| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stevenbard wrote: | | let's tax the millionaires a total of 4.7 billion a year against a deficit of $15 TRILLION???? |
He has stated repeatedly, from his campaign debates right up through this week, that his objective is not to reduce the deficit or debt but to take money from the rich and give it to [pick your favorite euphemism for the poorer voters, the 50% who pay no income taxes], in the interest of "fairness". He has repeatedly admitted under questioning (the ABC debate was the earliest blunt confession I recall) that this is more important to him than fixing the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4166
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mac,
I have never stated that there isn't racism in this country, nor is there unfair treatment of minorities. It does occur.
However, I must ask why, when there is black on black or black on white crime, maybe the local media covers the story. However, when there is white on black crime (or Hispanic on black) crime, it's national news, even before anyone knows the facts of the story. If indeed Martin was profiled and murdered, then there is reason for outrage, but not before we know the full story.
I am guessing, but I fear that there will be rioting in the streets before this story is over, and the blame will be on the backs of the liberals that have inflamed this situation beyond any reasonable level.
On a side note regarding the photo ID for voting, I could go either way, but the one critical element that would justify the liberals side of the issue is - How many registered voters do not have a valid picture ID? And for those in this situation, how many of those without a photo ID would have difficulty getting one. If there really is a problem, how big is it?
You may also want to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P5p70YbRiPw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder is any of these people who object to voter ID cards have even a clue how simple the proposed systems are.
• The card is free.
• If a voter can't go get one, it will be delivered to him
• If a voter doesn't have a card or forgets his, he can vote without it, then validate his vote with a card days to weeks later.
• It would take another dozen bullets to list all the ways each state has made the process simple, foolproof, free, nondiscriminatory, etc. The states pushing for this have listened to and solved every possible objection, leaving only one valid reason for objecting: it deters vote fraud.
After all, Sharpton, Jackson, mac, etc. will scream "racist" mo matter what the topic or facts, so there's no reason to pay any attention to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just wondering, how does someone submitting an absentee ballot by mail show their picture ID?
On a similar matter, it's telling that certain states are creating all sorts of requirements to be a citizen, to drive, or even travel as a passenger in a car. How many regular Americans carry a legitimate birth certificate, or valid proof of citizenship on their person at all times? While I doubt that I would be asked, we all know that many others just don't look American enough.
It's quite clear to me that some would prefer moving toward an aggressive police state with increasing focus on those that might be unwanted, or questionable. In "hold your ground" states, as we've seen more recently, regular citizens can carry guns and become a "policing" authority in their own neighborhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4166
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chandler said:
| Quote: | | Just wondering, how does someone submitting an absentee ballot by mail show their picture ID? |
How we do it in Texas - The voter photo ID law that was passed in Texas and then struck down by the courts applied only to voters showing up at the polls.
The absentee law is below:
| Quote: | Do I need to provide ID when I vote by absentee ballot in Texas?
You do not need to provide ID if you have already voted at least once in Texas. If you are a first time voter and you did not put your drivers license number or Social Security number on your voter registration form then you must include a copy of your ID with your absentee ballot application.
Acceptable forms of ID include: a state issued driver's license or state ID card that shows your name (a card issued by another state is fine, even if it's expired); any other photo ID that shows your name; a US passport, US birth certificate, or US citizenship papers; OR a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and Texas address. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17752
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
techno--you need some credible sources. Here's sourcewatch on James O'Keefe--who is a liar: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_O'Keefe
Now here is a commentary from someone who is not an operative for the Republican party or the conservative agenda:
| Quote: | Policy Brief on the Truth About “Voter Fraud”
Analysis
[PDF]
Summary
* Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.
* Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud.
* Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct.
* Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.
* Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.
Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.
Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.
Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud. Although there are a few scattered instances of real voter fraud, many of the vivid anecdotes cited in accounts of voter fraud have been proven false or vastly overstated. In Missouri in 2000, for example, the Secretary of State claimed that 79 voters were registered with addresses at vacant lots, but subsequent investigation revealed that the lots in question actually housed valid and legitimate residences. Similarly, a 1995 investigation into votes allegedly cast in Baltimore by deceased voters and those with disenfranchising felony convictions revealed that the voters in question were both alive and felony-free.
Many of the inaccurate claims result from lists of voters compared to other lists - of deceased individuals, persons with felony convictions, voters in other states, etc. These attempts to match information often yield predictable errors. In Florida in 2000, a list of purged voters later became notorious when it was discovered that the “matching” process captured eligible voters with names similar to - but decidedly different from - the names of persons with felony convictions, sometimes in other states entirely. A 2005 attempt to identify supposed double voters in New Jersey mistakenly accused people with similar names but whose middle names or suffixes were clearly different, such as “J.T. Kearns, Jr.” and “J.T. Kearns, Sr.,” of being the same person. Even when names and birthdates match across lists, that does not mean there was voter fraud. Elementary statistics students are often surprised to learn that it is more likely than not that among just 23 individuals, two will share a birthday. Similar statistics show that for most reasonably common names, it is extremely likely that at least two people with the same name in a state will share the same date of birth. The ostensible “matches” may not represent the same person at all.
Other allegations of fraudulent voting often turn out to be the result of common clerical errors, incomplete information, or faulty assumptions. Most allegations of voter fraud simply evaporate when more rigorous analysis is conducted.
Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct. It is extremely rare for individuals to vote multiple times, vote as someone else, or vote despite knowing that they are ineligible. These rare occurrences, however, are often conflated with other forms of election irregularities or misconduct, under the misleading and overbroad label of “voter fraud.u201D Some of these other irregularities result from honest mistakes by election officials or voters, such20as confusion as to whether a particular person is actually eligible to vote. Some irregularities result from technological glitches, whether sinister or benign: for example, voting machines may record inaccurate tallies. And some involve fraud or intentional misconduct perpetrated by actors other than individual voters: for example, flyers may spread misinformation about the proper locations or procedures for voting; thugs may be dispatched to intimidate voters at the polls; missing ballot boxes may mysteriously reappear. These more common forms of misconduct are simply not addressed by the supposed “anti-fraud” measures generally proposed.
Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda. Voter fraud is most often invoked as a substantial problem in order to justify particular election policies. Chief among these is the proposal that individuals be required to show photo ID in order to vote - a policy that disenfranchises up to 10% of eligible citizens. But the only misconduct that photo ID addresses is the kind of voter fraud that happens as infrequently as death by lightning. Therefore, it suits those who prefer photo ID as a policy to lump as much misconduct in with “voter fraud” as possible, to create the impression that the problem is far more significant than it actually is. Moreover, to the extent photo ID is suggested as a solution to the perception that voter fraud occurs, it behooves those who prefer photo ID to reinforce the unsubstantiated perception that voter fraud exists.
Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action. Researchers, reporters, public figures, and policymakers confronted with claims of potential fraud should carefully examine these claims before calling for action. Do the claims depend on matching information from one list to another? Is the matching process accurate? Does a match indicate an illegal vote, or is there a more plausible explanation? Is corroborating evidence available? If there actually appears to be a problem, can it be addressed by existing practices, or is a new solution necessary? If so, will the solution proposed - usually either a mass purge or photo identification - really solve the problem? Is the solution sufficiently burdensome that it becomes a greater problem than the problem itself? These basic questions are crucially important to evaluating claims of voter fraud, but are all too often unasked and unanswered.
THE WORK OF THE BRENNAN CENTER
* National. Following the report of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform (the “Carter-Baker Commission"), the Brennan Center and Commissioner Spencer Overton prepared a detailed analysis of claims of voter fraud, in the context of a proposed photo identification requirement.
* Georgia. In October 2005, a Georgia federal court enjoined implementation of a law requiring photo ID. On appeal, the Brennan Center filed an amicus brief, arguing that the threat of impersonation fraud, which the law purported to combat, is extremely rare and could not justify the ID requirement.
* Indiana. In 2006, the Brennan Center filed an amicus brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, presenting evidence that impersonation fraud is an extremely unlikely and unsubstantiated occurrence. The brief also catalogued practices in other states that effectively curbed election fraud without resorting to restrictive identification requirements.
* New Jersey. In 2005, a list of purported and potential fraudulent votes was delivered to the state Attorney General, with a demand that the voter rolls be purged. Together with a prominent political scientist, the Brennan Center demonstrated the flaws in the matching process used to generate the list, and proved that the vast majority of allegations in fact yielded no reason for concern.
Last Updated September 2006 |
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
It's that Karl Rove thing again, scare the gullible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4166
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From USA Today
| Quote: | Opposing view: In Texas, evidence of voter fraud abounds
By Greg AbbottUpdated 3/19/2012 8:28 PM
"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls. Its logic was straightforward and convincing: Americans must show photo identification for all kinds of day-to-day activities, such as cashing checks or entering government buildings. The many photo ID requirements we encounter in our daily lives are legitimate, effective security measures. Securing the ballot box is just as important.
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees. In 2008, the court recognized the threat posed by voter fraud and ruled that Indiana's photo ID requirement was a legitimate, non-discriminatory means of protecting the integrity of elections. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law despite no concrete evidence of fraud in Indiana's elections.
In Texas, evidence of voter fraud abounds. In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions. Those include a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city councilmember who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes. Voter fraud is hard to detect, so cases like these are just the tip of the iceberg.
In 2011, Texas enacted a photo-identification requirement modeled after Indiana's. Our Legislature agreed with the Supreme Court that this requirement is a simple, effective way to prevent fraud. History also shows that voter turnout has increased after voter ID laws were enacted, and because Texas provides voter ID cards free of charge, no Texan's voting rights will be affected.
The Obama administration's Department of Justice has now reversed its previous approval of voter ID laws and attempted to block Texas' law. Attorney General Eric Holder used tortured logic and manipulated statistics to reach the already-rejected conclusion that photo ID requirements are racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court is on record upholding voter ID laws. My office is suing Mr. Holder to overturn his baseless decision and ensure Texas can protect its ballots the way other states are allowed to do.
Greg Abbott is Texas attorney general. |
I guess the question is - what constitutes significant voter fraud? Since the rules are lax, they don't create much of a deterrent, and if the fraud doesn't impact election results, then who cares?
Voter fraud can cut both ways, since both parties are able to do it if they choose, so why care?
From what I have read, Hispanics are the largest group that are eligible to vote, but don't have picture ID's. If indeed they are "legals" and have SS numbers, are paid wages, live somewhere with an address, pay utilities, etc., file income tax returns, and are registered, why would it be so hard to get a photo ID? If they really want to vote legally, they will get a photo ID. Same goes for any other citizen regardless of color.
I know I have contradicted myself above with the two questions and the final paragraph, but that was intentional just add some perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree with the thought that voter fraud is a total non-issue. You know why the idea of voter fraud gains no real traction in my mind? There's no money in it. Other than personal disputes between parties, most common criminal activities involve money and/or valuable property.
In my view, those agitating for identification proof to combat voter fraud are actually attempting to create a means to disenfranchise certain segments of the population. If 10% of the population is prevented from casting their vote, the affect can be huge, and arguably, Republicans benefit the most. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the internet:
What things do you need a photo ID for?
This is what I've come up with so far.....
Driver's license
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Apply for welfare
Apply for food stamps
Cash a check
Purchase a firearm
Make any large credit card purchase
Open a bank account
Rent an apartment
Be admitted to a hospital
Get a marriage license
I'm trying to figure out how having to produce an ID to vote once every couple of years, is somehow a problem, and some even claim it's "racist".
A few more from a lady who moved across town:
We have found we need valid photo identification to buy alcohol, adopt a pet, purchase a rifle, write a check at the grocery store, make a credit card purchase at Best Buy, apply for a loan to purchase anything, start a new bank account, get married and receive a marriage license, drive, close on a house, get medical care, and to pick up a mailbox key from the US Post Office.
We'll add to that: to get on a plane, to get insurance, to rent an apartment, to get a job, to get a hotel room, to rent a car, to get into Houston City Hall, and likely a myriad of other things.
Aaaaaaaand this:
This entire argument against providing an ID to vote is nonsensical. The government enacts social welfare programs that are intended for the poorest citizens yet they are required to establish identity prior to receiving the benefits. If the poorest people really could not acquire an ID because they did not have the means to, that would mean they would starve on the streets because they could not qualify for government assistance. Obvioulsy this is not the case. Nor is it the case that people cannot provide an ID to vote. All of this posturing is nothing more than a thinly veiled cover for groups who actually do perpetrate voter fraud like
http://tinyurl.com/3zay9bh who is now spending 10 years in prison.
Anyone who still believes the voter ID idea is racism is just not very well informed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To prove a point of sorts, maybe isobars can provide us with a list of those states that currently have voter ID laws on the books. Also, to clarify things a bit, he should include whether the state can be categorized as a blue or red state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
