The DOJ Truly Serves At The Pleasure of the President

[CBWx2]

The fact is that the vetting of voter registration forms and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 actually make it virtually  impossible to actually cast a  fraudulent vote in this country. Registration fraud is inconsequential unless fraudulent names actually wind up on voting rolls, and that is inconsequential because first time voters are already required to provide picture ID under the HAV act of 2002. The reason no proof of voter fraud can be provided is quite simple. There isn't any.

Is that right?




It appears to be pretty easy to vote fraudulently if one wanted to.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090013

[CBWx2]

Its always a solid practice to look for "truth" in advocacy pieces . . ."how voter id laws ARE being used to disenfranchise minorities and the poor" 

New version of the bubble boy

Ad Hominem. Anyone else surprised?

[Biggs3535]

The fact is that the vetting of voter registration forms and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 actually make it virtually  impossible to actually cast a  fraudulent vote in this country. Registration fraud is inconsequential unless fraudulent names actually wind up on voting rolls, and that is inconsequential because first time voters are already required to provide picture ID under the HAV act of 2002. The reason no proof of voter fraud can be provided is quite simple. There isn't any.

Is that right?




It appears to be pretty easy to vote fraudulently if one wanted to.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090013

Is that an actual retort?  "Still Not Voter Fraud"?

however, this video fails to show actual voter fraud being committed

No joke.  The logic of this article is that since the guy videotaping how easy it is to commit voter fraud didn't actually commit voter fraud, there is no problem?  There is a reason Media Matters sucks, brother.  This is it.  I'm sure yourself and Media Matters would admit there is a problem if O'Keefe would have actually committed the fraud, videotaped it, posted it on the internet, and went to jail. 

You're pretty far past the intellectual-dishonesty line at this point.

[Chief Joseph]

Ad hominem? You must be mighty sensitive.

[CBWx2]

Bout time we got to the point. Now perhaps you can explain how the non-hispanics in those counties seem to be managing just fine under the same conditions?

"Managing just fine" isn't really an accurate assessment. Hispanics are simply the most affected in this particular state, not the only ones affected. The rate of individuals in full compliance with the new requirements increases along with the socioeconomic affluence of each individual. There are various reasons for this, many of which are obvious. More disposable income, more access to reliable transportation, more flexibility in their careers to be able to get the time to comply, etc.

Those may seem to be inconsequential factors to you, but the statistics suggest that they are factors. Even if you feel as though the additional hurdles are easy to overcome, you have failed to address a need to implement sed hurdles to begin with. In order for there to be a need for a remedy, there must first be an established problem. Without substantiated proof of rampant voter fraud, these additional hurdles simply seem to be derived for the purposes of suppression.

[CBWx2]

Ad hominem? You must be mighty sensitive.

Not sensitive at all. Simply stating that the article is false because it was written by people who disagree with the law is an ad hominem argument. If you disagree with the source, that's fine. But disagreeing with the source isn't really evidence that the arguments being presented by the source are incorrect, is it? Actually refuting sed arguments would be a good start, wouldn't you agree?

[Chief Joseph]

Poor people have always been, and will always be, worse off than those of higher socioeconomic classes. I agree, this is a very self-evident fact of life. But it is not racial discrimination.

Demographics will tell you that the poor are more likely to vote Democratic. They will also tell you that poor and uneducated are less likely to vote in general. The  program to pay them to go get I.D. cards borders on bribery. This is strictly a political party division, the attempt to portray it as discriminatory is dishonest.

Neither side gives a crap what color they are.

[CBWx2]

The fact is that the vetting of voter registration forms and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 actually make it virtually  impossible to actually cast a  fraudulent vote in this country. Registration fraud is inconsequential unless fraudulent names actually wind up on voting rolls, and that is inconsequential because first time voters are already required to provide picture ID under the HAV act of 2002. The reason no proof of voter fraud can be provided is quite simple. There isn't any.

Is that right?




It appears to be pretty easy to vote fraudulently if one wanted to.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090013

Is that an actual retort?  "Still Not Voter Fraud"?

however, this video fails to show actual voter fraud being committed

No joke.  The logic of this article is that since the guy videotaping how easy it is to commit voter fraud didn't actually commit voter fraud, there is no problem?  There is a reason Media Matters sucks, brother.  This is it.  I'm sure yourself and Media Matters would admit there is a problem if O'Keefe would have actually committed the fraud, videotaped it, posted it on the internet, and went to jail. 

You're pretty far past the intellectual-dishonesty line at this point.

Actually, I'm not. If someone wants to go in and vote for a name of a person on the active voter rolls other than themselves, and that person is not a first time voter, I suppose it's possible to pull it off. The question is, why in the hell would anyone want to do that? The next question is, is this something that happens all the time, or only by people out to "prove how easy it is" to vote fraudulently?

Eric Holder, a registered voter who no doubt has voted previously in that district would not be required to provide ID. But voting fraudulently for someone like that would not turn an election, because when the real Eric Holder did show up to vote, he would be given a special ballot, and once counted, the fraudulent vote would be stricken from the count.

Also not proven is any widespread, consorted effort to influence elections by fraudulently voting in this fashion. It would be, quite frankly, impossible. As the article goes on to say...

Experts have also pointed out that trying to steal an election with O'Keefe's strategy would be almost impossible. After O'Keefe's last "voter fraud" stunt in New Hampshire, in which several of his associates tried to get elections officials to offer them ballots under the names of dead people, experts noted it would be very difficult to change the outcome of an election with a handful of fraudulent votes. Talking Points Memo quoted election law expert Rick Hasen as saying: "Who in their right mind would risk a felony conviction for this? And who would be able to do this in large enough numbers to (1) affect the outcome of the election and (2) remain undetected?"

The fact of the matter is, voting under someone else's name on active voter rolls is essentially a non-issue. People simply do not do it in any substantive way in which the integrity of an election would be compromised, and fraudulent registration forms being added to the active voter rolls is also a non-issue, as it pretty much never happens, and if by chance it did, ID would already be required to vote under that fraudulent name. This is a manufactured crisis, Biggs, and no one has shown any evidence to the contrary because there simply isn't any.

[CBWx2]

Poor people have always been, and will always be, worse off than those of higher socioeconomic classes. I agree, this is a very self-evident fact of life. But it is not racial discrimination.

Demographics will tell you that the poor are more likely to vote Democratic. They will also tell you that poor and uneducated are less likely to vote in general. The  program to pay them to go get I.D. cards borders on bribery. This is strictly a political party division, the attempt to portray it as discriminatory is dishonest.

Neither side gives a crap what color they are.

It is racial discrimination in that it has a far more adverse affect on minority voters than it does non-minority voters. Whether or not it's intent was to be racially discriminatory is certainly debatable, but the fact that it's affects are discriminatory is not.

[Chief Joseph]

So the poor are being discriminated against because they have less interest in voting? It just doesn't fly.

[VinBucFan]

Poor people have always been, and will always be, worse off than those of higher socioeconomic classes. I agree, this is a very self-evident fact of life. But it is not racial discrimination.

Demographics will tell you that the poor are more likely to vote Democratic. They will also tell you that poor and uneducated are less likely to vote in general. The  program to pay them to go get I.D. cards borders on bribery. This is strictly a political party division, the attempt to portray it as discriminatory is dishonest.

Neither side gives a crap what color they are.

It is racial discrimination in that it has a far more adverse affect on minority voters than it does non-minority voters. Whether or not it's intent was to be racially discriminatory is certainly debatable, but the fact that it's affects are discriminatory is not.

Hmmm . . .


"In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny."

[CBWx2]

Poor people have always been, and will always be, worse off than those of higher socioeconomic classes. I agree, this is a very self-evident fact of life. But it is not racial discrimination.

Demographics will tell you that the poor are more likely to vote Democratic. They will also tell you that poor and uneducated are less likely to vote in general. The  program to pay them to go get I.D. cards borders on bribery. This is strictly a political party division, the attempt to portray it as discriminatory is dishonest.

Neither side gives a crap what color they are.

It is racial discrimination in that it has a far more adverse affect on minority voters than it does non-minority voters. Whether or not it's intent was to be racially discriminatory is certainly debatable, but the fact that it's affects are discriminatory is not.

Hmmm . . .


"In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny."

Hmmm...

"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

The supreme court said this in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision, and we know if the court makes a decision, it is a 100% accurate assessment of the situation, right Vin?

[Chief Joseph]

So your argument is now "if there was racism before, this must be racism too?" Is that the connection you're trying to make?

I'm not sure that's any better than your "if poor uneducated people aren't interested in voting, then they're being discriminated against" theory.

[VinBucFan]

Poor people have always been, and will always be, worse off than those of higher socioeconomic classes. I agree, this is a very self-evident fact of life. But it is not racial discrimination.

Demographics will tell you that the poor are more likely to vote Democratic. They will also tell you that poor and uneducated are less likely to vote in general. The  program to pay them to go get I.D. cards borders on bribery. This is strictly a political party division, the attempt to portray it as discriminatory is dishonest.

Neither side gives a crap what color they are.

It is racial discrimination in that it has a far more adverse affect on minority voters than it does non-minority voters. Whether or not it's intent was to be racially discriminatory is certainly debatable, but the fact that it's affects are discriminatory is not.

Hmmm . . .


"In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny."

Hmmm...

"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

The supreme court said this in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision, and we know if the court makes a decision, it is a 100% accurate assessment of the situation, right Vin?

I am actually embarassed for you.  What a ridiculous analogy. In fact, so ridiculous that it only confirms my point -- AS OBVIOUS AS IT WAS -- that the Judges on the US Supreme Court no a little more about the law than CBW.

[CBWx2]

So your argument is now "if there was racism before, this must be racism too?" Is that the connection you're trying to make?

I'm not sure that's any better than your "if poor uneducated people aren't interested in voting, then they're being discriminated against" theory.

Actually you are incorrect on both accounts. You seem to have a talent for misrepresenting people's positions. I can only assume it is purposeful. Piggybacking on a Vince argument is rarely a good suggestion if you care to stay on point in a thread.

Also, it hasn't escaped my attention that you have repeatedly dodged the challenge of providing any proof that these new measures are necessary. I've answered your question. Care to answer mine?