[Verv]

How many? Please provide a number.

Also, if you are claiming that Voter ID laws prevented these crimes, please provide evidence.

What if the narrative is actually that voter ID laws work and that we do not have any need to change the laws?

I've never seen someone on the internet as steadfastly insist on forcing the opposition to take a very specific approach or no discussion is allowed.

It's like a children's Karate teacher demonstrating highly choreographed counter-punches.

[Pants-of-dog]

What if the narrative is actually that voter ID laws work and that we do not have any need to change the laws?

Then there would be evidence.

Please present it.

[SpecialOlympian]

What if the narrative is actually that voter ID laws work and that we do not have any need to change the laws?

Well that would be a very stupid narrative that only morons would believe or people making bad-faith arguments would use. Which group do you fall into?

Also Voter ID laws already work perfectly for their intended purpose: to suppress voting.

[Verv]

Then there would be evidence.

Please present it.

Oh?

I thought the general consensus was that there isn't much voter fraud.

Am I supposed to prove this is the case? Is that what you are asking for?

Is your argument that... there is a good amount of voter fraud? And that we should simultaneously lessen the requirements for voting?

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh?

I thought the general consensus was that there isn't much voter fraud.

Am I supposed to prove this is the case? Is that what you are asking for?

Is your argument that... there is a good amount of voter fraud? And that we should simultaneously lessen the requirements for voting?

No, I want you to provide evidence that there is little voted fraur because of voter id laws.

If there is little or no voter fraud in states with no voter Id laws, then the laws themselves have no effect.

[SpecialOlympian]

Oh?

I thought the general consensus was that there isn't much voter fraud.

Am I supposed to prove this is the case? Is that what you are asking for?

Is your argument that... there is a good amount of voter fraud? And that we should simultaneously lessen the requirements for voting?

You are very good at reading things. Your reading comprehension skill is solid. A+, 110%.

Also it's fucking aces how Verv only cared about voter fraud after reading a Breitbart article. Let's all argue in good faith with the lazy, intellectually uninclined alt-right person who only cares about things when a louder, angrier alt-right news source tells him it's important. This will be a good use of all of our time.

[Verv]

No, I want you to provide evidence that there is little voted fraur because of voter id laws.

If there is little or no voter fraud in states with no voter Id laws, then the laws themselves have no effect.

Right, so I have to conduct an in-depth research project on voter ID laws & voter fraud for my thread that was about how George Soros (et al) are investing in registering ex-cons to vote...

Nah, I do not feel like doing that because none of my arguments hinge on this.

This is a spontaneous request.

But now we understand the argument:

Voter fraud is seldom and so we do not have to be concerned about it, whether there are voter IDs are not.

But one thing that is difficult to deal with for this... Just as not all states have the same voter ID requirements, not all states are going to have the same anti-fraud measurements, and not all states are going to have similar rates at catching voter fraud. Moreover, it is also true that plenty of states will just not have much in the way of voter fraud to begin with because the electorate is uniform and the political power of the state is not much.

Since this is a topic that seems to be close to your heart, would you care to present your research paper to us as opposed to asking me to write one?

[AFAIK]

This sounds like a solution without a problem. Unless it's intended to solve a different problem. The problem of people not voting Republican by disenfranchising them.

[Pants-of-dog]

Right, so I have to conduct an in-depth research project on voter ID laws & voter fraud for my thread that was about how George Soros (et al) are investing in registering ex-cons to vote...

Nah, I do not feel like doing that because none of my arguments hinge on this.

This is a spontaneous request.

Then why did you claim they do?

If you make an argument, back it up. If not, do not make the argument.

But now we understand the argument:

Voter fraud is seldom and so we do not have to be concerned about it, whether there are voter IDs are not.

But one thing that is difficult to deal with for this... Just as not all states have the same voter ID requirements, not all states are going to have the same anti-fraud measurements, and not all states are going to have similar rates at catching voter fraud. Moreover, it is also true that plenty of states will just not have much in the way of voter fraud to begin with because the electorate is uniform and the political power of the state is not much.

Since this is a topic that seems to be close to your heart, would you care to present your research paper to us as opposed to asking me to write one?

So no evidence for your claim that voter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud.

Since the claim is unsupported, I will dismiss it.

[SpecialOlympian]

Please listen to my emotionally based argument on voter fraud, wherein I ramble and conjecture pointlessly while trying not to shout the N-word.

No, I will not spend even 10 seconds Googling a well documented and researched subject with multiple entities providing concise breakdowns. I can't even be bothered to read the Wikipedia page. This is about my feelings (on hating blacks and Jews).

[Verv]

Then why did you claim they do?

If you make an argument, back it up. If not, do not make the argument.

...

So no evidence for your claim that voter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud.

Since the claim is unsupported, I will dismiss it.

This is kind of interesting to me because it is like you pretend that the rational explanations and thought processes that accompany a statement are utterly irrelevant until there is concrete evidence presented. What is funny about this is that in the thread about racism you clearly were content with delaying everythign with semantics and avoiding any discussion of concrete evidence. You also abandoned your line of thought there because it was clearly untenable. But do correct me if I am wrong -- I have not checked the thread in a long time.

This isn't very smart because even if massive voting fraud is not an issue in the <current year> (and I am not sure that is the case), it always makes sense to have in place logical processes to prevent potential fraud.

For instance, liberals love gun control and talk about how the 2nd Amendment needs to be dealt with differently because our Founders simply didn't envision such high tech armaments and the havoc they could bring to our society. This is a good example of someone suggesting that a problem was caused by shortsighted policy making.

By requiring IDs to vote, even if voter fraud isn't necessarily a problem now, it helps put barriers to voter fraud which could become a problem down the line. It helps keep people honest and it helps our electoral process by lending credence to the process.

Also, there is some interesting information out there concerning voter fraud:

Huffington Post: “Eight out of the 16 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far have implemented new voter ID or other restrictive voting laws since 2010. Democratic turnout has dropped 37 percent overall in those eight states, but just 13 percent in the states that didn’t enact new voter restrictions. To put it another way, Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws.”

Political Wire

The implication was that there were actually issues with fraudulent voting being done by Democrats in these locations and voter ID laws resulted in less people willing to risk continued fraudulent participation.

I am not sure how true that is, but that is a very interesting tidbit.

[SSDR]

Then why did you claim they do?

If you make an argument, back it up. If not, do not make the argument.



So no evidence for your claim that voter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud.

Since the claim is unsupported, I will dismiss it.

No one has to back up their arguments, regardless of their political ideology. All forms of evidence could potentially be lies.

[Ter]

The same people who are against strong immigration limitations and border enforcement are the same people who reject voter ID laws.
Coincidence ?
I think not !

[Pants-of-dog]

This is kind of interesting to me because it is like you pretend that the rational explanations and thought processes that accompany a statement are utterly irrelevant until there is concrete evidence presented. What is funny about this is that in the thread about racism you clearly were content with delaying everythign with semantics and avoiding any discussion of concrete evidence.

No, I specifically asked for evidence over and over again.

The one evidence you did bring (i.e. the Kenyan runners article) I analysed critically and showed how it actually contradicts traditional notions of race.

You are remembering incorrectly.

You also abandoned your line of thought there because it was clearly untenable. But do correct me if I am wrong -- I have not checked the thread in a long time.

No. You dismissed or ignored several of your own arguments, including the claim that the races were distinct and that the races were a valid biological taxonomy.

This isn't very smart because even if massive voting fraud is not an issue in the <current year> (and I am not sure that is the case), it always makes sense to have in place logical processes to prevent potential fraud.

At any cost?

We could prevent voter fraud by simply outlawing voting. This would be a logical way to ensure it never happens again.

And yet even this logical process would be unconstitutional.

For instance, liberals love gun control and talk about how the 2nd Amendment needs to be dealt with differently because our Founders simply didn't envision such high tech armaments and the havoc they could bring to our society. This is a good example of someone suggesting that a problem was caused by shortsighted policy making.

I do not care about this irrelevant topic.

By requiring IDs to vote, even if voter fraud isn't necessarily a problem now, it helps put barriers to voter fraud which could become a problem down the line. It helps keep people honest and it helps our electoral process by lending credence to the process.

If this was actually important to the USA governments, you guys would change a lot about voting practices. Not just voter ID laws.

But the purpose of these laws is not to prevent voter fraud or make things more legitimate and transparent.

The purpose is to stop blacks, Latinos, and poor people from voting.

Also, there is some interesting information out there concerning voter fraud:

Political Wire

The implication was that there were actually issues with fraudulent voting being done by Democrats in these locations and voter ID laws resulted in less people willing to risk continued fraudulent participation.

I am not sure how true that is, but that is a very interesting tidbit.

Well, it seems to support the claim that these policies are designed to prevent people from voting for the Democratic party.

—————————-

The same people who are against strong immigration limitations and border enforcement are the same people who reject voter ID laws.
Coincidence ?
I think not !

Of course it is not a coincidence.

People who call out racism do so regardless of context.

[Ter]

Of course it is not a coincidence.

People who call out racism do so regardless of context.

So, in other words, those people want to see Democrats in charge of the country.
To get there, they need more immigration and less voter ID regulations.
Got it.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it often has nothing to do with supporting some US political party.

[Ter]

No, it often has nothing to do with supporting some US political party.

So : you admit it is often not and often yes.
I personally believe it is almost always yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure, and that may even make sense when looking solely at the US or solely at groups within the classical liberal spectrum.

But supporting the Democrats would probably not be a motive for a non-liberal (again, I am using the classical definition and not the US one) who does not live in the USA.

[Hindsite]

Sure, and that may even make sense when looking solely at the US or solely at groups within the classical liberal spectrum.

But supporting the Democrats would probably not be a motive for a non-liberal (again, I am using the classical definition and not the US one) who does not live in the USA.

Is that classical "Greek to me" or classical moron?

[SpecialOlympian]

This isn't very smart because even if massive voting fraud is not an issue in the <current year> (and I am not sure that is the case), it always makes sense to have in place logical processes to prevent potential fraud.

Do you even know anything about the voting process or how one registers to vote? Or do you just like getting angry and rambling ignorantly whenever a larger, louder racist points you at something?

And yes, it does make sense to have unnecessary hurdles to address a problem that doesn't exist. If your goal is to keep people from voting.