Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 3:26 PM, The Big Cat said: Well, I'm still waiting (in vain, I know) for LA to explain how an ID law would have prevented this. I'm also curious as to how this was ever detected without the ID laws. The case does nothing to demonstrate the necessity for a reactionary ID law. So if we call it reactionary it must be categorically bad because you would never want to react to a situation? We've had a few stories in the local paper recently about criminal cases against people who illegally voted in 08 and another about a left wing group sending out voter registration cards to children & corpses. That's just casual observation over recent weeks with zero effort or research. When you look at the narrow margins of Ohio in '08, FL in '04, or the SNL douche that became Senator after they recounted over & over again until they finally got a tally with him in the lead, you have to be a disingenuous lib or a head in the sand sucker to dismiss these concerns out of hand because you heard from some lib that the problem didn't exist & conveniently chose to believe it.
3rdnlng Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 3:57 PM, Rob said: So if we call it reactionary it must be categorically bad because you would never want to react to a situation? We've had a few stories in the local paper recently about criminal cases against people who illegally voted in 08 and another about a left wing group sending out voter registration cards to children & corpses. That's just casual observation over recent weeks with zero effort or research. When you look at the narrow margins of Ohio in '08, FL in '04, or the SNL douche that became Senator after they recounted over & over again until they finally got a tally with him in the lead, you have to be a disingenuous lib or a head in the sand sucker to dismiss these concerns out of hand because you heard from some lib that the problem didn't exist & conveniently chose to believe it. I give three different examples of shady goings on in post #146 of this thread.
The Big Cat Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 3:57 PM, Rob said: So if we call it reactionary it must be categorically bad because you would never want to react to a situation? We've had a few stories in the local paper recently about criminal cases against people who illegally voted in 08 and another about a left wing group sending out voter registration cards to children & corpses. That's just casual observation over recent weeks with zero effort or research. When you look at the narrow margins of Ohio in '08, FL in '04, or the SNL douche that became Senator after they recounted over & over again until they finally got a tally with him in the lead, you have to be a disingenuous lib or a head in the sand sucker to dismiss these concerns out of hand because you heard from some lib that the problem didn't exist & conveniently chose to believe it. How does ID law prevent the will to fraud? How is fraud already detected without the ID law?
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 4:04 PM, The Big Cat said: How does ID law prevent the will to fraud? How is fraud already detected without the ID law? You make a good point. How would we know after the fact if the people who voted were legitimate voters. Kind of undercuts your argument that it doesn't exist or we'd know it.
The Big Cat Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 4:09 PM, Rob said: You make a good point. How would we know after the fact if the people who voted were legitimate voters. Kind of undercuts your argument that it doesn't exist or we'd know it. This discussion would be a lot more fruitful, if folks weren't arguing this for me. Never once have I said voter fraud is nonexistent.
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 4:12 PM, The Big Cat said: This discussion would be a lot more fruitful, if folks weren't arguing this for me. Never once have I said voter fraud is nonexistent. Someone did. You seem to be arguing that for some reason we shouldn't take an easy & effective measure to minimize it.
Doc Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 4:12 PM, The Big Cat said: This discussion would be a lot more fruitful, if folks weren't arguing this for me. Never once have I said voter fraud is nonexistent. So voter fraud is real and requiring ID is sensible. So WTF are you continuing to discuss this?
The Big Cat Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 4:30 PM, Rob said: Someone did. You seem to be arguing that for some reason we shouldn't take an easy & effective measure to minimize it. Okay. So, if 100,000 don't end up voting because of the new ID laws, but 10,000 cases of voter fraud are curbed, are these "easy and effective" measures worth the collateral damage? Yes or no.
3rdnlng Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 4:55 PM, The Big Cat said: Okay. So, if 100,000 don't end up voting because of the new ID laws, but 10,000 cases of voter fraud are curbed, are these "easy and effective" measures worth the collateral damage? Yes or no. So, if 10,000 don't end up voting because of the new ID law, but 100,000 cases of voter fraud are curbed is it worth it?
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 4:55 PM, The Big Cat said: Okay. So, if 100,000 don't end up voting because of the new ID laws, but 10,000 cases of voter fraud are curbed, are these "easy and effective" measures worth the collateral damage? Yes or no. First off, you're pulling numbers out of your ass. Secondly, if those people chose not to get an ID they haven't been disenfranchised, they made a choice. If it was prohibitively expensive or required excessive effort to get an ID you'd have a point, but it doesn't so you don't. I don't understand the drive to make sure as many disinterested & uninformed people as possible vote. Oh yeah, because anyone who's too pathetic to have a photo ID is probably going to vote Democrat, and that's really what this is all about for you guys, isn't it?
The Big Cat Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:00 PM, 3rdnlng said: So, if 10,000 don't end up voting because of the new ID law, but 100,000 cases of voter fraud are curbed is it worth it? Yes but the evidence would suggest those numbers would be reversed. Not my data, but it's the data that's out there. On 7/30/2012 at 5:03 PM, Rob said: First off, you're pulling numbers out of your ass. Secondly, if those people chose not to get an ID they haven't been disenfranchised, they made a choice. If it was prohibitively expensive or required excessive effort to get an ID you'd have a point, but it doesn't so you don't. I don't understand the drive to make sure as many disinterested & uninformed people as possible vote. Oh yeah, because anyone who's too pathetic to have a photo ID is probably going to vote Democrat, and that's really what this is all about for you guys, isn't it? Yes or no.
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:08 PM, The Big Cat said: Yes but the evidence would suggest those numbers would be reversed. Not my data, but it's the data that's out there. Yes or no. I can't answer yes or no because I see no collateral damage. How about we flip the script. Let's say it prevents 100,000 fraudulent votes and eliminates only 10,000 irresponsible & disinterested votes. Is the collateral damage of not requiring ID worth it?
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 4:55 PM, The Big Cat said: Okay. So, if 100,000 don't end up voting because of the new ID laws, but 10,000 cases of voter fraud are curbed, are these "easy and effective" measures worth the collateral damage? Yes or no. Yes.
The Big Cat Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:14 PM, Rob said: I can't answer yes or no because I see no collateral damage. How about we flip the script. Let's say it prevents 100,000 fraudulent votes and eliminates only 10,000 irresponsible & disinterested votes. Is the collateral damage of not requiring ID worth it? I've already answered yes to that hypothetical question, I'm not sure what ethical hang up you have answering mine. On 7/30/2012 at 5:21 PM, DC Tom said: Yes. HA! Then we'll agree to disagree.
Doc Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:21 PM, DC Tom said: Yes. More like "Hell Yes!"
Jauronimo Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:43 PM, Doc said: More like "Hell Yes!" Racist.
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:30 PM, The Big Cat said: I've already answered yes to that hypothetical question, I'm not sure what ethical hang up you have answering mine. So you'd prefer a net return of 90,000 disenfranchised voters. Interesting. It's not an ethical hang-up I have with your question, but rather the fact that it's based on a nonsensical premise. Those 100,000 hypothetical votes don't matter because the people had the option to vote but chose not to. Their right (or privilege, depending how you view it) has not been infringed. So, I think, yes, it is worth it, but I don't agree that unmotivated and disinterested people choosing not to exercise that right amounts to collateral damage. I'm not sure what part of this you don't get.
The Big Cat Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:50 PM, Rob said: So you'd prefer a net return of 90,000 disenfranchised voters. Interesting. It's not an ethical hang-up I have with your question, but rather the fact that it's based on a nonsensical premise. Those 100,000 hypothetical votes don't matter because the people had the option to vote but chose not to. Their right (or privilege, depending how you view it) has not been infringed. So, I think, yes, it is worth it, but I don't agree that unmotivated and disinterested people choosing not to exercise that right amounts to collateral damage. I'm not sure what part of this you don't get. You're debating that they're capable of voting with the ID law. That's not what I asked. And you're not basing that opinion on anything that resembles some people's reality. Some, sure, others, definitely not.
3rdnlng Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:08 PM, The Big Cat said: Yes but the evidence would suggest those numbers would be reversed. Not my data, but it's the data that's out there. Yes or no. Do you have any links to this data?
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 On 7/30/2012 at 5:30 PM, The Big Cat said: HA! Then we'll agree to disagree. All that means is that you don't recognize the responsibility that the voter has to cast their vote fairly and accurately.
Recommended Posts