It’s merely a listing of news articles about voter fraud. Read the articles, make up your own mind. You can decide every single source is lying, I suppose.
Well, apparently quite a few people here believe there is no voter fraud. I posted the link as counterpoint to that position.
Why the urgency? Because, as in every category of crime, those who get caught are always a tiny minority of those that commit the that crime. Surely you are not positing that the list shows that every fraudulent voter is being caught?
What that says to me is that people want Voter ID and they want it done in a way that does not suppress potential voters. Makes sense and I believe that to be a doable thing. However, if you never start, you never finish.
The tape doesn’t lie though. No matter what one thinks of O’Keefe (and I have problems with his methodology) the point is he did get those ballots. Clearly, he should not have been able to do so and no one else should be able to do so either.
The fact that it’s O’Keefe is immaterial. The point is….someone was able to lie about who they actually were and to get ballots. That has to stop, don’t you agree?
It’s pretty simple really. The people you are the most concerned about are usually in some sort of government program. Medical, housing, food stamps…whatever. Should be quite simple reach them through such programs and to verify who they actually are. Then just issue them a free, photo, valid government ID.
As I pointed out, I’m in favor of free ID and I think the disadvantaged have more than enough contact with governmental programs that it should be quite easy to do. Preferably at the State level but however it works out best and fastest.
These Social Darwinist myths emerged, and only really accurately applied, in an era when organized labor was strong, and after decades of violent struggle for things like decent pay, job safety, job security, other working conditions, and so on. After the Gilded Era, when my great-grandparents came to the US, they and people like them (1/3 of whom returned to Europe, btw) found oppression again, and fought against it. We don’t have weekends because some politician thought it would be a great idea, or because of the magical “free market,” we have such things because workers were willing to stand up to thugs the bosses hired to gun down any troublemakers.
Slaves in 1820 were better off than their predecessors had been in 1720. Does that make a good case for slavery? Slavery’s defenders did use that excuse. You should know that those “huge waves” have diminished greatly in recent years. This is due to many factors, one of them being the decline of the US middle class since the Reagan years, as neoliberalism’s toxic effects took hold.
Also, do you know why there has been so much migration from some of Latin America over the years? When you demolish someone’s country, they are going to flee. When NAFTA threw millions of Mexican farmers out of work, it added to the country’s unemployment problem, forcing many Mexicans into the migrant stream. (All their remittances were a huge boost to Mexico, thus lowering emigration, but it never had to happen like that.)
When the US government overthrows governments, supports fascistdeath-squad regimes to ensure that feudal societiesstay that way, hires terrorists to destroy clinics and schools and the people who use them, and otherwise acts as an utterly malignant force, people flee the scene of such carnage. Why do you never hear about immigrants from Costa Rica (a welfare state with much more opportunity than most of its neighbors), Belize, or even Panama? The US government usually left them to their own devices, with brief exceptions.
No, this is Randroid nonsense, primarily spouted and believed by the (relatively) privileged, even when they have much more in common with the rest of the population “beneath them” than they do with the ruling classes.
Do you know that most “welfare” recipients have jobs? What you describe leads me to conclude that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I have a friend with a Master of Social Work degree. She saw somebody post something on Facebook like what you wrote, in the form of a rather cruel joke. Her response was that she’d be happy to have an honest conversation about poverty, if only you’re willing to listen. I think you should talk to a social worker.
When Republicans openly fret about demographic change, try to suppress voting in areas of color, and, most of all, go ballistic over a health care plan formerly promoted by Nixon, Dole, Romney, and the Heritage Foundation, what else can one conclude?
Just as a counter-point, I’ve worked in retail. “They” don’t always have to ask. I wasn’t obligated to do so. I would do it if the cash register prompted me to (which did not happen all the time), or if the purchases were rather pricey. I worked for Walmart, so people would buy expensive TVs and such, especially around Xmas. On those big purchases, I’d ask for ID. I got thanked for it about as often as I got :rolleyes:.
But it was up to me. Obviously, your wife’s mileage varied.
I am not one to defend all US action/interaction in South America or around the globe for that matter. OTOH, I’m not that impressed by people like Chomsky either.
I suppose we could go through each of your links and point/counterpoint them but I doubt any minds will be changed. There’s always two sides to every story. For the educational aspect of intergenerational mobility for instance, there’s the fact that we spend more than most countries per capita on youth education and still have a huge dropout rate in high school. It’s the old lead a horse to water problem and more money won’t necessarily fix it.
One can easily conclude that asking a person, any person, to show they are a legitimate citizen of the nation they intend to influence with their implied right to vote is simple common sense and not voter suppression.
One can easily conclude that opposition to a health care plan that is poorly planned, does not allow you to keep your doctor, does not allow you to keep your old health care plan’s benefits, that instead of lowering costs $2500 per family has instead raised it $2500 per family and is laden with pure pork for Big Pharma and Big Insurance is not race based but rather quality based. The plan sucks; that’s why there is opposition.
Yes, lots of people can conclude that. One could also conclude that a group’s attempt to change the status quo by requiring IDs when previously they were not is being done with the intent to suppress the voting rights of groups which happen to vote against them.
Nonsense. No one here that I can see believe there is no voter fraud. What I see is an entirely reasonable debate over the relative seriousness of this supposed threat.
Anyway, I actually agreed with your central point (free ID) and yet for some reason you still felt the need to hector me and ask a bunch of bullshit ‘gotcha’ questions:
Surely you are not claiming that there is some vast amount of unprosecuted voter fraud without being able to show a single case of successful, yet unprosecuted, voter fraud?
And you really should let go of the point you think you are making by continually dragging O’Keefe into this discussion; it seriously weakens your already not-entirely-bulletproof argument.
So I guess those ~70% of Democrats that favor voter ID in polls are intent on suppressing the voting rights of groups which happen to vote against them?