either.

The same thing was true wrt enlistment years earlier. Affirm your age & identity, show up as ordered.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Have you bothered to prove out your lie that I am banned from multiple forums...or will you finally admit you are just a liar?

Google is you friend. And you still haven't left after promising to leave when Santorum didn't get the nomination. Can't even hold to a bet can you, what a pathetic troll. just another documented lie by the #1 troll on the forum.

 

[nehalem256]

Sorry, I never made that claim. Irrefutable.

What I have claimed, over and over, is there has been no material level of in-person voter impersonation that could be prevented by photo voter IDs. None of you voter suppression cheerleaders have yet offered evidence to contradict this. You just keep chanting the claim over and over, accepting it on blind partisan faith in spite of the complete lack of evidence supporting it.

It is proof of in-person voter fraud. Which has been repeatedly said to not exist by liberal posters.

Obviously fraud that can only be detected/prosecuted if ID is shown will not be detected if you do not mandate ID be shown.

But feel free to explain how we could detect illegal immigrants under the current system.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is proof of in-person voter fraud. Which has been repeatedly said to not exist by liberal posters.

Obviously fraud that can only be detected/prosecuted if ID is shown will not be detected if you do not mandate ID be shown.

But feel free to explain how we could detect illegal immigrants under the current system.

Conflate & then duh-vert when called on it. Unsurprising.

Righties- OMG! Voter fraud! Must have picture ID!

ROTW- That's not the kind of fraud voter ID might prevent.

Righties- Look! Over here! It's the boogeyman!

 

[cybrsage]

Google is you friend.

So you admit to being a liar. Good to know.

 

[cybrsage]

Can anyone who is against voter id laws explain why it is horribly evil and wrong to potentially disenfranchise people for not bothering to get a picture ID but amazingly righteous to potentially disenfranchise people for not bothering to register to vote?

The explaination obvious has to use reasons which also canot be applied to requiring voter ids...else your stance fails.

Explain to us why you are right. Oh, and saying "I already did" will not work...because if you did, simply report it. Easy enough if you actually already did it.

 

[Bowfinger]

It is proof of in-person voter fraud. Which has been repeatedly said to not exist by liberal posters.

Then you are quite welcome to quote THEM and address your claim to THEM. You lied when you stated I made that claim.

So, with that duhversion out of the way, we're back to this:

On the contrary, it is the very core of the question. While you vote suppression proponents love to parade out purported examples of real-world voter fraud, they are invariably NOT fraud that would have been prevented by your beloved voter photo IDs. This includes the in-person example you offer. The fact remains that while you cling to your tales of voter impersonation fraud religiously, like any religion they are based on faith instead of fact. Twist and distort as you must to make yourself feel better about trying to cheat legitimate voters out of their Constitutional rights, the facts simply do not support your claims.

Obviously fraud that can only be detected/prosecuted if ID is shown will not be detected if you do not mandate ID be shown.

Obviously, you're continuing to push yet another lie that's been soundly refuted over and over again. Parroting the same lie in thread after thread doesn't make it magically true. It just makes you dishonest, reading-impaired, or both.

But feel free to explain how we could detect illegal immigrants under the current system.

First, I'm not particularly concerned about illegals voting in American elections. I've seen no evidence it's a significant problem. Second, if an illegal is determined to vote in our elections, he can easily do so via absentee ballot, completing avoiding any inconvenient ID issues (as well as the risk of apprehension). This is, of course, the same way every other miscreant will avoid your beloved ID laws, which is exactly why such laws are pointless. Naturally, you suppression cheerleaders invariably ignore this gaping hole in your pitch. Finally, this so-called issue, to the extent it exists at all, is an issue with voter registration, not actual voting.

 

[Bowfinger]

Can anyone who is against voter id laws explain why it is horribly evil and wrong to potentially disenfranchise people for not bothering to get a picture ID but amazingly righteous to potentially disenfranchise people for not bothering to register to vote?

The explaination obvious has to use reasons which also canot be applied to requiring voter ids...else your stance fails.

Explain to us why you are right. Oh, and saying "I already did" will not work...because if you did, simply report it. Easy enough if you actually already did it.

Since you continue to repeat yourself:

Nobody cares what you claim you want to know. You have been given the answer many times before yet you continue to pretend you have not. This is apparently because you continue to try to derail these threads in violation of forum rules (though I concede it could just be because you're brain-damaged). Either way, there is no reason to believe your behavior will change and you will acknowledge the answer this time, as you aptly demonstrated again in this very thread. Let me refresh your memory:

"Thank you for proving my point. I have explained to you again and again that I use "honey" as a diminutive when talking to a child. In general, the implication is your childish babbling adds no value to adult conversation. In spite of explaining this many times, you ignore this and continue to pretend it carries some sexual meaning. Once again, I don't know whether that's due to your compulsive dishonesty, your brain damage, or your unfulfilled man fantasies. Regardless, it serves as ample proof that you consistently fail to acknowledge information that contradicts your agenda. It is therefore pointless to answer any question you ask.

"This is one of the many reasons you remain completely irrelevant except as entertainment. So dance for me little RNC puppet. Entertain me. Add something of value to this thread since you cannot contribute meaningful discussion"
​

 

[cybrsage]

OK, so Bowfinger cannot give a good reason proving he holds a nasty double standard. Anyone else able to support their position?

 

[nehalem256]

Then you are quite welcome to quote THEM and address your claim to THEM. You lied when you stated I made that claim.

And voter photo ID laws won't change that a bit, because those who are intent on casting a fraudulent ballot will still do so via absentee ballot. [When I see Republicans wetting their panties over absentee ballot fraud the same way they do about (virtually non-existent) in-person voter fraud, that's when I'll believe they actually care about the integrity of the vote rather than shutting out "undesirables".

:hmm:

 

[Bowfinger]

:hmm:

What part of "virtually non-existent" is too hard for you? You're just not very good with math and numbers, are you. First, you can't understand that more than one is plural. Now you can't grasp that "virtually non-existent" is greater than zero.

By the way, those 113 you keep bleating about weren't really voter fraud. They were all apparently registered and voting as themselves, so it wasn't fraudulent voting. They were ineligible, however, because of their felony convictions, and were prosecuted on that basis. I certainly don't expect those inconvenient nuances deter you from your disinformation campaign, but it only underscores your dishonesty.

 

[Bowfinger]

OK, so Bowfinger cannot give a good reason proving he holds a nasty double standard. Anyone else able to support their position?

Drat! Your dancing is as boring as your trolling. You need to entertain us. What else do you have? Any talents at all besides trolling? We know your humor sucks. Can you sing? Paint pretty pictures? Shoot funny things out your nose? Anything?

Ooh! I've got it! You can be the official P&N mime. Every time you're inclined to squeeze out another little turdlet in P&N, you should post a blank mime post instead. You'll still inflate your post count, which seems to be your primary accomplishment, and your information content will actually improve. It's a win-win! And even better, for the half of the forum that has you on ignore, everything will look the same. It will be like a secret joke on them!!!

 

[cybrsage]

Bow is bad because he outed himself for holding a nasty double standard. Everyone look at Bow whine and cry because he accidently exposed his true feelings. He is now worried because his deepest fear, being exposed for what he really is, has been exposed.

Judge, what do you think?

"The evidence before the court is incontrovertible, there’s no need for the jury to retire!
In all my years of judging, I have never heard before someone more deserving of the full penalty of law!
The way you made them suffer, your exquisite wife and mother, fills me with the urge to defecate!
Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear
I sentence you to be exposed before your peers. TEAR DOWN THE WALL!!!!"

 

[hal2kilo]

Bow is bad because he outed himself for holding a nasty double standard. Everyone look at Bow whine and cry because he accidently exposed his true feelings. He is now worried because his deepest fear, being exposed for what he really is, has been exposed.

Judge, what do you think?

That you're an idiot troll who stinks this forum up.

 

[cybrsage]

Can you answer the question, oh small brained hal2kilo? I will repost it, for ease of answering:

Tell me a GOOD reason why it is ok to suppress voters by requiring them to register. You know, some reason that also cannot be used to support voter ID.

 

[Paratus]

Drat! Your dancing is as boring as your trolling. You need to entertain us. What else do you have? Any talents at all besides trolling? We know your humor sucks. Can you sing? Paint pretty pictures? Shoot funny things out your nose? Anything?

Ooh! I've got it! You can be the official P&N mime. Every time you're inclined to squeeze out another little turdlet in P&N, you should post a blank mime post instead. You'll still inflate your post count, which seems to be your primary accomplishment, and your information content will actually improve. It's a win-win! And even better, for the half of the forum that has you on ignore, everything will look the same. It will be like a secret joke on them!!!

You sir deserve the following award for Epic Fracking Ownage of Trolls in this thread!

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So you admit to being a liar. Good to know.

?? Simple google search will show your posting history and trolling in other forums. Multiple AT posters have said the same thing. Simple facts, anyone interested can google for your history of bigotry and trolling.

Oh that's right, you embarrassed yourself months ago when you showed the forum that you couldn't even use Google correctly, so maybe you are too embarrassed to use it anymore? Is that the problem?

Have no clue how you can claim that's I am somehow lying by saying use google, but hey, you always lie yourself, so you are used to making shit up and redefining words to mean wahtever you want.

When are you going to man up and leave since you lost your bet about Santorum? Won't even hold up a bet you made, how pathetic. Even as crazy as spidey is, I think he paid his bet, but you welch out.

 

[cybrsage]

Ah, Garf...lying just does not suit you...you suck at it. You should just admit you are a lame liar and move on with your life. I know, being the coward you are, you will never do such, but it really would be better for you if you just admitted your lie and moved on.

Your life must be sad, to have the need to continue to lie even after being proven a liar over and over again. I feel bad for your mom...she deserves better from you.

 

[cybrsage]

...

Can you answer the question, oh small brained Paratus? I will repost it, for ease of answering:

Tell me a GOOD reason why it is ok to suppress voters by requiring them to register. You know, some reason that also cannot be used to support voter ID.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can you answer the question, oh small brained Paratus? I will repost it, for ease of answering:

Tell me a GOOD reason why it is ok to suppress voters by requiring them to register. You know, some reason that also cannot be used to support voter ID.

Because registration doesn't really suppress voting at all. It's a snap, and it costs nothing.

http://registerincolorado.org/

Or would you prefer no registration at all, as in N Dakota?

That's an honest question. I doubt I'll get an honest answer.

 

[cybrsage]

Because registration doesn't really suppress voting at all. It's a snap, and it costs nothing.

So you are saying that if something is easy to do and is free, then it is ok to require it to be done for them to vote. Is that what you are saying?

The same exact thing can be said of requiring voter ID, too. It is a snap and it costs nothing.

I very specifically asked for a good reason which cannot also be applied to voter ID...and you gave me a good reason which CAN be applied to voter ID quite easily. You will have to try again.

Also, when you say "doen's really suppress voting", is that a code phrase to mean "well, it obviously suppresses voting but I do not care"? Just checking, because I cannot believe you think that every single voting age person is registered to vote.


EDIT: I will answer your question after you actually answer mine. I will repost it for ease of answering:

Tell me a GOOD reason why it is ok to suppress voters by requiring them to register. You know, some reason that also cannot be used to support voter ID.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you are saying that if something is easy to do and is free, then it is ok to require it to be done for them to vote. Is that what you are saying?

The same exact thing can be said of requiring voter ID, too. It is a snap and it costs nothing.

I very specifically asked for a good reason which cannot also be applied to voter ID...and you gave me a good reason which CAN be applied to voter ID quite easily. You will have to try again.

Also, when you say "doen's really suppress voting", is that a code phrase to mean "well, it obviously suppresses voting but I do not care"? Just checking, because I cannot believe you think that every single voting age person is registered to vote.


EDIT: I will answer your question after you actually answer mine. I will repost it for ease of answering:

Tell me a GOOD reason why it is ok to suppress voters by requiring them to register. You know, some reason that also cannot be used to support voter ID.

Standard Cybr-dodge. You will, of course, not find any "good" reason, so you'll be able to maintain your concern troll.

Can I obtain picture ID online with a few keystrokes?

Or do I have to pay to obtain the proper documentation, if I can get it at all, then appear in some official place at certain times? If I'm a woman, don't I have to document name changes of marriage, divorce & remarriage across a lifetime of possibly living in several states in the process? That's easy? Isn't that more than a little demanding for little old ladies who otherwise have no use for picture ID which they allowed to lapse years ago?

And, of course, I have to renew ID periodically, unlike registration which lasts a lifetime if I don't move out of state.

Obviously, registration is a simple form of voter ID, but it serves greater purposes, as well. It aids election officials in having sufficient materials on hand at polling places in different precincts, whether that's voting machines or booths & paper ballots. W/O registration, they can't really tell about that, particularly when communities grow, populations shift, & political boundaries change.

Your false equivalencies are false, and tedious as well.

 

[nehalem256]

Because registration doesn't really suppress voting at all. It's a snap, and it costs nothing.

http://registerincolorado.org/

Or would you prefer no registration at all, as in N Dakota?

That's an honest question. I doubt I'll get an honest answer.

Which means that it does not do anything to prevent ineligible voter such as illegal immigrants from voting.

 

[cybrsage]

Standard Cybr-dodge. You will, of course, not find any "good" reason, so you'll be able to maintain your concern troll.

YOU are the one claiming voter suppression is OK in one instance but not OK in another...YOU are the one who needs to explain your double standard. I am not going to do it for you.

Can I obtain picture ID online with a few keystrokes?

Are you really this stupid? No, you cannot...nor can you register to vote online in PA.

Or do I have to pay to obtain the proper documentation, if I can get it at all, then appear in some official place at certain times?

I know you are not very bright, as shown in your last statement, but what part of Free ID means you have to pay for it? Really, I want you to explain that part of your "reasoning"...

Obviously, registration is a simple form of voter ID, but it serves greater purposes, as well. It aids election officials in having sufficient materials on hand at polling places in different precincts, whether that's voting machines or booths & paper ballots. W/O registration, they can't really tell about that, particularly when communities grow, populations shift, & political boundaries change.

OK, so you say it is fine to suppress voters so that electronic voting machines will have enough paper ballots in them...can you explain that again, I seem to not be able to follow that logic.

I give you kudos for at least trying to explain your double standard. Keep trying, you might eventually stumble upon a legitimate reason. So far, though, you have not.

 

[Jhhnn]

YOU are the one claiming voter suppression is OK in one instance but not OK in another...YOU are the one who needs to explain your double standard. I am not going to do it for you.

You're the one trying to establish false equivalency, claiming that registration somehow suppresses voters. I never claimed nor acknowledged that it does. It doesn't.

Are you really this stupid? No, you cannot...nor can you register to vote online in PA.

You can download the form & mail it in for $.44. They'll mail you one or many, for free.

http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1174117&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=1&mode=2

I know you are not very bright, as shown in your last statement, but what part of Free ID means you have to pay for it? Really, I want you to explain that part of your "reasoning"...

The records required to get "free ID" aren't free, particularly birth certificates & court decrees, as with divorce. Fees vary wildly by locale. Lots of people, particularly seniors, have lost track of the required documentation & must obtain it all over again. Other than voting, they have no use for it.

OK, so you say it is fine to suppress voters so that electronic voting machines will have enough paper ballots in them...can you explain that again, I seem to not be able to follow that logic.

I give you kudos for at least trying to explain your double standard. Keep trying, you might eventually stumble upon a legitimate reason. So far, though, you have not.

You are now being deliberately obtuse. The number of electronic voting machines & the support staff very much affects the rate at which people can vote at a given precinct. Too few machines create long lines & delays, discouraging voting. Citizens have responsibilities & obligations to meet, after all. Precincts with lots of registered voters will obviously need more than those with fewer registered voters. Some people still vote with paper ballots, and running out is unacceptable.