No, no, no. “Breads” as in “dips in breadcrumbs”. If they can fry twinkies, and they can fry ice cream, then they can fry distrust.
Actually, they have it backwards. The laws, and their proponents, cause the perception of fraud.
I never remember this being an issue with anyone until certain… ahem… persons, started making it an issue. Now I suddenly have FB “friends” posting stuff like “You need an ID to fly or check out a library book”, or “Asking for an ID isn’t racist”. None of this was an issue before. Nobody talked about it. No one was concerned. Then suddenly, everyone is trying to pass laws because they’re oh so concerned about “perception of fraud” which I suppose now exists retroactively.
Sure. Before 2000, everyone knew there were some fraudulent votes, but who really cared? 500 votes out of millions just weren’t worth worrying about.
In 2000, the public was reminded that, although it’s very rare, the possibility exists that an election with millions of voters could come down to 537 votes. A president could be selected by 537 votes.
Thus began the groundswell of concern.
Actually they realized that they aren’t making enough angry white men anymore, so they needed a way to cut down on the numbers of voters on the other side. Thus began the groundswell of voter suppression and disenfranchisement.
And, once again, you posit the rational to defeat the reasonable. There is, admittedly, a non-zero chance that what you suggest is possible. It is not reasonable simply because it is possible. It is possible that you may be struck by lightning, that is rational. Sticking a lightning rod up your Nixon in response to that possibility is not reasonable.
The alternative explanation for your “groundswell” is that the Pubbies realized that voter purges could have an enormous effect, even if it only acted upon a relatively small number of victims: one or two percent could be enough in a very tight race. Before that, they sneered at ACORN as a bunch of idealists in second hand cars and Goodwill suits. A couple of thousand new voters, here or there, what difference could it make?
Florida taught them that a few thousand voters screwed out of their rights could win for them. Their civic virtue aroused, they murdered ACORN. They gave Saul Alinsky the respect that the left did not give him.
To use the rational to undermine the reasonable is a gross perversion, a desperate clutching for the flimsiest of straws. And cynicism is the stench given off when your ideals rot. And all the semantic parsing and legalistic gymnastics in the world won’t hide the stink.
Well, well, well, waddaya know! They caught another vote fraudster … in Texas … who is a Republican.
Candidate voted twice in same elections, records show
*"A Republican precinct chairman running for a seat on the Fort Bend County Commissioner’s Court has cast ballots in both Texas and Pennsylvania in the last three federal elections, official records in both states show.
Bruce J. Fleming, a Sugar Land resident running for Precinct 1 commissioner, voted in person in Sugar Land in 2006, 2008 and 2010 and by mail in each of those years in Yardley, Pa., according to election records in both states. "*
Yup, voter ID laws are really gonna crack down on that kind of voter fraud. Mmm hmm. Not.
When the hell are you going to face the fact that Voter ID laws were dreamed up by Republicans solely as a means of disenfranchising minority voters using fraud as a smokescreen to give their scheme the scent of legitimacy, Rick? Why are you so hell bent on defending this clearly indefensible maneuver? What do you gain by not acknowledging the obvious truth?
I like the way you put that. I’ve been trying to figure out a succinct way to describe what he’s doing.
Personally, I’d make one change. I think “posit the conceivable to defeat the reasonable” says it better, but that’s just me.
Of course Voter ID laws will help eliminate this kind of thing.
Fleming can claim it wasn’t him voting in person, unless the poll worker remembers him…or unless they checked IDs.
Uh, no.
He voted in person where he lived, perfectly legally, apparently. He voted absentee in PA. This was the illegal vote and the ID law wouldn’t have stopped it. His wife voted absentee in both places which, again, wouldn’t have been stopped by voter ID.
Well, sure, but his voter confidence has been impaired, and that’s what’s important here. The fact that he’s the one that impaired it isn’t a valid neutral disjustification.
Voter ID is not intended to stop an illegal vote in the sense that it prevents one from being cast; it stops illegal votes by building a record that allows a conviction to happen. Which this case will, apparently.
Will it prove that he’s the one who mailed the ballots to PA?
Are you insane? Have you lost your fucking mind? You do realize this was all caught without the implementation of in-person voter ID for those elections during which this man’s (and his wife’s) fraud occurred, right?
Should you maybe see a doctor? You seem to be suffering some form of dementia — you’ve gotten way stupider over the years. Seriously; I’d look into that if I were you.
“Caught” is not “prosecuted.”
“Caught” is not “prosecuted.”
The eleven minute gap between double posts makes me think Shayna may have a point.
About the possible dementia, that is.
Or else Rosemary Woods is messing with things.
He’s not retarded. He’s evil and vile. And he knows people have seen behind his mask, so he’s flustered.
Onions. Belts. Kaiser Bill.
Bricker, maybe you’ve come up with ONE example of voter fraud where ID laws could be relevant. Maybe. I’m not sure about that because that actual act that caused laws to be broken seems to be the casting of an absentee ballot. The article states that Fleming was a Sugar Land resident so if he had simply voted there in person there wouldn’t be an issue. So it seems like the act that has to be proven was the absentee vote. How would voter ID help with that?
But let’s assume for the moment, for the sake of argument, that you’ve found a case where ID laws could make a difference.
It’s ONE case. One case versus making it more difficult for thousands of people to exercise their right to vote.
And the case isn’t even what people have been warned against. The cry has been raised about thousands of illegal immigrants voting. I don’t think that Fleming falls into that category.
So, to sum it up. We have a questionable example which, even if it is valid, seems to be an isolated example, and is not the kind of voter that people have been told is the problem (brown people from somewhere else) and in fact is someone who the proponents of Voter ID would likely vote for.
New tactic in PA: If the court doesn’t go your way, you can always misinform people.