Thursday, October 13, 2011

More On The "Staffer"

In this installment, I’d like to focus on the, uh, “less than conservative” statements Lofren makes throughout his diatribe. Some of them were covered last time, and it is difficult to really know where to begin, considering just how many there are to find. But by highlighting them, one can easily see why I am suspicious of assuming this guy is a real conservative, as opposed to some guy just working for Republicans. Here we go:

”Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.”

The key phrase used above is “onerous voter ID requirements”. Apparently, having an ID when voting is what is onerous to goofballs like Lofgren. But the Wisconsin law merely limits the requirements to a few forms of ID, while still considering one or two more. Presently, it requires forms of ID such as state driver’s license, state ID, military ID. I’m sorry. But anyone not carrying at least one of these into a polling place not only needs to be prevented from voting, but publicly ridiculed by all those who understand the gravity of the situation.

But to the left, this simple, common sense requirement is a slap in the face to every lazy, half-assed creature that doesn’t have the self-respect to comport himself like a responsible citizen when going to perform a most important civic duty. Boo-freakin’-hoo.

As to the devious and diabolical conspiracy of GOP chicanery, it’s not difficult to research a few details of the proposed DMV closings to find there’s no one that will be denied access to getting an ID well before the next election takes place (see Bloomberg Businessweek for 7/22/11---I couldn't get the link to work). They don’t happen every two days, ya know. If one can’t get an ID within two years before the next election, they simply don’t care. And only a lib would suggest the cost of a state ID is a burden. All this Lofgren calls a “legislative assault” which is ”moving in a diametrically opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress pointed toward more political participation by more citizens.” Apparently, to Lofgren, like as to libs, enforcing standards is an assault on those who would prefer no standards whatsoever. This isn’t the talk of a conservative.

His true colors begin to show more brilliantly when he goes on to say this:

”But domestically, they don't want those people voting.”

OH, NO, MIKEY! DON’T GO THERE!!! But he does…

”You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base.”

No wonder the lefties are eating this stuff up! I wonder if Lofgren is aware, unlike the other lefties, that racial minorities, immigrants, muslims, homosexuals and even intellectuals are often called upon to show legal IDs for any one of hundreds of possible encounters in everyday life. They could all use those same legal IDs to vote! Isn’t that swell?

But of course the concern isn’t for the voting rights of any of those people. Uh, uh. This is a typical lefty use of the B&I card. The bigotry and intolerance card. Because it is easier to cast aspersions than it is to defend the notion that a responsible adult can’t obtain a legal picture ID for the purpose of proving his identity before punching a ballot. But Lofren’s not done with unsubstantiated accusations:

”This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black.”

First of all, what accounted for the extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of GW Bush? There is no hatred for Obama that is common amongst the right-wing. This is a common lib lie. There is plenty in his policies and positions to hate, but that is not the same as hating the man. We just want him to be an ex-president at the earliest possible date so as to end the push for those damaging and incompetent policies and positions. BUT, that this low-life would joke that the main GOP objection to Obama is his color is probably the one main piece of evidence that this guy is not a conservative or a Republican. This crap screams out for names to substantiate the charge. HE apparently has a problem with the color of the president. But if this turd has any knowledge of any Republican of note wishing to unseat Obama purely on racial grounds, it demands Lofgren get a spine and call the guy out. Until he does, I’m calling this guy a lying liberal.
Here’s a final lie for today’s review of Lofgren’s drivel, and it’s one that Ronny really likes:

”Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear.”

This is a massive overstatement of the truth. While the right has its share of “out there” people, the base is pretty sharp as to what’s going on in the world and in our government. Most of the groups he listed in the above quote are really the same people. I have been bold in stating that what difference there is between a center-left individual and a total fascist is only a matter of degrees, where within those extremes we find the socialist and communist. And certainly we don’t normally find secular humanists and feminists anywhere right of center, with but a few exceptions if at all.

As to what this guy means by “ragheads” is anyone’s guess, but if he is implying that the right has concerns about islamofascism, they are indeed warranted and anyone not parking his head up his own hindquarters is well aware of the threat.

And the push by homosexuals and radical feminists has already harmed the culture and will continue to do so. This, too, is a legitimate and measurable threat, though of a different kind. Lefties won’t see it. It’s not that they can’t, they just refuse out of abject stupidity and moral bankruptcy.

As to holding up blacks as a source of our woes, it is clear that we are solidly opposed to the liberal and socialist types of “black leaders” who have done little to benefit the black community or the culture at large, but continue to annoy with their nonsense.

Thus far, we can plainly see that this Lofgren dude is no more than another liberal regardless of whatever job he worked during the past thirty years. He’s touched on all the same stupid accusations that have been debated here since the blog’s inception. But I’ve been way too detailed in my shredding of this character’s idiocy. With the next and final installment, I’ll get right to his final three highlighted points. This dude is no conservative.

168 comments:

4simpsons said...

I treat opposition to voter ID as a concession speech. They are usually the real racists, who are only too glad to foster racial tensions by opposing one of the most common sense measures on the planet: Offering evidence of who you are when voting.

The Democrats are the most vile cheaters when it comes to election fraud, and their opposition to voter ID just demonstrates how unashamed they are about it.

Craig said...

I heard Medved interview one of the "no ID" folks a while back. What struck me was that she was very clear that voting was reserved for citizens, but balked at folks actually requiring folks to demonstrate that they are citizens.

Here in the great state of MN as long as you bring someone to the polls to "vouch" for you, you can just show up and vote. It really doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for a little more forthought from people who are about to vote.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jim said...

I find this obsession you have with Mr. Lofgren quite curious. It's not like he's proposing policy, or arguing against policy. It's not as if he is running for office.

He is simply making observations about what he has seen and how things have changed over his career.

But he has committed the sin of speaking against the Republicans so he must be a liberal masquerading as a Republican. You know like Richard Clark, Col. Wilkerson, Treasury Secretary O'Neill.

What are you so afraid of? Very curious.

Jim said...

"the push by homosexuals and radical feminists has already harmed the culture and will continue to do so. This, too, is a legitimate and measurable threat"

Measurable threat? What? Yards? Pounds? Inches? Calories? Count of traditional marriages ruined?

What a hoot!

"First of all, what accounted for the extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of GW Bush? There is no hatred for Obama that is common amongst the right-wing. This is a common lib lie. There is plenty in his policies and positions to hate, but that is not the same as hating the man."

This is hilarious! Who "hated" Bush instead of his policies and positions?

How does arrogant, narcissistic, idiot, ignorant, incompetent qualify as legitimate criticisms for Obama but "hate" against Bush.

Ridiculous!

"This dude is no conservative."

Because he criticizes Republicans who he believes hurt the conservative cause?

Curious.

Marshall Art said...

Quick note to the troll-boy:

You've no room to demand evidence from anybody about anything. Hypocrite.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"For things that they don't have a constitutional right to do, maybe, but not to vote."

So, for all the things they have no "right" to do, they can produce an ID, but not for voting? Is that what you're suggesting? How does that make any sense? If they can produce one for so many "non-constitutional" purposes, and be required to have one, BTW, then why would it be a burden to have one on hand for the purpose of proving who you are when voting?

"Where are all the thousands of fraudulent votes?"

What difference does it make? The policy proposed is a good one that should have been in effect since carrying picture IDs for any other legal purpose had been enacted.

But personally, I don't care if there have ever been massive fraud or not. It was not a thought when the prospect of showing an ID was first presented to me. My first thought was, "Come to think of it, I don't understand why it hasn't been the rule already!" It seemed an obvious and sensible rule. Then came all the lefty whining. If ever there was a case of "he doth protest too much", it's manifested in the liberal aversion to the concept. The average mature adult carries a legal picture ID almost constantly, and certainly when important legal situations must be handled. Seems even a lib would see the benefit for our nation of mature adults voting, and the immature adults doing whatever it is they do that makes them immature instead of adversely impacting something so important as a national election.

But no, libs don't care who votes if they vote for the lib candidate. They pretend it's the American way that everyone votes. But that's just deception, as they simply want all the votes they can get. Well, so do the right-wingers, but we prefer people to know why it is better to vote the way we do and make a conscious and educated decision to vote for the candidate of one's choice. There's far too many Parkie's in the country as it is.

So, if someone has to save up for two years to pay the fee for a state ID, so be it. OR, they can borrow the dough and spend it on the ID rather than beer. One either takes one's civic responsibilities seriously or one doesn't vote.

"Why is it that every measure to stop "voter fraud" more often affects Democratic voters than Republican?"

Because Republicans were already taking their civic duty seriously and doing what the Dems find difficult, like having a legal picture ID. Gosh! That's just so hard!

Marshall Art said...

"I find this obsession you have with Mr. Lofgren quite curious."

That's funny, Jim. It was the obsession with Lofgren by all the lefties that drove me to post on it. I first became aware of it via Ron's blog "A Conscious Outpost" and in trying to find out about the guy, it seemed I could only find lefty sites and articles that were keen on the guy, because of his essay. But as I said, his comments are no different than all of the lefty claims and accusations, and, like those lefties before him, he offers no solid evidence or quotes or names anyone or provides anything more than the same old sorry accusations.

So it's really a case of him walking and squawking like a duck but he poses as a Republican, or rather, is presented as some kind of right-winger because of his work. But then, I can't find out anything about what he did. Yeah, I know he was a staffer, primarily on particular committees. But what did he do specifically? Of those who supposedly held him in high regard, there are no names of any of them. Who the hell is this guy and why should anyone give a rat's ass about what he thinks of Republicans?

But the lefties have gone wild BECAUSE he was a Republican staffer as if that gives more validation to his accusations. Well, it might if there were names, quotes, links, evidence of ANY of the charges he makes. As such, he sounds like a typical lib talking out his ass.

So if there is any "fear", it is that BECAUSE he is referred to as a Republican staffer, some yokels will think his accusations have more merit, which is why all the lefties are so high on his essay.

"Measurable threat? What? Yards? Pounds? Inches? Calories? Count of traditional marriages ruined?

What a hoot!"


Not the time for dealing with your moral corruption, Jim. Another post, perhaps.

"This is hilarious! Who "hated" Bush instead of his policies and positions?"

Are you that stupid, Jim? I was turning Lofgren's statement around, though through the years, I have heard a few people besides Bill Maher express actual hatred for Bush. Frankly, I'm sure there are some on the right who hate Obama. But my point was that to assume there is some underlying hatred of the man himself, an assumption Lofgren expresses plainly, is pathetic and very lib-like.

Marshall Art said...

I'm not sure I understand this question:

"How does arrogant, narcissistic, idiot, ignorant, incompetent qualify as legitimate criticisms for Obama but "hate" against Bush."

But I'll take a crack at it with this answer: It is closer to the truth for Obama, but extremely far from it for Bush. Since those adjectives don't at all describe Bush, it is hateful to use them against him. But a case can be made for each against Obama.

""This dude is no conservative."

Because he criticizes Republicans who he believes hurt the conservative cause?"


No, Jim. Because he makes charges typical of a lib and like a lib does nothing to back up any of it.

And to further satisfy what you pretend to find so curious, I can also state that his rambling diatribe serves to put together in one essay a rather comprehensive list of bullshit liberal charges to more easily dissect, refute and mock.

Parklife said...

" I have heard a few people besides Bill Maher express actual hatred for Bush."

Typical. Ma remembers some people "hate" Bush. Now every person that disagrees is out of control.

Marshall Art said...

Troll-boy is clearly an idiot. I was obviously doing no more than acknowledging the fringe of both sides. Another case of the clinical idiot finding fault where none exists. Pretty much what Lofgren is doing

Jim said...

"we prefer people to know why it is better to vote the way we do and make a conscious and educated decision to vote for the candidate of one's choice."

Nobody gives a shit how you vote or why you think your way is better. Unless I'm mistaken, voting in this country is by secret ballot and each voter gets to vote the way they choose. Why? Because it is a constitutional right to vote.

Gosh oh gee. What in the heck did they use to identify voters before photo IDs came along?

"It is closer to the truth for Obama, but extremely far from it for Bush. Since those adjectives don't at all describe Bush, it is hateful to use them against him. But a case can be made for each against Obama."

That is a total steaming pile of horse shit cop out.

Marshall Art said...

"Nobody gives a shit how you vote or why you think your way is better."

Don't be a putz, Jim (unless you just can't help yourself). I was merely contrasting the right from the left. It's crystal clear that you don't give a crap what other people think. But the fact is that many people are interested in how other people vote and why. I'd say most people are for the simple reason of educating themselves as well as to persuade some others from poor decisions. I'm sure you'd like to think such people are out to silence opposition or to force people to spill the beans on their voting choices. Hardly the case, so calm down.

"Gosh oh gee. What in the heck did they use to identify voters before photo IDs came along?"

Why is this a problem for you, Jim? Are you seriously going with the "marginalizing some people" crap? Are you seriously going to suggest that to get some kind of state ID is some legitimate burden on anyone? Do you have a personal issue with presenting identification in order to cast your vote?

"That is a total steaming pile of horse shit cop out."

In what way?

Craig said...

Unless I'm mistaken, one needs a government issued ID for a number of things in life. Having a bank account for example, going to the Dr., purchasing certain OTC medication, getting a job. Why is it such a burden to produce an ID to vote. Esoecially sine most states with ID laws have a provision for a low or no cost ID for those who need it.

Yes, we should restrict the vote to citizens, but we should just take peoples word for it.

If it wasn't a crime, I'd be tempted to take someone to "vouch" for me and see how many precincts O could vote in. I'm guessing it wouldn't be tough to vote multiple times.

Jim said...

"Don't be a putz, Jim (unless you just can't help yourself). I was merely contrasting the right from the left."

No, what you were "merely" saying is that YOU know the correct way to vote and anybody who votes differently is a mindless automaton who votes merely from party affiliation.

I reject that. Don't be a putz, Marshall.

"Why is this a problem for you?"

Because the "problem" it is designed to "correct" simply doesn't exist. And the solution more often effects poor or elderly people and is clearly designed to do so because of whom they generally vote for.

"In what way?"

In the way that you can call Obama anything you want and it's not hate because "a case can be made for each against Obama"

Marshall Art said...

"No, what you were "merely" saying is that YOU know the correct way to vote and anybody who votes differently is a mindless automaton who votes merely from party affiliation."

Not at all, Jimmy boy. I was merely stating what I said I was merely stating, not what you need me to be merely stating. Look, here's the original piece with which you found fault:

"But no, libs don't care who votes if they vote for the lib candidate. They pretend it's the American way that everyone votes. But that's just deception, as they simply want all the votes they can get. Well, so do the right-wingers, but we prefer people to know why it is better to vote the way we do and make a conscious and educated decision to vote for the candidate of one's choice. There's far too many Parkie's in the country as it is."

See? I was drawing a distinction between two common traits, that each side prefers everyone votes as we do. My point was that your side doesn't much care about why someone votes as long as they vote your way, which is opposed to the average conservative who prefers educated voters who will naturally vote our way by virtue of understanding the superiority of our philosophy and ideology. In other words, all things being equal, the conservative candidate CAN'T lose, as he carries the best message, the best plan and comes with the best record of past performance.

With voter ID laws, everyone is equally subject to the same criteria, just as we are now with things like being a citizen, being registered, etc. Having an ID is just another requirement that any mature citizen understands as one that makes sense. You're not going to find anyone on either side of this issue state that determining the level of fraud is an easy endeavor. But plainly, presenting a legally recognized picture ID would reduce the possibility and thus makes sense and should be enacted. There is not one single whine in opposition that is not incredibly weak and rather than protecting against "marginalizing" anyone or oppressively burdening anyone, your position allows for the possibility that those who should not be voting can vote. There are far more of such people that would vote for center-left candidates. (You may have seen that poster with all the pictures of arrested people sporting Obama Tee-shirts.)

Marshall Art said...

"Because the "problem" it is designed to "correct" simply doesn't exist. And the solution more often effects poor or elderly people and is clearly designed to do so because of whom they generally vote for."

I risk redundancy because it bears repeating. You won't find too many people who would suggest that it is easy to detect how much fraud exists. To say it doesn't exist at all is crap, especially considering the whining done in 2000 and 2004 (Diebold machines).

I doubt too many elderly are without a state ID. My 85 yr old mother, who no longer can drive, got herself a state ID. She ain't wealthy by any stretch. The cost of acquiring a state ID are minimal and saving over the course of two years (the average span between major elections) is easy for anyone. This is in addition to what Craig said regarding how states who've enacted such laws have made allowances for the needy to have their costs covered.

The fact is that the Dems don't care. They just want the votes. This is what drives the so-called "moter-voter" laws and other proposals to make registering like going to McDonald's. The Dems know the lazy and unmotivated will likely vote for them because they're too lazy and unmotivated to pay attention to the world around them and be informed enough to make educated votes.

"In the way that you can call Obama anything you want and it's not hate because "a case can be made for each against Obama""

Not so. I can call Obama anything I want, but I don't, other than "idiot", "chucklehead" and names related to his incompetence and unworthiness for the job. But, unlike libs did toward Bush, I do not call him things to that do not fit. For example, I don't call him "Bob". That is clearly not his name. I don't call him, "Hitler", for he has not shown himself to be anything like Hitler. And clearly, I have never said that I hate the guy. I still hear people say they hate or hated Bush.

But what's more to the point is that I was again drawing a distinction between left and right, particularly as regards Lofgren's statements about "vitriolic hatred" for Obama. Pure crap and nothing like what was routinely heard by lefties against Bush. There has to be SOME connection between the charges and the truth. There was very little connection between what lefties said about Bush versus what we can plainly see about Obama.

Jim said...

"plainly, presenting a legally recognized picture ID would reduce the possibility and thus makes sense and should be enacted."

The possibility? Oh yeah, and throwing a net around the entire earth would reduce the possibility that space aliens would walk among us. But like voter fraud, the problem of space aliens doesn't exist.

THERE IS NO PERVASIVE VOTER FRAUD PROBLEM. There are a miniscule number of cases that have been brought, much less successfully prosecuted over the past decades. This is a phoney issue for which the "solution" just happens to adversely effect Democrats more than Republicans.

I don't care how trivial you think it is for people without a picture ID to get one.

As an aside, it would be much easier to get a fake ID or change ones appearance from a 3 year old license than to present a signature that matches the one a person registers with.

In the meantime, I've been voting since Nixon was (still) president and I have never once been asked for anything other than my signature in order to vote. I can do many more transactions by mail, telephone or online without a picture ID than I will ever do with one.

"your side doesn't much care about why someone votes as long as they vote your way, which is opposed to the average conservative who prefers educated voters who will naturally vote our way by virtue of understanding the superiority of our philosophy and ideology."

Geez what a load of crap.

Marshall Art said...

No crap at all, especially in light of your pants-wetting over the possibility that one might have to show a legal picture ID to vote.

"As an aside, it would be much easier to get a fake ID or change ones appearance from a 3 year old license than to present a signature that matches the one a person registers with."

Really. No mature, law-abiding person I know, and certainly not conservative persons, would even know how to go about such a thing, much less in a manner that would be easier than going to the DMV or some such place to get a legal ID. No, only those of a criminal orientation would do so, and most of those, should they care to vote, vote Democratic. So it doesn't really even adversely impact them. Who would it adversely impact? The poor? The same poor who have cell phones and HD TVs?

How perfectly typical of a lib to propose that because HE doesn't think the problem is pervasive enough to worry about, that it isn't a practical change to the current policy. Considering those who cheat are usually Dems, I can understand not wanting to lose a one. But if one is confident in one's message, such a protection against fraud, regardless of how pervasive it might be now, should not be problematic for any law-abiding citizen.

So much for THIS tangent. Let's try to get back to the post itself.

Jim said...

"How perfectly typical of a lib to propose that because HE doesn't think the problem is pervasive enough to worry about, that it isn't a practical change to the current policy."

It's NOT a practical change because the change does not solve even the alleged problem.

It's not what I think is a problem. There is no factual evidence that it IS a problem and I challenge you to provide evidence that there IS a problem which would be solved with voter IDs.

Marshall Art said...

"There is no factual evidence that it IS a problem and I challenge you to provide evidence that there IS a problem which would be solved with voter IDs."

I guess that might be a swell challenge if my support for the idea was premised upon the existence of such evidence. It is not. My support is based on the simple wisdom of providing proof of one's identity that one is legally entitled to cast a vote in an election in this country. That it has not been required up to this point is equally irrelevant to whether or not it should be so now.

So rather then trying to get me to provide evidence for an argument I'm not even advancing, why not provide some for your arguments against. To begin, I will state that here in Illinois, the cost of a simple state ID card is $10 if under 18; $20 if 18 to 64; free if 65 or older. They're good for five years. I've seen one state charge a high of 44.50 for all and another a low of $5 for all. I don't know how long they're for. (These rates were updated at the site I found them in July of 2010) If we assume a high of $50 for all in any given state, even for a one year card (though I don't think any are only good for one year), that's less than a pack of smokes a month. So who exactly would be disenfranchised by an onerous voter ID law?

John B said...

http://americanlibertarian.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/wisconsin-in-the-news-again/

Read this post and then my comments about its complete lack of integrity. It claims there is intentional disenfranchisement because the Wisc. DMV workers were told that if the box is not checked in order to receive a free -- yes, FREE -- ID for the purposes of voting, then they are to pay for it. But if they ask about it, then it is fine to give it for free.

The box is very conspicuous and only someone intentionally not reading the form would miss it. I think it shows someone's true colors when they oppose making sure someone is who they claim to be.

John B said...

It should also be noted that so far, in every state that requires photo ID to vote, one is made available free of charge.

Vinny said...

America functioned perfectly well for two hundred years without these voter ID requirements. A true conservative would say "Let's stick with what works." The true conservative believes that even things that sound like common sense requirements have unintended consequences.

Marshall Art said...

John,

Good points on that other blog. They tried desperately to imply evil intent, but I think fail totally. The state would be giving out ID cards for free all the time if DMV workers were allowed to tell everyone they can get them for free. It is no stretch to believe that given the opportunity, EVERYONE would check the box, and frankly, it seems that everyone can, including those who can easily afford to pay for it. So, if disenfranchisement were the point, I would expect proof of poverty to be required as well, and it isn't. It is simple and easy to get the ID for free, just as any lib would demand it be.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

"A true conservative would say "Let's stick with what works." "

Perhaps, but only second to "Let's do what's right."

"The true conservative believes that even things that sound like common sense requirements have unintended consequences."

But a true conservative vets ideas thoroughly in anticipation of negative consequences. Nonetheless, whereas not all consequences can always be imagined, common sense requirements will find support by people with common sense, conservative or otherwise.

But what "unintended consequences" do you foresee following enactment of voter ID requirements? Only one that comes to mind is that legal citizens possessing no legal forms of identification would not be allowed to vote. But likely, they weren't allowed to register. I don't recall what I had to do to register as I've been registered for over twenty years in the same district. But it seems to me that any mature and responsible adult would not go long without having legal identification. There's no downside to the concept of proving one is who one says one is before voting.

Vinny said...

The true conservative knows that "Let's do what's right" can be used to justify anything. That's why he sees "Let's stick with what works" as a more practical and pragmatic guide.

A true conservative would never ask so silly a question as "What unintended consequences do you foresee." The true conservative knows that the reason you stick with what works is because unintended consequences are also unforeseen consequences.

A true conservative would never try to justify a law that imposed burdens on the individual in the exercise of their constitutional rights and required the government to spend money so that poor people could meet that burden.

Of course in this case the consequence that you have foreseen is the very one that the law intends, i.e. disenfranchising voters who are more likely to vote for Democrats.

What I really love is the way that so-called conservatives scream bloody murder over "slippery slopes" whenever any law is proposed that makes it the slightest bit more difficult for them to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, but when it comes to burdening someone else's voting rights, it's just common sense.

Marshall Art said...

A true conservative does not use "Let's do what's right" to justify doing that which isn't. It's part of what makes us conservative. That's not to say that a conservative might be sincere and wrong at the same time regarding what he thinks is right. But that's a different story.

"The true conservative knows that the reason you stick with what works is because unintended consequences are also unforeseen consequences."

I believe I spoke to this very point. However, a true and serious consideration of the possibilities lessens the likelihood of negative consequences, which can arise despite the best efforts to prevent them. But "going with what works" does not prohibit trying to improve upon a situation. Voter ID improves the situation.

What's more, I was asking YOU what "unintended consequences" YOU foresee. You obviously have some fears. We have addressed some of the imagined burdens and found that there really are none. The only people that could possibly be legitimately disenfranchised by voter ID laws are those people who have no right to vote (illegal immigrants, for example). I can't think of any people who are legally allowed to vote that would be disenfranchised by not having an ID to present.

And by your admission (or suspicion) that those who might be disenfranchised would vote Democrat, you make a great assumption. If we were to grant that this is true, then it seems that what the case is has less to do with who the right would prohibit from voting (only those with no legal right to do so), but that the left intends that ANYONE who would vote for Dems should be allowed, regardless of whether or not they are legally entitled.

In addition, no one has yet indicated just how this law burdens anyone.

Vinny said...

And by your admission (or suspicion) that those who might be disenfranchised would vote Democrat, you make a great assumption.

If Republican controlled state legislatures are passing these laws, only a childish moron would believe that they don't expect them to decrease vote totals for Democratic candidates.

Craig said...

Let's see, about 2000 ineligible voters voted in MN in 2008. The statute of limitations runs out on the 2008 election in a couple of weeks so who knows how many additional prosecutions there will be (or not be). We still don't know about 2010 yet, but hey it works so well we're going to gear up for 2012 without making changes. We are also seeing precincts where the number of signatures don't match the number of receipts, which don't match the number of ballots, but it's no big deal. Why try to get it right?

Marshall Art said...

"Childish moron", huh? Only a deceitful leftist would suggest that Republican legislators are looking to do any more than reduce from the total voting rolls those people who are not entitled to vote in the first place. Only desperate Democrats would suggest that such a law would impact either side greater than the other IF there weren't more cheaters on their side. Again, Dems indict themselves with their objections to this type of law if they can't show how their constituents are being marginalized. "Childish morons" indeed.

Jim said...

Craig said, "Let's see, about 2000 ineligible voters voted in MN in 2008."

Source?

"Only a deceitful leftist would suggest that Republican legislators are looking to do any more than reduce from the total voting rolls those people who are not entitled to vote in the first place."

Sorry, did a spit take on that one.

Oh, and how does Photo ID "reduce from the total voting rolls those people who are not entitled to vote in the first place."

Marshall Art said...

"Oh, and how does Photo ID "reduce from the total voting rolls those people who are not entitled to vote in the first place.""

Is this supposed to be a serious question? You assume there are no attempts to vote fraudulently. As we have such a loose system now, where only a signature is required in some places, why not ask this of your momma, and maybe she can explain this for you.

Vinny said...

MA,

The voter ID laws aren't directed at the voter rolls. Their purpose is to stop people who are already on the rolls from voting. Perhaps you should apprise yourself of the facts before you offer your opinion.

Marshall Art said...

"Their purpose is to stop people who are already on the rolls from voting."

Not so. The purpose is to make sure that the guy who shows up calling himself Bob Jamoke is really who he says he is. Perhaps you should apprise yourself of the facts before you offer your opinion.

Vinny said...

The purpose is to make sure that the guy who shows up calling himself Bob Jamoke is really who he says he is.

Oh sure. People pretending to be other people who are legally registered to vote is a HUGE problem. When was the last time you heard of someone showing up at a polling place and being denied a ballot because someone else had already voted in their name? Never! No true conservative would advocate new laws effecting constitutional rights on as flimsy a premise as that.

Marshall Art said...

In what way does this law affect anyone's constitutional rights to vote? In our state, as you know, one must provide at least two forms of ID in order to register. Thus, those who had ID to register would have no trouble providing ID to vote. There is no conflict whatsoever. This is only a lame whine by the left to open up the vote to any Dem supporter regardless of his voter eligibility.

And why the hell are you blogging during the Bears game, anyway?

Jim said...

There are very few cases where people have been charged with voting illegally, much less convicted. And the majority of those are ex-felons who knowingly or unknowingly voted illegally.

And I'll bet every one of them had a valid photo ID.

"The voter ID laws aren't directed at the voter rolls."

Correct. They use caging for that.

Vinny said...

In our state, as you know, one must provide at least two forms of ID in order to register.

I don't know that and I can't find anything that corroborates that. I take that as further proof that you don't know what you are talking about. What you need is proof of residence which can include utility bills and a variety of other documents.

Marshall Art said...

Try this, Vinny. Note this section:

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

Requirements

You will need to show two forms of ID: one with your picture and one showing proof of your current address, such as a recent bill.

The other requirements are:

-You must be a U.S. citizen.

-You must be 18 years of age, or 18 at the time of the election for which you are registering.

-You must have been a resident of the precinct for which you are registering for at least 30 days prior to the election.

-You must not have been convicted of a felony that permanently prevents you from voting.

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

There is also this from www.elections.il.gov, wherein it says:

What forms of identification may be needed when I register to vote?

Two forms of identification with at least one showing your current residence address is needed when you register in-person. If you register by mail sufficient proof of identity is required by submission of your driver's license number or State identification card number. If you don't have either of those, verification by the last 4 digits of the your social security number, a copy of a current and valid photo identification, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document that shows your name and address will be required. A person may also demonstrate sufficient proof of identity by submission of a photo identification issued by a college or university accompanied by either a copy of the applicant's contract or lease for a residence or any postmarked mail delivered to the applicant at his or her current residence address.


(The first emboldened section after the question shows the use of driver's license or state ID, both of which are picture IDs.)

So, we see that proper ID for registering is required. It means that everyone who is registered already has a photo ID of some kind, and likely a driver's license or state ID.

Vinny said...

MA,

Those are the requirements for registering at the DMV. If you register by mail or at the county clerk's office, you can do it without a photo ID.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

The second example is not from the DMV. Check the link.

More importantly and to the point, who exactly would suffer under a law requiring a photo ID except for those who are not legally entitled to vote? Neither you nor Jim have provided an answer to that question. You've only claimed that it will happen.

Vinny said...

The second example says that you can register by mail using the last four digits of your SS# and a utility bill. Neither of those is a photo ID.

When you register at the county clerk's office, you need two documents as well, but neither of them need be a photo ID.

Therefore, a person can be legally entitled to vote without possessing any state issued photo ID whatsoever. Requiring such an ID at the time of voting will disenfranchise people who are legally entitled to vote.

Even pretend conservatives like you should be opposed to that.

Marshall Art said...

By your argument, if a person does not possess any of the other forms of ID listed by the state, they are then purposely disenfranchized in a malicious manner. That is to say, at the point at which those requirements were enacted, all those who previously were eligible to vote without having those forms of ID were then disenfranchised if they tried to vote without them. But from that point on, people merely knew they needed to provide such forms of ID to register and those who could not were no longer legally eligible. But only those who refused to comply with the new requirements actually disenfranchised themselves. Now, adding a picture ID to the mix is somehow draconian. Really.

Even a pretend thinker should be able to see how ridiculous that is.

I'm still not seeing how requiring a photo ID will disenfranchise anyone. The cost is extremely low, especially considering that over two years, the span of time between major elections, it amounts to a savings of less that 3 cents per day. (Call it three cents if you want to count the cost of actually going and getting it done) And even Illinois provides criteria by which even the most destitute can obtain one for free. Where's the burden? Where's the disenfranchisement? It's not like anyone is proposing that the requirement be enacted right before election day.

By your argument, any ID requirement at all, any proof of residency, has the capability of disenfranchising someone. Why have any such requirements? Yet you find no fault in those requirements. Only a photo ID presented before casting a ballot somehow is a sign of cruel fascism. So, like Lofgren and other whiners, you throw out this charge of "onerous" ID laws simply to demonize the Republicans rather than actually finding fault with the law itself.

Marshall Art said...

There really is no downside to having a requirement of presenting a photo ID to vote. Indeed, it encourages all mature and responsible adults to possess recognized ID. Recognized by everyone, including the state that issued it, and all other states in the union. No one questions that the bearer is who he says he is, unless there is some evidence of fraud, which, according to Jim, is as easy to do as snapping your fingers. (BTW, Jim. If you really think it's that easy to get a phoney ID, then you must have experience or you're blowing smoke. If the former, then you should get in touch with local law enforcement or you are complicit in a felonious activity.)

Craig said...

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/TheIssues/ElectionIntegrity/tabid/188/Default.aspx

Craig said...

In MN the system essentially is that if you register in advance the state (in theory) verifies that you are who you say you are, and that you are eligible to vote. If you "register" on election day, there is no check. Seems somehow unfair to me.

I find it hard to believe that it's more difficult to buy Sudafed than it is to vote.

Vinny said...

That is to say, at the point at which those requirements were enacted, all those who previously were eligible to vote without having those forms of ID were then disenfranchised if they tried to vote without them.

That doesn't follow at all. The registration requirements could change without striking anyone who is already on the rolls or interfering with their right to vote in any way.

Marshall Art said...

Nicely done, Craig. I especially like this part:

" Requiring confirmation of a voter's identity will disenfranchise voters – There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the opposite is true. Legitimate voters are being disenfranchised now by a failure to verify the integrity of the system. When improper ballots are comingled with legitimate ballots, there is no way to retract illegitimate ballots from the system. Defending a system that doesn’t take meaningful steps to prevent illegitimate ballots from being introduced into an election undermines the votes of legitimate voters. It has been estimated that there are only approximately 40,000 Minnesota citizens that currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. Voter ID bills introduced in the past have included funding to provide free state-issued identification cards to these individuals. These ID cards would actually benefit low-income people by helping them better integrate into society. It’s difficult to function in society, let alone get ahead without proper identification. Indiana recently enacted a voter ID requirement and enojyed record-breaking voter participation in the 2008 election."

The embolden parts were highlighted by me. The first is a great point that should have been the most obvious in this discussion. Any fraudulent vote is an assault on the integrity of the system and the very concept of voting itself and any attempt to lessen fraudulent voting should be supported, not vilified. And even if we concede that Jim is right and no one has ever cast a vote by claiming to be someone else or claiming to be eligible when not, this is then a proactive move, and a worthy one at that.

The second emboldened section puts a lie to the idea that anyone is disenfranchised by requiring a photo ID. Though there are likely a variety of reasons why the turnout was so good in Indiana that year, if the liberal charge had any truth to it, I don't think we would have seen a rise in turnout. Not so "onerous" after all.

Marshall Art said...

Jeez Vinny. The same dynamic exists for photo IIs. No one who is eligible would be denied unless they failed to present proper ID, just as one needs properID to register. In each case, requirements must be met.

Vinny said...

When you resort to "jeez," I know that you have shot your intellectual wad.

Marshall Art said...

Don't be silly. ""Resorting" to "jeez" only means that I can't believe I have to explain something so elemetary.

Vinny said...

No. You resorted to "jeez" after I pointed out that you were absolutely wrong about what would have happened to previously registered voters when the current registration requirements were enacted. Changing registration requirements doesn't interfere with people who are already registered voting exactly as they have always voted. Imposing new photo ID requirements for voting does.

Marshall Art said...

Changing registration requirements where none existed did. You're assuming I was speaking of changes to an existing situation. I wasn't. I'm assuming that the enactment of registration requirements were universally welcomed and embraced without ANY protest.

What's more, you've yet failed to provide any description of how having to provide proof of identity in any way "disenfranchises" anyone.

Marshall Art said...

Message for the troll:

Really idiot? You think typos indicate anything more than a errant keystroke? What a loser!

Vinny said...

I can always count on you to assume whatever "facts" you need to justify your beliefs.

Parklife said...

Ma.. are you embarrassed?

Marshall Art said...

Well, Vinny, don't we all? I assume what makes sense until an enlightened soul like yourself can provide evidence to the contrary. But let me make a correction to my previous statement. What I meant to say was

"I'm assuming that the enactment of registration requirements wasn't universally welcomed and embraced without ANY protest."

You see, I don't know for certain that registering to vote was always required throughout the history of this country. Perhaps it was. If so, how can you be certain that refinements in the requirements didn't result in some protests along the way? I don't think you can be, but you seem to be assuming whatever "facts" you need to justify your beliefs.

Marshall Art said...

OOH, Parkie! Good question! Yes! I am totally embarrassed that I've somehow attracted a lowlife troll like yourself to my humble blog to soil it with inane and pointless comments seeking to prove a cleverness and thoughtfulness you do not possess. That totally embarrasses me. But hey, such is life and at least you provide a legitimate target for mockery and for that I can't thank you enough. Idiot.

Vinny said...

Well, Vinny, don't we all? I assume what makes sense until an enlightened soul like yourself can provide evidence to the contrary.

No. We don't all. Some of us try to examine the evidence in order to determine the facts rather than assuming the facts we like.

Marshall Art said...

Ignoring the condescending implications of your comments, Vinny, I must still lament the fact that I must spell things out for you, as if you are another Parkie looking for any opportunity to deliver a cheap shot.

My assumptions are based on available evidence. What evidence do you possess that lends credence to the charge that requiring IDs to vote disenfranchises anyone? What might you have that confirms the first set of requirements ever instituted for voter registration were universally embraced without any protest?

Vinny said...

MA,

If you had the slightest intellectual curiosity, a simple Google search would produce lots of articles describing how voter ID laws will prevent legally registered voters from casting ballots. However, I doubt that you would consider any of them valid evidence because they don't from wingnuts like The American Thinker.

Marshall Art said...

My request that you provide evidence of your claims demonstrates my intellectual curiosity. As you believe Google will provide this for you, feel free to link to something here and I'll surely review it, and then tell you why it isn't a valid complaint.

Vinny said...

MA,

No. Intellectual curiosity would be demonstrated by seeking evidence before you form your opinion. Requesting evidence afterwards demonstrates your confidence that your opinion is impervious to facts.

Marshall Art said...

That's a lauhg, Vinny. you chided me about voting & registration requirements, so I provided evidence dupporting my contention (regardless of your opinion of the evidence). Yet, you apparently believe you can make any claim and have to find proof for that, too? I don't think so.

Marshall Art said...

Doing this on a phone can be tricky.

In any case, I don't feel that I need research every little thing, particularly if plain logic and common sense compels my opinion. Since it is you, Vinny, and otrher libs, suggesting a problem with this proposal that makes it "onerous", it is up to you to provide proof. It is beyond reason to expect me to go on some Easter egg hunt every time you make a claim to see of the claim holds any water. That's just you being lazy, and more so considering your certainty that Google will provide your proof.

Vinny said...

MA,

Believe me, I've spent enough time reading your blog to know that you never feel any need to do any investigation beyond looking to see what The American Thinker tells you to think. I know that it is far beyond reason to ever expect you to give any independent thought to any issue.

Marshall Art said...

That's a bit of an overstatement, to say the least. What's more accurate is that I've based some posts on articles I've read at AT, and the links the various authors use are quite comprehensive and often leading to gov't numbers and stats upon which they base their opinions. I know you like to think that your sources are unimpeachable, but they are no more or less gospel than any I have used, whether they be through aforementioned links or other sources I've used. And of course you've noticed that I did not rely on AT for the info regarding Illinois voting requirements. So that pretty much confirms your statement is the crap that it is. Or do I need to Google anything to back that up?

All in all, however, it sounds to me very much like you are setting yourself up to bail out without supporting your contention that photo IDs will leave anyone out in the cold, which is very much what Lofgren is doing and among the reasons I don't think he is truly a right-wing individual. I've already answered any objection that has been raised (as far as I've heard thus far) and the charge is left-wing fear mongering. It seems plainly obvious that the only people who would be denied are those who shouldn't be voting in the first place---illegals or convicts, two constituent groups Dems don't want to lose.

Vinny said...

MA,

If anything, I think it’s an understatement when you make claims about “what seems plainly obvious” when you haven’t done the slightest investigation to see whether there may be some facts that undermine your position

Marshall Art said...

Again, Vinny, if you you make a charge, it's up to YOU to back it up, not me. And frankly, I've done the research. The charge is that requiring IDs to vote would disenfranchise people, make it impossible for some people to vote who would otherwise be eligible. My research has refuted that over-hyped notion by showing that the fees for obtaining a state ID is incredibly small and that most states will waive even those tiny costs for those who supposedly cannot afford them. In addition, I have not heard of anyone looking to impose the requirement just before an election so as to inhibit anyone, but after an election so as to prepare for the next, giving anyone who needs to get an ID, usually two years before another major election takes place. What more do I need to indicate what is plainly obvious in this case? If you have some evidence that people would be put out, bring it. It makes a lot more sense than trying to posture yourself as more of a due diligence guy while doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.

And as far as that posturing goes, it is also plainly obvious that you would never make any charge without providing links and proofs in order to show you're not taking a position without having done your investigations.

Vinny said...

MA,

It is clear that you are just regurgitating what you hear on wingnut talk radio. That's not research.

Marshall Art said...

How would you know? You don't listen to "wing nut talk radio". Or perhaps you can provide a transcript from the exact "wing nut talk radio" show from where you believe I got my info.

You also seem to take the cheap argument that deferring to someone who has already done the research (which is what they do before broadcasting) is less relevant than my going through scores of books, which in reality would also require research to vet the authors, if one wishes to claim true superiority in doing due diligence. You've put forth books in the past as some sort of proof that you are better informed, but have not provided a decent reason why your source is more credible, other than that he was in the business, as if none of my info ultimately came from similar people of different opinions.

You posturing is childish. It isn't how much reading, how many books, or where the info originates. It's the truth of the info as compared to reality. Like Lofgren, your throwing out charges regarding voter ID with no proofs whatsoever to back it up. My position has come from common sense based on the reality, that it is no great burden to supply one's self with an ID one should have already. You claim what is currently required to vote should be sufficient. You claim that no problem has occurred as a result so no change is needed. But a photo ID seals the deal as far as knowing with complete certainty that the voter is who he says he is and therefor is eligible to vote. Where's the problem here?


The problem is somewhere in the objections, or rather, in the intentions of the objectors. Regardless of the past, or whether whiny liberals think otherwise, presenting a photo ID issued by the state makes perfect sense. It's what should have been in place from the time photo IDs could reasonably been produced and anyone who takes the responsibility of voting seriously should have no issue with protecting the integrity of something which can have such a mammoth impact on future generations.

So, the question stands. What burden will this place on anyone and what proof do you have that such a burden is legitimate?

Vinny said...

MA,

I know because I try to get multiple perspectives on an issue before I reach a conclusion and I try to be familiar with the best arguments that can be raised against the conclusion I have reached.


I know because I've read your blog and argued with you enough to observe that you are never familiar with any perspective but the wingnut version. You never understand the arguments liberals actually make. You only know the caricatures of liberal arguments that you get from the wingnuts.

Marshall Art said...

I'm sure that makes you feel better to believe that. But the fact is that I have not heard a better argument for the topics I discuss than what the "wing nuts" present. I read pretty much every link any lefty here decides to present, which is far more than I can be confident of in any of you regarding links I present. Those are far more relevant anyway, since they are related to the topic at hand. I read as many "multiple perspectives" as I feel is necessary to determine what I see as the best or correct path. Perhaps you need to read more than I do before anything akin to understanding seeps in. Based on your opinions, I'd say you need to keep reading.

Now, we can go on all day accusing each other or boasting on ourselves, but I still want to see what "evidence" you think exists that photo IDs will truly "disenfranchise" anyone. I'm guessing you've got nothing, since you're being so evasive with all this other crap you want to believe about me.

Vinny said...

MA,

If you actually cared about evidence, you'd look for it before you formed your opinion. That's what thinking people do.

Vinny said...

BTW, it doesn't make me feel better. It saddens me immensely.

Marshall Art said...

Of course it's not that I don't rely on evidence to support and/or form my opinions, it's that I don't do it in a manner that satisfies you. It's that the opinions to which the evidence I've seen leads me is in conflict with what your favored sources tell you.

Based on YOUR argument, there is no opinion that can be formed because there's really no way we can be certain we've uncovered every relevant piece of evidence. Based on YOUR argument, there is no opinion that can be formed that the search for evidence can satisfy unless it results in opinions YOU favor. If an opinion conflicts with YOURS, then obviously the opponent hasn't researched deeply enough. Sure. That works for...you.

But all this is just blowing smoke. You insist that I support my opinions, and you also insist that I take your word for yours or spend time researching to find whatever you believe is the ultimate word. So spare me any other time wasting crap, Vinny. If you've got something to support the goofy notion that IDs will "disenfranchise" anyone, bring it. As I've said, I've shown how the costs and time factors refute the notion. Yours (that is, the lefty position on the subject) is a totally bullshit gripe.

Mark said...

In my line of work, not one, but two ID's are necessary to purchase a cell phone. This is to combat fraud.

If one needs two ID's to prove they aren't attempting to defraud AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint PCS, why would asking potential voters to produce one ID to prove they have a legal right to vote be over the line?

A better question to you, Jim:

Would you want a Republican elected President because many of the voters were voting illegally?

And, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is it an elephant? I think not.

Mark said...

"a simple Google search would produce lots of articles describing how voter ID laws will prevent legally registered voters from casting ballots.

This is a stupid statement. One cannot be legally registered without establishing proof of voter eligibility and that can only be accomplished if the potential voter can produce some evidence that he is legally permitted to vote. The best and most conclusive way to do that is to produce some sort of valid ID that proves they are legally eligible to vote.

A better question to ask is this:

Why would anyone want ineligible people to vote, unless they want to encourage voter fraud?

Vinny said...

MA,

Based on our previous discussions, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that anything I cite that contradicts what you already believe will be dismissed as a "lib source" for no other reason than that it doesn't confirm what you get from your wingnut sources. You pretend like the evidence matters to you in the same way that Lucy pretends she's going to hold the football for Charlie Brown.

Marshall Art said...

That's incredibly fantastic crap, Vinny. Well done, though not very original. I do not default to dismissing anyone's argument based on the mere fact that they use a known lib site or a known lib personality for their source. Indeed, you are more guilty of such nonsense as you think that just because I might cite an article from American Thinker, that I'm merely parroting a known conservative. If I ever blast someone for using a lib source, it is only after having my evidenced dismissed for being from a conservative source. My concern is primarily on the argument/evidence being cited and whether or not I think it has merit.

In other words, I don't need anyone to tell what to think as I am more than capable of determining the merits of an opposing opinion, dismissing it or adopting it on its own strengths, not on who is promoting it. You apparently need to hash over a ton of sources in order to be sure of yourself. I don't find it at all necessary in every situation because I can think for myself. Apparently you're so used to having someone else think for you that you assume tons of research is required for everyone. This is simply not so.

Sure, I will admit to being suspicious of something that comes from a Glen Greenwald, for example, but I never trash it simply for having come from him. The charge is absolute bullshit.

What else is bullshit is the fact that you are spending so much time accusing me of crap that isn't so when you could have proven your point with this undeniable evidence you claim exists all over the internet. It is equally apparent that for you childish back and forth is more highly regarded than getting to the point. Waste your time if you like. I'm done with it. If you've got evidence that anyone could truly be disenfrancised by being required to have a photo ID in order to vote, bring it. You're the one that says it is so. I think it's crap. The onus of digging for evidence is on you as I've already provided evidence that it is not a burden on any mature, responsible citizen.

Vinny said...

Did you ever admit you were wrong about your claim that “[we] know the subprime mortgage [crisis] was a result of Democratic intervention in the housing industry"?

Marshall Art said...

Ah! Changing the subject again, are we?

No. I didn't "admit" I was wrong because it hasn't been established. This is the very thing that came to mind as you rambled on about what sources I use compared to you. I don't recall you ever mentioning you read anything that agreed with my position on the subject, despite your claim of reading all sides. You only offered the one book that you take as the final word on the subject.

In addition, you never answered my main concern regarding banks loaning to people with questionable ability to repay. Why would banks do this without being made to by gov't intervention? It makes no sense, if we're to pretend greed was the sole driving force, for a greedy person to take bad risks.

I would still like to read this incredible book of yours, but I work tons of hours these days and time is short. It remains on my list of books to read, whether you care to believe it or not.

In the meantime, what book do you have to offer that supports the goofy notion that requiring a photo ID to vote in any way truly disenfranchises anyone? Or have you formed your opinion without gathering all the evidence?

Vinny said...

MA,

I've read several articles on the topic of voter ID laws, but I'm not nearly as well informed on the topic as I am on the subprime crisis.

I did in fact answer your question:

Banks made loans to people with questionable ability to repay because they intended to package the loans into mortgage backed securities which they could sell to investors who were hungry for higher rates of return. They did it because they thought they could make money. They did it because they misjudged risk and they did it because they didn't think they would bear the risk if the borrower failed to repay.

I'm not sure which book you are referring to, but I appreciate the constraints on your time. I don't have the time to read every book I might like to read either. The difference is that I don't claim to know things that I don't know.

Mark said...

Parkie, I asked,

"Why would anyone want ineligible people to vote unless they want to encourage voter fraud?"

Your response?

"Still dont like black people I see."

How on God's green earth did you draw that conclusion from that question? Are you a sentient human being at all, or are you an automated Liberal rant robot?

Mark said...

Parklife said...

"In my line of work, not one, but two ID's are necessary to purchase a cell phone.

lol.. what "line of work" are you in?
"

Duh...I sell cell phones. For someone who seems to consider himself so clever, so intelligent, you should have been able to figure that out from the context, but all you've done is prove yourself to be every bit the idiot Art says you are.

In your copy and paste, you left out the line in which I said, we do that to combat fraud. Which is the reason ID's should be verified in order to be allowed to register to vote. To prevent voter fraud. I would think even a brainless Lib such as yourself would agree with that logic.

Or...how would you prevent voter fraud? Take their word for it?

You know, if Libs don't want t prevent voter fraud, Conservatives could use it to our advantage as well. Would you want ineligible voters to vote for a Conservative candidate?

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

You shouldn't encourage and feed the troll. He excretes enough shit around here as it is. Now that I've deleted his worthless comments, he'll undoubtedly charge you with taking his idiocy out of context, as if what passes for context in his world would give more meaning and depth to his drivel.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

"Banks made loans to people with questionable ability to repay because they intended to package the loans into mortgage backed securities which they could sell to investors who were hungry for higher rates of return."

This is untrue. They made these loans because they were pressured to do so by the gov't as a result of the Community Reinvestment Act. They didn't "intend" to repackage anything, but were given the ability to do so in an effort to ease their reluctance to cut their own throats by loaning money to people who, up until that time, would never have qualified. The lunacy of your position on this topic (and of those you used as a source) suggests that the big money being made in a far safer manner (loaning to those who qualified AND could put down 20% up front) wasn't enough for those who made their living loaning money to those who would pay it back. There never existed anyone to buy crappy packages of risky loans until the gov't got involved in the banking industry trying to win votes by making home ownership easier for those who should have rented, because crappy loans weren't offered.

Your sources pretended all the strategies employed by the bankers who feared going belly up (ala Washington Mutual) came first, not as a result of the pressures to find some way to stay solvent.

In short, I'm not wrong on the subject, nor am I lacking in knowledge of what went on. YOU, on the other hand, think YOUR sources are correct and because your info came from a book (or two) rather than many articles and interviews, that somehow that makes your sources superior. It doesn't. The truth stands. The subprime mortgage crisis was a consequence of gov't intervention by Dems.

Now, if you're not going to support your contention regarding voter IDs, I'd appreciate no further distractions. The voter ID business is itself a tangent from the topic of the post.

Mark said...

Actually, in the beginning, Democrats Frank and Dodd pushing the mortgage lenders to lend money to people they knew couldn't pay them back was because of a mythical practice called "redlining".

Supposedly, mortgage lenders and banks had city maps on their walls with certain "high risk" areas portioned off with red lines. The idea was that loans weren't granted to anyone who lived within those lines. These were predominately black areas of towns, although there were many poor white and Hispanics in these areas as well.

The whole purpose from the beginning was to force mortgage lenders to grant home loans to the poor, who otherwise would not be able to get a loan due to poor credit ratings. It was racial profiling in reverse, for lack of a better term. A failed effort to "level the playing field" by legislation, which never works, but the Liberals have yet to figure that out.

While this was a noble effort, it was a bad idea because it focused on getting the people into a home of their own but didn't provide them any way to be able to make the payments. Thus, it created even more poverty, and drove the costs to the taxpayers up.

I say the practice of redlining was "mythical" because actually drawing these red lines on a map would have made it easy for lawyers to sue, having actual proof of discrimination. Lenders aren't that stupid.

Back before the Congress became aware of the possibility of "redlining", I worked for a high dollar home improvement company which relied heavily on selling their products on credit. We had areas of the cities which we simply didn't work, because the chance that a loan would be approved in those areas was very poor. But there were no literal red lines on our maps.

And, it wasn't a company enforced rule to stay out of those areas. It was just common sense. If you work on commission, why waste your time trying to finance something you know has a good chance of falling through?

Vinny said...

MA,

The overwhelming majority of sub-prime loans were made and securitized by institutions that were not subject to the CRA and the overwhelming majority of loans that are going bad today are not in low income communities. Your willingness to swallow this line of wingnut bullshit is proof positive of your complete indifference to facts.

Jim said...

a mythical practice called "redlining"

Mythical? Uh, no. Source.

"Frank and Dodd pushing the mortgage lenders to lend money to people they knew couldn't pay."

It's getting really tiresome debunking this lie. The point of CRA was to get financial institutions to lend to credit-worthy" borrowers who were living in poorer (redlined) areas. No bank was EVER made to make an un-credit-worthy loan. EVER.

Marshall Art said...

Please, both of you. The facts are staggeringly apparent. I may have offered this source before, but it clearly shows how gov't intervention was the source of this problem. The gov't created Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae loosened it's loan requirements, Fannie Mae put pressure on lenders to show they were lending in the "red lined" areas by proving they were lending to people in those areas with quotas indicating loans to minority borrowers. THAT was my whole point in saying that gov't intervention led to the crisis, regardless of what type of loans fell under the heading "subprime" or to whom they were given. No banker would have risked capital on risky borrowers or would they have risked a default that would then require they try to sell a home in a bad neighborhood without being compelled to do so. THAT is the fact that YOU guys refuse to face, swallowing any alternative story that relieves culpability of the Dems who instituted these policies.

Now, let us focus on the point at hand, and at least provide some evidence that anyone would be disenfranchised by being required to present a photo ID. This post is not about the sub-prime crisis.

Mark said...

OK, fine. The ONLY people who would be "disenfranchised" (whatever that means--Oh I know what it means but it's obvious the meaning is unclear to our Lib visitors) are people who are ineligible to be registered to vote in the first place. Why would that be a bad thing?

As I asked, but received no answer, would you Libs want ineligible voters to vote for Conservative candidates?

If your answer is yes, at least you are consistent, but still wrong. If no, why not?

Jim said...

Thayer Watkins? Your source is Thayer Watkins? Did you see his homepage? Note that Thayer Watkins dissertation contains not one source to support his argument.

His argument and yours suggests that there are no minorities in what would be considered redline areas who are capable of repaying a loan, and that in order to make loans there, the lender would have to relax credit standards.

This is false, of course. My bank never relaxed its lending standards to meet its CRA requirements.

"at least provide some evidence that anyone would be disenfranchised by being required to present a photo ID."

There are people eligible to vote who don't have a photo ID. They may never pay the cashier with a credit card. They may never fly in a commercial aircraft. They may never drive a car. They may live miles from the DMV.

To obtain a photo ID may be a burden, even if it means having a friend or a relative drive them to the DMV. That's a burden.

A burden they shouldn't have to worry about.

And you have basically reduced your argument to, "Why not? Seems like a good idea."

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Almost all the convictions of illegal voting are for ex-felons who were ineligible to vote but probably had photo ID.

The fact is, the requirement to have a photo ID is an unnecessary burden and most often affects people who are likely to vote Democratic.

"would you Libs want ineligible voters to vote for Conservative candidates?"

Of course not. Tell you what, why don't we pass a law that says ALL voters must purchase a stamp that proves they are eligible, but the only place you can get them is in the ghetto from 9PM to 5AM? The Stamp is free. You could pick up on your next beer run.

Mark said...

"would you Libs want ineligible voters to vote for Conservative candidates?"

Of course not.

But you're OK with ineligible voters voting Democrat.

That's what I thought.

Hypocrite.

Mark said...

BTW, Your statement, "The fact is, the requirement to have a photo ID is an unnecessary burden and most often affects people who are likely to vote Democratic." is elitist conjecture to say the least.

How do you walk without running into things with your nose thrust so high in the air?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Don't be an idiot. How many sources do you require? This was but one.

"His argument and yours suggests that there are no minorities in what would be considered redline areas who are capable of repaying a loan..."

It would be helpful if you would freakin' read the link before commenting to so poorly on it. It clearly mentioned the problems a lender would face trying to sell a foreclosed property in a red lined area if even a good credit risk defaulted for even a legitimate reason. Try to be honest. Of course there are minorities who are not bad risks. But if they live in an area where a property isn't easily sold, then the lender gets stuck with a repossessed property it can't move, should they default.

"My bank never relaxed its lending standards to meet its CRA requirements."

Oh really? You mean your bank still requires 20% down payment to qualify for a mortgage? That used to be quite common.

"To obtain a photo ID may be a burden, even if it means having a friend or a relative drive them to the DMV. That's a burden.

A burden they shouldn't have to worry about."


This is incredibly stupid. Acquiring a driver's license was a burden for me. I could drive. Having a license didn't affect my ability to operate an automobile. It cost me time and money to get one. It was a burden. It was not insurmountable. In fact, I had to have someone take me in their car to test for my driver's license as it was illegal for me to drive myself to do so. Oh, the horrors of trying to find someone willing to do drive me!!! Oh, what a burden!!! One could take a bus or a cab or ride a bike or, good gosh, walk! That someone might be put out to acquire a state ID does not constitute disenfranchisement. It does bring about whining, but whining does not relieve one of their responsibilities as a participating citizen. To possess a state ID to vote is no more a burden than it is to possess a driver's license to drive. Man up, Jim.

""would you Libs want ineligible voters to vote for Conservative candidates?"

Of course not. Tell you what, why don't we pass a law that says ALL voters must purchase a stamp that proves they are eligible, but the only place you can get them is in the ghetto from 9PM to 5AM? The Stamp is free. You could pick up on your next beer run."


How about this: All of us on this side of the issue will hit ourselves in the head repeatedly with a hammer and eventually we'll be stupid enough to make a suggestion like your last.

Jim said...

"But you're OK with ineligible voters voting Democrat."

No. That does not follow. There is no evidence of any widespread ineligible voting, much less any that would be prevented by a photo ID.

This is a really simple issue:

1) There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

2) You want to implement a "solution" to a problem for which no evidence exists that it is a problem.

3) Your "solution" which solves NO issue should be instituted just because why not.

4) Your "solution" adversely affects some voters but solves a non existent problem.

Ergo, voter suppression. By your own admission, your solution is designed to prevent people from voting. There is no evidence that the people you are preventing from voting are ineligible to vote.

Ergo, voter suppression.

There is no question that this is voter suppression by intent and design.

"is elitist conjecture to say the least."

Wow, that's a new one. Did you think it up yourself? I guess the actual voters who have actually complained are elitist, too?

Marshall Art said...

Try harder, Jim. By your logic (I use the word loosely), and Vinny's for that matter, then the requirements for registration are a burden as well and designed to somehow prevent eligible voters from registering. This is complete bullshit and about the weakest of arguments, even for you. Voter requirements of any kind present a burden but nothing insurmountable by responsible and mature adults who understand and value the gravity of the situation. That one more reasonable, rational and frankly, obvious step disenfranchises anyone who is eligible is still to be proven. Your whiny complaints about having to get off one's ass and go get an ID do not equate to preventing anyone from voting.

Vinny said...

MA,

The only thing staggeringly apparent is that you are completely uninformed on the subject because (as you freely admit) you don't have the time to read credible sources.

Jim said...

the requirements for registration are a burden as well and designed to somehow prevent eligible voters from registering.

Not so. As you can see here, in the State of California I can fill out a form online and print it, or ask a friend to print a blank form for me and fill it out, and mail it in. Note that at no time am I required to provide a Photo ID, I'm not required to go any farther than my mailbox, and the total cost is 45 cents plus an envelope.

Furthermore, I can choose to vote by mail, which I've done in every election since the last time I registered 11 years ago. Never, EVER have I been required to provide anything but my signature in order to verify my identity.

There has never EVER been any evidence of widespread voter fraud anywhere in the US. Ever.

Photo ID laws are clearly voter suppression laws.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

Credibility isn't measured by the number of pages. A few paragraphs by a noted economist is as credible a source as any. You seem to think one needs to read a whole book before claiming to know anything on a subject. I've read plenty and I've listened to plenty of knowledgeable people explain the situation. It's clear that the difference between my sources and yours is that mine start at the beginning, when gov't involved itself in the affairs of private business to force changes upon which they can garner votes.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

A requirement of any kind is a burden by definition as it forces action one would otherwise not need to make. Voting by mail was instituted to accommodate lazy people who won't get off their asses to do their civic duty and get to the polling places. This is apparent by your own admission that you use it when you could get there yourself, unless you must be constantly hooked up to medical equipment to survive, in which case a mail-in scenario is justified. Apparently, getting to the polling place is such a disenfranchising requirement for losers like yourself that you wouldn't vote if you had to leave the house. It's just not important enough for you to bother. I don't see people like you as worthy of the effort to entice you to participate in the process. Where in some countries we read of people actually risking their lives to line up and vote, Jim can't be bothered if required to punch his own ballot. You're pathetic and, like Vinny, still without evidence that anyone is prevented from voting by being required to possess a legal ID.

Vinny said...

MA,

Since you are so knowledgeable, perhaps you could explain why most subprime loans were made by institutions that were not subject to the CRA. If banks only made high risk loans to sell them to the Fannie and Freddie, perhaps you could explain why the default and delinquency rates are lower on loans originated for securitization by Fannie and Freddie than on loans originated for private securitization. Perhaps you could explain why Fannie and Freddie lost market share during most of the housing bubble.

Jim said...

It clearly mentioned the problems a lender would face trying to sell a foreclosed property in a red lined area if even a good credit risk defaulted for even a legitimate reason.

A lender can underwrite a loan anywhere and price it for the inherent risk of location among many other factors. Your argument assumes that a property in a redline area could never sell at any price. This is false, of course, because a credible lender who follow the proper underwriting policy would take all factors into consideration and only loan the amount he believes he could recover in foreclosure.

Voting by mail was instituted to accommodate lazy people who won't get off their asses to do their civic duty and get to the polling places.

Up yours, you elitist ass! I've punched my own ballot every election since I voted against Nixon in 1972. The fact that I can MAIL my ballot instead of trying to get to the polls when i have a four hour daily commute hardly indicates laziness.

You've written some asinine shit here, Marshall, but this one ranks with worst of them.

Jim said...

You're pathetic and, like Vinny, still without evidence that anyone is prevented from voting by being required to possess a legal ID.

You're pathetic and still without evidence that there are significant numbers of fraudulent voters and still without evidence that requiring a photo ID would mitigate what fraud might exist.

Jim said...

Maybe you should tell this woman to get off her lazy ass and get a photo ID.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

Perhaps I could. But this thread is not about the subprime crisis, as I have stated numerous times now. Perhaps I could, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the underlying complaint that the whole thing was a result of gov't intervention, which it was. The details of how it went down don't matter. What matters is would it have happened at all without the gov't intervention? You've never addressed that, and I'm not concerned that you should now since this post isn't about that topic. So, if you would like to add anything, make about something this post discusses.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"You're pathetic and still without evidence that there are significant numbers of fraudulent voters and still without evidence that requiring a photo ID would mitigate what fraud might exist."

Dude. I have never suggested anything regarding how many fraudulent votes could have been prevented with a photo ID policy in place. MY position is simply that it is an obvious requirement that should always have been in place and should be in place now. I don't much care if NO fraud took place that could have been prevented by such implementation. We're talking about what is arguably the most important duty every mature and responsible citizen can undertake for the sake of his country, and I believe it is a good practice to make sure that everyone who steps up to the voting booth be able to prove he is who he says he is.

But YOU make the pathetic whine about people being disenfranchised by such a policy and thus are obliged to provide some evidence of such. Your link is a laughable attempt to do this. My own mother is incapable of standing in long lines for undetermined periods of time. You know what I do, as a son who cares? I get her a freakin' wheelchair so she doesn't have to stand.

What's more, I would have very little problem talking the DMV people into letting her jump to the front of the line due to her infirmity. The story is complete bullshit and I don't believe that too many people would be such assholes as to let a 91 year old woman struggle in a line. If they are assholes, the son can rent a wheelchair, possibly even borrow one from someone. The point here is that she is not prevented from getting an ID. She just has her own personal hurdle to clear. That is NOT disenfranchisement. That's called "life". Deal with it. Pathetic indeed.

Vinny said...

MA,

What happened without government intervention was the Great Depression. After reasonable government regulation was enacted and enforced, the United States enjoyed four decades of unprecedented stability in the financial markets and widely shared economic prosperity. Then came the era of Reagan and Greenspan and with the attitude that financial markets should be allowed to regulate themselves. Since then the United States has gone from the biggest creditor in the world to the biggest debtor in the world and middle class incomes have stagnated while the benefits of economic growth have flowed only to the richest Americans. On top of that, the financial system has been systemically threatened on multiple occasions including the 1987 stock market crash, the S&L crisis, Long Term Capital Management, the dotcom bubble and bust, and the subprime crisis.

Of course you never let little things like facts get in the way. All you need to know is that wingnut radio says "Government Bad!"

Marshall Art said...

You're wrong again, but worse, you're still avoiding the topic. Don't much care about the Great Depression in this thread, especially as a dodge to supporting the disenfranchisement charge.

Vinny said...

If you don't care about facts or evidence on one topic, there is no reason to think that you care about them on any other.

Marshall Art said...

Another excellent dodge, Vinny. A true talent. You can pretend only you are dealing in facts and evidence if you like, but the truth is that you are providing what doesn't diminish the point. Worse, in this case, you're attempting to provide what you think are facts and evidence for a topic not being discussed in order to avoid conceding the fact that you have no evidence to support a particular claim leveled by you and other libs regarding disenfranchisement of eligible voters due to a proposed voting requirement.

Marshall Art said...

As it happens, Vinny, I have been spending more time than I had intended reviewing sources regarding the subprime situation. In doing so, I have yet to find anything that answers my underlying premise regarding gov't intervention in a manner that refutes it. I've been trying to find the very beginning and have not yet found it. YOUR sources have not addressed the issue from the beginning, but have jumped in at a later point. In trying to clear those who instituted CRA, you think you make points by pointing out what was done outside the jurisdiction of that Act. But doing so does not address in the least it's overall impact on how business was done. I believe, at this point, that I'm far more likely to refute my own position far sooner that you could if it can be refuted at all.

Marshall Art said...

And one more thing...

Just because you don't like how I respond to your "facts", doesn't mean I don't care about facts and evidence. This is just a case of you not dismissing that which doesn't match your preconceived notions. A charge you like to level at me.

Vinny said...

Since you believe what you believe based on faith rather than facts, I'm not surprised that you can't find and/or can't recognize the evidence that refutes it.

You haven't even been able to figure out why the questions I asked a relevant, have you?

Marshall Art said...

You see, that's a mere assumption on your part that what I believe (outside of religion) is based entirely on faith. If that were true, I wouldn't bother researching at all. But I do (to the extent that time permits).

The issue isn't merely the existence of facts, but how the facts are interpreted, or whether a given fact is relevant or beside the point. As I've said, your "facts" haven't dis-proven what I believe is reality, even if they are indeed true by themselves. And as neither of us has provided anything that does, then it's more than possible that there isn't any such evidence at all.

As to relevance of your questions, there isn't any since none of them deal with the assertion that requiring a photo ID to vote disenfranchises anyone.

Jim said...

I don't much care if NO fraud took place that could have been prevented by such implementation.

So why add requirements if you don't care if they prevent fraud or not?

I know. Because...

I believe it is a good practice to make sure that everyone who steps up to the voting booth be able to prove he is who he says he is.

And they do. They sign sign a book or in my case an envelope so that the signature can be compared with a previous registration. This was good enough for two centuries. Or do you think that our precincts are rife with forgers?

Why should that woman or your mother have to do anything more than provide a signature as they have done for decades?

It's voter suppression.

Craig said...

"And they do. They sign sign a book or in my case an envelope so that the signature can be compared with a previous registration."

Actually here in MN this is not true, anyone can show up on election day with someone to "vouch" for them, register, and vote with absolutely no proof or verification at all.

Now, there may be some after the fact verification that might prevent further problems, but that still allows ineligible voters.

Jim said...

but that still allows ineligible voters.

How many?

Vinny said...

It's not a mere assumption. It is the logical inference drawn from your utter lack of command of the facts combined with the absolute certainty of your opinions.

Marshall Art said...

Note, Vinny, that all you say could easily be said of you. You are pretty damned certain of what you think you know.

And this is all very stimulating, but you still avoid the issue at hand in favor of discussing something you think you know, which isn't going to happen any further.

If you have no evidence that photo IDs will disenfranchise anyone, just say so or say nothing more. It's obvious you aren't in command of the facts and are just absolutely certain of your opinion. What can we infer from that?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"Your argument assumes that a property in a redline area could never sell at any price."

This is the last piece of crap regarding subprime issues I will address, but only because I had intended to to so earlier and this is so wrong. The argument makes no such assumption. The argument is that the difficulty in moving a property in a bad neighborhood compels any investor or lender to avoid the situation, since such effort is unnecessary. Use your head. Do you purposely take the low percentage route when high percentage routes abound? Don't be an idiot.

"The fact that I can MAIL my ballot instead of trying to get to the polls when i have a four hour daily commute hardly indicates laziness."

I'M the elitist ass because I think voting is important enough to make special effort? Your job is more important than doing your civic duty but I'M the elitist ass? If your employer won't allow the time to vote, it isn't the system or the voting policy that is preventing you from voting. It's you and your employer.

"So why add requirements if you don't care if they prevent fraud or not?"

I didn't say I don't care if they will prevent fraud, I said I don't care if the fraud it would prevent has yet to happen. That is, I was speaking in terms of whether there's proof that such fraud has happened. Whether or not it has does not detract from the policy as a good idea because once instituted, such fraud CANNOT easily occur.

"They sign sign a book or in my case an envelope so that the signature can be compared with a previous registration."

By whom? Professional handwriting experts?

"This was good enough for two centuries. Or do you think that our precincts are rife with forgers?"

I don't know anything about your precinct, Jim, but earlier you made a comment that suggested photo IDs can be falsified just as easily.

"Why should that woman or your mother have to do anything more than provide a signature as they have done for decades?"

Why provide a signature? Why do anything, Jim? It's all voter suppression unless YOU think it's sufficient or sensible for YOU.

"but that still allows ineligible voters.

How many?"


Is that supposed to be a legitimate question? Is there a particular number that would compel you to change your mind? Or do you simply believe that no voter fraud ever takes place? We do not have to provide proof of fraud if we can easily see that fraud is possible without the safeguards proposed. As they do not prevent anyone from voting, there should be no whining from anybody simply because they have to add one more step to the process of fulfilling a most important civic duty. If you think it is too much of a burden, then you are not someone likely to put in the proper effort of vetting a candidate in the first place, in which case I'd be happy you decided to stay home rather than put out the incredible effort of going to a poll and showing an ID, poor baby.

Craig said...

"How many?"

They have documented over 2000. In a state where that is more than the margin of victory in the last senate election, it seems like a big enough deal to be concerned about.

But seriously how many ineligible voters are you OK with?

Voting is a right granted only to eligible citizens, why should we give this right to anyone else?

Vinny said...

MA,

If it could be said of me, it could only be said by someone who does enough independent investigation of their own to have command of the facts and we both know that's not ever going to be you.

You are playing the same game you always play:

You express certainty on an issue about which you know nothing and you demand that someone prove you wrong. It's a game you know you will never lose because you never accept any evidence or argument that doesn't come from the wingnuts whose word you accept as holy writ.

Lucy always manages to talk Charlie Brown into trying to kick the football again, but I'm not going to start citing evidence on a new topic until you show the slightest capacity to think critically about the evidence I presented on the last topic.

Jim said...

it isn't the system or the voting policy that is preventing you from voting. It's you and your employer.

I've never said that I've been prevented from voting. I HAVE said that I have voted in every election since I voted against Nixon's re-election. I don't understand why you think I lack civic pride or don't care about voting because I do it by mail.

See, in California we WANT people to exercise their RIGHT to vote, so we make it as easy as possible while still providing sufficient checks in the system.

Whether or not it has does not detract from the policy as a good idea because once instituted, such fraud CANNOT easily occur.


Tell you what. Let's put a dam in Odessa Texas. Because, uh, you never know. Same argument.

By whom? Professional handwriting experts?

Presumably by the same person who would compare a person to their 4 year-old photo ID when a weight change, hair style/color, facial hair change has occurred.

Why provide a signature? Why do anything, Jim? It's all voter suppression unless YOU think it's sufficient or sensible for YOU.

Nonsense. Now you're just making up crap because you have no logical argument. I'm all for checking signatures. That's been the process for decades or more.

Is that supposed to be a legitimate question? Is there a particular number that would compel you to change your mind?

Of course it's a legitimate question. Do you put a stop light at an intersection 50 miles from nowhere when 3-5 cars per day use it just because doing so MIGHT prevent an accident? Same argument.

Or do you simply believe that no voter fraud ever takes place?

Of course it does. I've pointed out that there have been several cases of voter fraud prosecuted and won. They were convicted felons who were ineligible to vote. I'm guessing everyone of them carried a photo ID.

fulfilling a most important civic duty.

It's not only a duty. It's a right.

I'd be happy you decided to stay home rather than put out the incredible effort of going to a poll and showing an ID, poor baby.

Another asshat remark. Voting is voting whether you walk to your polling place, mail your ballot, or hold up your hand at a caucus.

Jim said...

They have documented over 2000.

They who? 2000 cases brought? 2000 convictions? Over what period of time? Your source?

But seriously how many ineligible voters are you OK with?

Quite a few more than have been successfully prosecuted so far.

Voting is a right granted only to eligible citizens, why should we give this right to anyone else?

Ah, so it's the "non-citizens" you are worried about. I get it.

Is there any evidence that there are more than a handful of non-citizens attempting to vote? Do you suppose they are not carrying photo IDs?

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

You insist that anyone should assume that YOU have command of the facts and that I don't. But in fact, you are assuming that you are even addressing the points I've raised with whatever is you contend are relevant facts. This is not and has not been the case. You have not shown in the past discussion that gov't intervention had no part or didn't lead to the crisis, but instead have brought up unrelated "facts" that are not relevant to the question. I would think "command of the facts" might include when and where they are best utilized. You've not demonstrated that when you distract from the underlying question with your "facts".

"You express certainty on an issue about which you know nothing and you demand that someone prove you wrong."

Not so. Where I've expressed certainty on an issue is debatable. When I posit an opinion on an issue, that doesn't mean I'm certain, but only that of that which I know the opinion seems proper. YOU then enter the scene with a counter opinion and I'm supposed to simply change my mind because VINNY says I'm mistaken. Seems to me that is the best time to request that you provide something in the area of support for your contrary opinion. All the while, I've not insisted on certainty of my position that trumps any true facts. This is how these discussions work.

Furthermore, I don't accept ANY "evidence" regardless of who provides it if it makes no sense. Far more true is that YOU reject anything that comes from the right-wing regardless of the source of their information, which in the case of our discussions has often been gov't sources, such as CBO, IRS and others like it.

At the same time, YOUR information rarely addresses the point directly though you think it destroys the position of the right-winger. It is then that I have issues with YOUR position. It's not the facts you present, but the way you use them.

Regarding past discussions, this plays out in your choice of facts that do not deal in the time period BEFORE the gov't gets involved to make any comparisons. THAT has been where my opposition to your "facts" have been based. That is, regardless of what happened outside the jurisdiction of CRA, for example, what was happening before it was instituted and would ANY of it be happening had it not.

In short, your whining about my "command of the facts" is just that. Whining. I don't claim any great knowledge of anything and only comment on what I DO know in hopes of some honest offerings by those of either side of the issue, not just "You're wrong because...(insert irrelevant "facts" here)"

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"I've never said that I've been prevented from voting."

But you have implied interference due to your commute time. You imply that if the only course was to physically go to a polling place that it would be an incredible burden and what...put your job in jeopardy because you want to fulfill your right and duty?

"I don't understand why you think I lack civic pride or don't care about voting because I do it by mail."

Didn't say that either. I was wondering about HOW MUCH you care if lacking the mail-in option would be so problematic. YOUR words imply the worst.

"See, in California we WANT people to exercise their RIGHT to vote, so we make it as easy as possible while still providing sufficient checks in the system."

That's the problem, this notion of "making it easy to vote", as if it was impossible before. IF the effort to get registered, get an ID, get out and GO to the polling place is too difficult for some people to exercise their right, then obviously they (with extreme exceptions) don't freaking care enough.

"Tell you what. Let's put a dam in Odessa Texas. Because, uh, you never know. Same argument."

Not at all. We're not talking about natural disasters here, but avoidable disasters like another Obama in the White House. We're talking about a serious duty to get it right to the best of our abilities and we already know that too many people vote with their heads up their asses. Such people are likely to feel put out by having to do it right. I don't care if they feel so put out they don't vote at all. We likely all better off.

"Of course it's a legitimate question. Do you put a stop light at an intersection 50 miles from nowhere when 3-5 cars per day use it just because doing so MIGHT prevent an accident? "

Except that there are plenty of examples of stop lights and signs placed where it doesn't make sense, or stop lights operating during times of low traffic (I'm out at 3 in the morning all the time, so I know). But this is national elections. In some cases one ineligible vote can make a difference. I don't care how unlikely it is, it should be prevented. The ramifications can last generations.

Out of time...

Craig said...

Jim,

I provided a link with this info earlier in the thread. There are 2000 cases from the 2008 election alone. Somewhere around 200 have been successfully prosecuted with others ongoing. Again with a margin of victory of about 300 votes in a senate race, these numbers are enough to generate concern. Due to a short statute of limitations many of these cases will probably not get prosecuted. In addition we have had an additional election which has generated additional cases.

"Quite a few more than have been successfully prosecuted so far."

Maybe you could quantify how much vote fraud you can live with. But seriously, shouldn't the goal be zero?

"Ah, so it's the "non-citizens" you are worried about. I get it."

Maybe you should read more closely, I actually said "eligible citizens", so I would be more concerned with the eligibility (or ineligibility) of folks, the reasons for ineligibility really don't matter.

But now that you mention it, I'm not to thrilled with giving a right reserved for citizens to non citizens.

So yes, I do have concerns about ineligible voters when the numbers are beyond the margin of the election. I'm glad that you're apparently so wiling to share your right to vote with anyone who wanders across the transom of a polling place.

Jim said...

You imply that if the only course was to physically go to a polling place that it would be an incredible burden and what...put your job in jeopardy because you want to fulfill your right and duty?

I've never implied any such thing. You are somehow conflating how I vote with some barrier to voting. There is no such thing. I actually work at home some days and I have been traveling on business some election days. I vote by mail because it is convenient and I can easily have all my voting materials and voter pamphlets with me to do it. And I can still vote if I'm out of town.

I have expressed NO PERSONAL barrier or burden to being able to vote. I'm not talking about me. You have spent paragraphs and paragraphs talking about me and my voting and it's totally irrelevant to the issue. I'm not burdened, even if I had to show a photo ID.

I was wondering about HOW MUCH you care if lacking the mail-in option would be so problematic. YOUR words imply the worst.

I never said it was problematic. I merely said mail-in option is convenient and pointed out that a commute which might take up much free hours I might have for voting makes having that option really nice. My employer provides time to vote, but in my position I meet with people any time of the work day in multiple time zones. And I don't have to cancel or re-arrange those meetings to get off early to vote because I can mail in my ballot. If I couldn't, I'd be at the polls when they opened.

But again, my situation is NOT relevant to the issue.

IF the effort to get registered, get an ID, get out and GO to the polling place is too difficult for some people to exercise their right, then obviously they (with extreme exceptions) don't freaking care enough.

Why is it important to you how easy or difficult it is to vote? Why would you have a problem with a registered voter using an iPhone to vote? Why can't it be as easy as brushing one's teeth?

What makes it less of a heroic deed to vote because it's easy to do? Must people sweat to satisfactorily due their civic duty?

We're talking about a serious duty to get it right to the best of our abilities

Where in the Constitution does it say that a voter must "get it right"? It's none of your damn business what methods a voter uses to come to their voting decision.

I don't care how unlikely it is, it should be prevented.

I know, it's all about keeping Franken from being re-elected.

Jim said...

Somewhere around 200 have been successfully prosecuted

I don't see that on your link. I see convictions of 20 felons who voted when they weren't eligible.

It appears that no law enforcement officials in your state are interested in further investigation or prosecution of voter fraud cases based on the information Minnesota Majority provided. Why do you think that is? Are they all Democrats?

The only thing the link says about successful prosecutions is 20 felons. It doesn't say whether they had photo IDs or not.

There's a lot of "suggests" and "may"s in the MM link. This is not proof.

Having said that, there is no doubt that the voter registration process and rolls should be cleaner. People die, people move, people leave the state. I assume not one of them reports those facts to the registrar.

Out of date rolls and fraudulent registrations do not equate to fraudulent voting. And you still don't explain how having to present a photo ID at the polling place prevents any of that.

Craig said...

Jim,

How about we leave it at this. I'd prefer to restrict the vote to those who are eligible, you don;t seem to care that much.

Jim said...

How about we not.

I'd prefer to restrict the vote to those who are eligible, you don;t seem to care that much.

Pure nonsense. I strongly believe that only eligible people should vote.

Since the proved incidence of voter fraud is like .000003% of votes cast, I strongly believe that "restricting the vote" unnecessarily is unconstitutional and constitutes voter suppression.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"But again, my situation is NOT relevant to the issue."

Then I recommend not bringing up your personal situation. If you want to use it as an example, then you can expect a response based on that example. As your situation may indeed not be relevant, then why bring it up?

"Why is it important to you how easy or difficult it is to vote? Why would you have a problem with a registered voter using an iPhone to vote? Why can't it be as easy as brushing one's teeth?"

We're talking about electing political leaders who will affect our nation and how it works for at least the time it takes to vote them out and fix their damage, not voting for our favorite on Dancing With The Stars.

"What makes it less of a heroic deed to vote because it's easy to do? Must people sweat to satisfactorily due their civic duty?"

Here's the thing: We're not talking about anything that would make voting more difficult or would in any way suppress the ability of eligible voters to vote. But you guys favor every idea that makes it "easy", as if it was difficult to begin with.

We know that many who vote don't take the time to really vet the candidates. Many don't even know why they're Dem or Rep, but only vote that way "because". Now, on top of that, you would encourage more like these who only have to move their cold pizza off their iPhone to punch a button while still in their shorts. Sorry, Jim. But I look at the act as a bit more important to support making it "easy" in the manner you and other lefties would want.

There is no issue with getting an ID from the state. There is no issue with requiring each voter to present an ID before entering the voting booth. There is no burden or disenfranchising. There is only lefty whining because of the fear that other lefties might not get it done in time to vote for the lame Dem candidates.

If you truly want to make it "easier", I would support a move to drop a holiday, like President's Day or MLK JR's birthday or Columbus Day and make Election Day, not so much a national holiday, but a national day of civic duty where all businesses will close in order to allow everyone to get to the polls.

"And you still don't explain how having to present a photo ID at the polling place prevents any of that."

There's no need to. It is a security matter and security doesn't wait for bad things to happen but instead anticipate possible breeches. IDs will prevent the possibility of one form of fraudulent voting and we don't have to wait until it happens in order to understand the common sense of it.

YOU, however, as have so many looney lefties, have suggested that this policy would disenfranchise anyone, so you have to provide some evidence that this is true. Your old lady story doesn't do it as she isn't required to stand in line but to merely wait her turn.

"I strongly believe that "restricting the vote" unnecessarily is unconstitutional and constitutes voter suppression."

Fortunately, no restricting or suppression would happen because of a new requirement such as presenting a state issued ID before entering the voting booth.

Craig said...

"I strongly believe that "restricting the vote" unnecessarily is unconstitutional and constitutes voter suppression."

That's great, but no one is suggesting that the vote be restricted for those who are eligible. Yes, I think it is reasonable to suppress the votes of those who are ineligible to vote.

Again, you're willing to live with what amounts to vote fraud, I think we can do better. You've not demonstrated that there is any unreasonable hardship in asking for ID to vote. Go right ahead and settle, it's fine with me.

But stop the voter suppression BS, the rest of us don't live in your imagination.

Vinny said...

It is a security matter and security doesn't wait for bad things to happen but instead anticipate possible breeches.

What could possibly wrong with logic like that? Can anybody say "Iraq"?

Of course, when it comes to global warning, the conservative insists that we wait for more bad things to happen rather than doing anything now.

Jim said...

Vinny! Good one!!

Jim said...

Hey, let's implement a poll tax. That'll keep the riff-raff from voting. Because we know they are zombies who obviously put no thought into how they vote.

Obviously.

Because they vote differently from us intelligent, right-thinking voters.

Jim said...

We're talking about electing political leaders who will affect our nation and how it works for at least the time it takes to vote them out and fix their damage, not voting for our favorite on Dancing With The Stars.

Wow! That's really profound Marshall.

Of course you are apparently assuming that a person who moves the pizza box out of the way to vote by phone has not spent months reading newspapers, magazines, watching debates and roundtables, listening to speeches, reading voter pamphlets and discussing issues with family, friends and neighbors.

Yes, we know that not all people involve themselves in the process to that degree. We can only hope or wish. We can't demand.

In short, the effort to decide whom to vote for has NOTHING to do with how physically the vote is cast.

There is no issue with getting an ID from the state. There is no issue with requiring each voter to present an ID before entering the voting booth.

Really? Watch the news and read the papers. Seems to be an issue.

Still nobody has provided evidence of widespread voter fraud. Nobody has provided evidence that having a photo ID would have prevented the 20 cases of conviction in Minnesota.

Nobody has presented a case for why tens of thousands of people should have to do anything different from what they have been doing for years because voter fraud that hasn't really happened might happen.

Your reason is flimsy and not justified.

California will likely not require photo IDs in our lifetimes. Are you going to throw us out of the Electoral College?

Jim said...

That's great, but no one is suggesting that the vote be restricted for those who are eligible.

According to the Constitution, if you are a citizen and you are 18 your are eligible. In some states you cannot be a convicted felon. (In some you can).

Those are the requirements for eligibility. Period.

Again, you're willing to live with what amounts to vote fraud.

I'm willing to live with the amount of proven voter fraud (20 cases in Minnesota) rather than require tens of thousands of eligible voters to do something that is unnecessary. Especially when photo ID is not shown to prevent the majority of cases that have occurred.

Would you be OK with the requirement that all eligible voters be required to go to a specific store downtown, provide a social security number and a utility bill, or photo ID, and be given a stamp like a hunting license to present at the polls in order to vote?

Marshall Art said...

Jim thinks the following response by Vinny is a good one. Let's review:

I said:

"It is a security matter and security doesn't wait for bad things to happen but instead anticipate(sic) possible breeches."

...to which Vinny responded:

"What could possibly wrong with logic like that? Can anybody say "Iraq"?"

Vinny points to security failures in responding to a comment regarding security philosophy, or, what the aim of good security is. I don't see how Vinny's response constitutes "a good one" or even a relevant one.

Then Vinny goes on to say...

"Of course, when it comes to global warning, the conservative insists that we wait for more bad things to happen rather than doing anything now."

What's "good" about this comment? It doesn't even reflect the conservative position on the issue. And THAT would be that 1) global warming is a natural phenomenon and 2) there is no solid evidence that man's behavior has any significant impact on climate change, and also 3) it makes no sense to legislate regulations that burden the economy for something that won't make a bit of difference.

Maybe Jim was referring to Vinny's spelling and sentence construction.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Parkie's the reigning idiot here despite your apparent attempts to wrest the title from him. Please take some time and consider your remarks before typing.

"Of course you are apparently assuming that a person who moves the pizza box out of the way to vote by phone has not spent months reading newspapers, magazines, watching debates and roundtables, listening to speeches, reading voter pamphlets and discussing issues with family, friends and neighbors."

My fictitious slob moving the pizza box was a composite of the types of people we all know. A friend of mine (who thankfully doesn't take the time to vote), rants about Republicans as if he actually knows anything about them. But he doesn't read the papers, he doesn't watch the news, he doesn't do anything to educate himself on any issue of the day. He merely, like you, thinks that because right-wingers stand for principles and values that they intend to legislate against every self-indulgent urge he might have. So he thinks he's a Democrat.

We also have seen the videos of interviews of Obama supporters who were told proposals of McCain's were Obama's and they all thought they were good ideas, until they were told Obama didn't propose it. We've seen vids of Obama supporters who could name one single thing he ever did as a state or US senator that was significant, or even anything that suggested they knew who they were supporting. As a result, we got Obama as president. If "the burden" of acquiring a photo ID compels anyone like these, lib or conservative, to bail on voting, all the more reason to support a photo ID policy.

But that isn't my chief concern for having the policy. It's only a bonus if it actually happens. People who take voting seriously will not be impaired by the "burden" of acquiring a photo ID, something every responsible citizen should have anyway for a variety of reasons.

And since none of you guys can come up with any legitimate examples of anyone being "disenfranchised" or "suppressed" or in any way prevented from voting due to photo ID requirements, I finally decided to Google the issue myself and found no more than the lame excuses brought up in this thread.

"Onerous"? Hardly.

Mark said...

There is no such thing as Global Warming. Even the Global Warming fanatics admitted that when they decided to change the designation of their pet cause from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change".

The average global temperatures have actually dropped in past few years, not warmed. How do you Global Warming nuts explain that?

Mark said...

Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we have to present a photo ID to register to vote. We don't have top present a photo ID to vote. Once registered, all the precinct people have to do is check their registration lists to verify I am eligible to vote.

No sweat.

And I am proud to do whatever I need to do to register. I would do far more for the privilege of voting these criminals (Obama, Biden)out of office.

Craig said...

"According to the Constitution, if you are a citizen and you are 18 your are eligible. In some states you cannot be a convicted felon. (In some you can).

Those are the requirements for eligibility. Period."

And your point is? I merely suggest that it is reasonable to demonstrate ones eligibility. Why would this be a burden. One must provide ID to pick up a registered letter, buy cold medicine, cash a check, pawn/sell a personal possession, occasionally to use a credit/debit card, go to the doctor, etc. Why is it such a burden to add voting to that list.

You've said you're willing to live with voter fraud, so what else is there to say. I'd like to think we can do better.

To end by answering your silly hypothetical, I'm not equating voting with getting a hunting license. I don't have a problem if it takes a tiny bit of extra effort to vote. But I'm not necessarily one who looks for the easy way to do things.

Jim said...

What's "good" about this comment?

I was referring to the Global Warming part, but on second thought, both comments are appropriate.

1) global warming is a natural phenomenon

Yes it does occur naturally, but it is exacerbated by human activity.

2) there is no solid evidence that man's behavior has any significant impact on climate change

This is simply a false statement.

3) it makes no sense to legislate regulations that burden the economy for something that won't make a bit of difference.

Thank you. You've just made our photo ID argument for us.

Jim said...

a composite of the types of people we all know

I know no one like this.

He merely, like you

An asshat remark concerning something you have no knowledge about.

We also have seen the videos of interviews

Anyone can cherry-pick "interviews" to make a point. This has been done since the days of Steve Allen. Breitbart and O'Keefe have demonstrated you can make recordings imply anything.

until they were told Obama didn't propose it.

The same thing could be done for Tea Partiers with the same result.

People who take voting seriously will not be impaired by the "burden" of acquiring a photo ID

Elitist.

something every responsible citizen should have anyway for a variety of reasons.

So an elderly person who doesn't drive, doesn't fly, does not use a credit card is NOT a responsible citizen if they don't possess a photo ID.

Who the f**k made you the arbiter of responsible citizenship?

Jim said...

There is no such thing as Global Warming. Even the Global Warming fanatics admitted that when they decided to change the designation of their pet cause from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change".

The average global temperatures have actually dropped in past few years, not warmed. How do you Global Warming nuts explain that?


Pffft!

Jim said...

Once registered, all the precinct people have to do is check their registration lists to verify I am eligible to vote.

Thank you for making our argument for us, Mark. You DO NOT have to present a photo ID to vote based on what you are saying.

There are tens of thousands of citizens who are CURRENTLY registered to vote who don't have a photo ID. So like you, they should be able to simply have the precinct people check their registration list to verify that they are eligible to vote.

Jim said...

I merely suggest that it is reasonable to demonstrate ones eligibility.

So you are making a totally different argument.

Can you explain how presenting a photo ID at the polling place demonstrates eligibility?

One must provide ID to pick up a registered letter, buy cold medicine, cash a check, pawn/sell a personal possession, occasionally to use a credit/debit card, go to the doctor, etc.

Many people do not engage in any of these activities.

You've said you're willing to live with voter fraud.

This is a mis-representation of what I've said. I said I could tolerate a very low number of proved cases to avoid unneeded "solutions" to a very, very minor "problem".

Craig said...

"So you are making a totally different argument."

Actually, no I'm not. I've been pretty consistent that the vote should be restricted to those who are eligible, and I don't think it is unreasonable to be able to demonstrate said eligibility. I don't particularly care how, but I see no problem with someone being required to demonstrate eligibility to vote. It seems that a state issued photo ID (which the vast majority of US citizens posses) would be the most reasonable means to do so, but certainly would be open to other suggestions.

"Many people do not engage in any of these activities."

Yes, you are of course correct, there are vast numbers of hermits who engage in nothing except when they come out of hiding to vote. Come on, would you care to provide some source for this fantasy?

Look, you're willing to live with fraud, I won't lose any sleep over a few folks who (in theory) won't demonstrate their eligibility to vote.

How's this, in order to register ones eligibility to vote must be demonstrated in some fashion. This must be done far enough in advance of the election that the information/eligibility can be verified. Or is that just too much to ask.

Mark said...

Great explanation, Jim!

Jim said...

Actually, no I'm not. I've been pretty consistent that the vote should be restricted to those who are eligible

Look, you are confusing the issue. I know of nobody who disagrees with you that voting should be restricted to eligible voters. I certainly don't. The issue is how, and perhaps when, eligibility is ascertained.

You WERE saying that eligibility should be determined by presenting a photo ID at the polling place. Now you are saying a photo ID should be required to determine eligibility. There is a difference.

In my opinion, eligibility should not be determined by a volunteer at the polling place. This is especially true because a photo ID DOES NOT PROVE ELIGIBILITY. It provides evidence of identity. So does a signature.

I believe eligibility should be determined through the registration process. States can set criteria but there should be a broad set of alternatives.

At the polls, a signature should be sufficient.

Come on, would you care to provide some source for this fantasy?

Sure. My mother had polio in 1950. From that point on she never drove a car, she never flew after 1955 so was never required to show a photo ID. She never went to the grocery. She never had a personal credit card. Never had a photo ID after her 1950s era drivers license expired.

She was eligible to vote. She voted in every election, yet never had a photo ID over the last 50 years of her life.

You think these are unique circumstances?

you're willing to live with fraud

Stop mis-representing my position. I am willing to live with a very few examples of proved voter fraud rather than introduce a change in the process that wouldn't stop the fraud but might make it harder for people like my mother to vote.

a few folks who (in theory) won't demonstrate their eligibility to vote.

Again, showing a photo ID does NOT demonstrate eligibility. It is a form of identification. So is a signature.

How's this, in order to register ones eligibility to vote must be demonstrated in some fashion. This must be done far enough in advance of the election that the information/eligibility can be verified. Or is that just too much to ask.

Not to much to ask at all. I'm in agreement with you on this. As long as people who are currently registered don't have to do anything more than they did in the last election.

See, after all that, we agree.

Jim said...

Great explanation, Jim!

You mean "Pffft!"

That's about the only explanation I have for a science denier.

Craig said...

Actually, no I have been consistent in saying that the vote should be restricted to those who are eligible, and that having someone show up at the polls to "vouch" for you is not adequate.

I'm pretty sure I have never said that photo ID at the polling place is the only or even the best solution.

Having said that, while I agree that a signature could be appropriate at the polling place (after eligibility is confirmed elsewhere) provided that the signature can be matched to a previous signature.

So your evidence that there are a significant number of people who function without photo ID is one person. This is an anecdote, not evidence. While I am sure that there are folks like your mother, I also suspect that if she needed an ID to vote, you (or another of her children) would make sure that she had it. Again, you can't get into a Dr any more without a photo ID.

Actually, it seems we agreed all the time, you were just disagreeing with what you thought i was saying.

Jim said...

Well, we're getting close, Craig.

You think that out of about 240 million, that's million, people over the age of 18 in this country, that my mom's case is a unique situation?

You're willing to accept that 20 convictions of voter fraud constitute a need to change the system. Do I need to come up with 20 cases like my mom? My task would certainly be easier than yours.

having someone show up at the polls to "vouch" for you is not adequate.

Where is this the process for voting? If this is the case, it needs to be changed.

I agree that a signature could be appropriate at the polling place (after eligibility is confirmed elsewhere) provided that the signature can be matched to a previous signature.

That's all I'm saying. We are in total agreement on this.

I also suspect that if she needed an ID to vote, you (or another of her children) would make sure that she had it.

We would if it were required by law, but we would fight that law, because it is an unnecessary burden. There are other ways to determine identity without having a photo ID. And if she were already legally registered, there should be NO FURTHER REQUIREMENT for voting.

Besides, registering requires one to swear under penalty of law that your information is true.

It's all in the registration process. Voting itself need only require a signature.

you can't get into a Dr any more without a photo ID.

I can't remember the last time I was asked for a photo ID to see a doctor.

it seems we agreed all the time

I think we do.

Jim said...

Here is a great study on the subject.

Please read.

Craig said...

"You think that out of about 240 million, that's million, people over the age of 18 in this country, that my mom's case is a unique situation?"

Jim,

Please read what I actually wrote. I did not say that you're mom's case was unique, I said it wasn't evidence. It's an anecdote.

"Where is this the process for voting? If this is the case, it needs to be changed."

Had you actually read multiple comments I made on this very thread, you wouldn't need to ask this. Unfortunately, you chose a different path. The answer is MN.

"I can't remember the last time I was asked for a photo ID to see a doctor."

Every Dr./ER I've visited in the past year (which admittedly has been more Dr./Er visits than usual.) has required photo ID and an insurance card. (While still anecdotal, it does indicate that the two largest hospital systems in the state require photo ID)

So, yes, now that you've (somewhat) responded to my actual position, it does seem like there is a certain level of agreement.

Jim said...

Sorry to appear dense about why an anecdote does not constitute evidence. If you read the link I gave, you'll find dozens of anecdotes.

Anyway, I don't care to belabor that point.

that having someone show up at the polls to "vouch" for you?

I looked this up on the Secretary of State website

"A voter registered in the same precinct as you who can confirm your address with a signed oath"

So the person doing the vouching must be a registered voter within the same precinct. And both the "voucher" and the registrant are signing an oath under penalty of perjury.

So are you suggesting that some group of people have created a conspiracy by which they organize thousands of precinct voters to go to the polls with a fraudulent "voter" and both risk 5 years and $10,000 in order to do so? There are thousands of local precinct registered voters willing to do this?

Marshall Art said...

Jim, and others,

I still haven't seen any evidence that such a law, by its mere implementation, has prevented anyone from voting.

I still haven't seen how requiring an ID to cast a vote is in any way more of a burden than what it takes to ID one's self to register to vote.

I still haven't seen how requiring an ID to cast a vote is in any way more of a burden than to have to register to vote.

Who will be disenfranchised? Who HAS been disenfranchised where IDs are required?

Jim said...

has prevented anyone from voting.

It's not "prevented". It's putting unnecessary and ineffective extra requirements on the voter.

If a legally registered voter appears at the polling place without a photo ID, they WILL be prevented from voting under such a law. To have to get an ID when they don't have one is an added step. Some people will have a hard time doing this. Therefore they will not vote.

And that is the intent of voter ID laws.

A photo ID never has and never will prove eligibility.

Read this study.

Mark said...

"So are you suggesting that some group of people have created a conspiracy by which they organize thousands of precinct voters to go to the polls with a fraudulent "voter" and both risk 5 years and $10,000 in order to do so? There are thousands of local precinct registered voters willing to do this?"

So are you suggesting unscrupulous people would never lie, even in spite of the possibility of punishment? Do some people commit murder and rape risking life imprisonment if they get caught?

Suggesting people won't lie to elect someone who will represent their own interests is naive. As my imaginary scenario demonstrated.

But, you're half right. Conservative Republicans wouldn't stoop to lying to commit voter fraud. We have too much integrity to try to game the system like that. Liberal Democrats would, though. They have no morals or integrity.

Mark said...

I really fail to see why Democrats object so strenuously to providing proof of identity. Unless, as I said, they have no morals or integrity and are afraid their lies might be revealed.

We need photo ID's to prove who we are to do virtually everything else. Go ahead, Just name some official function that doesn't require proof of identity.

Why don't Liberals object to those things?

Never mind. I already answered that question previously.

Jim said...

Just name some official function that doesn't require proof of identity.

You are confusing proof of identity with photo ID. There are other forms of proof of identity. That's why we sign checks, sign credit card slips. My son just wrote a check at the Superior Court to pay a ticket. Nobody asked him for a photo ID.

My son got a US Passport without a photo ID. He got a drivers license without a photo ID.

A signature is a form of ID. That's why banks use them on checks.

Why don't Liberals object to those things?

Nothing to object to.

So are you suggesting unscrupulous people would never lie, even in spite of the possibility of punishment?

No, but I'm pretty sure people murder for motives vastly different from casting ONE illegal vote.

Read the article. The odds of a person impersonating another voter is smaller than being struck by lightning.

Suggesting people won't lie to elect someone who will represent their own interests is naive.

Suggesting that enough people can conspire to gather enough legal voters or even illegal voters to sway an election is lunacy.

Here's your scenario:

So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends,

Your scenario didn't include any mention of how exactly you and your 1,000s of illegal friends and relatives actually managed to vote. How exactly did you manage to cast a vote?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I have only had the time thus far to skim your link. I cannot see that it addresses the charge of disenfranchisement. As I stated, I'm not concerned with the numbers of people found to have been guilty of any type of fraud that photo IDs would have prevented. Actually, I'd be more interested in those that got away with it, because there's no way to know how many of those there might have been.

But more importantly, to identify one's self at the polling place, through the use of a state issued ID only makes perfect sense. Between a picture and a signature, identity is pretty much assured. I don't hold that one is just as affirming as the other and lean toward a state ID as being the best way to identify one's self, particularly since they often have a signature on it against which comparisons can be made.

At the beginning of the link, the authors state their purpose (one of them) is to make voting easier. But it isn't hard right now, thus making it easy to vote is an invalid concern. A more valid concern is actually that it is too easy to vote now, as I again point to how many people vote with very little knowledge regarding the people for whom they cast their votes. If there were some legitimate manner by which people could be forced to understand the issues and the proposals candidates truly favor to resolve them, I would favor it (no lib would ever win an election again with the people in possession of such understanding---no conservative would dare drop the ball).

All this time I've really been speaking in a rather general manner. Of course there are legitimate reasons for absentee ballots and mail-ins (I don't find yours among them). But improving the process of voting does not include making it easier. IDs improve the integrity of the process regardless of whether or not you can see it or whether or not you think X number of fraudulent votes are acceptable.

More importantly, it is not the supporters of IDs who need to prove the worth of the idea as the only objection is that very weak one that states the policy will prevent eligible voters from voting. Nothing in this post, nor in your link as far as my cursory review has yet discovered, has rendered any proof of anyone being prevented from voting because of the implementation of this policy. The onus is on THAT side of the equation to provide evidence.

Jim said...

A more valid concern is actually that it is too easy to vote now, as I again point to how many people vote with very little knowledge regarding the people for whom they cast their votes.

You are conflating the act of determining whom to vote for with the act of casting the ballot. You've been doing this all over this thread. The fact that I can mark my ballot, sign the envelope and put it in the mail HAS NOTHING TO DO with the hours I spend studying the issues, reading the voter pamphlet, debating with friends and deciding my choices.

Your continuing argument about ease of voting versus wise choices simply FAILS, MA.

I cannot see that it addresses the charge of disenfranchisement.

Read it. It does. For one thing, it quotes a Republican party official as acknowledging that Republicans get a 3% bump from voter ID laws.

has rendered any proof of anyone being prevented from voting because of the implementation of this policy.

If a legally registered voter who did not have a photo ID showed up at the poll, they would be PREVENTED from voting.

More importantly, it is not the supporters of IDs who need to prove the worth of the idea

This is beyond absurd. It's stunningly absurd.

If I suggest that you should have to go to the police department and sign in every time you want to go hunting because I believe that would prevent shooting accidents, I shouldn't have to prove the worth of that idea?

Let's program all cars so they can't start up after 5PM without a breathalizer test because a lot of people drink after 5:00. Makes sense and saves lives. Might be expensive and really inconvenient, but I think it's a great idea and I shouldn't have to prove its worth.

Right?

Please read the link a little more.

Parklife said...

"Please read the link a little more."

ohh.. he has a long way to go.