Facts? Figures? Studies? Convictions? Historical analysises? Bueller?Of course. This one requirement will significantly cut down on potential voter fraud. [...]
You don't need a detailed history of governance. I don't know why you feel the need to make things complicated.There isn't enough free memory out there to adequately describe how wrong you are on both counts. If I gave you the detailed history of bad governance you would be here a while.
You made a statement that a gun causes more damage than a bad vote, you are wrong.You don't need a detailed history of governance. I don't know why you feel the need to make things complicated.
This thread is about voter IDs for federal elections. One vote in a federal election has literally no effect on anything. One gun in the wrong hands obviously has a much greater potential of causing harm.
No, I made a statement that a shooter can cause more damage than a single vote and within the context of this thread, I am completely right. Sorry.You made a statement that a gun causes more damage than a bad vote, you are wrong.
In order to vote an individual should first be required to sufficiently verify his identity. This is both legitimate and proper. It should, in fact, by required by law. Photo IDs are commonplace verification methods in most walks of life and mandating their presence at a polling place is both desirable and necessary in order to dissuade and avoid fraudulent activity. Anyone claiming common sense like this is "discriminatory" or "controversial" is either a stupendously naive individual or a dishonest advocate for electoral fraud.Should people have to show their photo ID in order to vote in US presidential elections? Why or why not?
Wow, way to not get the point. What you attempted to respond to was my statement that a bad election can do more damage to all of us that a gun ever could, I did not say "one vote" as you misread. Even so one bad vote can swing an election so the point still stands. Either way you are wrong, just admit it.No, I made a statement that a shooter can cause more damage than a single vote and within the context of this thread, I am completely right. Sorry.
Wow, way to not get the point. What you attempted to respond to was my statement that a bad election can do more damage to all of us that a gun ever could, I did not say "one vote" as you misread.
You can do more damage with a bad vote than a gun. A shooter can take out x number of people during a rampage ruining y amount of lives but a bad politician can ruin all of our lives simultaneously.
Actually no. As I said, within the context of this thread, I'm completely right. One vote has absolutely zero effect on a federal election. So still right. Try harder.Even so one bad vote can swing an election so the point still stands. Either way you are wrong, just admit it.
Bad vote equals election. It was used in the sense of "get out the vote", not surprised you missed that.Actually you said:
In the English language, "a" (when used before nouns) is used to refer to a single, or one, entity. Here's a refresher course.
Keep backtracking. Horrible try and still no cigar.
Actually no. As I said, within the context of this thread, I'm completely right. One vote has absolutely zero effect on a federal election. So still right. Try harder.
I didn't miss anything. I used your exact words. You said, "You can do more damage with a bad vote than a gun." People usually give each other crap for inferring things in their words that aren't there and here I literally use the exact words you wrote on the paper and now you're telling me that I should have inferred instead of just taking what was on the page. Unbelievable.Bad vote equals election. It was used in the sense of "get out the vote", not surprised you missed that.
The vote is interchangeable with elections for the purposes of the conversation. Reading is essential.I didn't miss anything. I used your exact words. You said, "You can do more damage with a bad vote than a gun." People usually give each other crap for inferring things in their words that aren't there and here I literally use the exact words you wrote on the paper and now you're telling me that I should have inferred instead of just taking what was on the page. Unbelievable.
You said, "a vote" and "a gun". I used your words. It's really damn pathetic for you to insult me for that. You're just backtracking and it's sad. Take responsibility for your language.
It's not a lot no matter how much you swing it because it has zero effect on the elections which is the problem that voter fraud would pose if it existed in any way that mattered.
And it's funny that you think "I'm trying desperately to make it sound like much less than it really is". Dude, I'm literally REPORTING THE NUMBERS. What do you want me to do? Add a couple hundred just to make you happy? No, I'll report the # of convictions. Reporting the actual numbers and not manipulating them is as honest as it gets.
In fact, I've actually increased the number from what it actually is. 86 people were convicted of federal elections crimes in general, but only 70 were convicted of voter fraud, so now that you're trying to accuse me of doing something I'm not, I'm going to be even more honest and even more inconvenient for you - 70 people, not 86, in 5 years.
I'm pretty sure we are doing a lot about it which is why voter fraud is so incredibly low that it's negligible.So I guess Federal crimes are not much of a problem. So lets do nothing about it.
There's no "common sense" in saying, "Look we have a problem that isn't that much of a problem and is probably as close to perfect as we're going to get for federal elections, so let's just add another restriction onto other people's rights." Absolutely not.
I enjoy my rights and they ought not be restricted unless a significant problem becomes apparent OR unless the government ensures that every person eligible to vote gets an ID.
I'm pretty sure we are doing a lot about it which is why voter fraud is so incredibly low that it's negligible.
Reading is essential which is why I read your words and used them exactly as you wrote them. Sorry. Next time instead of using your exact words in order to remain faithful to them, I'll make something up.The vote is interchangeable with elections for the purposes of the conversation. Reading is essential.
70 people out of millions is not a problem. Also, I didn't say it was an "infringement of right", I said it was a "restriction". I used that word for a reason. Please use my actual words instead of inserting your own.In your misguided opinion I would agree, but reality says we have a problem and requiring ID is no more an infringement on a right than requiring an id to buy cigarettes or alcohol.
Great.So far 2 federal courts have said it is not a restriction on anyone's rights, and I happen to agree. You need an ID in this day and age, just a fact of life.
There you go again. Jumping to conclusions that I haven't made with emotional appeals that have absolutely no effect on me.So are federal crimes in general according to your statistics, So you should also support getting rid of those laws as well since they are not handing out allot of convictions, right? Then again who cares if only a few thousand people get illegally registered and then illegally vote. Not your problem, I understand.
Reading is essential which is why I read your words and used them exactly as you wrote them. Sorry. Next time instead of using your exact words in order to remain faithful to them, I'll make something up.
Besides, saying, "a bad election can do more damage than a gun" doesn't even make sense within the context of this thread. The thread is about voter fraud in federal elections. There isn't enough voter fraud on that level to cause a "bad election" as the result of voter fraud. So even that backtracking interpretation of your comment doesn't hold water within the context of the thread. Moreover, because voter fraud exists on such a small level, it would make more sense to refer to "a vote" than an entire election which you seemed to understand before you backtracked.
70 people out of millions is not a problem. Also, I didn't say it was an "infringement of right", I said it was a "restriction". I used that word for a reason. Please use my actual words instead of inserting your own.
And yes, it is no more a RESTRICTION than requiring an ID for cigarettes or alcohol, I agree. However, I don't support restrictions on action unless a significant problem is apparent. 70 people is not a significant problem. When it gets to be 1000, give me a call.
Great.
There you go again. Jumping to conclusions that I haven't made with emotional appeals that have absolutely no effect on me.
Really? Do you have the court rulings where they used the word "restriction"? I would like to see them since from your first post, I'm getting the sense that they actually said "infringement".Having to present an id card is not a restriction as again 2 federal courts have already said. You don't know what level or number of people that were affected by the convictions or how many were initially charged and pleaded out.
How do you figure that I'm guessing when I say "70" and "86"? I don't understand.You have none of the details as a matter of fact and are guessing based on an arbitrary number based on 2 years of federal voting, not 5.
Meh, we just disagree with each other. I don't know what you're problem is. I already said that I wouldn't care if the state ensured that everyone got their IDs. You're being dramatic.Yes it is great that at least some people get it.
Yeahhh...you're mixing up voter fraud (which IDs apparently, but not really fix) with other federal elections crimes (which have nothing to do with IDs - see vote counting for more information).Looking back at 2000 and 2004 the way the Democrats and Republicans screamed fraud, I can honestly say that is purely a matter of opinion.
When you say stuff like "who cares if only a few thousand people get illegally registered and then illegally vote. Not your problem, I understand.", that's called an emotional appeal because your appealing to how much I "care". It's boring, it's a fallacy and it doesn't ever work.Who said anything about an emotional appeal? You are leaving out a bunch of info. How many did it affect? How many were not even reported? How many did not get caught? How many pleaded out? etc..
Sorry stating what amounts to your opinion on the statistic when it is very incomplete means little.
Yeahhh...your mixing up voter fraud (which IDs fix) with other federal elections crimes (which have nothing to do with IDs - see vote counting for more information).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?