Yet another Democrat gets busted for illegal voting.

[UberNeuman]

Wow, is the PN forum full of haters?

Welcome to P&N. Strap on a Fire Retardant Suit and jump into the flames....

 

[werepossum]

So your issue is with voter registration? I don't understand your point or how voter ID laws would fix the issue.

My "issue" is with vote fraud in all forms - registration, in-person voting, absentee voting, vote counting. I really do not understand how one can honestly find this complicated.

 

[Bowfinger]

My "issue" is with vote fraud in all forms - registration, in-person voting, absentee voting, vote counting. I really do not understand how one can honestly find this complicated.

Actions speak louder than words. The only form of potential "vote fraud" you consistently attack is the one that is effectively immaterial, overwhelmingly dwarfed by all the others. Of course it's also the form of potential fraud you believe helps Democrats (and better yet, the photo IDs you advocate to stop it overwhelmingly suppress left-leaning voters). Meanwhile, the only time you mention other potential forms of vote fraud is when you've been challenged about your biased priorities.

Then the best part is your unbridled chutzpah:

"And the best part is, we know all this without any evidence. All we have to do is realize that Voter ID is bad for Democrats, then we work backward and the first marginally plausible excuse becomes reality."
​

It's magnificent projection to divert attention from the fact that this is exactly what you and the other vote suppression cheerleaders are doing. You started with a problem: shifting demographics are shifting support ever more strongly to the left. How do you solve that problem? Improve the party to appeal to more voters? Oh hell no. That's the 'C' word: Compromise. Unthinkable. The GOP has been hijacked by a self-destructive, highly ideological fringe. They won't compromise. Their view of democracy is "do it my way or we'll torch the place". They're pulling the GOP in the opposite direction, over the cliff. So, what are other options? What's plan B?

Cheat. Find a way to to shift the balance to the right by disenfranchising left-leaning demographics. They already have gerrymandering mastered, poll taxes are illegal, they already purged voter rolls of every lefty they could justify (and many more, oopsie, our bad), and until a few weeks ago, the Voting Rights Act tied their hands in many states, so what else? The GOP needed a new voter suppression trick.

Bingo! The GOP found a new club for beating some left-leaning demographics: the elderly, the poor, students, and minorities (all groups they scorn anyway). They found that these groups are less likely to have valid state-issued photo IDs, and that they are more likely to face challenges obtaining them. Perfect. Now all the GOP needed was an excuse to require such IDs. Working backwards, from that conclusion, the GOP found its excuse: voter fraud.

Never mind that one is more likely to be struck by lightning on the way to the polls than to have in-person fraud. Never mind that photo IDs are trivially easy to circumvent with absentee ballots. Never mind that photo IDs do absolutely zilch to address any forms of vote fraud that occur with any degree of significance. No, photo IDs will suppress votes for the left, and the GOP propaganda machine was confident it found a plausible excuse it could sell it to its army of gullible dunces. And it did. Never mind that the vote fraud anecdotes you parrot would not be addressed by photo IDs. You've been brainwashed to conflate the two concepts, accepting that any example of voter fraud "proves" the need for photo IDs (even though photo IDs invariably would not have prevented the fraud). You have faith, facts are irrelevant.

This is a simplified summary, of course. The GOP worked diligently to tune their suppression laws to find the optimal cheating balance. For example, while many students don't have drivers licenses, they do have photo student IDs. They would erode the effectiveness of the new voter suppression laws, so student IDs had to be blocked. Conversely, the GOP knows gun owners are more likely to lean right, so weapons permits were sometimes added as valid IDs, just in case Billy Bob lost his DL. And so on.

To anyone who know the facts and has any degree of objectivity, it is blatantly obvious excatly what photo ID laws are for. They have nothing to do with voter fraud. They have everything to do with stealing democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, obviously they registered in both places, but they only voted in one. Or maybe they just always happen to be in their seasonal home during elections. 'Cause we know vote fraud never happens. And since vote fraud never happens, we know it's okay for people to register in both places and we don't even have to investigate it.

And the best part is, we know all this without any evidence. All we have to do is realize that Voter ID is bad for Democrats, then we work backward and the first marginally plausible excuse becomes reality.

You realize that the list of who voted is a public record, right? If you want to prove something like this, it actually shouldn't be that terribly difficult. Since the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, that means the burden is on you. I do like how you think a plausible mechanism for voter fraud is people jetting between various locations to cast a single extra ballot. (hint: they could take their travel money and hire a few canvassers and get many times that number of votes legally, but that doesn't fit into the conspiracy theory so that will be ignored)

The best part is that you are willing to take action without any evidence. All we have to do is realize that voter fraud is part of the worldwide progressive conspiracy, then we work backward and the first marginally plausible mechanism for it becomes reality.

Remember: The important part is that progressives are conspiring against us. They are a nefarious, secretive, powerful enemy. They control the media. They control the government. They control the schools. They control science. They are here on this board trying to trick us all. The threat is everywhere.

 

[Pens1566]

If it weren't for straw men, you boys would have nothing to post. The objection was never that "this never happens". It's that the occurrence is so low as to be immaterial, while the harm done by the Republicans' voter suppression laws -- purportedly to stop this sort of fraud -- is substantial. Further, note that once again you voter suppression cheerleaders are flogging an example that would NOT have been prevented by photo voter IDs. Even for insiders like this poll worker it was far more efficient and less risky to commit fraud via absentee ballot, not the in-person fraud "prevented" by photo IDs.

That said, I'm glad she was discovered and convicted. As a poll worker, she had a special responsibility to protect the integrity of our elections. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to others that honest elections are far more important than stealing one for your team. Pity we can't apply the same legal processes to the many corrupt legislators who are eager to suppress votes and gerrymander districts to cheat their party to victory.

(By the way, while doing a Google search on Richardson, I saw that even the Daily Kos called her an "idiot". I thought you should know that before you duhvert off into a new straw man about how Democrats support what she did.)

This ^

And, nice thread backfire.

 

[monovillage]

This ^

And, nice thread backfire.

Bullshit, just because a small bunch of liberal/progressive/Democrats bitch and complain about increases in voting security doesn't mean it's a dead issue, in fact with the recent Supreme Court decision it's obvious we're going to see more of it no matter what the illegal vote enablers say.

 

[werepossum]

You realize that the list of who voted is a public record, right? If you want to prove something like this, it actually shouldn't be that terribly difficult. Since the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, that means the burden is on you. I do like how you think a plausible mechanism for voter fraud is people jetting between various locations to cast a single extra ballot. (hint: they could take their travel money and hire a few canvassers and get many times that number of votes legally, but that doesn't fit into the conspiracy theory so that will be ignored)

The best part is that you are willing to take action without any evidence. All we have to do is realize that voter fraud is part of the worldwide progressive conspiracy, then we work backward and the first marginally plausible mechanism for it becomes reality.

Remember: The important part is that progressives are conspiring against us. They are a nefarious, secretive, powerful enemy. They control the media. They control the government. They control the schools. They control science. They are here on this board trying to trick us all. The threat is everywhere.

We've had this discussion before. Proggies (perhaps you) posted a study that purported to prove how small a problem is voter fraud. Roughly half the same-day registered voters studied could not be found. You guys put them in the no-fraud bucket; we put them in the fraud bucket. Huge numbers of same-day registration follow-up packets come back "No such person/no such address." To us, this indicates fraud. To you, this indicates Democrats finding millions of new voters each year who immediately disappear after voting. Tightening up voting requirements would tell us for sure.

 

[Pens1566]

Bullshit, just because a small bunch of liberal/progressive/Democrats bitch and complain about increases in voting security doesn't mean it's a dead issue, in fact with the recent Supreme Court decision it's obvious we're going to see more of it no matter what the illegal vote enablers say.

So, you're continuing with the strawman and that none of the implemented voter ID "fixes" would address this problem? Can't say I'm surprised that you'd double down on the stupid.

 

[monovillage]

So, you're continuing with the strawman and that none of the implemented voter ID "fixes" would address this problem? Can't say I'm surprised that you'd double down on the stupid.

I can't say i'm surprised that you're a liar and that you support vote fraud as long as it benefits the Democrats.

 

[Bowfinger]

We've had this discussion before. Proggies (perhaps you) posted a study that purported to prove how small a problem is voter fraud. Roughly half the same-day registered voters studied could not be found. You guys put them in the no-fraud bucket; we put them in the fraud bucket. Huge numbers of same-day registration follow-up packets come back "No such person/no such address." To us, this indicates fraud. To you, this indicates Democrats finding millions of new voters each year who immediately disappear after voting. Tightening up voting requirements would tell us for sure.

This is another example of exactly what I was talking about. The issue in your example, to the extent there is one, is permitting same-day registration. More to the point, if memory serves, in most (all?) jurisdictions same-day registrations are accepted only as provisional ballots, and are not counted unless the registration is confirmed. I may be incorrect on this. It's a new excuse, just recently added to the talking points, and I haven't researched it yet. If you care to cite studies or reports documenting your claim, I'll be happy to look at them.

 

[fskimospy]

We've had this discussion before. Proggies (perhaps you) posted a study that purported to prove how small a problem is voter fraud. Roughly half the same-day registered voters studied could not be found. You guys put them in the no-fraud bucket; we put them in the fraud bucket. Huge numbers of same-day registration follow-up packets come back "No such person/no such address." To us, this indicates fraud. To you, this indicates Democrats finding millions of new voters each year who immediately disappear after voting. Tightening up voting requirements would tell us for sure.

Yeah, I'm going to need a link to that study and the part that you think says that.

 

[Pens1566]

I can't say i'm surprised that you're a liar and that you support vote fraud as long as it benefits the Democrats.

And another strawman. Great job.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, I'm going to need a link to that study and the part that you think says that.

To what end? If you're interested, you can search the forums, but I long ago conceded the uselessness of of providing you with information. At best, you'll just move the goalposts and tell me why it doesn't apply or isn't the REAL problem. It's a fool's game.

 

[fskimospy]

To what end? If you're interested, you can search the forums, but I long ago conceded the uselessness of of providing you with information. At best, you'll just move the goalposts and tell me why it doesn't apply or isn't the REAL problem. It's a fool's game.

Gee, werepossum making a crazed statement and then not backing it up? That never ever happens.

My guess is that the progressives are behind this somehow. They are behind everything.

 

[monovillage]

Gee, werepossum making a crazed statement and then not backing it up? That never ever happens.

My guess is that the progressives are behind this somehow. They are behind everything.

Fuck you Eskimo, you know he's right, it's your standard MO.

 

[fskimospy]

Fuck you Eskimo, you know he's right, it's your standard MO.

Well if he's right then supplying some facts to back that up should be easy, huh.

 

[Bowfinger]

Fuck you Eskimo, you know he's right, it's your standard MO.

Lulz! You sound more and more Inconsequential every day. Take a Midol, princess, and and if you could find an integrity pill somehow, take the whole bottle. You're suffering from an extreme deficiency.

As someone who has participated in (I believe) every single thread here related to vote fraud and voter ID, I also don't remember any discussion or articles supporting Werepossum's claim. My guess is he recently heard it from one of the usual nutter disinformation sources, and is now repeating it as trained. My memory is imperfect, however, so I also welcome more specific information. It strikes me as awfully suspicious that this claim has only now surfaced, after 2-3 years of debate, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll consider it if it's supported with credible evidence.

 

[zinfamous]

Thanks for making the exact point I made in the OP.

oh you just made that up, then. people ahve alywas said that. Nothing has changed, in fact:

--everyone has always said that the incidents are extremely rare and insignificant
--and you still engage in selective reading, selective comprehension, and complete fabrication of reporting.

why even post the same thread over and over and over again?

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! Thread fail!

 

[werepossum]

Gee, werepossum making a crazed statement and then not backing it up? That never ever happens.

My guess is that the progressives are behind this somehow. They are behind everything.

Let's see, it's perfectly okay to claim that Voter ID laws are a conspiracy by the right to disenfranchise the left's voters, but it's paranoid to suggest that the left has at least a similar interest in not identifying voters. Gotcha. That doesn't sound at all like you started from your conclusion and worked backward. Yup, just started from your conclusion and stayed there.

Let's come at this from a different angle. I do not believe I have ever seen you concede that anyone had a good point on the opposite side of the issue from you. Two possibilities spring to mind, the first being that no one on the opposite side of the issue from you has ever made a valid point. The second of course is that you start and end with your ideology, without any room for thought, so that every issue is black and white. But then, obviously possibility #2 is paranoid extremism.

 

[kage69]

Lol! Thread fail!

...just like the other voter id threads these talking point lovers always get shredded in.

I'm right! Oh you want proof? Fuck you! lol

 

[fskimospy]

Let's see, it's perfectly okay to claim that Voter ID laws are a conspiracy by the right to disenfranchise the left's voters, but it's paranoid to suggest that the left has at least a similar interest in not identifying voters. Gotcha. That doesn't sound at all like you started from your conclusion and worked backward. Yup, just started from your conclusion and stayed there.

You're right, when legislators try to pass a law restricting the right to vote based on exactly zero evidence that what they are trying to stop is happening and then people are quoted saying things like "this will make Romney win my state", it's pretty reasonable to take them at their word.

It has nothing to do with the left having no interest in identifying such voters, the right has tried repeatedly to do so and has always failed. People who were attempting to objectively evaluate voter fraud would take that as evidence their voting laws were misguided. Instead, they doubled down.

When enough legislators keep repeating this stuff, gullible people tend to try and shoehorn it into a larger conspiracy where they think the Evil Progressives have come out of their volcano lair to steal elections. Then those same gullible people start at their conclusion and work backwards. You might even know some of them.

Let's come at this from a different angle. I do not believe I have ever seen you concede that anyone had a good point on the opposite side of the issue from you. Two possibilities spring to mind, the first being that no one on the opposite side of the issue from you has ever made a valid point. The second of course is that you start and end with your ideology, without any room for thought, so that every issue is black and white. But then, obviously possibility #2 is paranoid extremism.

That is quite a "different angle". lol. In the BART thread I initially said that BART workers made about the same wage as the average person. That was wrong and when someone corrected me I told them as much. It's no big deal. Your actual political positions have little to do with your paranoia. It's your belief in some bizarre progressive conspiracy that makes you nuts, btw.

I can't help but notice that you've engaged in quite a lot of back and forth when you could have instead just provided some evidence for your claim earlier. You can just admit if you don't have any.

 

[OGOC]

Let's see, it's perfectly okay to claim that Voter ID laws are a conspiracy by the right to disenfranchise the left's voters, but it's paranoid to suggest that the left has at least a similar interest in not identifying voters. Gotcha.

I'd like to know why the left thinks it's stepping on people's constitutional rights to require I.D. to vote but not stepping on people's constitutional rights to require I.D., background checks, fingerprinting, character witnesses, waiting periods, and large fees if that same person wants to exercise their 2nd Amendment constitutional rights that says "shall not be infringed" right in it.

Bingo! The GOP found a new club for beating some left-leaning demographics: the elderly, the poor, students, and minorities (all groups they scorn anyway).

Democrats in Rhode Island passed voter I.D. laws. Do they scorn the elderly, the poor, students, and minorities too?

 

[ivwshane]

Let's see, it's perfectly okay to claim that Voter ID laws are a conspiracy by the right to disenfranchise the left's voters, but it's paranoid to suggest that the left has at least a similar interest in not identifying voters. Gotcha. That doesn't sound at all like you started from your conclusion and worked backward. Yup, just started from your conclusion and stayed there.

Let's come at this from a different angle. I do not believe I have ever seen you concede that anyone had a good point on the opposite side of the issue from you. Two possibilities spring to mind, the first being that no one on the opposite side of the issue from you has ever made a valid point. The second of course is that you start and end with your ideology, without any room for thought, so that every issue is black and white. But then, obviously possibility #2 is paranoid extremism.

So it's a conspiracy by the left to let such a small inconsequential amount of fraud to happen?

You might have a point if the fraud was so vast that it actually impacted elections but it doesn't.

So yes, you are being paranoid.

Have you seen any democrat in a political position say that they want to allow voter fraud to happen to help elect more democrats? No you haven't but you have heard a republican saying that a voter ID law was passed to help elect a republican, right? Or do you think this is just another conspiracy by the left that twisted the words of a republican to push an agenda?

Can you show me a voter ID law that republucans have put forth that addresses the top form of voter fraud, absentee ballot voter fraud?

Does any of that set off any alarm bells in your head? Does your spidey sense tingle in the slightest bit?

 

[ivwshane]

I'd like to know why the left thinks it's stepping on people's constitutional rights to require I.D. to vote but not stepping on people's constitutional rights to require I.D., background checks, fingerprinting, character witnesses, waiting periods, and large fees if that same person wants to exercise their 2nd Amendment constitutional rights that says "shall not be infringed" right in it.

Democrats in Rhode Island passed voter I.D. laws. Do they scorn the elderly, the poor, students, and minorities too?

You don't even understand the fucking argument, perhaps you should read up on it before commenting.