The DOJ Truly Serves At The Pleasure of the President

[dbucfan]

It's not based on racism - that is my point. You can't buy a decent antihistamine without an I.D. But needing one to vote is over the top? That's just ridiculous.

As the bedlam seems to have passed - I agree with you.  That's just ridiculous. Totally ridiculous.

So you both are in favor of having to provide ID to buy cough medicine? Isn't that one of those silly War on Drugs laws that are typically disparaged on this thread? Interesting...

Not even close - but of course you know that. 

[JavaRay]

I don't think a prescription should be required for any drug that is not a narcotic.

[dbucfan]

I think there needs to be a thread ID card - perhaps with a picture of the original post - so those who jump in late know what the topic is.   

[olafberserker]

It's not based on racism - that is my point. You can't buy a decent antihistamine without an I.D. But needing one to vote is over the top? That's just ridiculous.

As the bedlam seems to have passed - I agree with you.  That's just ridiculous. Totally ridiculous.

So you both are in favor of having to provide ID to buy cough medicine? Isn't that one of those silly War on Drugs laws that are typically disparaged on this thread? Interesting...

Not even close - but of course you know that.

What?  I am shocked that this conclusion was not spot on ...... 

[CBWx2]

It's not based on racism - that is my point. You can't buy a decent antihistamine without an I.D. But needing one to vote is over the top? That's just ridiculous.

As the bedlam seems to have passed - I agree with you.  That's just ridiculous. Totally ridiculous.

So you both are in favor of having to provide ID to buy cough medicine? Isn't that one of those silly War on Drugs laws that are typically disparaged on this thread? Interesting...

Not even close - but of course you know that.

The bottom line is that none of you have shown a clear need for the added measures. At best, just dubious charges being tossed out by right-wing sources, and the ACORN thing, which a voter ID law wouldn't prevent anyway (given that you don't need to have an ID to register to vote even under the new laws). If the best justification you can give is because we need ID to buy some medicines, then I think I will just end it there, because the point has been made.

[Biggs3535]

At best, just dubious charges being tossed out by right-wing sources, and the ACORN thing, which a voter ID law wouldn't prevent anyway (given that you don't need to have an ID to register to vote even under the new laws). If the best justification you can give is because we need ID to buy some medicines, then I think I will just end it there, because the point has been made.

The intellectual dishonesty you've displayed in this thread hasn't conveyed much of a point at all.  In fact, I'd say it's done quite the opposite.

[CBWx2]

At best, just dubious charges being tossed out by right-wing sources, and the ACORN thing, which a voter ID law wouldn't prevent anyway (given that you don't need to have an ID to register to vote even under the new laws). If the best justification you can give is because we need ID to buy some medicines, then I think I will just end it there, because the point has been made.

The intellectual dishonesty you've displayed in this thread hasn't conveyed much of a point at all.  In fact, I'd say it's done quite the opposite.

Not a single fact provided by the right wingers in this entire thread to support the need, yet I'm the intellectually dishonest one?

"C'mon dude. It happens all the time. ::nudge, nudge:: You know it does. C'mon man. I saw Bill O'Reilly talking about it last night. It's an epidemic! Some dude almost voted for Eric Holder!"

 

[dbucfan]

The bottom line is that none of you have shown a clear need for the added measures. At best, just dubious charges being tossed out by right-wing sources, and the ACORN thing, which a voter ID law wouldn't prevent anyway (given that you don't need to have an ID to register to vote even under the new laws). If the best justification you can give is because we need ID to buy some medicines, then I think I will just end it there, because the point has been made.

Your bottom line doesn't acknowledge issues just about everyone else sees CBW.  Make no mistake CBW, it is your bottom line.  Voter eligibility issue have become infamous in various locations, with Chicago being infamous.  Such issues preceded ACORN - which has taken the Chicago practices national  (i.e. scale).  As for you hang up on ID for medicines - if you can't fathom the irony, simply discount the comment.  The rest stands alone very easily. 

[dbucfan]

At best, just dubious charges being tossed out by right-wing sources, and the ACORN thing, which a voter ID law wouldn't prevent anyway (given that you don't need to have an ID to register to vote even under the new laws). If the best justification you can give is because we need ID to buy some medicines, then I think I will just end it there, because the point has been made.

The intellectual dishonesty you've displayed in this thread hasn't conveyed much of a point at all.  In fact, I'd say it's done quite the opposite.

Not a single fact provided by the right wingers in this entire thread to support the need, yet I'm the intellectually dishonest one?

"C'mon dude. It happens all the time. ::nudge, nudge:: You know it does. C'mon man. I saw Bill O'Reilly talking about it last night. It's an epidemic! Some dude almost voted for Eric Holder!"

 

I wouldn't say intellectually dishonest, but rather stubborn for a reason well beyond the boundaries of this topic.  I don't know if it has been a response to others who have posted within the thread, or some other issue, but turning a blind eye to obvious issues that can be readily and reasonably resolved is an odd position.

[CBWx2]

At best, just dubious charges being tossed out by right-wing sources, and the ACORN thing, which a voter ID law wouldn't prevent anyway (given that you don't need to have an ID to register to vote even under the new laws). If the best justification you can give is because we need ID to buy some medicines, then I think I will just end it there, because the point has been made.

The intellectual dishonesty you've displayed in this thread hasn't conveyed much of a point at all.  In fact, I'd say it's done quite the opposite.

Not a single fact provided by the right wingers in this entire thread to support the need, yet I'm the intellectually dishonest one?

"C'mon dude. It happens all the time. ::nudge, nudge:: You know it does. C'mon man. I saw Bill O'Reilly talking about it last night. It's an epidemic! Some dude almost voted for Eric Holder!"

 

I wouldn't say intellectually dishonest, but rather stubborn for a reason well beyond the boundaries of this topic.  I don't know if it has been a response to others who have posted within the thread, or some other issue, but turning a blind eye to obvious issues that can be readily and reasonably resolved is an odd position.

I think this statement is actually a perfect example of the divide, and why we have gotten nowhere to address it. What you refer to as "obvious issues" are far less obvious to those who wish to see more than just partisan claims of voter fraud, but rather, actual evidence of voter fraud. As I said before, in order to qualify these new laws as a solution, you must first demonstrate that there is a problem. So far, no one has. The stubbornness isn't just one sided here. I think we've sorta hit all the aspects of this debate that we are going to. We will likely just have to agree to disagree.

[dbucfan]

I wouldn't say intellectually dishonest, but rather stubborn for a reason well beyond the boundaries of this topic.  I don't know if it has been a response to others who have posted within the thread, or some other issue, but turning a blind eye to obvious issues that can be readily and reasonably resolved is an odd position.

I think this statement is actually a perfect example of the divide, and why we have gotten nowhere to address it. What you refer to as "obvious issues" are far less obvious to those who wish to see more than just partisan claims of voter fraud, but rather, actual evidence of voter fraud. As I said before, in order to qualify these new laws as a solution, you must first demonstrate that there is a problem. So far, no one has. The stubbornness isn't just one sided here. I think we've sorta hit all the aspects of this debate that we are going to. We will likely just have to agree to disagree.
[/quote]
Obvious issues - as in the links I have provided showing the issues and their spread.  If obvious is the offending word simply delete. Having discussed the very same issue with friends from both parties and independents, and folks of varying backgrounds outside this venue the word issue is lonely without the modifying obvious, but it really isn't all that important.  It has been very rare that someone doesn't have some sort of concern about the current methods in place.  I think being immovable is becoming an issue on this board as listening seems to be considered some sort of weakness. 

I have read and offered the low hanging fruit of voter registration/voting issues if you will - the links showing various types of fraud and concerns.  The odd stuff like dead folks voting, the records issues like felons being able to vote, the improper registrations to the flat out fraudulent.  None seem to matter nor is there interest in even looking it up yourself to see if one can resolve it for oneself.  That isn't an exchange of thoughts CBW.  And we have and can exchanged thoughts at least on occasions - agreeing to disagree is up to you my friend. 

[Durango 95]

What is the projected efficacy of Voter ID and how exactly will it mitigate the miniscule amount of voter fraud that exists?

What is the cost of this program?

[dbucfan]

I am certain it would cost trillions.  Just like motor voter. 

As for miniscule - since it is considered a rather large venture simply to handle the state of Florida the number might be more than the .00007 (sorry if I have the wrong number of zeros) that has been offered. 

I do have a bit of an insight to my hometown's issues as a relative is an elections offical - and as a group they laugh at the inaccuracy of the records - like a standing joke.  Just one part of one County in PA.  I also have a friend whose father is a election official where I live - near Tampa.  Amazingly the officials have the same issues - and treat them with the same honor - like the list of registered voters is ridiculously outdated and inaccurate.

Now - do I think this actually affects an election - that really is the issue isn't it.  I don't know Durango.  I would like to think not, but have you noted how votes have been discovered days after election days - and how those numbers have had an affect though I am not sure changed an outcome.  I think it would be better than we know.  Just my thought.  We currently spend tax dollars on a lot of things I would happily replace with getting an accurate system of recognizing valid voters take part in elections.  And I don't buy the .00007 figure for a NY second.   

[Durango 95]

But you see when I ask these questions what I get over and over again are anecdotal stories of imperfections in elections and a disbelief in the reported numbers of fraud. Not exactly compelling. Also the cost concern gets summarily dismissed as well. Seems to me there is an unwillingness or the inability to address these issues but these are  very basic concerns and I am not willing to assume this plan is any better than what exists.

How can anyone support an idea when it's not known if it's better than what we have and not tallying the cost?

[Biggs3535]

I wouldn't say intellectually dishonest, but rather stubborn for a reason well beyond the boundaries of this topic.

I say intellectual dishonesty mainly based on CBW's response to O'Keefe's video.  Saying that's not an example of voter fraud because O'Keefe didn't actually tape himself committing a crime and post on the internet is absurd.  His video illustrated just how easy it is to vote fraudulently.

What is the projected efficacy of Voter ID and how exactly will it mitigate the miniscule amount of voter fraud that exists?

What is the cost of this program?

These are legitimate concerns and should be answered.  But admitting there is a problem with the current set-up is the first step to getting the best process for voting.