I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Trinopus]

@Bricker

As I said two years ago:

“So my point is: prudence dictates we implement a system ahead of time that allows us to reliably associate voters with voting. That may not stop fraud, but it creates a real framework for catching and punishing non-citizen voters, for example. Now, a voter can simply deny he was the one casting the ballots.”

(Bolding in quote, but not in original.)

And…bullshit. Non-citizen voters are part of your legitimate grievance, and Voter ID would, indeed, help prevent people from fraudulently registering when not entitled to vote.

We’re castigating you for arguing that the felons, who were left on the voting rolls by an oversight of the registrar of voters, would be caught via Voter ID. They wouldn’t. Their names are right there on the list, and the nice precinct volunteers would have no way to know they shouldn’t be.

The reference Adaher provided gives no support at all to your ideas about Voter ID. The felons would walk in, show their ID cards, and vote, and your proposals would not prevent this at all.

It was a foolish cite by Adaher (who is a master at that sort of thing) and a really boneheaded blunder on your part to sell your soul to it. If you had any courage, you’d admit you choked and move on. You’ve done this in the past, but, today, it pleases you to cry havoc and slip the dogs of war.

Felons voting requires a different fix. Voter ID won’t do the job. The “100 instances” given aren’t relevant.

Also, shrug, I really like Hentor the Barbarian. You’re doubly foolish for saying, “Lay On” to a guy who knows how to use a battle axe.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Trinopus

I can’t point to them, but there have been several threads, in the past, where [Bricker] was shown wrong, and admitted it, in a mature and respectful fashion.

Well, now that you mention it, I recall that he admitted his error on gay marriage. It seemed to me he was milking it for a while: “I admitted I was wrong about gay marriage, therefore I’m honest, therefore you should take my word for it on this current, unrelated issue.”

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Here is post #52 in its entirety:
[Quote=Bricker]
My point is very simple: with no ID requirement, anyone can show up, give the dog’s name, and vote. With. Photo ID requirement, the task is more complicated, and gives an excellent chance of being able to successfully convict the person that tried.
[/quote]
This is from 2 years and 2 months ago.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Trinopus

Felons voting requires a different fix.

Personally, I’m unclear why it needs a fix at all.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Here is post #52 in its entirety:This is from 2 years and 2 months ago.

Yes. And it’s still true today.

And?

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

(Bolding in quote, but not in original.)

And…bullshit. Non-citizen voters are part of your legitimate grievance, and Voter ID would, indeed, help prevent people from fraudulently registering when not entitled to vote.

We’re castigating you for arguing that the felons, who were left on the voting rolls by an oversight of the registrar of voters, would be caught via Voter ID. They wouldn’t. Their names are right there on the list, and the nice precinct volunteers would have no way to know they shouldn’t be.

The reference Adaher provided gives no support at all to your ideas about Voter ID. The felons would walk in, show their ID cards, and vote, and your proposals would not prevent this at all.

And to your knowledge, have I ever addressed this point before, about how the proposals wouldn’t prevent the vote being cast?

Isn’t that kind of the import behind the “legal framework” that “allows prosecution?”

The idea that it prevents it like laws against bank robbery prevent bank robbery? By creating a disincentive after the fact?

Remember the name “Ramon Cue?”

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Remember the name “Ramon Cue?”

Remember post #5903? Or was it ignored for being inconvenient?

[Bricker]

You post 5903:

@Bryan_Ekers

I’ll cheerfully stipulate that Ramon Cue #1 cast a vote and Ramon Cue #2 was not eligible to vote, but it’s unclear, even in your cite, that #1 and #2 are the same person.

As for Waters, I forget what the deal was with him, assuming there was a deal in the first place.

Waters voted seven times.

Someone using Ramon Cue#1 name and address voted.

I cheerfully concede that more than one “Ramon Cue,” exists.

I am not ready to concede that there were multiple Ramon Cues at a single address. Although Cue does claim to suffer from schizophrenia, so perhaps this point is not as unlikely as it appeared.

But there is no real way to prosecute Ramon Cue. Because he claims it wasn’t him who either registered or voted.

If we had Voter ID in Florida when Cue voted, this impediment would be gone.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

You post 5903:

Waters voted seven times.

Someone using Ramon Cue#1 name and address voted.

I cheerfully concede that more than one “Ramon Cue,” exists.

I am not ready to concede that there were multiple Ramon Cues at a single address. Although Cue does claim to suffer from schizophrenia, so perhaps this point is not as unlikely as it appeared.

I believe your cite was that Miami Herald story from June 2, 2012. If so, it doesn’t mention Ramon Cue’s address, so your refusal to concede this point is (for the moment, anyway) completely meaningless, relying as it does on unestablished information. Further, the article notes that “[a]ny large-scale effort to clean voter rolls is beset with false positives and errors due to misspellings and inaccurate addresses”.

The same cite mentions Nevile Walters voting seven times, allegedly illegally, but the information about him is even thinner that that for Cue.

Do you have a meatier cite (possibly one in which the Miami-Dade state attorney’s office reports the results of the ongoing investigation claimed by its spokesman, Ed Griffith), because if this is enough to shake your voter confidence, your voter confidence must be made of cotton candy.

But there is no real way to prosecute Ramon Cue. Because he claims it wasn’t him who either registered or voted.

Shouldn’t the circumstances be investigated before Cue is prosecuted, to establish that a crime actually occurred?

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

I believe your cite was that Miami Herald story from June 2, 2012. If so, it doesn’t mention Ramon Cue’s address, so your refusal to concede this point is (for the moment, anyway) completely meaningless, relying as it does on unestablished information. Further, the article notes that “[a]ny large-scale effort to clean voter rolls is beset with false positives and errors due to misspellings and inaccurate addresses”.

The same cite mentions Nevile Walters voting seven times, allegedly illegally, but the information about him is even thinner that that for Cue.

Do you have a meatier cite (possibly one in which the Miami-Dade state attorney’s office reports the results of the ongoing investigation claimed by its spokesman, Ed Griffith), because if this is enough to shake your voter confidence, your voter confidence must be made of cotton candy.

It’s true the cite does not mention Cue’s address. But the Ramon Cue who voted used the non-citizen-Ramon-Cue’s address when appearing at the polling station.

You know how I know this?

Shouldn’t the circumstances be investigated before Cue is prosecuted, to establish that a crime actually occurred?

How can they be? As long as Cue denies it, what facts might an investigation reveal that would sustain a prosecution?

[Bricker]

And it’s not like Cue is the only instance of this. I just keep mentioning him because he’s easy to remember.

But:

Luis Ortega, 29, of Tampa, is the kind of person Gov. Rick Scott has been targeting.

He is not a U.S. citizen.

And he has voted in a Florida election.

Ortega’s name was included among 2,625 suspected noncitizens on the now-famous voter purge list. Though discredited by county election supervisors, the list remains a topic of intense partisan debate and subject of a legal fight between Florida and the federal government.

Scott says he’s determined to preserve the integrity of the voting process by eliminating noncitizens from the rolls.

A Herald/Times review of voter information from Florida’s largest counties, however, has identified only six noncitizens as having voted so far.

A MISTAKE

Ortega is the only noncitizen in the Tampa Bay area who is known to have cast a vote. He now says it was a mistake.

Two voters were identified by the Miami Supervisors of Elections as having voted, one of them one time and the other seven times since 2000. Collier County identified two noncitizens who voted in 2010. And Orange County officials found a woman there who voted twice in 2008 even though she was not a citizen.
.
.
.
Ortega lives in West Tampa and manages L Ortega & Associates of Tampa Bay, a company that installs computers and provides IT support.

He registered to vote in Tampa in 2004 on a form published in Spanish. He listed no party affiliation and checked “sí” when asked if he were a “ciudadano,” a citizen of the United States.

Elections clerks do not verify the citizenship status of voters. Rather, they rely on voters to tell the truth.

Ortega voted one time, in the statewide general election of Nov. 7, 2006. That was the day Democrat Bill Nelson won a second term in the U.S. Senate and then-Republican Charlie Crist was elected governor.

Ortega, who lives in a modest green stucco home in a working-class neighborhood, declined to comment other than to say he thought his situation was resolved.

“I didn’t do it on purpose. It’s something I wasn’t aware of,” Ortega said. “I realized I had made a mistake. I didn’t intend to deceive the system.”
.
.
.
When the county elections office asked Ortega to prove his citizenship in April, he signed a form accepting a finding that he is not a U.S. citizen. He checked a box marked, “I agree with your information and do not require a hearing.”

“He did acknowledge that he is not an American citizen,” said Craig Latimer, chief of staff in the Hillsborough elections office.

So if you’d like to stand on some bullshit about how poor old Ramon Cue is a victim of a parade of other Ramon Cues traipsing through the Florida Everglades, that’s fine.

Let’s talk about Ortega.

[elucidator]

Actually, if you google “Ramon Cue” what you get is that one article in first position. Second position is this thread!

We may, therefore, reliably presume that the liberal media has suppressed information about this hugely important scandal, but that friend Bricker has sources of information not readily available to the rest of us. (In a blog post about Florida’s voter purge, a comment mentions Mr Cue and Mr Neville, but offers no further information.)

Either that, or the information regarding Mr Cue’s home address has no verifiable source other than **Bricker’**s rock solid reputation for scrupulous candor.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Actually, if you google “Ramon Cue” what you get is that one article in first position. Second position is this thread!

We may, therefore, reliably presume that the liberal media has suppressed information about this hugely important scandal, but that friend Bricker has sources of information not readily available to the rest of us. (In a blog post about Florida’s voter purge, a comment mentions Mr Cue and Mr Neville, but offers no further information.)

Either that, or the information regarding Mr Cue’s home address has no verifiable source other than **Bricker’**s rock solid reputation for scrupulous candor.

What specific claim of mine do you wish evidence for? What does “the information regarding Mr. Cue’s home address” refer to?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…Let’s talk about Ortega.

Indeed, changing the subject would be a really good idea, at this point.

And if ever there were a shining example of Republican commitment to fair play and honest government, not to mention the all important voter confidence, Gov Scott’s effort to purge the voter rolls stands out.

Good one, Bricker! If ever there were an example of Republican’s staunch commitment to fair play and integrity, it would be that paragon of civic virtue!

(Hmmm, that shovel is looking a mite worn, Counselor. Here I bought you a new one, keep up the good work!)

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…Someone using Ramon Cue#1 name and address voted…

This one. Specific enough?

[elucidator]

And while we are on the subject of unsupported claims, can you offer any evidence for your contention that only “some”, but not “most”, Republicans had nefarious intentions when putting forth voter id laws? Can you offer us anything at all, outside of a nimble leap of faith?

As it happens, you have inadvertently offered us some examples of Republicans who are worthy of our praise, those Republican election officials in Florida who forthrightly condemned this unseemly effort. Good for them!

But how you get to the conclusion that only “some” but not “most” Republicans who supported these laws in their various sordid incarnations had malign intentions…the evidence appears elusive. Vaporous. Well, non-existent.

I stand ready to offer blubbering apologies should you actually produce any such evidence, I await “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

It’s true the cite does not mention Cue’s address. But the Ramon Cue who voted used the non-citizen-Ramon-Cue’s address when appearing at the polling station.

You know how I know this?

I know you think you know this, I’m less confident in saying I know you know this.

How can they be? As long as Cue denies it, what facts might an investigation reveal that would sustain a prosecution?

So… we shouldn’t be prosecuting Cue. Okay, glad we could clear this up.

Potential evidence to use if we were prosecuting Cue would be the testimony of the poll worker who checked the address of the Ramon Cue who could not legally vote with a positive ID matching the Ramon Cue who could not legally vote.

Personally, I’m more concerned about the three other Ramon Cues who (for all we know) have every right to vote but will not be able to do so if they get caught up in the effort to block the Ramon Cue who doesn’t have such a right, because stuff like this has a well-established history.

I’ve never even suggested Ramon Cue (the noncitizen) is being victimized by other Ramon Cues. You just made that up. Rather, my long-standing concern (I’m sure I could go back to long-ago earlier posts of mine and find this being expressed, if it mattered one iota) is that the Ramon Cues who are citizens will be denied their vote because of trumped up fears about what Ramon Cue (the noncitizen) might have done.

As for Luis Ortega… I have to repeat my earlier observation about Cue - if cases like this shake your voter confidence, then your voter confidence is far too delicate to be taken seriously. You have been suckered by cynical attempts to exploit your fears.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

When you can name voters who have committed fraud individually, doesn’t that say something about the scope of the problem?

[elucidator]

Could be the difference between “widespread and growing threat” and “rampant and spreading like wildfire”.

[Lobohan]

What Bricker fails to mention, either due to mild retardation or sneering evil, is that the whole point of voter ID, maintaining the integrity of elections, is hampered by implementing in a manner designed to target one party.

If you make it harder for ten thousand people (mostly of one party) to vote, to stop 2 dodgy votes, you’ve reduced the integrity of the election.

But like I said, Bricker is either too stupid or too evil to accept that.

I vote evil, although he hasn’t demonstrated particular intellect.