The Capricious Non partisan Government Arbitrary Action thread.

[Huber.]

To say the study is credible is dishonest.

You don't know that.

To say millions of illegal people voted and cost Donald Trump the popular vote is dishonest.

You don't know that.

To say this is happening in droves is dishonest.

You don't know that.

To say the only solution is targeted legislation or poll taxes is dishonest.

The solution is photo ID when you vote and other security measures. Not "taxes". If anything it would be paid for by taxes. Wouldn't liberals love spending more tax money?

 

[AZ_]

You don't know that.

Sure we do. There is no credible evidence to support otherwise.

You don't know that.

Sure we do. There is no credible evidence to support otherwise.

You don't know that.

Sure we do. There is no credible evidence to support otherwise.

The solution is photo ID when you vote and other security measures. Not "taxes". If anything it would be paid for by taxes. Wouldn't liberals love spending more tax money?

This is nonsensical. You're not allowed to issue a poll tax and force people to purchase an ID in order to vote.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Get a load of this! The poster who most frequently attacks things as fake news and nothingburgers (a charming combination of willful ignorance to go with his signature lack of creativity) posts an article about a Bannon-sourced study reported on by the Media Research Center (aka a group whose very purpose is to attack the "liberal media"). You couldn't find a more biased source through which to jump to your frankly stupid conclusion, so congrats! Celebrate by finding us some more memes from your uncle's Facebook page!

I'd be surprised if it was anyone BUT you. The only surprise is that there are still people willing to give your shitposts thought and debunk your garbage instead of just replying with sarcasm.

But I guess it's hypocritical to warn about troll-feeding when here I am, feeding the troll. My apologies, I'll try to refrain in the future and ONLY talk to the adults going forward.

How about at least addressing the fact that there is a huge systemic hole in terms of preventing/detecting double voting?

 

[Huber.]

Sure we do. There is no credible evidence to support otherwise.




Sure we do. There is no credible evidence to support otherwise.




Sure we do. There is no credible evidence to support otherwise.




This is nonsensical. You're not allowed to issue a poll tax and force people to purchase an ID in order to vote.

But you people are against it even if it's "free". Which just proves that you're afraid of losing votes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

To say the study is credible is dishonest.

I would agree. But it's equally dishonest to say it is bogus. How about "I'm going to wait and see if the specific issues raised by this study are effectively countered and/or supported elsewhere?"

Why the rush to reach an instant conclusion?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is nonsensical. You're not allowed to issue a poll tax and force people to purchase an ID in order to vote.

1) An ID is not a poll tax. True poll taxes were specifically designed to be unaffordable or a significant monetary inconvenience so as to prevent people from voting
I.D's are generally are only $10-15, with some states making them free. You do not have to pay it every time you vote. It is a cost incidental to voting, like the gas or bus money to get to the polls, or the stamps required for absentee voting.

2) ID requirements have been upheld by the Supreme Court unless there are extenuating circumstances. And since poll taxes are per se unconstitutional under the 24th Amendment....

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...-union/voter-id-laws-poll-tax-not-equivalent/

 

[AZ_]

I would agree. But it's equally dishonest to say it is bogus. How about "I'm going to wait and see if the specific issues raised by this study are effectively countered and/or supported elsewhere?"

Why the rush to reach an instant conclusion?

Because people devoid of any credibility don't deserve such benefit of the doubt, and the methodology used seems to reflect high level data without any further dive into confirming these cases of voter fraud.

Any non-partisan study has turned up little evidence of voter fraud.


I guess we could get into a discussion of what constitutes "droves" or other semantics. But we could also discuss how people will circumvent a Voter ID law and that voter fraud exists beyond the scope of being "in person."



What conservative legislators are doing isn't stopping voter fraud, it's discouraging poor people from voting.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

and the methodology used seems to reflect high level data without any further dive into confirming these cases of voter fraud.

What does that mean in the context of this particular study? What, specifically, a was it in their methodology that you believe was limited only to "high level data?" I mean, I'm starting to suspect that you didn't even read the study you're criticizing.

Because people devoid of any credibility don't deserve such benefit of the doubt, and the methodology used seems to reflect high level data without any further dive into confirming these cases of voter fraud.

Any non-partisan study has turned up little evidence of voter fraud.


I guess we could get into a discussion of what constitutes "droves" or other semantics. But we could also discuss how people will circumvent a Voter ID law and that voter fraud exists beyond the scope of being "in person."



What conservative legislators are doing isn't stopping voter fraud, it's discouraging poor people from voting.

That's a collection of slogans, not an argument.

Here's the problem I have with your position. There are some clear systemic "holes" in the system that would make it easy to cheat if someone were so inclined. Some of those flaws not only make it easy to commit fraud, but impossible (as a practical matter) to even discover it after the fact. Therefore, the argument that "there really isn't much evidence of fraud" proves nothing - the system itself makes the gathering of such evidence a virtual impossibility.

The problem is worsened because the primary mechanism for detecting/reporting fraud often rests largely in the hands of those who may benefit the most from it: incumbent politicians.

 

[David.]

I believe their side says "it's happening but it isn't a problem."

Lol I've literally read that it's illegal so it isn't happening. First law that's not been broken, ever.

 

[Huber.]

Lol I've literally read that it's illegal so it isn't happening. First law that's not been broken, ever.

All this fake outrage over Russia messing with the election with no proof....all the while we have factual evidence that liberals are messing with the elections and they claim we can't stop it because because "poor people".

 

[David.]

All this fake outrage over Russia messing with the election with no proof....all the while we have factual evidence that liberals are messing with the elections and they claim we can't stop it because because "poor people".

I'm not following Russia. Meanwhile, no surprise why a side loves immigration from people who vote left at 80%. You don't like that, you're racist. You don't want only citizens of the country voting, you're racist. If you disagree with anything with the left.. You're____

 

[AZ_]

What does that mean in the context of this particular study? What was it in their methodology that you believe was.lomited only to "high level data." I mean, I'm starting to suspect that you didn't even read the study you're criticizing.

They essentially just matched birthdays and names, with a cryptic explanation about a potential further dive into other data which "confirmed" a few other cases despite not really telling us how or what led them to such a confirmation.

That's a collection of slogans, not an argument.

Here's the problem I have with your position. There are some clear systemic "holes" in the system that would make it easy to cheat if someone were so inclined. Some of those flaws not only make it easy to commit fraud, but impossible (as a practical matter) to even discover it after the fact. Therefore, the argument that "there really isn't much evidence of fraud" proves nothing - the system itself makes the gathering of such evidence a virtual impossibility.

The problem is worsened because the primary mechanism for detecting/reporting fraud often rests largely in the hands of those who may benefit the most from it: incumbent politicians.

I've said before that I have no issue with confirming the identity of voters, but the current legislation doesn't appear to be aimed at fixing the scant cases of in person fraud.

Which I guess we're just assuming exists despite the current penalties in place.

 

[AZ_]

All this fake outrage over Russia messing with the election with no proof....all the while we have factual evidence that liberals are messing with the elections and they claim we can't stop it because because "poor people".

You mean BESIDES the four major intelligence agencies testifying under oath that Russia messed with the election?

Goddamn fake outrage of these agencies makes me sick.


I'm not following it, either. I'm more focused on how the left uses identities against people. Also, fuck everyone who identifies as the left.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

They essentially just matched birthdays and names, with a cryptic explanation about a potential further dive into other data which "confirmed" a few other cases despite not really telling us how or what led them to such a confirmation.

That's not true. They first matched exact names and full birthdays. Then, recognizing that there still could be some coincidental matches of different individuals, they ran those matches through Virtual DBS databases (a public company) that would include credit reporting data such as address history, subscriptions, and other data. If it matched, they considered that acceptable.

What's wrong with that methodology? It seems perfectly reasonable.

I've said before that I have no issue with confirming the identity of voters....

Okay, so if you have no issue, how would you suggest that "confirming the identity of voters" be done in a less burdensome way than simply requiring a picture ID?

And how would you propose to prevent people from voting by person in one state, and by absentee ballot in another?

 

[AZ_]

Okay, so if you have no issue, how would you suggest that "confirming the identity of voters" be done in a less burdensome way than simply requiring a picture ID?

And how would you propose to prevent people from voting by person in one state, and by absentee ballot in another?

If the government wishes to issue one with no cost to the taxpayer, fine.

Obviously, safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure ALL citizens have easy access to it.

It's really the same argument I've maintained the last time we did this.


That said, I don't think it will make voter fraud impossible or deter people from breaking the law.

Because as @Huber. would say, criminals will find a way to break the law.