Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seeing you can't prove how much fraud there is, how can you prove that it would reduce fraud?
Ah yes, the voter fraud boogieman. We must crack down on something we can't quantify.
And you really need to let go of the Obama angle because I ain't buying it. I would still be against wasting money on something that can't be quantified and can't be proven to reduce anything.
So you are going on record and saying NO Photo ID for buying guns.
After all, you are on record saying that Photo IDs do not reduce fraud.
Wasting money? Some estimates are that 99% of voters would already have an acceptable voter ID. Brainless talking points to tote the party line from the bosses pulling your strings.
You aren't even honest enough to advocate Obama being wrong on his photo ID stances for other things.
Again, I don't care what Obama's stance is when it comes to a photo IDs for voting. If you want to prevent voter fraud, why not just microchip every American?
How much voter fraud happened in the 2012 election? 2010 election? 2008 election? 2006 election? 2004 election? and so on? If you can't figure out how much voter fraud is even happening, then you can't prove it is reducing anything.
Again, I don't care what Obama's stance is when it comes to a photo IDs for voting. If you want to prevent voter fraud, why not just microchip every American?
How much voter fraud happened in the 2012 election? 2010 election? 2008 election? 2006 election? 2004 election? and so on? If you can't figure out how much voter fraud is even happening, then you can't prove it is reducing anything.
Using your low IQ logic nothing should be done to increase voter integrity, because we can't quantify the exact amount of voter fraud - even though we can find examples, like over a 1,000 fraudulent ballots in Minnesota's Franken election.
Why do you Republican sheep always try to make the rest of us your siblings? It is those of you who have no concept of the actual problem that always drive for a non solution.
For what point? The known cases of voter fraud almost completely involve people who have photo ID. So why spend money to solve a non-existent problem. If you wanted to solve the problem you would propose a voter ID that requires validation of eligibility to vote. But you don't. The NV system was in fact proposed by a democrat and was actually turned down by both parties on the basis that it was solving a non-existent problem.
NV has had three recent examples of voter fraud. A Republican committee women trying to demonstrate how simply it was to vote illegally and two foreign nationals who voted with fraudulent photo ID.
Nonsense. If voter fraud was widespread it would not be virtually impossible to find real cases. That is cases where phony votes were cast by people without ID.
Just cite a dozen or so will you? That would demonstrate the problem. I actually know of none though I have been following the question closely for five or six years.
Can't logically use cases of voter fraud to argue this point since voter fraud is nearly impossible to prosecute. Thus the number of cases does not come close to representing the incidence of voter fraud.
I am for background checks when it comes to buying guns.
But you oppose Photo IDs with the back ground checks. Back ground checks with no photo IDs. Because using your "logic" Photo IDs can be faked and we can't quantify the exact amount of fraud that having Photo IDs as part of the back ground check would actually stop.
Using your low IQ logic nothing should be done to increase voter integrity, because we can't quantify the exact amount of voter fraud - even though we can find examples, like over a 1,000 fraudulent ballots in Minnesota's Franken election.
I don't really care to look into this beyond looking at Wikipedia because you are probably wrong and have continued to believe this lie that over a 1000 fraudulent ballots were cast in Minnesota.
"Subsequent investigations of Minnesota Majority's claims by election officials found that many of their allegations were incorrect. Some of the cases that were submitted involved mistaking a legal voter for a felon with the same name, others involved felons who had had their voting rights reinstated after serving their sentences, and others were felons who illegally registered to vote, but did not vote in 2008 election.[112][113] Ramsey County officials narrowed their investigation to 180 cases, while Hennepin County examined 216 cases."
But it looks like you believe this claim because you want it to be true, not because it is actually true or you would have never mentioned this false claim....talk about being dishonest.
So why not background checks to see if a person has a right to vote?
Why would you need to pass a background check to vote?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
