The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

I am impressed your general feelings on voter fraud are so accommodating. What is a little fraud between elections afterall.

 

They aren't accommodating. They are prosecuted. And as a result there is a high trust in our elections without voter id. But for some reason it maintains an issue because people say "voter fraud IS bad" without realizing the motivations behind the specific bills, to suppress minority voting. It's nothing new, it's just taken a new form.

[NorthSideSox72]

They aren't accommodating. They are prosecuted. And as a result there is a high trust in our elections without voter id. But for some reason it maintains an issue because people say "voter fraud IS bad" without realizing the motivations behind the specific bills, to suppress minority voting. It's nothing new, it's just taken a new form.

This is called coupled motivation.

 

You say the motivations behind certain bills is to suppress minority voting. No doubt for some, that is true. For others, its a simple matter of ensuring a solid voting process. They both happen to agree on some of the same agenda items.

 

What is not true, and that you are insinuating, is that the suppresion of minority voting is the ONLY motivation which leads to the agenda. That is narrow-minded and false.

 

I mean, I happen to agree with Al Gore that we need to do more to address climate change and environmental degredation. I don't agree for all the same reasons, and I could care less that he's also making money off of it - policy-wise, I agree with SOME of what he is saying. That does not mean my motivations are exactly the same as Al Gore's.

 

 

[Balta1701]

And in that case of a person who is concerned about the integrity of the voting process...we would obviously expect that person to be able to provide us with a long, concrete series of cases where the voter registration process failed to prevent voter fraud but where an additional state-issued ID requirement would have done so.

 

Otherwise, that person is insisting upon standards that he or she is admitting are solving a non-existent problem.

 

To use your example...if I came to you and told you that anthropogenic climate change was a problem due that could be solved by reducing the atmospheric CO2 content, a reasonable question to ask in reply is "has atmospheric CO2 actually gone up by a substantial amount?" If the answer was "no", you might question why we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere if CO2 in the atmosphere is not increasing.

[southsider2k5]

And in that case of a person who is concerned about the integrity of the voting process...we would obviously expect that person to be able to provide us with a long, concrete series of cases where the voter registration process failed to prevent voter fraud but where an additional state-issued ID requirement would have done so.

 

Otherwise, that person is insisting upon standards that he or she is admitting are solving a non-existent problem.

 

To use your example...if I came to you and told you that anthropogenic climate change was a problem due that could be solved by reducing the atmospheric CO2 content, a reasonable question to ask in reply is "has atmospheric CO2 actually gone up by a substantial amount?" If the answer was "no", you might question why we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere if CO2 in the atmosphere is not increasing.

 

Great so where are all the convictions for voting machine fraud, after all of the complaining that was done about it?

[StrangeSox]

Great so where are all the convictions for voting machine fraud, after all of the complaining that was done about it?

 

Democrat whining=/= passing actual laws that disenfranchise people

[Balta1701]

Great so where are all the convictions for voting machine fraud, after all of the complaining that was done about it?

A solid point, I can't cite a single confirmed case of electronic voting machine fraud. Best I can do is point at the 2000 election, where poor voting machines probably delivered Pat Buchanan 20000 votes that should have gone to Al Gore. But hy, right guy still won, so there, no need to get that part right.

[kapkomet]

Bachmann isn't so much being an idiot as much as she's being phony. I bet she probably did a quick 45-second Google search before that speech was written and she saw the words "John Wayne."

 

Also, holy s*** is the "57 states" thing a conservative comeback for everything? That was three years ago. He meant to say 47. Oh well. He's given hundreds of speeches and press conferences since then (many of them without a teleprompter!).

 

Hello, CORPSEman, etc.

 

Whatever. The point is, over and over again, Obama is protected class, if you know what I mean.

[kapkomet]

Voting fraud. So explain again why having some sort of ID matters to you people again? OMG, PROVE you should be able to vote? TRAVESTY. Contrary to popular opinion, no one is taking rights away.

 

That's like the black panthers standing there with baseball bats in hand, you know.

[NorthSideSox72]

And in that case of a person who is concerned about the integrity of the voting process...we would obviously expect that person to be able to provide us with a long, concrete series of cases where the voter registration process failed to prevent voter fraud but where an additional state-issued ID requirement would have done so.

 

Otherwise, that person is insisting upon standards that he or she is admitting are solving a non-existent problem.

 

To use your example...if I came to you and told you that anthropogenic climate change was a problem due that could be solved by reducing the atmospheric CO2 content, a reasonable question to ask in reply is "has atmospheric CO2 actually gone up by a substantial amount?" If the answer was "no", you might question why we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere if CO2 in the atmosphere is not increasing.

So in your world, fraud should only be addressed when its rampant and clear. Got it.

 

Seriously, go back to my earlier post. If the best you can come up with is "but there isn't that much voter fraud", then its useless arguing with you, because I could just as easily say "there's not that much improper gun buying through dealers", and it is just as well founded.

 

Its not a non-existent problem, it happens and you damn well know it. If you want to say "there are worse things we should address", then fine, say that, it would actually make sense. But to say it doesnt exist is the same thing as me saying anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Of course they exist, but no one really knows how much... should we just ignore them?

 

[Balta1701]

Of course they exist, but no one really knows how much... should we just ignore them?

No, but we should be intelligent about the amount of damage we're willing to do in order to solve them.

 

No one, as far as I know, has reasonably suggested that we should cut every power plant offline immediately and shut down every automobile to solve the climate problem. No one has reasonably suggested confiscating and melting down every gun in this country. Disenfranchising what appears to be on the order of hundreds of thousands of people who want to vote to deal with the possibility of a few dozen people voting incorrectly is the same level.

 

Instead of ignoring them, we can treat it like we treat gun crime. Investigate, respond, and jail.

 

By most numbers read via the Google, ~11% of Americans currently do not have a valid ID that would allow them to vote, and that group is concentrated largely amongst the poor and amongst racial minorities.

[bmags]

So in your world, fraud should only be addressed when its rampant and clear. Got it.

 

Seriously, go back to my earlier post. If the best you can come up with is "but there isn't that much voter fraud", then its useless arguing with you, because I could just as easily say "there's not that much improper gun buying through dealers", and it is just as well founded.

 

Its not a non-existent problem, it happens and you damn well know it. If you want to say "there are worse things we should address", then fine, say that, it would actually make sense. But to say it doesnt exist is the same thing as me saying anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Of course they exist, but no one really knows how much... should we just ignore them?

 

No one has said that. It already does get prosecuted. But take the diecast example for instance. Imagine if there was a consistent liberal push to close down these voting machines right before an election that happen to coincide in a wealthier, and by and large, republican area. We didn't take away their right to vote, we just shut down the closes voting stations and had them have to drive 1 town over. No one's rights were taken away, they just had to put in extra effort to vote. And if there's one thing we know about rich people as opposed to poor people, they ALWAYS put in more effort. And, surprisingly, voting in that district falls from the times before it.

 

But that's not a problem, because you may have just prevented several fraudulent votes, and people still COULD vote. No problem here.

[Y2HH]

No one has said that. It already does get prosecuted. But take the diecast example for instance. Imagine if there was a consistent liberal push to close down these voting machines right before an election that happen to coincide in a wealthier, and by and large, republican area. We didn't take away their right to vote, we just shut down the closes voting stations and had them have to drive 1 town over. No one's rights were taken away, they just had to put in extra effort to vote. And if there's one thing we know about rich people as opposed to poor people, they ALWAYS put in more effort. And, surprisingly, voting in that district falls from the times before it.

 

But that's not a problem, because you may have just prevented several fraudulent votes, and people still COULD vote. No problem here.

 

That's ok, Jesse Jackson will ship busloads of them to the working voting stations, free of charge, so long as they vote exactly as he tells them too.

 

No problem here is right, problem solved.

[bmags]

That's ok, Jesse Jackson will ship busloads of them to the working voting stations, free of charge, so long as they vote exactly as he tells them too.

 

No problem here is right, problem solved.

 

yes, jesse jackson has so much power

[Y2HH]

yes, jesse jackson has so much power

 

Ah, yes, the Ostrich defense!

 

While I'm being sarcastic, what I said actually happens, I've seen it. Not that I care anymore, but I won't pretend both sides of the aisle don't bend the rules/regulations of voting like so many of you are doing in this thread.

 

It's like the blind leading the blind.

[bmags]

you've seen gotv campaigns? SHOCKING

[Y2HH]

you've seen gotv campaigns? SHOCKING

 

Well, no, it's not shocking, that's kinda the point.

 

I'd like to see a return to sanity here (and everywhere else, in relation to politics), I'm sick and tired of seeing the, X party does this, Y party does that...it's unfair, it's illegal, blah...

 

They're all doing it if we choose to take notice. It's just easier to pretend your own party is innocent and the other party play unfairly.

 

Party politics is what got us where we are...it's not working, because it's never worked.

[bmags]

Well, no, it's not shocking, that's kinda the point.

 

I'd like to see a return to sanity here (and everywhere else, in relation to politics), I'm sick and tired of seeing the, X party does this, Y party does that...it's unfair, it's illegal, blah...

 

They're all doing it if we choose to take notice. It's just easier to pretend your own party is innocent and the other party play unfairly.

 

Party politics is what got us where we are...it's not working, because it's never worked.

 

and we'll get there by making sure poor people can't vote, got it.

[southsider2k5]

and we'll get there by making sure we steal the elections, got it.

 

Ah, gotta love the hyperbole.

[Y2HH]

and we'll get there by making sure poor people can't vote, got it.

 

...and we'll get there by pretending the republicans are the only ones that cheat/steal and lie.

 

Got it.

 

That was easy, maybe I'll start calling you Billy Koch.

[Balta1701]

Different topic.

 

The FEC has taken another step to significantly weaken the rules regarding campaign finance, Super PAC's, and broadcast television, basically giving permission for people to use broadcast TV to raise funds directly for campaign spending on any network.

 

They did this, of course, by approving the request of one Steven T. Colbert, DFA, to do that.

 

Of course, this really does come directly out of Citizens United and was probably going to happen anyway. It's interesting to see Steven actually making real law here.

 

[bmags]

...and we'll get there by pretending the republicans are the only ones that cheat/steal and lie.

 

Got it.

 

That was easy, maybe I'll start calling you Billy Koch.

 

Here's whats great about you. You claim to be above the fray while doing the very same acts that you act that you are above. I made an equal argument and changed the characters, and then you said "yeah well jesse jackson! Dems do it too!" next post "I hate how everyones all dems do it, republicans do it, unlike ME, i'm so rational and awesome".

 

And not once, could you guys ever even take the time to show why, in a decade that didn't see much of any defining moments of "dead bodies stealing elections" did a bunch of proposals to fix voter fraud specifically find as their cure-all, a solution that would suppress minority voting. I'm waiting.

 

But you won't find it because you guys know all you need to from what sounds bad in your gut. And voter fraud that is convicted by way of criminal investigation and prosecution is bad, and poor people are lazy. Meanwhile, I'm so very rational.

[Y2HH]

Here's whats great about you. You claim to be above the fray while doing the very same acts that you act that you are above. I made an equal argument and changed the characters, and then you said "yeah well jesse jackson! Dems do it too!" next post "I hate how everyones all dems do it, republicans do it, unlike ME, i'm so rational and awesome".

 

And not once, could you guys ever even take the time to show why, in a decade that didn't see much of any defining moments of "dead bodies stealing elections" did a bunch of proposals to fix voter fraud specifically find as their cure-all, a solution that would suppress minority voting. I'm waiting.

 

But you won't find it because you guys know all you need to from what sounds bad in your gut. And voter fraud that is convicted by way of criminal investigation and prosecution is bad, and poor people are lazy. Meanwhile, I'm so very rational.

 

Unfortunately, my no-sided stance is pretty well documented around here, considering there are things I agree with both sides on. My voting record (back when I still voted), also speaks for itself, as a person that's actually voted both ways in multiple presidential elections. I merely pointed out the obvious, which is standard fare when it comes to politics around here, that one group loves to point to one side, and the other points right back at them...which is what you've been doing for a long time now.

 

We get it, anything the democrats say, is not only correct, but you agree with it.

 

My post about Jesse Jackson was merely showing that it's not just one side that plays these games, it's both sides. According to you, rich people suppress poor people from voting to steal elections...but the other side never partakes in any such voting shenanigans!

 

Don't think I'm going to post here and defend the republicans innocence, either...but don't dare try to play the unfair game, which is exactly what you're doing.

[lostfan]

"they all do it" is a really lazy argument (calling it an "argument" is being generous actually). Everything isn't the same, things are what they are and aren't something else.

Edited July 1, 2011 by lostfan

[Y2HH]

"they all do it" is a really lazy argument. Everything isn't the same, things are what they are and aren't something else.

 

While this is a valid thing to say...the fact is, they DO all do it, if and when they can. Lazy or not as an argument, it's reality. And yes, while they "cheat" in their own unique ways, cheating is still cheating.

 

This is like hearing people say, "I only vote to vote for the lesser of two evils"...which is a most asinine thing to say. Voting for lesser evil is still voting for evil. Cheating is still cheating, even if it's done differently.

 

Neither have ANY real motive to fix it, either, other than arguing it in public which is what they're really good at. Since both would have to agree to the fix, which will never happen, it gets to stay broken.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

While this is a valid thing to say...the fact is, they DO all do it, if and when they can. Lazy or not as an argument, it's reality. And yes, while they "cheat" in their own unique ways, cheating is still cheating.

 

This is like hearing people say, "I only vote to vote for the lesser of two evils"...which is a most asinine thing to say. Voting for lesser evil is still voting for evil. Cheating is still cheating, even if it's done differently.

 

Neither have ANY real motive to fix it, either, other than arguing it in public which is what they're really good at. Since both would have to agree to the fix, which will never happen, it gets to stay broken.

First, I couldn't possibly disagree more with the bolded. Deciding to not vote at all because you don't love either choice is actually contributing to the very erosion of candidates you loathe.

 

Second, its simply intellectual laziness to say "they ALL do it", whatever exactly you mean by "it". It is never "All", but that certainly would make things easier, wouldn't it?