RE: More Democrat registration fraud

RE: More Democrat registration fraud (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/11/2011 11:49:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse How about the guy from Milwaukee that admitted on channel 12 news that he signed 80 + recall Walker petitions ? No fraud here either. So cite the Title, Chapter, Section of the Wisconsin Code which states that signing a petition multiple times is fraud. C'mon, I know you can do it. Wis. Stat. § 12.13(3) No person may: (a) Falsify any information in respect to or fraudulently deface or destroy a certificate of nomination, nomination paper, declaration of candidacy or petition for an election, including a recall petition or petition for a referendum; or file or receive for filing a certificate of nomination, nomination paper, declaration of candidacy or any such petition, knowing any part is falsely made. Wis. Stat. § 9.10(1)(b) Except as provided in par. (c), a petition for recall of an officer shall be signed by electors equal to at least 25% of the vote cast for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory as that of the officeholder being recalled. Okay, good; a statute does exist. (I fail to see what 9.10 has to do with fraud, though) I like to see sources and evidence, rather than simple assertions. I'll look at your first cite and see how the act is treated; i.e., with a civil or criminal penalty. So, moving on, that was not really my point. You'll frequently see some posters here make all kinds of assertions without a shred of evidence to back them up. Then, when citations are asked for, state something along the lines of "it isn't my job to do your research." (On another kink site, there are some very good political discussion groups. Most do not tolerate such nonsense. Citations are REQUIRED when making assertions. Opinions do not need them as long as a statement is clearly identified as an opinion.) I don't want to try and derail this thread, and not to put too fine a point on it, but one of the things that irks me about this forum is that posters do not hold those who share their ideology up to any standards whatsoever. That applies to all quadrants of the political-economic spectrum. I strongly support the efforts of those mods and group owners elsewhere who are trying to improve the level of rhetoric. Addendum: as far as I can tell, it's not a felony.

farglebargle -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 5:52:41 AM)
I see a lot of pissing and moaning about voter ID, as if voter fraud was a real issue, which it isn't. And the strenuous pursuit of this makes me wonder if their objective isn't to distract everyone from the REAL ISSUE. Unauditable election processes. It seems to me that if they were interested in securing the process, they wouldn't be wasting everyone's time with a non-issue, to the exclusion of the multiple cases where the technology infrastructure was exploited. It seems clear. If someone is screaming about voter ID, and not about trustworthy systems, we need to question their real motives. It ain't "Honest Elections".... It's distracting us from the known, exploited systemic vulnerabilities with an irrelevancy.

MaidlyVirtue -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 6:02:32 AM)
Yeah, it's true that a person's position or reasoning is often a pretext for something else.

popeye1250 -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 9:21:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy If its too expensive, still better to lose the one in a million who dont think its important enough than risk fraud. Voting is not a right under the Constitution Supreme Court case law would disagree with this interpretation. While there is no direct right to vote in the constitution, once a state grants the right to vote, it is compelled to adhere to the constitution's equal protection clause. Additionally, it must adhere to the 24th amendment, the amendment that forbids poll taxes in any form. Once a state grants its citizens the right to vote, it is absolutely barred from implementing any poll tax. The Supreme Court has previously held that requiring a non-free form of identification counts as a poll tax and is unconstitutional. They have even said that the requirement of a free ID can be a poll tax if the supporting documents necessary for getting it (Birth certificate, etc.) are not free. Basically, if the state charges any non-incidental cost in order to vote, get an ID to vote, or get documents for an ID to vote, the charge is a poll tax and is unconstitutional. So if you went out a bought a new Ford F-150 to drive to the polls to vote that would be a "poll tax?" Oh well, now they're saying that a corporation (is) a person.

tazzygirl -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 9:22:34 AM)
Pops, about that bet....

willbeurdaddy -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 9:28:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MaidlyVirtue Yeah, it's true that a person's position or reasoning is often a pretext for something else. And its also true that bullshit like this is used to try and stifle conversation. Take your veiled accusation and shove it.

mnottertail -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 12:26:57 PM)
QED /thread.

thompsonx -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 1:15:55 PM)
quote: 1. Youre correct. Registration isnt the right word. Of course not being eligible to run at all is worse than being a legitimate candidate and having some unregistered voters in the primary. 2. Irrelevant. 3. Nobody said it was "vote fraud". Since the president is appointed by the electoral college and the electoral college is not required by any law to appoint anyone specific. What does your op have to do with anything of substance?

thompsonx -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 1:24:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Photo ID requirements do little more than erect road blocks to the poor, elderly and disabled being able to vote at all. Bullshit. You need ID to collect welfare, SS checks or buy beer. I can't recall having been asked for my id to buy beer ever. As for social security I went down there with my birth certificate my dd 214 and my passport and they never asked to see any of it. Just ask me my name and social security number and when I was born. Hit the computer and printed out some papers and said "sign here your first check should be in your mail box by the third of the month....will there be anything else mr. thompson?...have a nice day....next please.

thompsonx -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 1:38:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy If its too expensive, still better to lose the one in a million who dont think its important enough than risk fraud. Voting is not a right under the Constitution Supreme Court case law would disagree with this interpretation. While there is no direct right to vote in the constitution, once a state grants the right to vote, it is compelled to adhere to the constitution's equal protection clause. Additionally, it must adhere to the 24th amendment, the amendment that forbids poll taxes in any form. Once a state grants its citizens the right to vote, it is absolutely barred from implementing any poll tax. The Supreme Court has previously held that requiring a non-free form of identification counts as a poll tax and is unconstitutional. They have even said that the requirement of a free ID can be a poll tax if the supporting documents necessary for getting it (Birth certificate, etc.) are not free. Basically, if the state charges any non-incidental cost in order to vote, get an ID to vote, or get documents for an ID to vote, the charge is a poll tax and is unconstitutional. They specifically agreed in Bush v Gore. The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. Once the state decides to use a vote then the protections you cite apply...but they can set whatever other qualifications they want, such as felons....or those without ID. And if an ID requirement were challenged, the state could withdraw voting altogether. As I said, a privilege, not a right, which could not be revoked. You do not seem to be aware of the difference between an elector (voter) and a member of the electoral college. Perhaps a few minutes with a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade would be heplful in disabusing you of your ignorace.

DomKen -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 3:53:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Photo ID requirements do little more than erect road blocks to the poor, elderly and disabled being able to vote at all. Bullshit. You need ID to collect welfare, SS checks or buy beer. But you will not have any ID at all if you've never had one and never had a state issued birth certificate. If there is any irregularity it could get very expensive simply to exercise your franchise. Sorry, but thats bullshit. If someone has never had a need to correct those issues, then correct them to vote. If its too expensive, still better to lose the one in a million who dont think its important enough than risk fraud. Voting is not a right under the Constitution, it is left to the states to determine who is qualified to vote, so it is a privilege granted by the states (subject to non-discrimination, and those without ID are not a protected class last time I looked). What utter andcomplete bullshit. Where is all this vote fraud you cons are pissing yourselves over? Why should anyone's rights be curtailed to combat a nonexistent problem?

DomKen -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/12/2011 3:56:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy If its too expensive, still better to lose the one in a million who dont think its important enough than risk fraud. Voting is not a right under the Constitution Supreme Court case law would disagree with this interpretation. While there is no direct right to vote in the constitution, once a state grants the right to vote, it is compelled to adhere to the constitution's equal protection clause. Additionally, it must adhere to the 24th amendment, the amendment that forbids poll taxes in any form. Once a state grants its citizens the right to vote, it is absolutely barred from implementing any poll tax. The Supreme Court has previously held that requiring a non-free form of identification counts as a poll tax and is unconstitutional. They have even said that the requirement of a free ID can be a poll tax if the supporting documents necessary for getting it (Birth certificate, etc.) are not free. Basically, if the state charges any non-incidental cost in order to vote, get an ID to vote, or get documents for an ID to vote, the charge is a poll tax and is unconstitutional. They specifically agreed in Bush v Gore. The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. Once the state decides to use a vote then the protections you cite apply...but they can set whatever other qualifications they want, such as felons....or those without ID. And if an ID requirement were challenged, the state could withdraw voting altogether. As I said, a privilege, not a right, which could not be revoked. I suggest Walker and all other GOP controlled states immediately try this. Watching the cons get curb stomped nation wide would be funny beyond measure.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/13/2011 12:17:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha Supreme Court case law would disagree with this interpretation. While there is no direct right to vote in the constitution... They specifically agreed in Bush v Gore. The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. Once the state decides to use a vote then the protections you cite apply...but they can set whatever other qualifications they want, such as felons....or those without ID. And if an ID requirement were challenged, the state could withdraw voting altogether. As I said, a privilege, not a right, which could not be revoked. I did not dispute any of this, as I noted in the original reply (although, they can't make -any- qualifications they want; there must still be a rational basis for them). I was talking specifically to the fact that excess expense in getting a birth certificate needed for a free ID can be considered a poll tax.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/13/2011 12:20:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 So if you went out a bought a new Ford F-150 to drive to the polls to vote that would be a "poll tax?" Is this serious?

RacerJim -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/13/2011 11:42:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 What I`m doing is pointing out that there`s a new effort afloat to say the president shouldn`t be president because he wasn`t on the Indiana ballot legally.Much like the birthers who claim President Obama shouldn`t be president because he isn`t a citizen of the US. It`s a new angle on the birther crap from the same people who are bringing us the birther crap. I guess I`m the guy who`s the first to point out this new GOP dirty-tricks campaign here in P&R.I thought most people already knew about it. Kirata sure hasn`t.[:D] So I guess it looks like I`m over swinging.[:D] The U.S. Constitution doesn't allow a mere "citizen" to be POTUS (unless one was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted) but, rather, only a "natural born Citizen". Claiming Obama is eligible because he is a "citizen" is a tired old obfuscation of the facts/truth by kool-aid inebriated Obama minions.

mnottertail -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/13/2011 11:52:39 AM)
And why don't you give us the definition of 'natural born citizen' and how Obama is not one of those, Perry Mason? You talk and talk and talk and blowhole this diarrhea, but when it is time to show us credible citations you are without.

Lucylastic -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/13/2011 11:54:48 AM)
Ron Im gonna have to hurt you if you dont quit asking him for prooof!

tazzygirl -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/13/2011 12:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 So if you went out a bought a new Ford F-150 to drive to the polls to vote that would be a "poll tax?" Is this serious? Yep, he is serious

BanthaSamantha -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/13/2011 1:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And why don't you give us the definition of 'natural born citizen' and how Obama is not one of those, Perry Mason? Most academics and commentators tend to agree that a natural born citizen is one whom was an American citizen from the point of birth. Being born on American soil is one way for this to happen, while being born to an American citizen on non-American soil is another way.

tazzygirl -> RE: More Democrat registration fraud (12/13/2011 1:05:17 PM)
We have been over that with jim. he is a staunch birther who would not believe Obama is an american citizen if Ronald came back from the dead and told him.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125