DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:...
don't need photo ID to register, either. Never been a problem, really, either. I note you tossed out YET ANOTHER Strawman(what if......?). How many times are you planning on trying that tactic before you get that it is transparent?

So you don't need the photo ID to register, or to vote, and asking people if they are citizens is against the rules ....ok.
And with that knowledge firmly inside your head you think the fact that you can find no evidence of 'systematic' voting fraud having taken place is proof of it not going on...hmmm...

So are you hiding behind some really lame definition of systematic or just genuinely stupid?
And please, go look up the definition of strawman and then rethink how you use it. I have not misrepresented your position.

I have however pointed out a potential problem of democrats capitalizing on the 2:1 ratio of votes cast favorable for them by the same people they have encouraged to come here. the Dems have completely ignored existing law, and shut down active attempts to enforce law so that a new horde of illegals can be harvested. Some of Obama's advisers are gloating in public about the new influx of voters they anticipate adding to their roles. So don't tell me it isn't relevant..or a potential problem...etc.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
don't need photo ID to register, either. Never been a problem, really, either. I note you tossed out YET ANOTHER Strawman(what if......?). How many times are you planning on trying that tactic before you get that it is transparent?

So you don't need the photo ID to register, or to vote, and asking people if they are citizens is against the rules ....ok.

you have to affirm under oath that you are a citizen to vote. I said that already.

And with that knowledge firmly inside your head you think the fact that you can find no evidence of 'systematic' voting fraud having taken place is proof of it not going on...hmmm...

as I say, it's difficult for me to debate the level of Stupid that keeps repeating the same erroneous statements and posing strawmen.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
don't need photo ID to register, either. Never been a problem, really, either. I note you tossed out YET ANOTHER Strawman(what if......?). How many times are you planning on trying that tactic before you get that it is transparent?

So you don't need the photo ID to register, or to vote, and asking people if they are citizens is against the rules ....ok.

you have to affirm under oath that you are a citizen to vote. I said that already.

And with that knowledge firmly inside your head you think the fact that you can find no evidence of 'systematic' voting fraud having taken place is proof of it not going on...hmmm...

as I say, it's difficult for me to debate the level of Stupid that keeps repeating the same erroneous statements and posing strawmen.

Oh wow! I forgot about them having to get past that ominous barrier of lying under oath?!?

show that it's ever been a problem(ie-skewed outcomes) in elections in the state. Find me one example.

callmeslick wrote:show that it's ever been a problem(ie-skewed outcomes) in elections in the state. Find me one example.

Sure, just allow me to know the actual citizenship status and votes cast in any other polling place by all the people who cast the votes in the election...

Oh, that can't be tallied can it?

Now my turn. Have you ever been caught beating off in the closet?

wow, more deflections and bogus guesswork, coupled with a disgusting question. Nice. And CUDA wonders why I take my game a notch on here nowadays. Yeesh.

I'm beginning to think slick is too deeply invested in denial to realize just how much he misses.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm beginning to think slick is too deeply invested in denial to realize just how much he misses.

at least I don't operate in the land of make believe. When your whole line of debate is along the lines of: "well, you may be right, but what if.....", you will eventually come to realize you are basically engaging in a battle of wits pretty much unarmed.

slick, there is the "what if" kind of stuff like: What if all american indians are really vampires and they fly around killing people at night?
No evidence they have those abilities. Really far from any known behavior we have observed.

And then there is the "what if", in order to to restrict an activity, we basically put everyone on the honor system. You have to swear under oath that you are allowed to partake but beyond that it has been made nearly impossible to trace those who lie about it.

Based on what we know of humans in general that 'what if' is a lot more like 'yea most likely'...but I understand why you want to avoid that kind of realistic assessment of what humans do and why since you are heavily invested in keeping it sounding like it can't possibly be going on.

And then with things operating with such weak security as that you tell me that, because I can't prove any substantial record of this non-traceable activity, it can't possibly exist! That my perception of what extreme and illegal activity ideologues will go to in order to effect election outcomes is fantasy...

Well tough luck selling me on the honor system to protect the integrity of elections.
Your story is far too removed from the known behavior of people and we know people will break the law to win elections or support their candidate.

So, vampires....naaa...I'm not buying it.

Lying to get an election going your way? Well yea! It happens all around us...even gets celebrated by masses of people when it goes their way.

Here is another wild 'what if'
What if you were honest for a change? Lol...I know wild ★■◆● huh?

now Will goes to personal attacks on me....is anyone here doubting that he is making a bogus argument? Isn't it astounding that we've been having elections in this naton for a couple hundred-plus years without such laws? And, Will, do you grasp that a good part of the issue isn't simply photo ID, but restrictive TYPES of acceptable ID in many cases? Also, I've been asking you for ANY evidence that such a fraud has EVER occurred to to systematic misrepresetaton of voters at the polling place. I've been asking, in a bunch of threads, for over TWO YEARS. So far, you've put forward, 'what it....', and 'based on what I see of human nature', etc. I keep asking for evidence, you give me garbage, and then, when faced with the absolute paucity of argument, it becomes time to attack me, my honesty, and the like. Lame, really lame. You should, one would think, be able to do better. But, you don't, do you?

callmeslick wrote:now Will goes to personal attacks on me....is anyone here doubting that he is making a bogus argument?

So you are saying all the personnel attacks you make means you are making a bogus argument?

Everyone on this forum is resorting to personal attacks, we've all given up arguing a topic based on the merit of the facts. And then agreeing to disagree

Based on the overwhelming evidence of human behavior and partisan politics my assessment that you are being dishonest in this discussion in order to ignore that reality is not an attack nearly as much as it is stating the obvious.
If the truth hurts so be it.

Every election has some fraud going on. You make it easier you increase the incidents of fraud. That is the way it works.
If you make it easier AND ignore the laws to enable you to import a group of friendly voters...and you gloat about how it will ensure future victories at the polls...then I'm going to get the message.

Your job, as a partisan hack, is to obfuscate that message.
You're doing exactly what your leader would do, whining about it. I'm surprised you haven't called me a racist.

It's clear we should have left voting rights to the bourgeoisie instead of letting women and coloreds have a say. It's been downhill ever since.

To twist one of Will's favorite quotes, "We have to pass voter ID legislation before we can see if there's actual fraud going on that requires it."

Exactly. There is no way to determine it otherwise. Maybe even unnecessary in the past but considering the amount of illegals entering in the last 20 years, I surely would not want them to determine the outcome of elections. Especially local elections which usually only consist of a handful of actual participants out of all those that are eligible. It just makes good sense.

I meant that to be tongue-in-cheek. You can't (or at least shouldn't) pass a law to address a need that doesn't demonstrably exist in the first place, and any widespread voting fraud that might be occurring should be self-evident without needing to do so.

Well, it's undetermined until there's a repeatable test. I know the runoff here between the 2 Republican for Senate was only a few one way or the other. Or just look at what happened in Florida with the "hanging chads" It's only a handful of votes that determine one way or the other in a close runoff. Even closer in local election where I think our last candidates here won by only a margin of 15-20 votes. That in itself is to easily manipulated. It's gonna be even more so without some kind of accountability and that is what the issue here is. There is no established way to make account.

There have been a few close ones that a bus load of fraudulent votes could have swayed it...Harry Reid comes to mind.

I don't think there has been any widespread effect only because people who want to vote will want to register and previously people here illegally wanted to stay far from the government workers, be they armed with guns and badges or with pens and paper...

Well, that has changed some thanks to the new 'Laws are more like guidelines' approach we have from the chief law enforcement and his followers...as we have seen from the IRS to the DHS and every subordinate department they can plant a boot on the neck of.

So when I think of those times when were 'volunteers' rounding up a busload of homeless and street peeps to take them across town..or state...to vote I'm thinking, yea, but they wont cast a fraudulent vote for that beer money and cigarettes they were promised because they wont want to lie when they swear under oath...yea...never going to happen. slick said so.

vision wrote:It's clear we should have left voting rights to the bourgeoisie instead of letting women and coloreds have a say. It's been downhill ever since.

yup. Back to white male landowners, I say!!











and, scratch anyone not eligible for membership in the DAR or SAR, while we're at it. We had it set up perfectly, then the riffraff came in a screwed everything up.

Will Robinson wrote:There have been a few close ones that a bus load of fraudulent votes could have swayed it...Harry Reid comes to mind.

supposition again.

I don't think there has been any widespread effect only because people who want to vote will want to register and previously people here illegally wanted to stay far from the government workers, be they armed with guns and badges or with pens and paper...

and, yet, now they don't? You know this how? And, can demonstrate factuality with what?

Well, that has changed some thanks to the new 'Laws are more like guidelines' approach we have from the chief law enforcement and his followers...as we have seen from the IRS to the DHS and every subordinate department they can plant a boot on the neck of.

huh?

So when I think of those times when were 'volunteers' rounding up a busload of homeless and street peeps to take them across town..or state...to vote

find me one instance of this. You have to vote in your district in every state in which I've lived. Every one(DE,PA,NH, CT,VA), with no exceptions. So, once again you essentially make up your own facts. Reality doesn't work that way, Will.

I'm thinking, yea, but they wont cast a fraudulent vote for that beer money and cigarettes they were promised because they wont want to lie when they swear under oath...yea...never going to happen. slick said so.

no, Slick said you cannot show one instance of voter fraud that swayed an election result. Moreover, you can show no instance where there has been any examples of fraudulent registration. As was stated, you make laws to address problems. Here, you support a law that has been proposed to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Why? Because, as they let slip in Pennsylvania, the goal is to supress voting by one party.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:There have been a few close ones that a bus load of fraudulent votes could have swayed it...Harry Reid comes to mind.

supposition again.

Lack of evidence is not proof of innocence. Considering the context of the point being debated such an obvious dodge as your comment there has no place in an honest discussion.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I don't think there has been any widespread effect only because people who want to vote will want to register and previously people here illegally wanted to stay far from the government workers, be they armed with guns and badges or with pens and paper...

and, yet, now they don't? You know this how? And, can demonstrate factuality with what?

Lol! Easy! They used to run from Border Patrol, now they call them on the phone and ask for a ride! Lol!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Well, that has changed some thanks to the new 'Laws are more like guidelines' approach we have from the chief law enforcement and his followers...as we have seen from the IRS to the DHS and every subordinate department they can plant a boot on the neck of.

huh?

The Obama policy, of not enforcing immigration law combined with the effort to hamstring departments or officers who try to be effective has caused an effect. The effect I described.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So when I think of those times when were 'volunteers' rounding up a busload of homeless and street peeps to take them across town..or state...to vote

find me one instance of this. You have to vote in your district in every state in which I've lived. Every one(DE,PA,NH, CT,VA), with no exceptions. So, once again you essentially make up your own facts. Reality doesn't work that way, Will.

How about those places where you are allowed to register and vote all at once?
You keep missing the actual context of the discussion. Actually "missing" is a generous euphemism you don't really deserve.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'm thinking, yea, but they wont cast a fraudulent vote for that beer money and cigarettes they were promised because they wont want to lie when they swear under oath...yea...never going to happen. slick said so.

no, Slick said you cannot show one instance of voter fraud that swayed an election result.

Slick says a lot of things that aren't true. In this case he keeps dodging behind that old 'lack-of-evidence-is-absolute-proof-of-innocence' fallacy. He even qualifies it as it 'must have swayed the election' which requires access to data that is not collected due to the system.

If the law allows you to ultimately be on an honor system then the results will mirror the integrity level of those governed by it. Plain and simple fact.

I'm willing to accept human nature is the same for all people regardless of political affiliation...they are a mixed bag containing some very dishonest ones in the mix. Slick thinks he can convince everyone that there are no dishonest democrats when it comes to getting out the vote.
Yay team slick!

I don’t know, the Democrats have had a majority of registered voters as long as I can remember, in my opinion they are winning the game with a different bag of tricks.

Nothing beats lying and pandering.

We have a society of “gimmes” in that scenario the Republicans have very little to offer.

Just One Example:

My next door neighbor is getting a section 8 subsidy for her rent, the houses here on my block rent for close to 1,200 a month, and section 8 pays the majority of that.

How the hell do you compete with that…you can’t. Vote bought and paid for…period.

The party of yes vs. the party of no, when a kid asks for something and one parent says no, and the other says yes…who do you think the kid will love more.

Very true Spidey. My point isn't to say there will be a new paradigm in election results due to the illegals either allowed to vote by way of lax law enforcement, or being allowed to enter and vote legally. It is, as you pointed out, all a part of the Dem's buying votes.
I raised the spectre simply as an illustration to the motive...
Why Obama would ignore the warnings and risk having this become his Katrina moment. Because it has political benefits for his Party that Katrina didnt have for Bush.

Getting a bunch of illegals in, letting the usual suspects on the other side protest, just cements in the minds of these new voters that the Party that doesn't want them to be removed or stopped is the one to vote for.
the guy Obama turned to for advice a year or so ago when he was being told about the sudden hoard approaching is the one who recommended letting them stay and talks openly about reaping a swelling of the Dem Party constituency that will over run the Repubs for decades.

Basically we have a President who will subvert the law, the will of the people, the Congress. etc. so his Party will prosper. An arbitrary exercise of power that is quite tyrannical, the ends justify the means, and the media will allow it to happen. Who cares if he has lured those families here with his tactics and they get abused. It is all for the cause....no, not their cause, they are just useful pawns. This is for his cause.
What is the difference between Putin and Obama? Putin has to threaten the media...

Spidey wrote:I don’t know, the Democrats have had a majority of registered voters as long as I can remember, in my opinion they are winning the game with a different bag of tricks.

Nothing beats lying and pandering.

We have a society of “gimmes” in that scenario the Republicans have very little to offer.

Just One Example:

My next door neighbor is getting a section 8 subsidy for her rent, the houses here on my block rent for close to 1,200 a month, and section 8 pays the majority of that.

How the hell do you compete with that…you can’t. Vote bought and paid for…period.

The party of yes vs. the party of no, when a kid asks for something and one parent says no, and the other says yes…who do you think the kid will love more.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Alexis de Tocqueville 1805-1859

so to sum up: able to produce utterly no evidence of a problem with voter fraud, when confronted, my argumentative opposition resorts to:
1. making up anectdotes(behavior of immigrants, who, by the way, aren't the group disenfranchised nor targeted by voter ID)
2. posting a series of witticisms and far-flung observations of why the Dems draw more registrants.

wow, how to retort against such strong debating skillz?


well, a good laugh is always worth it. Keep it up guys, and when you get some numbers, facts, or other real proof of a problem to be addressed, get back to me. Until then, we'll have to all assume that voter supression is the GOP plan for victory. It may well work, for a bit, but, as 2012 showed, it can also get people to stand in lines for hours and contest every last 'provisional' status and give the Dems a massive turnout, out of sheer anger.

Lol, what did you expect me to say…Democrats don’t need to cheat because they are pure awesomeness, I know that’s what you believe, but I sure as hell don’t.

Spidey wrote:Lol, what did you expect me to say…Democrats don’t need to cheat because they are pure awesomeness, I know that’s what you believe, but I sure as hell don’t.

never said they were, but the supporters of voter ID sort of came up empty vis a vis examples in this thread, huh......especially since the original topic had nothing to do with voter ID, and THEY brought it up. I was originally remarking on blatant use of race/ethnic origin for redistricting.

Well, excuse me for going with the flow, rather than an anal retentive attraction for the OP.

Spidey wrote:Well, excuse me for going with the flow, rather than an anal retentive attraction for the OP.

tell me, did you just copy and paste the same excuse from the other thread, or was this the first one?

I used it twice...because I felt like it.

slick you are dishonest to the core. You were in denial mode the minute anyone raised any unflattering point about your precious party.
And in denial about the consequences of importing/creating a bunch of citizens that vote 2:1 in your favor.

You then went in circles trying to avoid the obvious nature of pols on both sides trying your best to hold your party above reproach in gerrymandering. Then went completely obtuse to the point that introducing large numbers of those new voters is the same net result as gerrymandering.

Voter ID was brought up as an example of tactics your side will use get around the any law that calls for a waiting period.
Between the left whining how it isn't fair to let them pay tax and not vote and making sure they can vote anyway with nothing but a few scraps of utility bills or rent receipts...or, in some places, just another voter to vouch for them.

Thats how they got here...in spite of the law...that is how you are making it so they can stay...in spite of the law.... thats how you will register them, thats how they will be voting long before any deadline the Congress scribbles on the paper your team will just wipe its collective ass with in contempt for the law.

more fabrication with no substance in fact from Will.......as expected. Nice of you to start by calling me a liar. That sort of lays out your whole weakness of argument at the outset, now, doesn't it?

Or...people can go back to the top of the thread and read through and see for themselves, and if they do they will likely determine you are still in denial.

of what? Your string of 'what ifs', 'I've heard this is happenings', 'perhaps this', and the like? Hardly. You've brought exactly ZERO by way of proof, factual detail or anything else to the discussion, and then have the temerity to call me a liar. Hilarious. Keep up the good work!

I was talking about the way you characterized this thread.
Anyone can read your comments for themselves and determine if I have misrepresented the way the thread unfolded.


As to your convenient, but extremely flawed, stance that an absence of documenting that-which-can-not-be-documented is proof that it can't/won't/didn't happen is ridiculous. Although, I bet OJ Simpson would think you are a genius.

There are examples of people doing it so blatantly that they have been caught. It is the extremely lax security measures and anonymous nature of our voting system that makes it as easy to cast a fraudulent vote as it is to waltz illegally into the country over the southern border.

And the fact that the current administration has taken what defense against illegal entry we had and turned it into a taxi service for those who now cross with no fear of law enforcement is an indication of just how little concern those of you on the left have for solving the problem. Instead, to your team it is all about sustaining the flow!
After all, a vote is a vote is a vote....who cares what you did to get it. 'Never let the opportunities created by tragedy go without capitalizing on it - team Obama

So keep chanting it. It won't make it true but it seems to be all you can cling to. Don't let go of your lifeline...even though the other end is attached to smoke...it's all you have.

this is about VOTER SUPRESSION, along with the original point regarding gerrymandering and the invocation of the Voting Rights Act in Texas, Will. No matter how you try to spin it onto a warped, lie-filled, fictional account of the reality of immigration and migration to the US, that has NOTHING to do with voter supression. That has NOTHING to do with what Texas is trying to do with district boundaries. That has even less than nothing to do with voter ID laws(aimed at African Americans and Students), changing voting hours, moving polling places. NOTHING.

So the back and forth discussion in this thread between you and Flip never happened?!?
You know, the one that spurred my comments that you have been trying so hard to deflect with your red herring:lack of evidence-is-proof-absolute-of-no-crime?

Get over yourself slick, conversations happen. You don't get to pretend they didn't, and that your part in them ceases to exist when it serves you.

Will Robinson wrote:So the back and forth discussion in this thread between you and Flip never happened?!?

yes, he expressed the possibility of controlling districts via immigrant flow, I countered with doubt that the flow is substantial enough by the time folks assimilate to citizenship. So what? You added utterly nothing to the discourse of substance, and when I called you on it, the name calling starts from you.