The issue has always been your claim that some meaningful number of people cast a vote while impersonating a legitimate voter.
Now you are trying to conflate that issue with people with a felony conviction casting a vote as themselves without properly petitioning to have their voting rights reinstated first.
Seems like the desperate act of a loser. And doing so by claiming that over 100 cases were found, without specifying that those are different types of cases altogether is deceitful.
I know you’re an amoral shit. I’m happy you’re letting everyone else know too.
“I was trained in the appearance of valid IDs, and the process I followed was to compare the anti-counterfeiting features of our state’s valid IDs to the ID presented. The entry into the log, which is admissible as a business records exception to the hearsay rule, shows that he voted.”
A legally sufficient record for conviction.
On the contrary, that line is making shit up, since I never said they were the same. I said that Voter ID is a valid control against felon voting.
Therefore, the instance of felon voting is relevant to the use of Voter ID.
That’s what was said. Your version – where I supposedly said, “felon voting is the same thing as in-person voter fraud,” is exactly the kind of falsehood that liberals like you need to sustain their attempts at argument.
Almost everyone reading this can read what I said, and how you lied in your version of what I said.
You can’t win any argument with the truth, because you can’t use the truth: it fails you. All you can do is look around and hope your libbie buddies continue to value ideological solidarity over truth. So far, you’re doing well in that limited area.
Everyone has a reasonable opportunity to vote. I know you guys would like to send private limos to transport voters to the polls, and maybe a catered snack while they wait.
The purpose of Voter ID is to ensure confidence in the outcome of elections, especially close elections. The Supreme Court has upheld them.
The thread revival comes because the Wisconsin Supreme Court just upheld their scheme under state law.
So just because the New York Times and Mother Jones told you what you’re supposed to think does not transform those into truth.
No. I have always said the issue is improper votes cast, no matter the source, and their potential to upset the result of an ultra-close election.
I have never suggested the issue was limited to impersonation of voters, and I defy you to find one single post in which I said the issue was some meaningful number of people cast a vote while impersonating a legitimate voter.
Is it possible, Mr. Crabbapple, that in the rush, given your inexperience with IDs, that you made a mistake?
I guess it’s possible a jury will be filled with people as stupid as you are.
Sorry, liar. In case you’re so delusional that you actually believe the shit you sputter:
’luci says: A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
Bricker says: Still, you have quoted a truly inspiring authority: a Washington Post guest-blogger who is a law professor and (gasp!) liberal as the moon is high. He offers his non-binding, libby liberal view of what the law should be.
’luci says: He’s lying, or he’s wrong about the numbers? OK, prove it. But aren’t you somewhat obligated to do a better job of it than just exposing his unsavory political leanings?
Bricker says: Adaher’s link shows over 100 in one state.
A fact that you will retain for about ten seconds, until the next liberal tells you it’s only been four, ever, and all of them GOP provocateurs, and you will nod deeply, eyes shining, because that’s just so TRUE.
So, which is it? You didn’t read the cite, or you read it and were trying to lie about it?
That smell, in case you’re wondering, is the permeating stench of failure. It wafts from your very pores. <3
What happened to me “always” claiming impersonation?
That’s me pointing out an illegitimate voter voting – the same thing that happens when a felon votes.
Here’s another conversation in 2012. It’s about felons voting!
And what am I saying, two years ago?
The same thing I have been saying all along.
The same thing I am saying today.
You are literally unable to process this, and after you read it, you forget it. That’s me from two years ago saying the same thing I am saying now. You can’t remember any of it. Your brain is organically incapable of retaining this information.
I see you STILL don’t remember the past two years worth of what I have said. Voter ID does not directly prevent felons and non-citizens from voting, any more than laws against bank robbery prevent all bank robberies. But the purpose of such laws is to discourage the behavior by creating a legal framework in which those who do it can be reliably convicted.
Would you like to see a post from a year ago where I say the same thing?
Because it’s a horseshit point brought up by a stumbling failure trying to justify his hatred of poor people.
Of course you do, cumpig. Because, as I showed, you quoted 'luci, who wasn’t talking about that.
You said, to 'luci, “Adaher’s link shows over a hundred in one state.” Why would you be answering him and talking about voting felons, when 'luci is talking about in-person voter fraud.
You’re lying. Or mistaken. I’m betting the former, because it takes a special kind of talent to be that wrong. And I don’t see an excess of talent in your makeup.
I don’t quite get the Ramon Cue case. As I recall, the newspaper cite said that somebody named Ramon Cue voted, and there exists a Ramon Cue who could not have voted legally, but also that there is more than one person named Ramon Cue.
Is there more to this story that I’ve forgotten, because if the above is all there is, how is that evidence of* anything*?
BRICKER, a patient conservative who says the same thing over and over for two years
VARIOUS LIBERALS, who cannot comprehend BRICKER’s words but sense that they are bad because Mother Jones said so. They toss in random comments and pretend to be relevant
MAXTHEVOOL, an annoying liberal by virtue of the fact that his responses show he DOES understand BRICKER’s words and consistently argues against the actual points BRICKER raises.
Bricker: Just to clarify here, it seems to me that what are claiming is your motivation for supporting voter ID laws (to establish a firmer foundation for successfully prosecuting illegal voting of a variety of sorts, not just in-person voter impersonation; and therefore to provide a stronger disincentive against people engaging in such acts) is a fairly subtle point, and not one that I’ve heard discussed by the Republicans who are actually proposing the laws. Do you think your motivation is the same as their claimed motivation? (Not sure it really matters one way or the other, but I’m curious).
Lobohan: The point you are making in 5839 is, imho, quite wrong. If there’s a legal requirement that every person who votes have an ID checked, and if someone named “Joe Bob” voted last election, and if the person named “Joe Bob” should not have legally been allowed to vote, and if someone actually does some after-the-fact analysis and realizes this, then having had a voter ID law in place certainly makes a prosecutor’s case STRONGER against Joe Bob, because there’s now good evidence (if not proof) that the person who showed up claiming to be Joe Bob had ID with the name Joe Bob. (Although it’s clearly ridiculous in this day and age of computers for a voting precinct to have a list of the people who are registered to vote there, but NOT to have the additional information that these 32 of them have been stricken off the roles due to being felons, or what have you.)
Even if that’s now the problem that Bricker is attempting to solve (and, given that he has praised me for actually reading his posts, I find it a bit telling that up until now I would not have said that this level of ability-to-prosecute was the PRIMARY goal of his support of voter ID, as he now seems to maybe saying), that still strikes me a lot like the epidemic-of-in-person-voter-impersonation-fraud or the epidemic-of-people-not-having-confidence-in-the-outcomes-of-elections that we previously thought he was trying to solve, in that none of those actually seem to be real and substantial problems.