Voter ID terrifies Democrats - Page 2

Wrong is wrong, unless it is breaking the law in which case it is right because following the law is wrong in your view.

That is your reasoning. Indirect disenfranchisement, aka LIFE and some people through their own choices not going to the polls means that all of us should just ignore fraud.

THAT IS YOUR ACTUAL REASONING?!?

That is terrifying reasoning. It is exactly the leftist reasoning that leads to mass murder. It is sociopathic reasoning.

Some people, through indirect disenfranchisement, don't make enough money or have enough clothes. It's okay to commit fraud to correct this point. It is fine to steal, rob or murder because you are correcting the "REAL" wrong out there.

I believe no only do I have a problem with that, but most SANE people have a problem with that. Your definition of hypocrisy is whatever happens to make you feel upset or wronged and the fact that the universal parents out there doesn't take steps to fix it and bring utopia. It is immature, insane and dangerous reasoning.

Just to make it clear for everyone, you feel it completely justifiable for non-citizens to have committed fraud to vote.

It's right there dude. I'm sorry if you can't realize how twisted your reasoning is but it is plain as day.


You call it a fair trade. Indirect disinfranchisement is a trade for fraud. The evil Republicans, who are responsible for themselves and also for everything Democrats do, allowed a "confusing" butterfly ballot because the Democratic canvassing board in a Democratic majority district weren't stopped from undertaking their normal but claimed confusing actions by Republicans. This completely justifies aka is a trade for illegal immigrants voting as citizens.

You said it is trade, plain and clear.

You are welcome at any point to say it should be addressed. You've only had about five posts now without saying that of course.

I'll be waiting.

You've still not said that non-citizen's voting shouldn't be allowed. You've rationalized a massive number of mitigating factors to allow the fraud to continue but you've not said it is wrong and that it shouldn't be allowed. Calling names and attempting to poison the well doesn't change that point.

Also think about your wonderfully conflicting platitudes there. How is something completely open yet unhackable? What electronic device in all of creation has never had a successful hack against it?

As for that kind of breaking the law and fraud not counting, it doesn't count because all your demands are not currently against the law. They are demands you have crafted out of your imagination to use to rationalize non-citizens voting. They are a TRADE. We must all tolerate our own votes being disenfranchised because tonton, overlord of the world has declared a set of imaginary demands within his head to be ILLEGAL when the states themselves have not done this.

You list as examples of disenfranchisement, actions not related to actual laws and hold third parties responsible for the actions of first parties while the first parties aren't responsible for themselves.

So a lawful butterfly ballot, fully vetted and designed by the Democrats within the county in which it was used, that is an example of DISENFRANCHISEMENT.


It must be nice to call names while ignoring points like all your demands that aren't actual laws and in many ways aren't actually attainable.


Not really since you've ignored pretty much every point brought up by multiple people while calling a bunch of names. The newspaper article simply cross-referenced jury excuses for citizenship status with voter registration. In this case the parties basically self-confessed to their crime. Would you endorse database cross-referencing with provisional ballot challenges as a means of reducing non-citizen voting? I'm asking because of the websites that defined indirect disinfranchisement would not endorse it declaring provisional ballots to a form of disenfranchisement.

Saying you'll agree to enforce the law without an enforcement mechanism isn't supporting the law.

The courts have upheld voter ID. So I have no idea to what you are referring. The only matter dealing with voter ID at this point is Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder using Justice Department to ignore said court rulings.


That idea is in no form reasonable. First the problem being discussed here is double voting, but non-citizen voting. Your solution in no form prevents that. Likewise the example you cited involved supposedly confused voters. Your solution in no form addresses that. One key innovation to help improve voter participation rates is absentee voting. Your solution doesn't even allow for that. As others are already noting how does the government, which you already accuse of running polling stations with closed source, supposedly manipulated polling stations somehow make sure this data doesn't get stolen or avoid being deleted when grandma and grandpa volunteer pack up the equipment at the end of the day in the local church or Elk's lodge? If the government is inept at technology, you just magnified the problem there ten-fold.

Republicans have already thought of a completely reasonable idea. It is an idea that has won court approval regardless of your claims. It is a workable idea that doesn't need biometric information, temporary databases, nor toss away absentee voting. It is voter ID. In addition this was brought up to you but you...well ignored it as you have several other points in this discussion.

The newspaper article simply cross-referenced jury excuses for citizenship status with voter registration. In this case the parties basically self-confessed to their crime. Would you endorse database cross-referencing with provisional ballot challenges as a means of reducing non-citizen voting? I'm asking because of the websites that defined indirect disinfranchisement would not endorse it declaring provisional ballots to a form of disenfranchisement.


You'd say that but tonton who keeps ignoring the whole quote feature so he can ignore all the information put before him and try the same tired points from a new angle while already ignoring how they've been beat down, doesn't care to address your point. Cross referencing voter rolls with other state databases is another pretty easy solution to eliminate the dead and non-citizens from the rolls. He hasn't addressed it and won't.

No. You're wrong. What liberals consider falling through the cracks involves decisions and actions taken by the supposed disenfranchisee that go well beyond reasonable actions. That is exactly why courts have ruled in favor of voter ID.

States provide free photo ID. They provide provisional ballots in the event there is some challenge regarding ID or registration information. They have motor voter ID registration and absentee ballots. All these are not enough per you. Someone needs to put them in a car, drive them down there, walk them into the booth and possibly lift their arm to the table.

Democratic voters are the ones who supposedly can't push a metal pin through a piece of paper and thus are disenfranchised. They supposedly can't read the names on the ballot. I suppose those are hard actions when you aren't alive, or aren't actually a citizen but the courts have never ruled against them. When Democratic polling machines and stations are deemed to few or too far apart, it is in Democratic districts run by Democratic officials.

At some point, to vote, you have to actually breath in and out, be conscious and be able to register your own desires or intentions.

Sorry if that is such a stretch for certain Democratic voters. It does not mean fraud should be tolerated.

Actually that is not an appropriate analogy. Much like how voter ID laws make provisions to prevent being disenfranchsed, so do our justice laws make provisions for a sound defense. Your claim is that some people make such terrible decisions, or are so incapable that they manage muck up even their sound defense.

So by your reasoning, ten guilty men shouldn't even be arrested or go to trial not because not because we want to avoid the one innocent man going to prison, but because the one guilty man showed up high at his court hearing for drug charges and was "disenfranchised" by his own self incrimination.

He was read his rights. He understood the charges. He had a lawyer. He just couldn't stop showing up high. It's the fault of everyone else though.

They have free voter ID. They have absentee ballots. They have provisional ballots. It is the fault of everyone else though when they can't manage to punch a pin through a piece of paper or even read a ballot.