Yet another Democrat gets busted for illegal voting.

[Bowfinger]

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

Um, not quite. Unlike Republican legislatures, RI passed an ID law that accepted multiple, common forms of ID, including student IDs. It was NOT restricted to official state-issued photo IDs. It also included a provision where RI will provide an ID free to those who don't have one, and it allows provisional ballots for those lacking IDs. This is all in sharp contrast to the typical suppression efforts of the right.

Then, even though RI probably crafted the least oppressive voter ID law in America, the RI legislature recently voted to put this law on hold for a year. They want to take more time to understand and address remaining concerns about potential voter suppression.

 

[Bowfinger]

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. ...

What a lame dodge. The issue he responded to wasn't something subjective or nearly impossible to prove, like whether there is a "conspiracy". The issue is you made two assertions of fact, easy to objectively validate:

Werepossum: "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.'"
​

You make two specific claims here. First, that this study exists with the results you describe. Second, that it was posted and discussed here. Those claims are assertions of fact, and can be objectively proven simply by you linking to the appropriate post or posts. That you choose instead to bob and weave away from your claims strongly suggest you know they are false. You are welcome to prove us wrong, however.

 

[werepossum]

What a lame dodge. The issue he responded to wasn't something subjective or nearly impossible to prove, like whether there is a "conspiracy". The issue is you made two assertions of fact, easy to objectively validate:

Werepossum: "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.'"
​

You make two specific claims here. First, that this study exists with the results you describe. Second, that it was posted and discussed here. Those claims are assertions of fact, and can be objectively proven simply by you linking to the appropriate post or posts. That you choose instead to bob and weave away from your claims strongly suggest you know they are false. You are welcome to prove us wrong, however.

How about we just skip ahead. Let us assume that I have searched and produced the study, you have told me it doesn't say what I think it says because just because they can't find these people doesn't mean they aren't qualified voters, I'll say that's why we need Voter ID laws, you'll call me a racist, and Eskimospy can tell me I'm an insane paranoid for not recognizing that Voter ID laws are a right wing plot. 'Cause we all know that's how it ends.

Every issue. Every time. Compared to you guys parrots are creative geniuses.

 

[Bowfinger]

How about we just skip ahead. Let us assume that I have searched and produced the study, you have told me it doesn't say what I think it says because just because they can't find these people doesn't mean they aren't qualified voters, I'll say that's why we need Voter ID laws, you'll call me a racist, and Eskimospy can tell me I'm an insane paranoid for not recognizing that Voter ID laws are a right wing plot. 'Cause we all know that's how it ends.

Every issue. Every time. Compared to you guys parrots are creative geniuses.

Victim card? Played.

Once again, were it not for straw men, you'd have nothing to say at all. I also note you've once again tried to dodge accountability for your claims. It seems increasingly likely that I was right. Be honest. Is this something you picked up from Fox or its kin, and are now trying to pretend it's something legitimate that we've discussed?

The irony, at least in my case, is that I've never advocated for same-day registration. It seems ripe for abuse. Further, while I recognize there are many legitimate reasons eligible voters may not have current state-issued IDs and may have challenges obtaining them, I don't know any sound reasons why someone can't plan ahead and register in advance. While there are few (if any) groups out there that will help people get IDs, there are all sorts of groups that will help them get registered.

 

[berzerker60]

How about we just skip ahead. Let us assume that I have searched and produced the study, you have told me it doesn't say what I think it says because just because they can't find these people doesn't mean they aren't qualified voters, I'll say that's why we need Voter ID laws, you'll call me a racist, and Eskimospy can tell me I'm an insane paranoid for not recognizing that Voter ID laws are a right wing plot. 'Cause we all know that's how it ends.

Every issue. Every time. Compared to you guys parrots are creative geniuses.

Or just laws like we already have, wherein same-day voters are already showing voter ID and/or are casting provisional ballots until they've been certified, so there's still no voter fraud even if you're 100% correct?

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/same-day-registration.aspx

How SDR Works

• Proof of residency is a key requirement in all states that offer same-day registration. In a traditional (pre-Election Day) registration, election officials have time to send a non-forwardable mailing to the prospective voter in order to verify the voter's residence before processing the registration application. Because that isn't possible with SDR, the prospective voter must present proof of residency at the time of registration. A current driver's license or ID card will suffice in all states. In some states, documents such as a paycheck or utility bill with an address is acceptable for proving residence. A few states also permit an already-registered voter to vouch for the residency of an Election Day registrant.
• Voter ID: All of the SDR states also require that voters who register and vote on Election Day present documentation to verify their identity. Some states require a photo ID; others accept IDs without a photo.

Preventing Fraud

In addition to requiring proof of identity and residency, without which a prospective voter cannot register and vote, SDR states commonly employ other practices to prevent fraudulent acts such as casting more than one ballot. These include:

• In Iowa and New Hampshire, a non-forwardable mailing is sent to each Election Day registrant. If it is returned as undeliverable, a second notice is sent. If the second mailing is also returned as undeliverable, the case is forwarded to law enforcement for investigation of voter fraud.
• Election Day registrants in Montana who are unable to meet the voter ID requirements must vote a provisional ballot, and then must return within three days to provide proof of identity in order to have the ballot counted. Montana also sends confirmation cards to new registrants after the election, following a procedure similar to Iowa's outlined above. Wisconsin and Wyoming use similar provisional voting processes.
• In Montana, SDR is conducted only at county election officials' offices, not at polling places. In Maine, it takes place at town offices and city halls.
• In states that use electronic pollbooks with real-time access to the statewide voter database, it is possible to verify that a prospective voter has not already registered and cast a ballot at another polling site or via mail prior to allowing him/her to register and vote.
• In Minnesota, the data provided by a same-day registrant is verified with the Division of Vehicle Services and/or the Social Security Administration, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Public Safety.

Seriously, in-person voter fraud remains a non-issue with an unsubtle agenda behind it.

I'm deeply concerned about all these mass shootings upsetting the electoral process, we'd better have anyone with a gun send in some extra paperwork and only vote in one secure facility in the state capitol for everyone's safety. What do you mean mass shootings are rare occurrences? I can show you several cases! It's impractical and would only serve to suppress Republican votes? Nonsense! Some Democrats have guns too, and no sacrifice is too great to preserve the integrity of the electoral process! No one's stopping them from voting, just asking for some extra paperwork in advance and for them to drive to the state capitol on that Tuesday!

 

[werepossum]

Victim card? Played.

Once again, were it not for straw men, you'd have nothing to say at all. I also note you've once again tried to dodge accountability for your claims. It seems increasingly likely that I was right. Be honest. Is this something you picked up from Fox or its kin, and are now trying to pretend it's something legitimate that we've discussed?

The irony, at least in my case, is that I've never advocated for same-day registration. It seems ripe for abuse. Further, while I recognize there are many legitimate reasons eligible voters may not have current state-issued IDs and may have challenges obtaining them, I don't know any sound reasons why someone can't plan ahead and register in advance. While there are few (if any) groups out there that will help people get IDs, there are all sorts of groups that will help them get registered.

How on Earth is that the victim card? I know what you'll do - you do it EVERY political thread, EVERY issue, EVERY time - but I am hardly victimized by it. Hell, after the first few weeks here I'm not even surprised. Even the amusement has worn off. I'm simply acknowledging your MO, not alleging that I am in any way affected by it.

Just because one has learned not to wrestle a pig doesn't mean one is being victimized by the pig.

Or just laws like we already have, wherein same-day voters are already showing voter ID and/or are casting provisional ballots until they've been certified, so there's still no voter fraud even if you're 100% correct?

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/same-day-registration.aspx
Seriously, in-person voter fraud remains a non-issue with an unsubtle agenda behind it.

I'm deeply concerned about all these mass shootings upsetting the electoral process, we'd better have anyone with a gun send in some extra paperwork and only vote in one secure facility in the state capitol for everyone's safety. What do you mean mass shootings are rare occurrences? I can show you several cases! It's impractical and would only serve to suppress Republican votes? Nonsense! Some Democrats have guns too, and no sacrifice is too great to preserve the integrity of the electoral process! No one's stopping them from voting, just asking for some extra paperwork in advance and for them to drive to the state capitol on that Tuesday!

From your link:

A current driver's license or ID card will suffice in all states. In some states, documents such as a paycheck or utility bill with an address is acceptable for proving residence. A few states also permit an already-registered voter to vouch for the residency of an Election Day registrant.

In many states illegals are issued driver's licenses, and certainly no one would argue that illegals can't have jobs or pay bills. Legal aliens are always able to apply for driver's licenses, and many of them also have jobs and pay bills.

To use a favorite proggie phrase - STRAW MAN! Your example assumes that something might affect the voting process; this issue IS the voting process.

 

[Bowfinger]

How on Earth is that the victim card? I know what you'll do - you do it EVERY political thread, EVERY issue, EVERY time - but I am hardly victimized by it. Hell, after the first few weeks here I'm not even surprised. Even the amusement has worn off. I'm simply acknowledging your MO, not alleging that I am in any way affected by it.

Just because one has learned not to wrestle a pig doesn't mean one is being victimized by the pig.

You're lying again ... as well as dodging accountability for your apparently fabricated claims ... and yet again dodging everything I said except for one line. I suppose that's all you have, so keep swilling the propaganda. I'm sure sooner or later they'll toss you a scrap for your faithful servitude.

From your link:
In many states illegals are issued driver's licenses, and certainly no one would argue that illegals can't have jobs or pay bills. Legal aliens are always able to apply for driver's licenses, and many of them also have jobs and pay bills.

To use a favorite proggie phrase - STRAW MAN! Your example assumes that something might affect the voting process; this issue IS the voting process.

Pssst. You also might want to learn what a "straw man" is. Perhaps you wouldn't cry about them so much if you understood what they are and why you're so regularly called out on them.

 

[werepossum]

You're lying again ... as well as dodging accountability for your apparently fabricated claims ... and yet again dodging everything I said except for one line. I suppose that's all you have, so keep swilling the propaganda. I'm sure sooner or later they'll toss you a scrap for your faithful servitude.

Pssst. You also might want to learn what a "straw man" is. Perhaps you wouldn't cry about them so much if you understood what they are and why you're so regularly called out on them.

Oh, I understand perfectly well why I am so regularly called out on them - that's all you guys have. Well, that and blind, foaming rage.

 

[Matt1970]

How about we just skip ahead. Let us assume that I have searched and produced the study, you have told me it doesn't say what I think it says because just because they can't find these people doesn't mean they aren't qualified voters, I'll say that's why we need Voter ID laws, you'll call me a racist, and Eskimospy can tell me I'm an insane paranoid for not recognizing that Voter ID laws are a right wing plot. 'Cause we all know that's how it ends.

Every issue. Every time. Compared to you guys parrots are creative geniuses.

LOL. You guys need a little Alo Vera for that burn?

 

[Bowfinger]

Oh, I understand perfectly well why I am so regularly called out on them - that's all you guys have. Well, that and blind, foaming rage.

Clearly you don't, because you're shooting the messenger. You're like the kid blaming the cop for stopping him for speeding. I suppose that's pretty typical for wing-nuts, however. You're awful at accepting responsibility for you own flaws and behaviors. You always need someone else to blame, something the RNC propaganda machine exploits ruthlessly.

And you've still offered not a single piece of evidence to support the purported existence of your study or its discussion here. Run, Forest, run.

 

[Darwin333]

Then try reading the article asshole.

Correct me if I am wrong but haven't the Republicans been very adamant about voter IDs but NOT changing the requirements for absentee ballots?

If I am correct are you suggesting that the Republicans turn all of their focus (at least as far as voter fraud) on absentee ballots that generally (again, iirc) are overwhelmingly in their favor?

 

[monovillage]

Correct me if I am wrong but haven't the Republicans been very adamant about voter IDs but NOT changing the requirements for absentee ballots?

If I am correct are you suggesting that the Republicans turn all of their focus (at least as far as voter fraud) on absentee ballots that generally (again, iirc) are overwhelmingly in their favor?

Not turn their focus, but include all other types of vote fraud that are taking place in this country and are known to be taking place in this country. Voting fraud is voting fraud, i don't care who does it, I just think reasonable security needs to be provided.

 

[ivwshane]

How on Earth is that the victim card? I know what you'll do - you do it EVERY political thread, EVERY issue, EVERY time - but I am hardly victimized by it. Hell, after the first few weeks here I'm not even surprised. Even the amusement has worn off. I'm simply acknowledging your MO, not alleging that I am in any way affected by it.

Just because one has learned not to wrestle a pig doesn't mean one is being victimized by the pig.


From your link:
In many states illegals are issued driver's licenses, and certainly no one would argue that illegals can't have jobs or pay bills. Legal aliens are always able to apply for driver's licenses, and many of them also have jobs and pay bills.

To use a favorite proggie phrase - STRAW MAN! Your example assumes that something might affect the voting process; this issue IS the voting process.

Are you saying because some illegals are given driver licenses that they can and do vote even though they aren't allowed to? Do you know why people have to register to vote? Do you know what's done to that registration to verify you can vote. Non citizens can even get a social security number/card and they still can't vote even if they do register.

So what the fuck are you talking about?!

 

[OGOC]

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

What part of the argument don't I understand? The part where some people think it's bad to infringe on voting rights by requiring I.D.s and fees but don't think it's bad to infringe on other rights by requiring I.D.s and fees and background checks and waiting periods and character witnesses, or the part where Rhode Island Democrats get a free pass because they have a D in front of their name. Or perhaps there's some other hypocrisy of the argument you would like to present.

Um, not quite. Unlike Republican legislatures, RI passed an ID law that accepted multiple, common forms of ID, including student IDs. It was NOT restricted to official state-issued photo IDs. It also included a provision where RI will provide an ID free to those who don't have one, and it allows provisional ballots for those lacking IDs. This is all in sharp contrast to the typical suppression efforts of the right.

Voters in North Carolina can get an I.D. from the DMV for $10. The Republican voter bill says if $10 is a hardship, they can get one for free. I'm sure there are other states with the same free I.D.s. Public school I.D.s and things are also valid. They also offered provisional ballots.

People keep trying to give Democrats a free pass on this stuff. Even when Republicans offer up voter laws that include the things you mentioned, they get called evil and racists and haters of old people and minorities and whatever else, yet Democrats in Rhode Island are supposedly angels with halos for passing a similar thing. It's hypocrisy.

 

[ivwshane]

What part of the argument don't I understand? The part where some people think it's bad to infringe on voting rights by requiring I.D.s and fees but don't think it's bad to infringe on other rights by requiring I.D.s and fees and background checks and waiting periods and character witnesses, or the part where Rhode Island Democrats get a free pass because they have a D in front of their name. Or perhaps there's some other hypocrisy of the argument you would like to present.

Voters in North Carolina can get an I.D. from the DMV for $10. The Republican voter bill says if $10 is a hardship, they can get one for free. I'm sure there are other states with the same free I.D.s. Public school I.D.s and things are also valid. They also offered provisional ballots.

People keep trying to give Democrats a free pass on this stuff. Even when Republicans offer up voter laws that include the things you mentioned, they get called evil and racists and haters of old people and minorities and whatever else, yet Democrats in Rhode Island are supposedly angels with halos for passing a similar thing. It's hypocrisy.

Since you seem intent on displaying your ignorance;
The constitution was amended (the 24th to be specific) to expressly prohibit a poll tax in regards to voting. No such prohibition exists for the 2nd anendments. 2nd, dems aren't against requiring voter ID's in order to vote, the are against people having to pay for that ID or any required paper work because that constitutes a poll tax. They are also against voter ID laws that purport to address voter fraud that don't actually address voter fraud (ie absentee ballot voter fraud) and instead do nothing but disenfranchise thousands of legal voters. Btw some of the proposed laws allowed for gun licenses to be proof in order to vote but not school ID's so no, things aren't exactly as you see them.

And lastly dems (or a good chunk of them) are for universal background checks just like the NRA was several years ago. Background checks which take on average less than five minutes and no more than 24 hours don't infringe on anyone's rights except those that everyone agrees with that shouldn't be allowed to have a gun (criminals and physco's).

 

[OGOC]

Since you seem intent on displaying your ignorance;
The constitution was amended (the 24th to be specific) to expressly prohibit a poll tax in regards to voting. No such prohibition exists for the 2nd anendments.

Do you think it is infringing on someone's rights to require them to pay $450 in fees and get fingerprinted before they are allowed to possess an item to exercise a right that shall not be infringed?

Speaking of ignorance, which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

2nd, dems aren't against requiring voter ID's in order to vote,

lol, of course most of them are. Only an ignorant person would say otherwise. Requiring I.D.s is racist. It's hateful of old people. People have to take time to get one even if it's free. It disenfranchises voters who are camera shy. And whatever other excuses Democrats who aren't in Rhode Island can think of.

And lastly dems (or a good chunk of them) are for universal background checks just like the NRA was several years ago. Background checks which take on average less than five minutes and no more than 24 hours don't infringe on anyone's rights except those that everyone agrees with that shouldn't be allowed to have a gun (criminals and physco's).

If I recall, the NRA was for background checks for dealer transactions, not for universal transactions. But, that doesn't matter anyway since the NRA is merely the NRA. And there's a reason why the NRA has fallen out of favor with many gun owners who instead support groups such as Gun Owners of America.

Does it cost an individual $450 in any state in order to buy a ballot in order to vote? Probably not. Yet somehow ignorant people think those fees are considered non-infringing when it comes to a right that says it shall not be infringed.

The universal background check bills that try to get passed are things like wanting to require all firearm transactions to go through a licensed dealer. That means you get to pay somewhere between $20 and $100+ for the privilege. And ignorant people consider that "not infringing."

 

[ivwshane]

Abortion has been ruled legal by the supreme court as a right to privacy, should women have to pay to exercise that right?

Should the press be given free printing presses or free websites and television access to report their stories in order to exercise their rights?

What an utter rediculous argument!

What you don't seem to understand is that the 24th amendment was passed to stop politicians from not allowing certain types/groups/races from voting. Basically to stop discrimination. Gun control laws affect everyone and do not descriminate, rich, poor, black, and white are all affected equally.

You wanting to equate the prohibition of poll taxes, that is used to not allow descrimination, with gun control laws which are to keep guns out of the wrong hands (of course there is debate on what that means) is freaking retarded. That and the fact that there are no "poll tax" prohibition laws.

 

[Matt1970]

Abortion has been ruled legal by the supreme court as a right to privacy, should women have to pay to exercise that right?

They don't.

 

[fskimospy]

How about we just skip ahead. Let us assume that I have searched and produced the study, you have told me it doesn't say what I think it says because just because they can't find these people doesn't mean they aren't qualified voters, I'll say that's why we need Voter ID laws, you'll call me a racist, and Eskimospy can tell me I'm an insane paranoid for not recognizing that Voter ID laws are a right wing plot. 'Cause we all know that's how it ends.

Every issue. Every time. Compared to you guys parrots are creative geniuses.

Let's not assume you produced the study, because you haven't.

Poor werepossum, always the victim.

 

[werepossum]

Clearly you don't, because you're shooting the messenger. You're like the kid blaming the cop for stopping him for speeding. I suppose that's pretty typical for wing-nuts, however. You're awful at accepting responsibility for you own flaws and behaviors. You always need someone else to blame, something the RNC propaganda machine exploits ruthlessly.

And you've still offered not a single piece of evidence to support the purported existence of your study or its discussion here. Run, Forest, run.

You are just the messenger? Are you channeling nut jobs from beyond?

Are you saying because some illegals are given driver licenses that they can and do vote even though they aren't allowed to? Do you know why people have to register to vote? Do you know what's done to that registration to verify you can vote. Non citizens can even get a social security number/card and they still can't vote even if they do register.

So what the fuck are you talking about?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5DmDtWr0WE

Let's not assume you produced the study, because you haven't.

Poor werepossum, always the victim.

You guys see victimhood everywhere. I am not claiming to be a victim; there is literally no way in which you can damage me. I am just pointing out that your behavior is the same thing every time, every issue.

 

[fskimospy]

Still waiting for a link to back up your claim.

 

[werepossum]

Still waiting for a link to back up your claim.

Be sure and let me know how that works out for you.

 

[Wreckem]

...

 

[Wreckem]

Well said.


I'm all for requiring photo ID and abolishing all types of mail-in registration and voting except for the military. Today it's such a joke, foreigners getting driver's licenses are regularly registered to vote. That is not by accident.

LPRs can vote in some local elections and state elections if a jurisdiction allows for it. There are a handful that do.

Registering to vote outside of the mechnisim that allows LPRs to vote in those few jurisdictions that allow for it is a deportable offense and would likely cost the LPR a their chance at US citizenship. Technically it would also get them deported and barred from ever returning to the US. This is because voter registration requires you to confirm your citizenship status as a US citizen and because of that any submission of said voter registration card would be a fraudulent misrepresentation that you are a US citizen and that is a huge no no under the INA.

You make it seem like a regular occurrence when it is not and most of the time when it does occur its not on purpose for the above reason. A LPR is not going to risk denial of citizenship/deportation with a permanent bar because any registration to vote WILL be found when/if they apply for citizenship.

 

[ivwshane]

They don't.

Sure they don't! It's paid for by the government right?!



/s