The DOJ Truly Serves At The Pleasure of the President

[dbucfan]

It's pretty easy CBW - the thought process is simply to make sure voters should be voters.  And looking at the DOJ for such assurance in light of what we know about Acorn, locations such as Chicago where the dead vote, the nonsense we saw at the polls in Philadelphia, the reports of issues arising in the Southeast US preventing some from voting... problems with absentee ballots, all make me individually wonder about the DOJ and their stats.

And regardless CBW - what are we talking about here - an ID card?  Take it out of petty cash set aside Solyndra planned success.  It isn't like they will need it.

I will also share a personal experience.  A friend and I were in SE Florida for an election.  He was voting in the afternoon.  There was a line - I grabbed a couple of hoagies as there was a line - then watched as folks came out on gurneys - clearly incapable of cogent thought - with the I voted stickers.  My friend came out as I watched these folks loaded back on buses and two in an ambulance - for the ride back to the old folks home (name was on the side of the bus).  He explained the nurses/attendants were "helping" the old folks make their selections.  He also clarified that the attendants were following the direction of a manager.  For the voting.

So - knowing this - and knowing the DOJ missed it, and those monitoring/attending the polling place permitted it, you will have to forgive my skeptic nature.  Hearing one organization was responsible for thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of voter registrations leaves me feeling less than confident regardless of the President at the time.  Getting dead folks, and perhaps those not able to vote, and those not eligible to vote away from polling places is not a real problem to me. 

And lastly - I have been within a short distance to polls my entire life.  (never lived out in God's country if you will)  If one lives in a City - where most of the population you reference likely reside, getting to the polls is not a huge issue.  And if one is not interested enough to obtain id that enables them to vote - why are we discussing them? 

[VinBucFan]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

Hmm, doesn't that mean that anti "suppression" helps the other political party in particular?

Of course the answer lies inthe middle, as with most issues, but the politics are dominated by people at the poles (no pun intended).  That's why the AG is actually converted to a political operative and over what?  Requiring someone to be able to prove identity and citzenship . . . almost like priving status to buy cigarettes, but somehow its  . . .  baaaaaaaaaaaaad. sounds like somehting one of those polictical parties might say

[VinBucFan]

Interesting to hear so many people espousing left wing talking points:


An editorialist for The New York Times asserts: "There is almost no voting fraud in America."

At the Center for American Progress, Eric Alterman writes: "Members of the mainstream media often give too much credence to empty claims of 'voter fraud.'"

At the Brennan Center for Justice, we read: "Allegations of widespread fraud by malevolent voters are easy to make, but often prove to be inflated or inaccurate."

In The Nation, left-wing firebrand Katrina Vanden Heuvel alleges: "Voter fraud -- the impersonation of a voter by another person -- is extremely rare in the United States."

An uncouth gal for Daily Kos writes: "Some [Republicans] acknowledge that voter fraud is essentially non-existent."  (Who are these Republicans?)

At Mother Jones, we read: "While Republicans have argued such rules are necessary to combat 'voter fraud,' examples of the kind of in-person voter fraud that might be curbed by such requirements are miniscule."

At Slate we read: "Large-scale, coordinated vote stealing doesn't happen."

A lady at Think Progress writes: "Like conservative state legislatures across the country, Maine Republicans have been pushing a Voter ID law, ostensibly to prevent non-existent voter fraud."  (Italics added.)

A blogger at Media Matters writes: "Instances of actual voter fraud are very rare."

Here's what LIBERAL Supreme Court Justices Steven wrote about voter fraud in a 2008 Supreme Court decision:

 "Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists."

By the way, before going to the Supreme, I am pretty sure Stevens was a Chicago lawyer. If that's right, my guess is he knows a bit about election fraud.

[CBWx2]

It's pretty easy CBW - the thought process is simply to make sure voters should be voters.  And looking at the DOJ for such assurance in light of what we know about Acorn, locations such as Chicago where the dead vote, the nonsense we saw at the polls in Philadelphia, the reports of issues arising in the Southeast US preventing some from voting... problems with absentee ballots, all make me individually wonder about the DOJ and their stats.

I'm sorry dbuc, but there has to be some kind of factual evidence to support this. This phantom claim can't be enough to justify an overhaul of the voting laws, or at least, it shouldn't be.

And regardless CBW - what are we talking about here - an ID card?  Take it out of petty cash set aside Solyndra planned success.  It isn't like they will need it.

Why is it necessary? That's the question. We have phantom ACORN charges that have no viable substantiation, and DOJ statistics that point to a less than 1% voter fraud rate. Which one of those actually supports the need for people to be required to have a new ID card? Which one points to any substantiated flaws with the previous system, which was far less cumbersome for poor and elderly voters? Not to mention, we are not talking about a simple solution to a simple problem, here. An independent study of the proposed Minnesota voter ID legislation revealed that it would cost the state $109 million dollars overall to implement and enforce this program. Quite an investment to weed out that .0007% of fraudulent voters, I'd say. Especially for those so opposed to bigger government.

I will also share a personal experience.  A friend and I were in SE Florida for an election.  He was voting in the afternoon.  There was a line - I grabbed a couple of hoagies as there was a line - then watched as folks came out on gurneys - clearly incapable of cogent thought - with the I voted stickers.  My friend came out as I watched these folks loaded back on buses and two in an ambulance - for the ride back to the old folks home (name was on the side of the bus).  He explained the nurses/attendants were "helping" the old folks make their selections.  He also clarified that the attendants were following the direction of a manager.  For the voting.

You are making the assumption that these people were incapable of making the decision. Can you be certain of that? Did you actually speak to any of these people?

And lastly - I have been within a short distance to polls my entire life.  (never lived out in God's country if you will)  If one lives in a City - where most of the population you reference likely reside, getting to the polls is not a huge issue.  And if one is not interested enough to obtain id that enables them to vote - why are we discussing them?

We aren't talking about getting to the polls, we are talking about going through an added process of obtaining additional identification to vote. And testing the resolve of voters by increasing the hurdles one must leap to cast a vote seems to be contrary to the initial concept of our democracy, IMHO.

[CBWx2]

Interesting to hear so many people espousing left wing talking points:


An editorialist for The New York Times asserts: "There is almost no voting fraud in America."

At the Center for American Progress, Eric Alterman writes: "Members of the mainstream media often give too much credence to empty claims of 'voter fraud.'"

At the Brennan Center for Justice, we read: "Allegations of widespread fraud by malevolent voters are easy to make, but often prove to be inflated or inaccurate."

In The Nation, left-wing firebrand Katrina Vanden Heuvel alleges: "Voter fraud -- the impersonation of a voter by another person -- is extremely rare in the United States."

An uncouth gal for Daily Kos writes: "Some [Republicans] acknowledge that voter fraud is essentially non-existent."  (Who are these Republicans?)

At Mother Jones, we read: "While Republicans have argued such rules are necessary to combat 'voter fraud,' examples of the kind of in-person voter fraud that might be curbed by such requirements are miniscule."

At Slate we read: "Large-scale, coordinated vote stealing doesn't happen."

A lady at Think Progress writes: "Like conservative state legislatures across the country, Maine Republicans have been pushing a Voter ID law, ostensibly to prevent non-existent voter fraud."  (Italics added.)

A blogger at Media Matters writes: "Instances of actual voter fraud are very rare."

Here's what LIBERAL Supreme Court Justices Steven wrote about voter fraud in a 2008 Supreme Court decision:

 "Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists."

By the way, before going to the Supreme, I am pretty sure Stevens was a Chicago lawyer. If that's right, my guess is he knows a bit about election fraud.

Interesting. You point out that these are liberal talking points, yet I still haven't seen anyone actually post any statistics to actually refute it. The claims of the liberal massive voter fraud conspiracy and cover up seem almost One Truthian, except he at least provides YouTube videos as a reference point.

[Durango 95]

One of the  basic tenets of conservative politics is less government involvement. Since there's no demonstrable evidence of voter fraud then it would stand to reason that establishing further needless bureaucracy is not only unnecessary but against the beliefs of conservative principles.

Unless of course there are other motives involved which of course there surely is. 

[Durango 95]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

Hmm, doesn't that mean that anti "suppression" helps the other political party in particular?

There is no such thing as anti suppression either it exists or it doesn't.

Regardless, suppression has no role in a healthy political environment.

Suppression against one damages the whole.

[Biggs3535]

Why is it necessary? That's the question. We have phantom ACORN charges that have no viable substantiation, and DOJ statistics that point to a less than 1% voter fraud rate.

Why are you ignoring anything past 2007?

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

I assume this is the party that was brandishing weapons in the 2008 elections in an effort to intimidate voters?

[Durango 95]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

I assume this is the party that was brandishing weapons in the 2008 elections in an effort to intimidate voters?

You can assume that if you want, but it bears little meaning unless you can back it up w/ something that actually controverts the lack of evidence of voter fraud.......

[VinBucFan]

Interesting to hear so many people espousing left wing talking points:


An editorialist for The New York Times asserts: "There is almost no voting fraud in America."

At the Center for American Progress, Eric Alterman writes: "Members of the mainstream media often give too much credence to empty claims of 'voter fraud.'"

At the Brennan Center for Justice, we read: "Allegations of widespread fraud by malevolent voters are easy to make, but often prove to be inflated or inaccurate."

In The Nation, left-wing firebrand Katrina Vanden Heuvel alleges: "Voter fraud -- the impersonation of a voter by another person -- is extremely rare in the United States."

An uncouth gal for Daily Kos writes: "Some [Republicans] acknowledge that voter fraud is essentially non-existent."  (Who are these Republicans?)

At Mother Jones, we read: "While Republicans have argued such rules are necessary to combat 'voter fraud,' examples of the kind of in-person voter fraud that might be curbed by such requirements are miniscule."

At Slate we read: "Large-scale, coordinated vote stealing doesn't happen."

A lady at Think Progress writes: "Like conservative state legislatures across the country, Maine Republicans have been pushing a Voter ID law, ostensibly to prevent non-existent voter fraud."  (Italics added.)

A blogger at Media Matters writes: "Instances of actual voter fraud are very rare."

Here's what LIBERAL Supreme Court Justices Steven wrote about voter fraud in a 2008 Supreme Court decision:

 "Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists."

By the way, before going to the Supreme, I am pretty sure Stevens was a Chicago lawyer. If that's right, my guess is he knows a bit about election fraud.

Interesting. You point out that these are liberal talking points, yet I still haven't seen anyone actually post any statistics to actually refute it. The claims of the liberal massive voter fraud conspiracy and cover up seem almost One Truthian, except he at least provides YouTube videos as a reference point.

it takes statistics of prevented crimes to say that a crime exists? okay . . .

I know it is a total waste of time talking to you, as evidence by the fact that you ignored the US Supreme Court ruling I referenced, so I will leave you with this. I doubt you understand constitutional law, so since you like knowledge by Interent you may want to look up "rational basis" and similar terms and then ask yourself why the Supreme Court upheld a voter ID law (it was in the quote you ignored).  By the way,  why have a dozen or more states enacted voted registration laws in the last decade oe so? Oh, I know "vast right wing conspiracy" The whole ACORN thing . .  oh wait, let me do CBW for you "registration (ACORN) is not "voting" . . .  lol

You go on regurgitating the Daily Kos.  let them continue to do your thinking for you. Might work better that way. Besides, its a really, really tough decision to require someone to prove the right to vote . .


do you have any original thoughts?

[VinBucFan]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

Hmm, doesn't that mean that anti "suppression" helps the other political party in particular?

There is no such thing as anti suppression either it exists or it doesn't.

Regardless, suppression has no role in a healthy political environment.

Suppression against one damages the whole.

That was a weak CBW response.

 If you claim that one political party is engaging in "suppresion" by supporting voter ID laws, that means by defintiion that the other party is promoting "anti-suppression" (i.e., voting by non-registered or improper voters) by opposing voter ID laws, right?

Here's your chance to show of your intellectual honesty . .

[VinBucFan]

Interesting that politics trumps logic

[CBWx2]

Why is it necessary? That's the question. We have phantom ACORN charges that have no viable substantiation, and DOJ statistics that point to a less than 1% voter fraud rate.

Why are you ignoring anything past 2007?

I'd be glad to look over any proof you have of massive voter fraud in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Also, more on the evil ACORN...

OCTOBER 15, 2008

VOTER-FRAUD FRAUD
Posted by Hendrik Hertzberg

The idea that Democrats try to win elections by arranging for hordes of nonexistent people with improbable names to vote for them has long been a favorite theme of Rove-era Republicans. Now it’s become a desperate obsession.

Consider today’s fund-raising e-mail from Robert M. (Mike) Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee. Some snippets:

Every election, it’s the same old song and dance from the Democrats and their liberal allies when it comes to donor and vote fraud.
They will soon be trying to pad their totals at ballot boxes across the country with votes from voters that do not exist. From Ohio and Florida to Wisconsin and Nevada, there are reports of fraudulent voter registration forms being submitted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a liberal group that is dedicating its resources to electing the Obama-Biden Democrats.

The e-mail climaxes with this pledge, which one hopes is delivered with a Sarah Palin wink: “We will not stand for the stealing of the election—the tainting of our democracy—by those who wish to subvert the rule of law.”

ACORN has become the 24/7 story on Fox News, too, on account of reports that it has submitted several thousand phony registration forms to local boards of elections. These reports appear to be true. Nevertheless, the “scandal,” as Fox calls it, is itself on its face as phony as Mickey Mouse’s social security number.

During this election cycle, the Times reported today, ACORN has deployed thirteen thousand mostly paid workers, who have registered 1.3 million new voters. One or two per cent of these workers turned in sheaves of forms that they filled out themselves with fake names and bogus addresses, and, even though at least a hundred of these workers have already been fired, the forged forms have been submitted to election boards.

Sounds su**CENSORED**ious—unless you know that groups like ACORN are required by law to submit them, even if they’re obvious fakes. This is to prevent funny business, such as trashing forms that look like they might be Republican (or Democratic, as the case may be).

Sounds su**CENSORED**ious—unless you know that ACORN normally sorts through forms, flags those that look fishy, and submits the fishy ones in a separate pile for the convenience of election officials.

Sounds su**CENSORED**ious—until you reflect that the motivation of the misbehaving registration workers is almost always to look like they’ve been doing more work than they really have, and that the victim of the “fraud” is actually the organization they’re working for.

Sounds su**CENSORED**ious—unless you know that even if one of these fake forms results in a nonexistent person actually being registered, now under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, “any voter who has not previously voted in a federal election” must provide identification in order to actually cast a ballot. This will make it tough for Mickey Mouse, even if registered, to vote, no matter how big, round, or black his ears. Likewise, members of the Duck family (Donald, Daisy, Huey, Dewey, and Louie) who turn up at the polling place will have a hard time getting into the voting booth. (Uncle Scrooge might be able to bribe his way in, but he’s voting Republican anyway.)

Sounds su**CENSORED**ious—unless you know that despite all the hysteria, from 2002 to 2005, only twenty people in the entire United States of America were found guilty of voting while ineligible and only five of voting more than once. By contrast, consider the lede on this story, published a week ago today:

Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.

And take it from Sarah Palin: the Times is “hardly ever wrong.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/10/voter-fraud-fra.html#ixzz1wseZwgdv

[dbucfan]

It's pretty easy CBW - the thought process is simply to make sure voters should be voters.  And looking at the DOJ for such assurance in light of what we know about Acorn, locations such as Chicago where the dead vote, the nonsense we saw at the polls in Philadelphia, the reports of issues arising in the Southeast US preventing some from voting... problems with absentee ballots, all make me individually wonder about the DOJ and their stats.

1.  I'm sorry dbuc, but there has to be some kind of factual evidence to support this. This phantom claim can't be enough to justify an overhaul of the voting laws, or at least, it shouldn't be.

And regardless CBW - what are we talking about here - an ID card?  Take it out of petty cash set aside Solyndra planned success.  It isn't like they will need it.

2.  Why is it necessary? That's the question. We have phantom ACORN charges that have no viable substantiation, and DOJ statistics that point to a less than 1% voter fraud rate. Which one of those actually supports the need for people to be required to have a new ID card? Which one points to any substantiated flaws with the previous system, which was far less cumbersome for poor and elderly voters? Not to mention, we are not talking about a simple solution to a simple problem, here. An independent study of the proposed Minnesota voter ID legislation revealed that it would cost the state $109 million dollars overall to implement and enforce this program. Quite an investment to weed out that .0007% of fraudulent voters, I'd say. Especially for those so opposed to bigger government.

I will also share a personal experience.  A friend and I were in SE Florida for an election.  He was voting in the afternoon.  There was a line - I grabbed a couple of hoagies as there was a line - then watched as folks came out on gurneys - clearly incapable of cogent thought - with the I voted stickers.  My friend came out as I watched these folks loaded back on buses and two in an ambulance - for the ride back to the old folks home (name was on the side of the bus).  He explained the nurses/attendants were "helping" the old folks make their selections.  He also clarified that the attendants were following the direction of a manager.  For the voting.

3.  You are making the assumption that these people were incapable of making the decision. Can you be certain of that? Did you actually speak to any of these people?

And lastly - I have been within a short distance to polls my entire life.  (never lived out in God's country if you will)  If one lives in a City - where most of the population you reference likely reside, getting to the polls is not a huge issue.  And if one is not interested enough to obtain id that enables them to vote - why are we discussing them?

4.  We aren't talking about getting to the polls, we are talking about going through an added process of obtaining additional identification to vote. And testing the resolve of voters by increasing the hurdles one must leap to cast a vote seems to be contrary to the initial concept of our democracy, IMHO.

Oh for crying out loud -
1.  There is no downside - I'm sorry CBW - there has been enough crap between Acorn others "organizations" attempting to create such advantages that it hurts NO ONE to know there is some sort of checking. 
2.  See #1, recall the dates of the .0007 report, note the actions of the DOJ during the last presidential election in ignoring obvious issues at the polls.
3.  Nope, didn't interview the one with the oxygen mask, the multiple folks who had to be guided and talked out of taking their clothes off, or the guy who wandered into the bushes.
4.  My error - you got me.  Okay it would be a huge hardship to visit a location and show one is an eligible voter in your opinion.  Given the 30 million or so illegals in this country that no one can track down, the amount of identity theft - I don't agree.  It is not an imposition anymore than registering for the draft, going to get a driver's license and a crapload less than serving on a jury.  This one doesn't cut it.  If you can't be bothered - don't vote.

[Durango 95]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

Hmm, doesn't that mean that anti "suppression" helps the other political party in particular?

There is no such thing as anti suppression either it exists or it doesn't.

Regardless, suppression has no role in a healthy political environment.

Suppression against one damages the whole.

That was a weak CBW response.

 If you claim that one political party is engaging in "suppresion" by supporting voter ID laws, that means by defintiion that the other party is promoting "anti-suppression" (i.e., voting by non-registered or improper voters) by opposing voter ID laws, right?

Here's your chance to show of your intellectual honesty . .

1)Show me evidence of non registered voters or improper voters and how that has helped one party over the other.

2) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will result in eliminating that.

3) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will do no harm to voters.

You want the change, now let's see your justification.