We must protect ourselves from the voter fraud problem we do not have!

[Tgace]

Im not even saying I think that we all need to show a license at the polls. If every state had to do what Bills does...mail out cards you have to bring to vote...that would be fine with me. Just anyone walking up to a table and giving a name/address as enough to vote seems like a situation far to easy to defraud.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

:BSmeter:

[snip]

So, sorry, these party wonks are either incredibly naive or outright lying. I don't believe it.

You can call BS all you like. I didn't say it, PA officials said it. Under oath. In court. If you think they lied under oath to undermine the law they actually WANT...uh, what?

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...s-there-is-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud-645985/

Pennsylvania acknowledges there is no evidence of voter fraud
July 24, 2012 9:43 pm
By Karen Langley / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
HARRISBURG -- State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

What part of this is unclear to you? The state AND the people suing the state BOTH agreed that a) there is no evidence of voter fraud in PA, and b) there is none likely to occur if the law is overturned.

I don't even understand how a person who speaks and reads English can not get this. It's not a matter of my opinion or your opinion, this is a statement of fact that is made BY THE PEOPLE who are defending it in court.

We can argue about many things, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But you're calling BS against a statement made by the people who are actually trying to keep the law on the books in PA, not the people against it. Why on earth would they perjure themselves to testify AGAINST their own law that they are TRYING to keep?

I can just imagine it. "Well, Bob, I want this law to remain law, so I have a clever plan. When I testify tomorrow in court, I'll lie and say there is no reason for the law. That will, uh, confuse them! Yeah, that's it, it will confuse them!"

Are you serious that you do not understand what was said and who said it?

 

[cdunn]

It's actually depressing because once you realize all of the ways elections can be thrown, the only way candidates can win a major close election is by outfrauding the other guy. Democracy sucks sometimes.

And thus,

democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120726_Study__1_million_PA_voters_do_not_have_valid_ID.html

Study: 1 million Pa. voters do not have valid ID

By Angela Couloumbis
INQUIRER HARRISBURG BUREAU

Harrisburg - Over 1 million voters in Pennsylvania do not have valid photo identification to vote at the polls in November, a University of Washington professor testified on Thursday.

In the detailed survey conducted in late June and early July the professor, Matt Barreto, found that nearly 13 percent of registered voters, or just over 1 million people, do not have acceptable forms of identification required by the state new law.

Barreto testified that those who are less educated, low income or live in urban areas are more likely than others to lack proper ID.

The professor took the stand on the second day of what is expected to be a weeklong hearing on whether Pennsylvania's voter identification law should take effect in time for the Nov. 6 election.

Gee, do you think 1 million people unable to vote might influence the outcome of an election? Hmmm?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...O2OttA?docId=15872a136ba046c299645622c8e68829

Pa.'s tough, new voter ID law lands in court
By By MARC LEVY – 17 hours ago
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The first legal test for Pennsylvania's tough new voter law requiring photo identification began Wednesday, with state lawyers calling the measure a completely rational step, while opponents attacked it as an unnecessary, unjustified and partisan scheme that will deprive countless people of their right to vote.
...
The original rationale in Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled Legislature for the law — to prevent election fraud — will play little role in the legal case since the state's lawyers have decided not to make that argument and acknowledged that they are "not aware of any incidents of in person voter fraud." Instead, they are trying to show that lawmakers properly exercised their latitude to make election-related laws when they chose to require voters to show widely available forms of photo identification.

Get that? NO VOTER FRAUD. I'm sorry, what was that? NO VOTER FRAUD. Wait, one more time? NO VOTER FRAUD. Period. End of discussion. The state itself says so. Under oath. In court. NO VOTER FRAUD.

So if there is NO VOTER FRAUD, then WHY DO THEY WANT IT?

Democrats' accusations that it is an election year scheme to steal the White House were fanned in June when the House Republican leader told a state party gathering that the law would allow Romney to win Pennsylvania in the fall.
The photo ID requirement is a significant departure from current law, which asks only people voting in a ward for the first time to show identification, including such non-photo forms as a utility bill or bank statement.

There it is. Black and white. I can't believe anyone has this much trouble comprehending what they said.

A) 1 million people do not have the required photo ID. They won't be able to vote. Mostly poor, elderly, and minorities. In other words, the people the GOP presumes would vote for Obama.
B) The state itself admits in court and under oath that this law does not fix voter fraud in PA, because there isn't any. Not subject to debate - even they say THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD IN PA.
C) The GOP HOUSE LEADER stated that the law was going to guarantee Romney would win the Presidential election.

WOW! If anyone can't grasp that, I can only assume it is because they do not want to.

 

[Makalakumu]

What part of this is unclear to you? The state AND the people suing the state BOTH agreed that a) there is no evidence of voter fraud in PA, and b) there is none likely to occur if the law is overturned.

I don't even understand how a person who speaks and reads English can not get this. It's not a matter of my opinion or your opinion, this is a statement of fact that is made BY THE PEOPLE who are defending it in court.

We can argue about many things, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But you're calling BS against a statement made by the people who are actually trying to keep the law on the books in PA, not the people against it. Why on earth would they perjure themselves to testify AGAINST their own law that they are TRYING to keep?

I can just imagine it. "Well, Bob, I want this law to remain law, so I have a clever plan. When I testify tomorrow in court, I'll lie and say there is no reason for the law. That will, uh, confuse them! Yeah, that's it, it will confuse them!"

Are you serious that you do not understand what was said and who said it?

It's a political fight where the Republicans are outmaneuvering the Democrats in terms of manipulating voting totals. The actual meaning of the words stretches the limit of rationality, but that is the nature of the battle. What we have here is a group that can't admit voter fraud or the other side will bring out a laundry list of real examples. Then, the Republicans would come out with their laundry list. It's mutually assured destruction if either side admits any fraud. It's logical insanity where both sides have dug themselves such a big hole that the only thing that seems rational at the time is completely irrational to anyone on the outside looking in.

What would be really interesting is if an independent party came forward with evidence of fraud on BOTH sides, catching both parties in obvious lies. How fast would the whistleblower be labeled a vicious conspiracy theorist terrorist? LOL!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's a political fight where the Republicans are outmaneuvering the Democrats in terms of manipulating voting totals. The actual meaning of the words stretches the limit of rationality, but that is the nature of the battle. What we have here is a group that can't admit voter fraud or the other side will bring out a laundry list of real examples. Then, the Republicans would come out with their laundry list. It's mutually assured destruction if either side admits any fraud. It's logical insanity where both sides have dug themselves such a big hole that the only thing that seems rational at the time is completely irrational to anyone on the outside looking in.

What would be really interesting is if an independent party came forward with evidence of fraud on BOTH sides, catching both parties in obvious lies. How fast would the whistleblower be labeled a vicious conspiracy theorist terrorist? LOL!

Jesus wept.

 

[Makalakumu]

Jesus wept.

You're a good man, Bill. Don't try to make sense of it. There isn't an ounce of rationality to be found. Someone call Chuck Norris to sort this out.

 

[ballen0351]

I still don't see how showing an ID benefits one side over another last I checks both dems and Republicans can go get an ID. I even think they allow independents to get them too shocker I know.

 

[billc]

The democrats want to cheat and voter I.D. would make that harder. Their solution...accuse Republicans of being racists and demanding voter I.D. to keep minorities from voting, it is as simple as that. This way they kill two birds with one stone, they get to slow down voter I.D. and they get to falsely accuse Republicans of being racists...again.

 

[Makalakumu]

Do Republicans ever engage in election fraud?

 

[billc]

Apparently not since many people say no fraud at all is going on. Could be, but it isn't the pattern that you see. If you look around the country, the organized efforts seem to be coming from the democrats, hence ACORN, and the latest one on this thread. Then you have the close elections in the democrat controlled states where the Republican wins narrowly and then the demcrats start recount after recount and then the republican loses, as happened in the Franken race.

 

[Carol]

I even think they allow independents to get them too shocker I know.

We vote with out-of-state ID's

 

[Haakon]

Apparently not since many people say no fraud at all is going on. Could be, but it isn't the pattern that you see. If you look around the country, the organized efforts seem to be coming from the democrats, hence ACORN, and the latest one on this thread. Then you have the close elections in the democrat controlled states where the Republican wins narrowly and then the demcrats start recount after recount and then the republican loses, as happened in the Franken race.

And the WA governors race a few years ago. (ballot count) Republican wins! (find more ballots, recount), Republican wins! (find more ballots, recount) Democrat wins (stop counting).

 

[WC_lun]

And the WA governors race a few years ago. (ballot count) Republican wins! (find more ballots, recount), Republican wins! (find more ballots, recount) Democrat wins (stop counting).

..and this proves fraud how? You know, actual proof instead of hurt feelings because a Republican lost? It has happened the other way around as well you know.

 

[billc]

You know what we really need for elections, and it just occurred to me, we should do as the Iraqi's did when they voted and put dye on the hands of people who vote, that would solve the problem of voter I.D. and it would keep people from voting more than once. When people come in to vote, they have their finger or hand checked, if there is no dye, they can vote. It also solves the issue of people who don't care enough to go and get an I.D. to vote...until the day of the election.

Is there a way to get that dye off quickly or will it last a day or two? How about the dye used in banks for robberies, it would serve the same purpose here.

 

[billc]

Which election was that? I hope you aren't referring to when gore tried to steal the election from George Bush.

 

[Makalakumu]

Which election was that? I hope you aren't referring to when gore tried to steal the election from George Bush.

So, are you saying that you don't know of any instances of election fraud perpetrated by Republicans?

 

[billc]

Not that I have seen. If there were, they would be all over the old media. Of course, the old media may not be pointing out fraud by Republicans because that would just reinforce the need for voter I.D. I don't want anyone cheating in elections, Republicans or Democrats, or any other party.

Makalakumu, if you find Republican election fraud post it. It supports the need for voter i.d.s

 

[Wo Fat]

I try not to compare the (R) vs (D) parties because it's so boring. Neither seems a great choice to me these days.

That said, if the GOP spent half as much energy in trying to make it harder for sociopaths to get guns as they do in trying to make it harder for people to vote ...

we would have more people alive and voting. And they might even have a reason to vote Republican.

 

[Tgace]

I try not to compare the (R) vs (D) parties because it's so boring. Neither seems a great choice to me these days.

That said, if the GOP spent half as much energy in trying to make it harder for sociopaths to get guns as they do in trying to make it harder for people to vote ...

we would have more people alive and voting. And they might even have a reason to vote Republican.

First you would have to address how we identify sociopaths.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2