davjohns

Members
  • Content

    4,507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by davjohns

  1. No, it is not. They are estimates. And if the estimate for one is an order or two of magnitude bigger than the other, you don't worry about it having a precision value of 1 vote. That's the situation we're in here. We know that the solutions are much worse than the stated problem, and that both are dwarfed by the problems around voting system accuracy in general. And how do you make these counts? You have direct data, like numbers of people caught/charged/convicted, numbers of people who show up at the poll and see their name crossed off, number of dead people who subsequently voted, number of legal voters who get letters in the mail telling them their name is spelled like a felon and now have to spend tens of hours to fix, and numbers of people who show up at the polls and find their names missing. You may have actual numbers of the quantity of ballots tossed in each precinct due to hanging chads or other irregularities. And then you have indirect data - the comparison of the results versus exit polls and pre election polling. You have the vote differences between precincts. The expectation is that the fraudulent votes are skewed to one side - any significant quantity will result in statistical outliers. Then please provide links to the estimates you use to come to your conclusions. You state that "We know that the solutions are much worse than the stated problem...". (Even though you admitted we only have estimates) Please provide these estimates that are accurate enough to make such clear conclusions of fact. I think this is the third time in this thread that I have asked for such clear cut facts. The only thing I've seen is one account that referenced a survey that said poor people have a harder time getting ID and then made the leap of inference that they would not vote and then added the personal judgment that the voter impact was 'significant'. Not even the 'estimate' that you cite. It's very easy. Just show me the fact based estimates that show how hard it is for people to obtain ID and how little voter fraud there is in comparison. In order for an argument to be valid, the number of votes stolen by voter fraud must be less than the number of votes lost due to inability to secure ID with a minimal degree of effort...I would say about the degree of effort needed to register to vote in the first place. Of course, therein lies a problem. Filling out a voter registration card is usually required to vote. And it could easily serve as a form of ID, couldn't it? Or are you advocating the elimination of voter registration as well? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  2. And that would be you. You've convinced yourself its not possible to estimate the level of fraud because it is more convenient to say 'it could be millions of votes!' But that's false. It is possible to evaluate, and it's also possible to evaluate the other error factors and see that they are more significant. It's also been revealed by GOP insiders as the hoax that it is. Ignoring that doesn't serve you well when you're talking about 'some other people who have made up their minds.' On the contrary. It is clearly not possible to know the extent of fraud. I do not claim and never have that it is millions. It clearly COULD be. Or, it is possible that every case of voter fraud is caught and prosecuted and there is no more. I will re-state that I do not know. That's kind of inherent in my statement that it is impossible to know. I will also politely point out that you do not know either (though you state that you do when you claim 'millions' is false). If you would kindly read my posts on this subject and direct me to where I claimed to know the extent of voter fraud, I would be glad of it. I would like to correct whatever error I made before. Please? You were very careful to re-state the issue. I said it is not possible to know the extent of voter fraud. You said it is possible to estimate it. Those are very different things. Estimates are a form of guess. I find guesses tend to be heavily influenced by what the person or group making the guess want the results to be. There are various methods to try to make those guesses more scientific looking. I find the best you can hope for from those methods is an indicator...if that. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  3. get used to it. over and over and over again. you are only allowed Position A and Position B. If you argue Position C, the A's will accuse you of being extreme B....and vice versa. the others will pull some tangent out of the air and accuse you of hating baby seals why do you hate children and minorities? I don't! I promise! I just put ketchup on most everything. It's not because I hate it. Oh, wait... I see what you did there. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  4. Clearly, I find it abhorrent that ANYONE's vote is nullified. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that. I think this is the third time in this thread alone. I don't like either party and don't fit in the category liberal or conservative. I don't recall the Diebold story. I'd certainly like to read about it if you have a link. I would very much like to see criminal charges against anyone involved. I've kind of given up on Skydekker (sorry buddy). There is no reasonable doubt that voter fraud happens. There is no logical way to tell how extensive it is or in who's favor it is committed the most. However, he continues to argue that it is not significant even though it is impossible to make that declaration. Some people have made up their minds and don't need facts. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  5. So, there's no evidence of voter fraud? I'll file appeals for all those people convicted of it. Thanks. But then you say the percentage of it is below the margin of error? I guess if there is none, and zero is less than the margin of error, you are consistent here. Then, you say the problem doesn't exist. OK. I don't care what political party or theory it might or might not benefit. I want to protect individual liberties by preventing illegal voters from cancelling out legal voters. Plain and simple. BTW...if one party wants ID for political purposes, doesn't the other one oppose it for political purposes? I forgot to include the word significant in the first sentence. Rest of the post kind of made that clear. No, that logic makes absolutely no sense. If somebody is in favour of the death penalty because they think it is a deterrent, it doesn't mean I am against the death penalty because I don't think it is a deterrent. OK. You misspoke (so to speak). Fair enough. You mean that you don't consider the amount of voter fraud significant enough to require remedial measures that you consider overkill. I don't think it is possible for us to find mutual ground on this. I don't consider it a terribly onerous thing to ask people to identify themselves before they vote. I guess you do. I do consider the voting process important enought to take certain reasonable measures to safeguard it. IMO, you don't. As to your claim to failed logic, let me see if I can make it clearer... If one party wants voter ID because they think it eliminates voters who would vote for the other party, it is the flip side of that argument for the other party. They do not want voter ID because they think it benefits them at the polls to not have it. The death penalty argument you present is not analogous. People for or against the death penalty have arguments that are based on ideological grounds. The voter ID issue can be based on ideological grounds (as in my case), or it can be for party gain. If it is for party gain, it is a win / lose scenario (the goal is to secure or deny a finite number of votes and the derivative power). Therefore, one party's argument is counter-balanced by the other party's argument and they are both going for votes / power by their arguments. Parties want to include or exclude votes on the basis of power gained or lost. I don't want to exclude any legal votes or include any illegal votes regardless of who it benefits. It's one of those fundamental pillars of democracy kind of things. I seem to be fairly lonely in this regard. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  6. So, there's no evidence of voter fraud? I'll file appeals for all those people convicted of it. Thanks. But then you say the percentage of it is below the margin of error? I guess if there is none, and zero is less than the margin of error, you are consistent here. Then, you say the problem doesn't exist. OK. I don't care what political party or theory it might or might not benefit. I want to protect individual liberties by preventing illegal voters from cancelling out legal voters. Plain and simple. BTW...if one party wants ID for political purposes, doesn't the other one oppose it for political purposes? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  7. I'm not a Republican by any name. Mostly Independent and ideologically Libertarian. I don't let parties decide my vote for me. I happen to know what the Mark of the Beast looks like. It's not around anymore. But that's another story. I don't see a problem with a national ID system. We already have it in SS numbers. Like you said; just add a pic and we're good. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  8. You're still not winning me over. If one of them is working, they have ID. So, they probably don't fit in the category of those poor people who can't get someplace to get and ID. Being retired doesn't mean you drop out of life. Still need ID for so many things. And I don't see why the ID has to have an expiration on it. You assume that it does. State issued non-driver ID usually does not expire. No reason to. Yes, some people would have to take some time out of their life to get a valid ID. Of course, according to your arguments, they aren't terribly busy. They don't have jobs. Seems a very low price for keeping illegal voters from invalidating a legitimate vote. What if we just go with Amazon's idea and put a photo on the SS card? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  9. So why did so many states with GOP control of the Governors office and gerrymandered majorities in the state house and senate.. mandate that most forms of ID that had been used for decades were not valid like Student ID's.... I have a simple solution.. a Social Security card with your photo on it.. FREE to every Murican.... BOOOOOOOM the fringe rights heads just exploded.... after several seconds of sputtering about BIG BROTHER taking over. I'm in. Sounds like you and I are on the same page now. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  10. I don't know what the white race is. There are many ethnicities that look alike that are war with each other as I write this. But even so, the death of one line probably means the death of all. If blending does away with the very light skinned, it probably does away with the very dark skinned as well. If there are pockets of extremes, they are likely to exist in all the extremes. In the end, I don't see why it matters. Preserving knowledge of the cultures, art, history, and such would be of intellectual importance. What the species of man looks like in the future doesn't matter. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  11. I'm not sure where they are going to college. Not only did I have to have ID to go to each of my schools, the school issued me another photo ID. Stay at home moms and dads would almost make sense, except they would have to NOT be on public assistance to meet my criteria...so how do they have the means to stay at home? Retirees are just right out. That means they had a job, could fill out an I-9, and have ID (not to mention pension, bank account, etc. that require ID) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  12. I appreciate the attempt. Sadly, it doesn't address actual voters. It references poor, uneducated minorities...which could easily be illegal aliens that aren't supposed to voting. That would also explain their difficulty getting ID. Then, it makes a leap of inference that this effects voting rates. Worse, it expresses a bias. The factual statement is that the ID is less available. It doesn't say by how much or assign any numbers. But in the (leap of inference) conclusion, it causes a "significant" reduction in voting opportunity. Again, I have to wonder how the people cited in that scenario survive without a job or government benefits, but are registered voters. It doesn't strike you as odd? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  13. I'm unfamiliar with the factual basis for the argument that people will fail to exercise their right to vote if they have to show ID. Has anyone tested this? Has there been a place where people were given the opportunity to get free ID for voting purposes, and those people subsequently failed to vote when they were legally entitled to and wanted to? We already require ID of gun buyers...and a two page questionnaire...and an affidavit...and a background check...I'm unfamiliar with anyone not practicing their right because of it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  14. I'm not saying all rights should be handled exactly the same. I just think all of them should be protected the same. If someone votes fraudulently and contrary to my vote, I have been deprived of my vote. If one person votes ten times fraudulently, they have stolen ten people's votes. It's pretty easy to stop it. Let's protect the individual right to vote. On the other hand, a plethora of gun laws are being promoted just to abridge individual rights...not to protect them. I'm pointing out the paradox. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  15. I don't see the point of your first comment. Yes, I'm saying, why is this supposed to be so hard? It's not. And of course it is fair to ask each citizen to bear responsibility to go with their exercise of a right. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that legal voters purged from the rolls is a natural result of asking someone to show their ID. Non-sequitur. I think I already mentioned, I don't have a party...and I support voter ID. So your third comment is in error. The fact that one party is pushing for it doesn't make it wrong. It just makes the other party take the opposite view for some reason. The fact is, if the GOP is doing it for political reasons, so is the DEM...and they are both wrong for doing so. The natural conclusion of your final comment is that we should not ask for ID when people buy alcohol. Again...bad logic. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  16. For mechanical machines, that 1% is pretty fair. Maybe overall you'd call it 0.5%, while noting the wealthy precincts are the ones that get the electronic machines first. The fraud level may be 0.02%, for all we've seen to date. In any event, your WAGs are kind to the GOP. It's at least an order of magnitude apart. We can count the number of false positives in purges - people who had vaguely similar names to felons (Clarence Thomas instead of Thomas Clarence, or all Clarence [MI] Thomas's, without trying to match the middle name). Florida insiders confirmed the obvious 2 years ago: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/ As for voter purges: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-two-punch-floridas-voter-purge http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0402/Court-rules-Florida-voter-purge-illegal-but-will-it-stop-GOP-voting-tweaks Despite being stopped at the district and appellate level, the state prepares to do it again. Trying to purge people right before an election is too aggressive. Do it before the primaries if your intent is truly noble - give those you disenfranchised a change to fix it before the main. Of course, I would hope you would offer the same analysis of numbers of legal voters who are unable to show a state issued photo ID and are somehow unable to prove who they are to obtain a free one (if they can't afford it). Then, it's a pretty simple analysis, really. Does the requirement to identify yourself make the voting system more secure? I'm still waiting for someone to suggest I shouldn't have to show ID, fill out a form, sign an affidavit, and go through a background check to exercise an enumerated right. Those are considered 'reasonable' and 'common sense'...until applied to other rights. I'm not asking that they prove they are competent like the requirement to get a driver's license. I'm asking that a voter present the same photo ID they used to get a job (required for the I-9), or they use to pick up their public assistance check (required according to the US Gov website I checked), or they use when they buy alcohol (duh), or they use to legally drive, or...let's face it...if you aren't doing one of these things, something really weird is going on. An adult who does not have a legal job, is not getting public assistance of any sort, has never had a legal drink, can't drive...??? But they are a registered voter? How did they swing that? How do they survive? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  17. Thundercunt sounds like it should be the title of a porn. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  18. Amazon, I'm sorry. I can't quite make out all of your intent. But I agree that suppressing anyone's vote for political reasons is completely repugnant to democratic ideals. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  19. I have no idea what the numbers are. Nobody does. If we knew exactly how many fraudulent votes were being cast, we would be pursuing those people participating. I'll agree it is not huge. That's why I don't want anything more than for people to show the same ID they are required to present for purchasing a firearm. I'm not asking that they fill out the two page form, sign an affidavit, or go through a background check. Just make sure I am who I say I am before you line through my name indicating I voted. As to a political party...I have none. I think anyone who cares about the sanctity of the vote would be interested in people simply identifying themselves. I think because one party took it up as a battle cry, the other party feels compelled to take the opposite position. I would be amazed if ALL voter fraud fell in one end of the political / socio-economic spectrum.It ends up with both parties having talking points that seem haphazard to me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  20. Thanks, Andy. I knew there was a joke in there when I first read it, but I was busy and got distracted. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  21. 1- Why on earth would you take a number, not grounded in any form of reality, from one state, and merely multiple it by 50? Aside from presuming NC is perfectly representative of the entire 50 states, it's pretty easy math to divide that state's population into the national figure and see that it represents 1/32 of the country, not 1/50. So this sound byte statistic is already lying by 36%. 2- There's really no ambiguity on the subject - the GOP has been pushing for ID laws, for aggressive voter roll purges. Anything to make it harder. Party insiders have admitted exactly this. 3- the net effects have been made clear, just in the number of falsely purged voters. And that's why arguments about whether or not it should stop people from voting don't matter - the fact is it does stop them. And since the entire argument for these laws has been about the costs of the "single illegal vote" tainting the elections, you can't dismiss it away. 1. Sorry. I thought I explained that. It was for simplicity. I'm pretty sure I even stated there were better ways of getting at a more accurate number. 2. The post I responded to suggested someone wanted to spend millions on a voter ID system, not just laws requiring ID presentation to safeguard legal voters. It also specified that someone was advocating purging legal voters from the system. I asked who was advocating such atrocities. Every database requires purging. Whether that purge is 'aggressive' or not is just an opinion. Moreover, some databases might need an aggressive purge if they've been neglected long enough. But legal voters should never be purged. I don't think anyone is really advocating that. 3. It cuts both ways. One fraudulent vote stands to invalidate my vote. The system should be ssafeguarded. Asking someone to show an ID to ensure they are who they say they are seems perfectly reasonable to me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  22. Diving the Great Barrier Reef and hang gliding in Australia are both on my bucket list and co-located. Since it is the least likely part of my list, I would probably go there. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  23. It goes something like... So, I made several entries in my personal journal that reference you. For instance - one time you were drunk and told me "as a joke" how you could solve your financial problems by taking out an insurance policy on me and then 'helping' me into the next life. Another time, I wrote that I feared you had actually taken out a life insurance policy on me even though there is no reasonable cause for you to do so. Every once in a while, my journal has little asides about your latent violent tendancies...kicking the dog for no reason; loud, angry outbursts when drinking; road rage; pre-occupation with crime investigation shows; that sort of thing. Did I mention that I've collected up a few things with your fingerprints on them? One is entangled in the lines of my reserve canopy in my skydiving rig. Man, I hope that thing never fails me. No telling what the investigators from the FAA might make of it. There are other little personal effects that someone who wished me ill might accidentally lose in an incriminating area. Just here and there. Just in case. Every once in a while, I make a report to the police about someone lurking outside my place or following me on the road. I don't mention you. The fact that I know you are 'out running errands' at the time seems relevant, though. Man! I really hope you get to collect on that insurance policy. Did you know that they pay off if the insured person lives to be 100? I bet you are hoping I live that long as well, huh? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  24. Sigh...this is why I rarely peek in SC anymore. Google is a good friend, but you have to be fair with what you find. 1. Voter turnout in the US General Elections 2012 = 130M...not sure where the 101 number came from. NC having 35,000 potential fraudulent votes could suggest as many as 1.75M nationally if we presume all fraudulent votes were captured and multiply that number by 50 states. There are much better ways of getting to an estimate, but this is something anyone here should be able to come up with in moments. Personally, I consider that many potential fraudulent votes worth addressing. 2. I'm not sure who is recommending a voter ID system, purging legal voters from the ranks, etc. My state already has a voter registration system. I would just like them to ask for my photo ID when I go to vote. Since the overwhelming majority of registered voters likely already have photo ID, I can't imagine giving ID to the remainder is that daunting a task. 3. Comparing asking for ID to complete elimination of a constitutionally protected right is next door to trolling...if not there already. 4. To another poster: I don't care who carried the state. I don't care who benefits from voter fraud. It is still wrong and eliminating it is a legitimate goal of any system that calls itself democratic. If you take issue with anything I've written here, please use logic to refute my position. I love debate. I abhor argument. Thanks. David I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
  25. I did not click the link. I will guess that someone ate the candy bar from the bottom of the pool? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.