Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Recent MoveOn Ad (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Recent MoveOn Ad
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Michael Moore has teamed up with George Soros and Moveon.org to produce this Ad that is every bit as truthful and classy as I would expect out of the modern American Left:

YouTube

quote:

The MoveOn.org description titles this video "Greatest Generation", and says "They're our grandmothers and grandfathers, great-aunts and uncles, beloved counselors, kindly neighbors. They are the Greatest Generation. "

Produced by Michael Moore
with Daron Murphy & David Ambrose
Written by Michael Moore & Jonathan Schwarz


Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the youtube description:

quote:
In one interpretation, it is so extreme that for some it may come across as humor, a form of political satire or performance art.
You think? *sigh*

(It's really stupid, of course. But it's not played straight. I find it rather odd the youtube post only think it's maybe played for laughs.)

[ October 31, 2012, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Classy it was not (and that's an understatement). The ad was crass. I'm not sure that I saw anything in the ad that was untruthful. There really weren't many claims of fact in the ad that could be untruthful. Let me know if there were any lies that I missed in all the noise.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I loved it.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was a bit disturbing - but what did you find untruthful, JWatts? Ignoring that the whole thing was over the top humour... was it the first women who said that (and I paraphrase) "they would wreak havoc if Mitt Romney were to win as a result of the voter suppression efforts that the Republican party is using"?

Was it the unlikelihood of an octogenarian getting access to Romney's nut sack?

Or do you disbelieve in an afterlife where ancestors punitively ogle their descendants having sex, and do you deny that the "spokesperson" believes in such as well?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I loved it, too, and it was unbelievably crass. Guess I'm just bent that way [Wink] . If Romney does win and the Ohio exit polls are opposite to the Ohio official vote tally, he best stay indoors until those folks in the ad shuffle off their mortal coil.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
It was a bit disturbing - but what did you find untruthful, JWatts?

Trying watching it again without partisan blinders on and listen to what was said. Try mentally swapping Democrat for Republican and Obama for Romney and pretending this ad was sponsored by the Tea Party. Then you'll catch at least one implicit lie.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's an implicit lie that Republicans are working to commit vote fraud in Ohio and Pennsylvania, personally. Is that what you found unlikely?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its a fact that the GOP is pushing a variety of voting restrictions all around the country. And its also a fact the kinds of restrictions they are pushing *will* suppress the vote disproportionately in communities that tend to vote democrat. Whether that the *intent* is both a question of degree, and ultimately unknowable. However, my *opinion* is that anyone who doesn't think that's part of the motivation here (on the part of the politicians pushing the measures), that person is deluding themselves. "We think these new measures to make it harder to vote are just a good idea, and the fact that massively benefits our party at the polls is a total coincidence." Yeah, right.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It also helps that in Pennsylvania, the speaker of the house SAID the point was to get Romney elected. Publicly. Since the effect of the voter id laws is to give Romney a better shot of winning, and there is no effect on reduced fraud from these laws, I am hard pressed to give any benefit of the doubt to the people who pass these laws. They are behaving in a way that SHOULD be criminal, but isn't, only because the people behaving in a criminal fashion also have control of determing what is and is not a crime.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't think it's an implicit lie that Republicans are working to commit vote fraud in Ohio and Pennsylvania, personally. Is that what you found unlikely?

Ah yes, prepping the meme in case Mitt really does carry those. If you're pushing it this hard already, you must be getting worried.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What specifically did you find "untruthful", JWatts?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
What specifically did you find "untruthful", JWatts?

The same item 3 other posters have already commented on.

Specifically:

Republicans are engaging in Voter Suppression. Which is an outright lie. Certainly a lot of Leftie's like to ascribe evil motives to the Right and pretend that this is the same as the truth, but it's not. It's a lie.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ah yes, prepping the meme in case Mitt really does carry those. If you're pushing it this hard already, you must be getting worried.
Immensely clever of you to figure out that the real issue is, in fact, the very topic that is is the subject of the thread.

Not only is your reasoning circular, your conclusion is redundant. Congrats, G3, you're making progress! [Smile]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
What specifically did you find "untruthful", JWatts?

The same item 3 other posters have already commented on.

Specifically:

Republicans are engaging in Voter Suppression. Which is an outright lie. Certainly a lot of Leftie's like to ascribe evil motives to the Right and pretend that this is the same as the truth, but it's not. It's a lie.

Is it your contention that 'no' elected Republicans and no Republican-leaning groups are engaging in voter suppression, or only that 'some' Republicans are not engaging in voter suppression?

Mike Turzai,GOP House majority leader:
quote:
"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," he said to applause at a Republican State Committee this weekend, according to PoliticsPa.com.
Are you honestly suggesting that you don't believe there are many other Republicans like Turzai, supporting voter ID laws with a wink and a nudge?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, what do you think is the purpose of all the proposed voter ID laws? Why do you think that they tried to close polling places and limit early voting in predominantly democrat areas?

You may have good answers for these questions, but I haven't heard them.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Are you honestly suggesting that you don't believe there are many other Republicans like Turzai, supporting voter ID laws with a wink and a nudge?

Are you seriously trying to use your ill intentioned motive speculation as evidence it's not a lie? Because no, I categorically reject your motive speculation.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As evidence? No. But that's not the question.

Turzai pretty clearly believes that Voter ID laws will deliver Pennsylvania. As the House Leader, is he alone in this thinking among Republicans?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JW,

A number of state have initiated "voter purges" and ID laws under the claimed goal of eliminating ineligible voters. Do you dispute this?

These efforts are spearheaded (as far as I know exclusively) by Republicans. Do you dispute this?

The purges disproportionately affect Democrats. Do you dispute this?

The evidence of voter fraud that is actually uncovered is very slim -- i.e., very small numbers of verifiable fraud. Do you dispute this?

The small numbers found do not seem to justify the huge efforts being put into place, and the large numbers of voters potentially affected. Do you dispute this?

Given a normal cost-benefit analysis, a more likely explanation for the purges is that it keeps democrats from voting. Do you dispute this?

[ November 01, 2012, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't forget caging tactics and voter role purges that actively serve to knock orders of magnitude more legitimate likely Democratic voters off the list then they ever manage to find in improper registrations, and misinformation and outright intimidation campaigns. The voter ID laws are more blatant suppression attempts, but the GOP has at least a 2-3 decade long track record of suppression.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
As evidence? No. But that's not the question.

Turzai pretty clearly believes that Voter ID laws will deliver Pennsylvania. As the House Leader, is he alone in this thinking among Republicans?

Which is proof of what?

Turzai believes that there is illegal voting by Democrats. There is plenty of historical precedent for this in New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia. He believes that the new Voter ID laws will keep non-citizens from being able to vote and he probably believes most of them were voting Democrat. There is nothing wrong with attempting to stop criminals from committing a crime.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Turzai believes that there is illegal voting by Democrats. There is plenty of historical precedent for this in New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia.
State officials in Penn have already conceded -- in a stipulation to the court -- that they have no evidence that this has occurred in Penn.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When defending the Pennsylvania bill in court the the state admitted that this bill would have not prevented any known cases of voter fraud.

quote:
"Since 2000, only 10 cases of in-person voter fraud have been proven nationally."
link

So the problem essentially doesn't exist and the solution just happens to make it more difficult for largely democratic voters to vote.

Voter fraud does happen, but it almost always involves absentee ballots. Voter ID laws do nothing to correct that. Voter fraud could happen on a massive scale with electronic voting machines that do not have a paper trail. The Republicans who were really worried about election security ignored these other 2 much bigger threats and instead focused on a problem that doesn't exist.
The solution to in person voter fraud just happens to make it tougher for largely democratic voter groups to vote.

Do you really, really believe that voter ID is about election security?

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

I am back. I will attempt to be as civil as possible. I will do my best to interact with you with as much respect as I would my boss or my father. I would hope you will attempt to do the same.

I have looked into the problem of voter suppression since 2004, when there was documented evidence of caging against Democrats, in conjunction with the highest levels of Republican leadership. It is a real phenomenon. If it has a racial component, it is illegal.

The historical precedent of Democratic voter fraud is either many decades old, or it does not involve in-person voter fraud, the only type of fraud that the voter ID laws would address. To the best of my knowledge, Turzai belives there is illegal voting by Democrats, but has provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that his law will remedy any problem in PA.

I would like to point out that Kid Tokyo and kmbboots asked relevant, respectful questions that point out potentially fatal weaknesses in your argument.

You have not yet answered any of those questions, but you have created new posts since then that deflect those questions.

I think all reasonable, intelligent people can draw their own conclusions from the facts available.

With all sincerity, I would love to have an honest discussion about this. I think I know the truth, but I am always happy to learn more, and possibly change my mind. If someone can explain how Voter ID laws solve an actual problem, then I might believe that they are not intended for voter suppression. But so far I have seen no evidence of that, and trust me, I have been looking.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If people were truly concerned about fair elections, they would be up in arms over stuff like this: “Glitch” wipes out 1,000 early votes in black FL neighborhood" instead of coming up with ways to make it harder for poor people to vote.

http://americablog.com/2012/11/computer-glitch-votes-black-florida-county-election-fraud.html

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:


Republicans are engaging in Voter Suppression. Which is an outright lie. Certainly a lot of Leftie's like to ascribe evil motives to the Right and pretend that this is the same as the truth, but it's not. It's a lie.

Yeah, I call b.s. on this one. If you want to convince me that *you* hold an ethical position here (to say nothing of the politicians themselves), then tell me how many legal voters you think will get turned away, or not even try to vote, because of these laws. And then explain how its a civic good to have that suppression happen to prevent a statistically negligible "fraud". When supporters of these tactics won't even acknowledge the impact on legal voters, that's pretty convincing evidence that this is absolutely intended as suppression.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So basically Democrats think it's better to let a relatively small number of people vote illegally for Democrats than to try to stop them at the expense of a large number of legitimate voters.

And the Republicans think that there is a huge amount of voter fraud that isn't being found or is being purposefully ignored or even covered up and regardless it is still better to stop any amount of voter fraud even if (especially if?) it hurts legitimate Democrat voters as well.

-------------------------------------------

I have a question though. And it's hypothetical.

If the amount of voter fraud was exactly equal to the number of legitimate voters who would be disenfranchised by stopping that voter fraud, should the voter fraud be stopped?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
So basically Democrats think it's better to let a relatively small number of people vote illegally for Democrats than to try to stop them at the expense of a large number of legitimate voters.

And the Republicans think that there is a huge amount of voter fraud that isn't being found or is being purposefully ignored or even covered up and regardless it is still better to stop any amount of voter fraud even if (especially if?) it hurts legitimate Democrat voters as well.

-------------------------------------------

I have a question though. And it's hypothetical.

If the amount of voter fraud was exactly equal to the number of legitimate voters who would be disenfranchised by stopping that voter fraud, should the voter fraud be stopped?

Definitely. There isn't any inherent conflict between preventing fraud and broad access to civil rights. That's why its so obvious what the point of these laws are: they disenfranchise without addressing any real issues of fraud.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me parse what cherry said.

"people vote illegally for Democrats". Completely without any basis in fact. If you can provide a source saying that there are more than 10 cases of people voting in person illegally for Democrats, you have a case. Otherwise you are just making this up.

"Republicans think that there is a huge amount of voter fraud that isn't being found or is being purposefully ignored or even covered up" Republicans think whatever they want. Rational, intelligent people think what facts indicate. Again, if you have even a shred of evidence that there is a huge amount of voter fraud not found (?) or purposely ignored, or covered up, now is the time to present it. If you don't have such evidence, again, you are making it up.

Fraudulent voting is an individual negating another individuals votes. Like if I steal your right to vote directly from you. It's like kidnapping.

Government disenfranchisement is the government stealing your right to vote. It is like the goverment arresting you in the middle of the night and keeping you in prison.

Would you allow government abductions of innocent citizens if it was promised to stop an equal amount of kidnappings by private individuals? Would you allow any government abductions if it was promised to stop 100 times as many kidnappings by private individuals?

I think an honest conservative would say enforce the existing laws against voter fraud, but the government should not make it more difficult for citizens to exercise their rights.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
So basically Democrats think it's better to let a relatively small number of people vote illegally for Democrats than to try to stop them at the expense of a large number of legitimate voters.

Precisely. The Democrat point of view would be different if they thought that Republican's gained more from illegal voting than they do. This is nothing more than self serving politics dressed up as concern for the incompetent.


quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
And the Republicans think that there is a huge amount of voter fraud that isn't being found or is being purposefully ignored or even covered up and regardless it is still better to stop any amount of voter fraud even if (especially if?) it hurts legitimate Democrat voters as well.

I wouldn't qualify it as huge. But there's a consistent amount of fraud that is never caught. Generally speaking, there is virtually no chance of being caught for illegal voting. Since, there's no chance of getting caught, no one gets caught and in an astounding bout of circular logic, Leftie's point to no one getting caught as 'proof' that there isn't a problem.

If we don't need picture ID's to vote, why do we need them to buy cigarettes and alcohol? I have yet to see a Democratic legislature arguing that a utility bill with your name on it ought to be proof enough to buy a bottle of Wild Turkey.


quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
I have a question though. And it's hypothetical.

If the amount of voter fraud was exactly equal to the number of legitimate voters who would be disenfranchised by stopping that voter fraud, should the voter fraud be stopped?

Absolutely. Every fraudulent vote is already canceling out someone else's legitimate vote.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If the amount of voter fraud was exactly equal to the number of legitimate voters who would be disenfranchised by stopping that voter fraud, should the voter fraud be stopped?"

That's an unartfully framed question. What if there are only 10 known cases of voter fraud, but 100s of 1000s of legitimate voters who are denied the opportunity to vote? The difference between your question and mine is that mine isn't hypothetical. That's what the voter suppression laws in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and other states are intended to do.

I would think that you would fight for your right to vote and fight against anyone who tried to take it away from you. But you're not a Democrat so you don't have to worry that it will happen to you.

[ November 01, 2012, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
So basically Democrats think it's better to let a relatively small number of people vote illegally for Democrats than to try to stop them at the expense of a large number of legitimate voters.

Precisely. The Democrat point of view would be different if they thought that Republican's gained more from illegal voting than they do. This is nothing more than self serving politics dressed up as concern for the incompetent.

This is not the Democratic position. I don't think they are benefiting from in person voter fraud. I don't think anyone is benefiting from in person voter fraud. I think Republicans think they benefit from adding a hurdle for mostly democratic to vote.

The concern is for the impoverished, not the incompetent. Its poor or elderly who don't have IDs because they have no need of one. If you can't afford to drive and are too poor or choose not to have a bank account and credit cards what do you need an ID for?

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Precisely. The Democrat point of view would be different if they thought that Republican's gained more from illegal voting than they do. This is nothing more than self serving politics dressed up as concern for the incompetent."

You are as much as acknowledging that all of the fraud is by Democrats and it's the Republicans who are manning the towers of freedom and democracy.

"[Cherry:] If the amount of voter fraud was exactly equal to the number of legitimate voters who would be disenfranchised by stopping that voter fraud, should the voter fraud be stopped?
[JWatts:] Absolutely. Every fraudulent vote is already canceling out someone else's legitimate vote."

Now you sound like FOX News by treating as legitimate an absurd hypothetical that casts Democrats as crooks and cheats. A full 75,000 fewer voters were registered in Florida this year compared to 2008 because registration officials were uncertain whether the new voter registration laws in the state were going to be enforced, altered or dropped. Do you think that they found 75,000 fraudulent voters to offset them?

[ November 01, 2012, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Democrat point of view would be different if they thought that Republican's gained more from illegal voting than they do. This is nothing more than self serving politics dressed up as concern for the incompetent.
And if that happened, the Democrats would also be in the wrong. The point is that the calculus doesn't work unless your interest is suppressing the votes of the opposition under a false pretense of preventing fraud. Which is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.

quote:
But there's a consistent amount of fraud that is never caught.
Why do you think so? There's no evidence. More importantly, why do you think the fraud will influence the outcome of an election? We've already established that the purges and ID laws will influence the outcome against the democrats. But, is your argument also that those committing the fraud are more often than not voting democrat?

quote:
Since, there's no chance of getting caught, no one gets caught and in an astounding bout of circular logic, Leftie's point to no one getting caught as 'proof' that there isn't a problem.
No one here said that there's "proof" that there's not a problem. We are saying there's little to no evidence that there is a problem. Since when do Republicans require "proof" that a problem does not exist before they refrain from government measures, expense, and legislation to prevent it?

quote:
If we don't need picture ID's to vote, why do we need them to buy cigarettes and alcohol?
Because voting is a fundamental right in a democracy, and buying booze and smokes isn't? Because we haven't required government issued IDs to vote for two centuries? This is a recent requirement, and it is Republican initiated.

quote:
Every fraudulent vote is already canceling out someone else's legitimate vote.
Nonsense. They would inflate the count, which is not the same thing.

[ November 01, 2012, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
So basically Democrats think it's better to let a relatively small number of people vote illegally for Democrats than to try to stop them at the expense of a large number of legitimate voters.

Precisely. The Democrat point of view would be different if they thought that Republican's gained more from illegal voting than they do. This is nothing more than self serving politics dressed up as concern for the incompetent.
Since you accept that in-person voter fraud is rampant, and claim that it is almost impossible to catch, why assume that all that undocumented fraud is being perpetrated by and for Democrats? Wouldn't it make just as much sense to assume that all this mystery fraud was being perpetrated by Republicans instead?

As to the "self-serving" accusation - project much? Guess what: Democrats are far more likely to believe that in-person voter fraud is being perpetrated by Republicans rather than Democrats, just like they believe other forms of voter fraud are more likely to be perpetrated by Republicans.

[ November 01, 2012, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The whole idea of vast quantities of in-person voting fraud simply doesn't pass the sniff test. By definition, each instance of such fraud must be perpetrated on an individual basis.

This would require vast numbers of people being in on a conspiracy, or vast numbers of people individually deciding to fraudulently vote on their own and coming up with their own ideas for doing so.

The latter seems the more improbable, since we would expect that, among such large numbers of people acting on their own, a significant number would mess up and get caught.

But then the less improbable option requires a vast conspiracy involving literally tens of thousands of people: and conspiracies that large just do not work.

So the options are a process where significant numbers of people are getting caught on a regular basis, or an unhideable yet perfect conspiracy.

And there's no evidence of either.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not one of you addressed the silliness of requiring a photo ID to

1) Buy alcohol
2) Buy cigarettes
3) Buy several over the counter drugs (Benadryl)
4) Drive a car
5) Rent a hotel room

and yet claim it's an excessive burden to meet the same requirement to Vote.

[ November 02, 2012, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One does not have a fundamental right to:

1) Buy alcohol
2) Buy cigarettes
3) Buy several over the counter drugs (Benadryl)
4) Drive a car
5) Rent a hotel room

One does have a fundamental right to vote.

The government needs a stronger justification to imfringe upon the former activities than the latter.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some places don't even require those things to buy a gun, because they believe it's a fundamental right. IMO, you should be arguing for the same freedoms here.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
One does not have a fundamental right to:

1) Buy alcohol
2) Buy cigarettes
3) Buy several over the counter drugs (Benadryl)
4) Drive a car
5) Rent a hotel room

One does have a fundamental right to vote.

The government needs a stronger justification to imfringe upon the former activities than the latter.

I believe you're wrong on 3 ... healthcare is now considered a fundamental right.

Gun ownership is undeniably a fundamental right but we require ID to buy guns - at least they do anywhere I've bought a gun in the last 10 years or so. Nobody seems worried about suppressing that fundamental right - in fact, quite the opposite.

You can't attend or enter as a visitor most (all?) public schools without some form of ID but nobody is crying over the intent to suppress education are they?

There is a right to travel; try getting on a plane without ID now. You may be able to work through it but you gotta get felt up first.

This whole ID requirement will suppress votes meme is a red herring. It's bull**** and everybody knows it.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1