joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
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...
Isn't it adorable, bounty is trying to sound like a professor from the local community college.....
That you know a word from the middle french language is 'amusing'. You do know which word I'm referring to, yes?
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
so here you go partisan hack dumbass:
Dude, you are a partisan hack more often than most on this forum.....
Even Sanity doesn't come close....
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
the methodology of your link wouldn't pass muster for a college senior project (so it makes sense then you are referencing it).
And why is that exactly?
Because educated people would not only state something, they would explain (in-depth) why that is exactly. You, are not an educated person. Hence, would not know what is required for a senior level project for a college degree in either B.A. or B.S.. The professors enjoyed my junior and senior year projects. Got that 3.6 gpa to prove it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
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:
Did you sit down and read through all of the cases? Each one? Since I posted that link only a few hours earlier, and there exists some 2,068 cases, and most of them are not found on that link; it would be pretty hard to accept the idea you have 'poured' over the information fully. In fact, I would wager you looked over things, but could not form a real counter argument due to a lack of real information. Since they used real information in the first place to arrive at their conclusion. Unlike conservatives like you, they didn't start at the conclusion and work backwards; They started with each case and studied it for its merits. I suspect in many cases they sent away for additional information from various sources in connection with the case to determine whether it was voter fraud or not.
Yeah, you didn't do that Mr. Bullshit Artist....
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
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.
An yet, you have....NOTHING...for evidence or facts to counter what they stated. Its like those deniers claiming the Theory of Climate Change is false, using nothing resembling science or evidence. Because if your going to attack their findings, that implies YOUR FINDINGS, are even more true, correct, and easily verifiable.
Got that evidence handy?
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
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?
Did you read the full study? Or just the website?
You read the website, only? Didn't you?
Because the study looked into all the cases. The cases in which one or more individuals was accused of voter fraud on one or more accounts. In the grand majority of cases, there usually was some technicality that would not place the person in any legal jeopardy (i.e. a voter ID would not have helped). For example, someone voting at the wrong voting station; it does happen. Another would be someone who changed their address to another apartment across the street, but did not update the records. A third is county clerks not being up-to-date on recent deaths. A fourth would be someone that thought they had registered correctly, but didn't do something correctly during the processing. This represented about 95% of the total case population.
Now we get to the tiny minority of cases that could....potentially...be voter fraud. In these cases, information was not clear or not enough evidence existed to make a legal/criminal case against the individual. According to that study, this accounted for about 4% of the total case population.
The remaining population of cases? Either voter fraud took place, or the case information was completely unreadable or no one knew enough information about the issue. In each of the cases of voter fraud, not one of them showed in instance in which a voter ID card would have adverted the crime.
In some of the cases, the fake photo ID's were very close if not 'spot on' to the genuine article. Meaning one would have to be an expert in detecting the forgery. Someone most voting station workers are not. Maybe bartenders near all the colleges and universities in Boston, MA.....
A person whom is not allowed to vote, but votes? Lets be happy someone wants to vote, given the dismal showing from the 2014 mid term elections. But seriously, how do underage college students by beer in Boston pubs? Happens every so often. Its because people buy fake ID's (usually from different states). The bartenders are required by law to examine those licenses. Since the Boston PD routinely sends undercover individuals to pose as underage drinkers to test the bars. Those that fail get their licenses taken away; which is basically the kiss of death in such a business.
Now, imagine if those individuals were to go out across the nation, and sell their 'wares' to people looking to vote....more than one....
You would have me believe the common American, working at a voting station, can spot the expertly crafted Photo ID's?
You better have....LOTS....of evidence to back up your statement! Since 'dollars to donuts' those fake photo ID's will slip right pass, and the regulation imposed by the GOP/TP will do....NOTHING...still to stem the tide of voter fraud.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
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!
It's amusing that you think you have out smarted me on every issue. Where is your argument on the 4th amendment? Oh, that's right....missing. Just like fake ID's that are expertly crafted to look like the real thing. Or of poll station workers able to spot the fakes from the real things.
The people you are accusing of voting, whom should not be voting, do not seem to be voting. In other words, your fantasy does not match our reality. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, you can see a therapist for that schizophrenia illness you suffer from....
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
"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
You got this all from the National Review?
Hold on a second while I stop laughing my ass off....
You do understand this organization is not a journalistic group, right? That many times their 'information' has been discredited? Let's go over your 'source'....
"More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote."
That 14% of the total suspected non-citizens in the nation at the time, or of the 339 non-citizens in 2008 and 489 in 2010 on the study?
Since 14% of nine million is much different from 14% of 339. You can understand this, right?
That the study is trying to say that the individuals were a fair representation of the whole nation is quite a bit amusing. Which is to say "bullshit".
Since 14% would be 700,000-800,000 votes at the nine million mark. If divided evenly across the nation that a liberal estimate of 16,000. You would have me believe 16,000 in any one state would have changed the final outcome?
I know your desperate in your 'hating Obama' campaign, but this is just silly.
Regardless of how you try to massage the numbers here, the concept of voter fraud effecting the outcome is not likely to be true. In Massachusetts, every hour they do take a sampling of the numbers. Number of people that voted within the last hour against the number of ballots submitted. You would have me believe they would not notice the second number being far higher than the first one?
Good luck....
"…Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted."
If your asked for a photo (due to either the law or the nice police officer being called over to investigate you), and say you voted later on; is not likely to happen. If the police officer suspects you might be doing something illegal, he can ask for your Photo ID information (this would be the probable cause section of the 4th amendment). Unless you have some evidence that proves your correct.....your.....not....voting. Your going down to the station for further investigation.
I know that you think most police officers are idiots, because they work in government. Try some of that voter fraud and tell me what happens....
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
so the idea behind a national voting identification would be its proof of citizenship---get it Einstein?
And violate the 4th amendment's protections against unreasonable searches. You are aware there is a 4th amendment right?
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
and oh, good job on the incredibly twisted and tortured logic concerning the 4th amendment and voter identification.
Thank you. Its not twisted at all. I'm being accused of not being whom I state I am, nor live where I state I live. That I start off guilty of a crime and must prove my innocence. What fucked up universe do you live in where the United States assumes your guilty until you can prove your innocent?
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
you might find this helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States
Really? Your trying to pass yourself off as intelligent to someone that has schooled your ass several times. If we were talking about the Iran Treated the United States is thinking on signing, and the topic was whether it was a good idea or not. Would it make sense to actually understand the treaty, before speaking on it? I've read the treaty, have you?
No you haven't. You assume based on what people tell you to think. I study things, so I can make an informed argument.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
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)
If I was irrational in my arguments, why is it they are true and full of facts? An that you can not counter them with equally rational, truthful, and factual arguments?
You don't have an argument I can not destroy within five minutes of thinking on it. On this or other subjects.
Voter ID laws violate not only the spirit of law, but the 4th amendment. That I consider such a law to be a violation of the 4th amendment on the grounds its unreasonable. Why?
That's a good question, I'm glad you 'asked'....
1. I am innocent until proven guilty in a court of law with a jury. The Voter ID law stipulates that I must prove I'm innocent of a crime (i.e. voter fraud). Meaning before that moment, I am being accused of a crime against the United States of America. In this nation, a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the voter ID laws are at odds with established law.
2. Why should I show my photo ID, is my face not enough? I stated, practically on record with witnesses present two concepts: Who I Am, and Where I Live. Which is exactly what the Photo ID does, right? I did mention such ID's can and have been compromised with fakes?
3. My Photo ID is my driver's license. There is more information on that document than just 'Name, address, and Photo'. What right does the poll station worker have in this information that is private by law?
4. Assuming #3, but with my Passport. What right does that same poll station person to the information presented on that document in addition to my name, address and photo?
5. I'm known in my town. I know the people that work at the polls. I know the police officers that work at them as well. It would be very tough for someone to impersonate me. Let just say there exists about eight people at best on the planet that could come close to my description on planet Earth. You would have me believe one of those eight could pass themselves off as me to people that know me? That's what happens when you do volunteer work; the public gets to know you.
6. I have broken no laws (amendments trump state and local laws btw), so the police officer would have to make quite a case, given reality, to make a case that he or she has probable cause to check my papers. A poll station worker has even....LESS....justification on probable cause to look at my Photo ID. The only time the government can ask to search your person, place, PAPERS, and property is if they have probable cause of wrong doing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
now, by contrast, maybe you or your fellow moonbats can actually show how requiring a voter ID actually suppresses votes??
There are many typical groups of individuals that would not have acceptable levels of 'Photo ID's.
Elderly People: Those in their 70's-90's most likely do not have a birth certificate. Or that obtaining such information is not realistically possible for any number of reasons. Yes, some were actually born in a barn (both my parents and grandparents have their documents---genealogy is fun!). So this creates 'an undue burden' upon a citizen, which most states have laws that prevent such circumstances. Since laws like that can be challenged in court and undone. Ever get a bill through the state? After all that work and effort, do you want it torpoedo'd by some citizen whom makes a fair challenge in court that the law creates an 'undue burden' upon them? No of course not!
College Students: Most college students do not study in the same voting district to which their legal address states. Many live in states that are not their own legal state. But while they are residing in an area, they would like to vote. Some states are more draconian in their policies than others. If for what ever reason they can not vote in their state, or by absentee ballot, could they vote there?
There have been arguments that if "a person lives and pays taxes in a area, they should be entitled to vote in that area's elections". A debate that has raged for decades!
The Homeless: Lets face it, documents that prove legal status for voting are VERY valuable commodities on the black market. Stealing some homeless guy's Photo ID allows (with some alterations) to be passed as an ID for someone else. Most often, these people have few to no secured places to keep their legal information. Many shelters may allow for such an arrangement, it sadly is not commonplace across the nation. Are homeless and the poor allowed to vote? Or do they need to "show their papers" like some sort of USSR location?
Those Whom Value Their Privacy But Wish to Vote: If the government can look in on someone's papers without the need for probable cause, what else could they look at? You and other conservatives had problems with the way the NSA was spying on Americans. Guess what, you cant have it both ways here. Either the government can freely look at anything about you, at any time, without reason; or they must have probable cause.
Here is something that might help explain things regarding Photo IDs:
"Researcher Megan Papesh says one reason we're so bad at picking out fake IDs is that people change the way they look all the time — their hair, weight, whether they wear glasses. "Myriad changes occur, and that makes people willing to accept a lot of changes," she says."
I've answered your questions, now answer mine.
|
RE: Voting thoughts - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread