RE: Voting thoughts (Full Version)

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



Message


joether -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 1:24:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Maybe if you stopped talking about guns on every thread, they wouldn't be de facto gun threads.


The problem is we have two people (Kirata and BamaD) whom fail to understand the logical concept of an example.

That I used an example, to help explain a higher level intellectual concept so as to express the direction of thought on said topic. Yeah, it went right over their heads. They saw 'gun' and all traces of 'voter ID thread' left their mind immediately. So easily triggered to forget one subject as existing to assume the topic of discussion is on something else.

I forget the problem conservatives have on this board; they need things dumb down so they can keep up. Sorry, I keep thinking they are more intelligent and educated than they actually are.....my mistake!





KenDckey -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 1:26:24 PM)

For once I have I sorta gottta agree with Otter. This is not a gun thread and they have no value in a voting thread. Heller and radar guns have nothing to do with voting. Thanks for not bring them up again.

In the mean time, I believe that voting is a priviledge that can be taken away. I can only think of 2 reasons - legal incareration and legal removal of citizenship.




joether -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 1:37:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
For once I have I sorta gottta agree with Otter. This is not a gun thread and they have no value in a voting thread. Heller and radar guns have nothing to do with voting. Thanks for not bring them up again.

In the mean time, I believe that voting is a priviledge that can be taken away. I can only think of 2 reasons - legal incareration and legal removal of citizenship.


Ok I'll explain it for a fifth time now....

The concept of "Heller vs DC' was used to explain the concept of a 'political decision' rather than a 'constitutional decision'. That I believe (foolishly) that most on this board would understand the concept of a 'constitutional decision'. But, people may not understand what I meant by a 'political decision'. One that was a decision not based either particicially or totally with the US Constitution, but as an aid to the political theater. I pointed out that the decision was in June of 2006. That in 2006, the GOP/TP was getting a beating in the polls due to a number of issues they were failing on. That 2006 was an election year (the mid term election year for former US President George W. Bush's second term in office). That the GOP/TP was desperate to have a win from any source to help stave off the possibility of losing the House and Senate to the Democrats in the fall. An that in the fall election of 2006, the GOP/TP lost the House and Senate to the Democrats. That the US Supreme Court's decision not only did not help the GOP/TP gain more seats or keep the ones they had, but help (indirectly I would argue) the Democrat's chances of obtaining seats.

That there are problems with a political decision, rather than a constitutional one. That this concept, Voter ID, will eventually be challenged in courts. And that an argument will rise up to the US Supreme Court to determine the final understanding of the concept. If its a constitutional decision, voter ID laws will be found to be unconstitutional (like those anti-gay marriage laws that recently got struck down). If it is a political one, expect problems into other areas you are not even aware about, to take place.




joether -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 1:43:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
In the mean time, I believe that voting is a priviledge that can be taken away. I can only think of 2 reasons - legal incareration and legal removal of citizenship.


Voting is a Constitutionally protected right. In fact, its one of the core concepts of the US Constitutions itself! Further, that when voting, one is allowed privacy from the government as per the 4th amendment. I have not seen one good argument that voter ID laws do not violate the 4th amendment's protections. Nor have I seen one good, verifiable source of information in which voter fraud is as rampant as those pushing this silly law into existence on the legal books.

Many of you have made arguments that have been previously destroyed on other 'voter id' threads, and in the public in general.




Musicmystery -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 2:44:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

For once I have I sorta gottta agree with Otter. This is not a gun thread and they have no value in a voting thread. Heller and radar guns have nothing to do with voting. Thanks for not bring them up again.

In the mean time, I believe that voting is a priviledge that can be taken away. I can only think of 2 reasons - legal incareration and legal removal of citizenship.

Actually, your examples illustrate voting as a right. Note your use of the word legal and removal. And the need for criminal activity to activate that removal.

What you believe is irrelevant -- it's a question of legal fact, not opinion.




Kirata -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 2:55:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Ok I'll explain it for a fifth time now....

Except for the detail that your explanation fails because your defense of the claim is a non sequitur.

K.





Kirata -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 3:05:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

For once I have I sorta gottta agree with Otter. This is not a gun thread and they have no value in a voting thread. Heller and radar guns have nothing to do with voting. Thanks for not bring them up again.

In the mean time, I believe that voting is a priviledge that can be taken away. I can only think of 2 reasons - legal incareration and legal removal of citizenship.

Actually, your examples illustrate voting as a right. Note your use of the word legal and removal. And the need for criminal activity to activate that removal.

What you believe is irrelevant -- it's a question of legal fact, not opinion.

If I remember correctly, the Constitution refers to voting as a "right" in five different places.

K.




BamaD -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 3:06:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
For once I have I sorta gottta agree with Otter. This is not a gun thread and they have no value in a voting thread. Heller and radar guns have nothing to do with voting. Thanks for not bring them up again.

In the mean time, I believe that voting is a priviledge that can be taken away. I can only think of 2 reasons - legal incareration and legal removal of citizenship.


Ok I'll explain it for a fifth time now....

The concept of "Heller vs DC' was used to explain the concept of a 'political decision' rather than a 'constitutional decision'. That I believe (foolishly) that most on this board would understand the concept of a 'constitutional decision'. But, people may not understand what I meant by a 'political decision'. One that was a decision not based either particicially or totally with the US Constitution, but as an aid to the political theater. I pointed out that the decision was in June of 2006. That in 2006, the GOP/TP was getting a beating in the polls due to a number of issues they were failing on. That 2006 was an election year (the mid term election year for former US President George W. Bush's second term in office). That the GOP/TP was desperate to have a win from any source to help stave off the possibility of losing the House and Senate to the Democrats in the fall. An that in the fall election of 2006, the GOP/TP lost the House and Senate to the Democrats. That the US Supreme Court's decision not only did not help the GOP/TP gain more seats or keep the ones they had, but help (indirectly I would argue) the Democrat's chances of obtaining seats.

That there are problems with a political decision, rather than a constitutional one. That this concept, Voter ID, will eventually be challenged in courts. And that an argument will rise up to the US Supreme Court to determine the final understanding of the concept. If its a constitutional decision, voter ID laws will be found to be unconstitutional (like those anti-gay marriage laws that recently got struck down). If it is a political one, expect problems into other areas you are not even aware about, to take place.

A Heller has nothing to do with voting rights.
B It was made on purely Constitutional grounds, it isn't their fault you don't understand the Constitution.
C Understanding things you don't doesn't make us dumb.




bounty44 -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 3:59:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
There are more instances of people being struck by lightning than there are cases of voter fraud.

The math and facts are not within a parsec of your thinking.

So you count all of Chicago as one case.


Actually cloudboy is correct here, BamaD. When the voting ID laws first came into existence, many news organizations used ACTUAL journalists to study and report their findings. You will not see this information anywhere on conservative news media/outlets. The reason is, its the conservative ideology pushing the voter ID laws in the first place. They have not been known for their honestly in their intentions nor integrity.

There is the 'world' that voter ID folks want us to believe. And there is reality. Go to your local library or study online. The facts shows a very different view. Here is one such database for events from 2000 to 2012. From that site and others that have performed the research, keep finding the same results: voter ID fraud does take place, but is totally ineffective at effecting the outcome of an election.



you know comrade penguin---ive been debating here whether or not to treat you neutrally, as I would a complete stranger, or to treat you in the same way you interact with those who you don't understand, or who disagree with you. ive just done a little perusing of subsequent posts and well, that made up my mind for me...

so here you go partisan hack dumbass:

the methodology of your link wouldn't pass muster for a college senior project (so it makes sense then you are referencing it).

to my point:

though they use the word "exhaustive" in the title, it is in no way exhaustive, which implies totally complete, comprehensive, nothing missing/lacking. of their own admission:

quote:

Is this database complete?

No. Despite the huge News21 public-records request effort, the team received no useful responses from several states — for instance, the lone cases in the database from Massachusetts, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota all came from the RNLA survey. Even in states where some local jurisdictions responded, others didn’t. In addition, it is possible that some jurisdictions which did respond failed to include some cases. Another problem is that some responses News21 received were missing important details about each case — from whether the person was convicted or charged to the circumstances of the alleged fraud to the names of those involved.


that aside for a moment---since whole swathes of places did not respond to their requests, its not as bad as a convenience sample, but its far from a random sample, and they have absolutely no way of knowing (at least with the information they provided) how much data is missing. their results do indeed for a database, but an incomplete one.

but most importantly (try to follow comrade bird brain):

the "voter ID fraud" in the "study" you linked to, relative to ID's, only cites voter impersonation. that is, people who are stealing other people's identities. it doesn't address people who aren't allowed to vote but who do so anyways. are you that *%&# thick?

it doesn't even address the issue, which is, people voting who are not allowed to vote.
quote:

Sorry, I keep thinking [you] are more intelligent and educated than [you] actually are.....my mistake!


so to the point brainiac:

"jaw dropping study claims large numbers non-citizens vote"

quote:

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections?

More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

If they mean 6.4 percent of 11 million illegal immigrants… we’re talking about roughly 700,000 votes being cast by non-citizens in 2008. Stunning. If true, it refutes my earlier contention that proven cases of voter fraud would only swing elections in races that come down to a few hundred votes.

But this section is fascinating:

…Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

[so, identifications that were either fake, or otherwise did not rely on citizenship to procure]



http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/391134/jaw-dropping-study-claims-large-numbers-non-citizens-vote-us-jim-geraghty
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home

so the idea behind a national voting identification would be its proof of citizenship---get it Einstein?

and oh, good job on the incredibly twisted and tortured logic concerning the 4th amendment and voter identification.

you might find this helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States

notice there is no:

quote:

Voter ID laws....VIOLATE.....the law.


youre an irrational nutjob with a mouth too big & too quick for your brain and who should stick to your blog with your adoring sycophants. (notice the correct word choice of "who" there? you should try it sometime, you might like it)

now, by contrast, maybe you or your fellow moonbats can actually show how requiring a voter ID actually suppresses votes??




BamaD -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 4:05:29 PM)

now, by contrast, maybe you or your fellow moonbats can actually show how requiring a voter ID actually suppresses votes??


Particularly since studies show that minority voting often increases after the passage of voter ID. I am not saying that it increases voting but it clearly does not suppress it.
Polls show that most minorities favor Voter ID.




KenDckey -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 4:08:52 PM)

I would note that the presentation of appropriate ID to prove ones eligibility to vote has nothing to do with one's actual vote.




bounty44 -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 4:37:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I would note that the presentation of appropriate ID to prove ones eligibility to vote has nothing to do with one's actual vote.


am not sure what you are saying there ken?




BamaD -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 5:05:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I would note that the presentation of appropriate ID to prove ones eligibility to vote has nothing to do with one's actual vote.


am not sure what you are saying there ken?

Voter ID simply verifies that the person voting has the right to do so.




KenDckey -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 5:06:19 PM)

Bounty, you walk in the door of your polling place. you walk up to the clerk so wants to see your ID to compare it to the rolls. He verified it and you return your ID to your pocket. The next person has you sign the roll and hands you a ballot. you go into the booth alone and vote, return the ballot to the "box" get your little I voted sticker and walk away, secure that you exercised your responsibility as you saw it.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 5:12:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Hell, in Texas, it's easier to get a gun than to vote. The American way hey !!


But, once you have that gun, you can use your gun registration as ID to vote! Bonus! [8D]




bounty44 -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 5:15:02 PM)

yes, but im still unclear what youre saying when you say "...has nothing to do with one's actual vote."




DesideriScuri -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 5:19:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
This bullshit argument.....AGAIN?
Let me explain it for you:
Voter ID laws....VIOLATE.....the law. How? There is a little known law called the 4th Amendment. You, as a US Citizens are protected against unreasonable search and seizure of many things, INCLUDING, your documents (i.e. a photo ID). Unless by probable cause that you are violating the law. This means the law enforcement has to believe a law has already been broken, not about to be broken, to be allowed under the law to see your photo ID.


Some would argue that having to prove you're a citizen, by using one of your documents, isn't unreasonable.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 5:23:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Hopefully the Justices vote on Constitutional grounds not political grounds (i.e. Heller vs DC's final decision).

Still trying to bait a gun-thread, eh? Didn't you learn anything from your other four failures?
K.

If you don't have radar guns cops can't prove speeding. Therefore radar guns were a solution to a problem that didn't exist.


In Ohio, you can be "estimated" to be speeding by a cop, and you will get to keep your ticket.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/16/visual-estimate-speeding-tickets/

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/06/02/ohio-supreme-court-speed-estimate-valid.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/03/ohio.spotting.speeders.ruling/

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/police_officers_visual_estimat.html

Thus, in some cases, you're innocent until estimated guilty.




BamaD -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 5:59:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Hopefully the Justices vote on Constitutional grounds not political grounds (i.e. Heller vs DC's final decision).

Still trying to bait a gun-thread, eh? Didn't you learn anything from your other four failures?
K.

If you don't have radar guns cops can't prove speeding. Therefore radar guns were a solution to a problem that didn't exist.


In Ohio, you can be "estimated" to be speeding by a cop, and you will get to keep your ticket.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/16/visual-estimate-speeding-tickets/

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/06/02/ohio-supreme-court-speed-estimate-valid.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/03/ohio.spotting.speeders.ruling/

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/police_officers_visual_estimat.html

Thus, in some cases, you're innocent until estimated guilty.

I have know of instances where you didn't.




KenDckey -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/23/2015 6:35:34 PM)

When I was in Germany the locals were complaining that our trucks were speeding. I spent a week hidden with a stop watch observing a measured distance. No one was speeding. I think they were afraid of the bumpers coming thru the windshields LOL

I son got a ticket for not clearing an intersection before the light turned red. LOL He was a teen. LOL He took my video camera down and recorded the intersection for 2 hrs and then took the tape to court with him. He found out that from the time the light turned green until it turned red again was 3 seconds. LOL The judge had the city reimburse every such ticket at that intersection given. LOL City wasn't happy. LOL




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125