74 thoughts on ““Faster Than You Can Say ‘Furious'””
Proving nothing. Next O’Keefe will almost shoplift to prove that convenience stores should strip-search patrons as they exit.
There’s no question that vote fraud is possible. There’s also no question that voter id laws help Republicans win elections.
Are you saying the only Democrats are dumb and Republicans play to that?
No, he’s admitting that Democrats rely on fraudulent votes to win elections and that opposition to voter ID laws is founded in that political fact and not in any bogus “civil rights” concerns…
Voter id laws, like any requirement, reduce legitimate voting, and both sides agree that they reduce voting by Democrats more than they reduce voting by Republicans. That’s why Republicans fight so hard for voter id laws.
Democrats work to expand legitimate voting, with big registration drives, same-day registration, motor-voter, etc., because the easier it is to vote, the more likely Dem-leaning voters will turn out. Republicans work to make voting harder, for the exact same reason.
It reduces voting by Democrats because 17.3% of Democrat voters are actually dead Republicans and cartoon characters.
There is no earthly reason why voter ID requirements would reduce legitimate voting. Quite the opposite: They would reduce illegitimate voting, which is precisely why the Democrats are hell-bent on opposing it.
Does a store requiring ID to pay by check reduce legitimate purchases, or illegitimate ones? If it reduces legitimate purchases, why would a store want to do that?
If a guy isn’t afraid to flash his ID to an old white clerk for a 40-ounce bottle of Olde English 800 at a liquor store he’s already robbed three times, why would he be afraid to show it to the black woman in a Malcolm-X shirt staffing his polling place?
Given that most states offer free or inexpensive non-driver’s-license photo IDs, I am unconcerned that people who can’t scrape together $15-30 every 4 years can’t vote.
Does a store requiring ID to pay by check reduce legitimate purchases, or illegitimate ones?
It reduces both. Have you ever run a retail business? Every obstacle to a sale reduces sales at the margin.
Every obstacle to a sale reduces sales at the margin.
Well sure, I guess the store owner could sell cigarettes, firearms, and whiskey to any toddler that walked into the establishments with the necessary funds.
But, lets not quibble on voter id; are you saying the US vote has been illegitmate for centuries since it begins with the obstacle that you must be a resident of the US to vote? That’s what the US Constitution says. The states are simply determining a method to make the already required voter registration include an additional check that you are the person that’s registered.
Voter id laws, like any requirement, reduce illegitimate voting…”
FIFY.
The vast majority of people complaining about this ALREADY HAVE some form of picture ID- they have to, in order to do everything from driving (hey Jim, has the requirement for photo driver’s licenses reduced the number of drivers?) to cashing welfare checks. The tiny micropercentage who don’t, probably can’t vote anyway: nonresidents, or felons, or illegal aliens.
Jim said it first, best, and right: voter ID laws discourage voter fraud, which is why Democrats oppose them.
This also tells you all you need to know about Democrats.
Voter id laws, like any requirement, reduce illegitimate voting…”
FIFY.
The vast majority of people complaining about this ALREADY HAVE some form of picture ID- they have to, in order to do everything from driving (hey Jim, has the requirement for photo driver’s licenses reduced the number of drivers?) to cashing welfare checks. The tiny micropercentage who don’t, probably can’t vote anyway: nonresidents, or felons, or illegal aliens.
Jim said it first, best, and right: voter ID laws discourage voter fraud, which is why Democrats oppose them.
This also tells you all you need to know about Democrats.
The tiny micropercentage who don’t, probably can’t vote anyway
Ten percent of voting-age Americans don’t have a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID. That isn’t a micro-percentage. And the rate is much higher in some groups.
….and yet, nobody is claiming that because that “up to” 10% (and what a weasel-worded phrase THAT is) can’t get photo id (too felonious, too illegal, too lazy/stupid) tha photo ID shouldn’t be required to cash checks or drive a car.
Just to vote, where the Democratic Party (as Jim so helpfully admitted) has a need for corruption.
There’s no question that vote fraud is possible. There’s also no question that voter id laws help Republicans win elections.
Well, I’m glad that’s settled. Now there is no question that Democrats win because of vote fraud. I glad you agree, Jim.
Oh, and Jim, it is Obama’s Janet Napolitano that requires us to get a strip search before boarding an aircraft and is considering doing the same for trains and buses.
It proves nothing? Jim, how much proof do you need that voter ID is required to ensure the integrity of elections? Without ID he was able to disenfranchise the US Attorney General. If ID was insisted upon, then this disenfranchisement is not possible.
The harder Democrats fight against this very basic safeguard of democracy, the harder it is to view a Democrat win as legitimate. Down this path lies civil war.
Hey, to a liberal this incident only proves that those pushing for voter ID are already disenfranchings blacks.
Without ID he was able to disenfranchise the US Attorney General
Holder was not able to vote? Prove it.
You mean Democrats like Holder are allowed to vote as often as they like? Darn it, that’s not fair. Republicans are only allowed to vote once.
Be fair to Jim, George. Democrats are only allowed to vote multiple times in a single election if they travel around a bit. That’s a real hardship ya know.
Jim, I didn’t say he disenfranchised the AG, rather that he was able to do so (and rather easily at that). If he had taken a step further and actually cast the ballot then Holder would not have been able to vote.
At some point, Jim, one must realize that one is defending the indefensible. That’s being charitable, by the way.
If he had taken a step further and actually cast the ballot
And yet he didn’t cast the ballot, and no one was disenfranchised.
O’Keefe proved that vote fraud is theoretically possible. But of course we already knew that, which is why it’s a felony.
which is why it’s a felony
Only if one gets caught, which is why the Dems don’t want anyone caught. Keep digging, Jim.
He proved that voter fraud is easier than buying cigarettes. With such a low barrier to use voter fraud why should we rely on the “goodness” of people to insure election outcomes are accurate?
When democrats get elected by boxes of ballots being found in a democrat poll workers trunk weeks after the election (as happened where I live), we should trust the purity of the intentions of the Democrat party?
We need to restore trust to the outcomes of elections. Voter ID is a good first step. Bio-metrics for vote by mail might come later.
In Washington State we had -3000- ballots the court ruled were fraudulent. In a less-than-100-vote election.
The judge ruled that he couldn’t remedy the problem because the ballots were – rightly – secret. There’s no way to put the toothpaste back into the tube once the fraudulent ballot is actually cast.
Had O’Keefe actually handed in Eric’s ballot and kept his mouth shut, there’s literally no sane way to figure out which ballot was fraudulent when Eric Holder comes by later and realizes someone has voted for him. Something even a blue stater should be able to figure out without removing their socks.
If one is too stupid to value the integrity of the election -before- the votes are cast, don’t be shocked when people regard the election as a Chicago-like sham.
Had O’Keefe actually handed in Eric’s ballot and kept his mouth shut,
And yet O’Keefe’s guy didn’t hand in that ballot, which would have made his point more forcefully; why not?
The President could have provided his Birth Certificate from the very beginning which would have made his point more forcefully; why not?
O’Keefe is asking us to believe that vote fraud is regularly used to swing elections, which is like asking us to believe in Bigfoot. Let’s see the video where he gets enough people to actually cast fraudulent ballots to change the outcome of a Congressional race.
Yeah, right, Jim. They’re going to get lots of people to get filmed committing a felony and practically begging to get prosecuted while simultaneously discrediting themselves. Like some moron who brings a gun onto a plane to show authorities how ineffective their Security Theatre (TM) is. To which you would no doubt exclaim that, “But he didn’t actually hijack the plane or shoot anybody, so it’s not like he proved anything at all!”
Come on, Jim. It’s like you’re not even trying here.
Well, if voter fraud doesn’t swing elections, then you won’t mind providing an ID. Further, you have no evidence to claim that laws requiring a voter id helps Republicans.
Well, if voter fraud doesn’t swing elections, then you won’t mind providing an ID.
A complete non sequitur.
I understand. Whether voter fraud swings elections has nothing to do with establishing methods to prevent it from occurring. One person casting a fraudulant vote has disenfranchised at least one voter. It’s only reasonable to require an ID.
In Washington State we had -3000- ballots the court ruled were fraudulent.
The “fraudulent” label is used for all sorts of things besides an organized attempt to steal an election, e.g., a man who erroneously voted his dead wife’s ballot instead of his own.
e.g., a man who erroneously voted his dead wife’s ballot instead of his own.
Great example of an illegitimate vote that wouldn’t have happened had the man been required to show an id. Had he shown an id, and been on the voter registration rolls, then he would be provided the proper ballot.
Had he shown an id, and been on the voter registration rolls, then he would be provided the proper ballot.
And the election results would have been identical. What problem are you solving?
I thought earlier you noted it was a felony to commit voter fraud. Gee Jim, don’t you think it would be horrible to send a man to jail for voting using his wife’s ballot? I thought that was a problem you wanted to solve?
Besides, since you used a hypothetical, in my variation of your made up story; the man votes with his wife’s ballot then comes back later and votes with his own. But with voter id, he never gets his wife’s ballot the first time. Problem solved.
And yet, that is -not- the type of ballot that that was discovered.
The -judicial system-, not some right-wing-crank, found that 3000 (of the larger pile submitted) were -obvious- fraud.
Mickey Mouse, Joe Dimaggio, John Cusak, Elvis, …
The list passed neither the rough smell test nor the detailed work of tracking these people down via their addresses and phone numbers on a case by case basis.
And that’s the ones where the blatant silliness of the name was the first clue. How many thousands went through just fine because no one can check 10,000 “John Smith” (or Chin, Martinez, Nguyen, and the other zillion massively popular last names).
3000 were proven fraud. I think there were three arrests – and they were, indeed, for exactly the sort of crap you mentioned. Husband voting wife’s ballot, etc. Because for those you can find someone to ask questions of.
3000 proven – and a silently uncountable host that Democrats simply don’t care about because they love the fraud.
3000 were proven fraud
Link?
Mickey Mouse, Joe Dimaggio, John Cusak, Elvis, …
Exactly. Voter ID is not the solution to “Mickey Mouse registering to vote”; the ballot clerk can tell that the voter isn’t Mickey Mouse without having to check id. “Mickey Mouse registering to vote” is a crime, but it isn’t a problem, because it doesn’t change election results. Why are you so worked up about a non-problem?
I think there were three arrests – and they were, indeed, for exactly the sort of crap you mentioned. Husband voting wife’s ballot, etc.
Why arrest someone for making an honest mistake that has no effect on the vote count?
3000 such votes most likely -did- change an actual election Jim. 2004 Gubernatorial election in Washington.
My brain has long since lost the exact URLs that were most informative. But the blog Sound Politics had a complete sea of photographs of signatures like ‘Mickey Mouse’. (Our polls are public records in Washington.)
I do agree that the -actual- Mickey Mouse -name- isn’t likely swing the election itself – 3000 votes by “Mickey Mouse” might be noticed.
But the exact same shenanigans work equally well for completely innocuous names. The dead, fictitious brothers, sisters, mothers, etc.
There was even an entire team that voted – can’t recall which. But -like- the Oakland raiders -all- signing up to vote. In Washington. And voting. With pictures of the signatures. But we don’t know -which- votes they cast, because it wasn’t caught at the polls.
Not even Mickey Mouse was caught at the polls. Because no matter -how- outrageous the name is, it is illegal for the poll watcher to say “Hey, I don’t think you’re actually Mickey Freaking Mouse.”
““Mickey Mouse registering to vote” is a crime, but it isn’t a problem, because it doesn’t change election results. ”
Wait, how can voter id cause democrats to lose elections on one side but voter fraud not effect the outcome of elections on the other. That just doesn’t make sense.
Jim making sense would be the exception to the rule.
Jim what is to prevent him from sending in both his and his deceased wife’s ballot or for filling out the ballot of his alzheimers inflicted father?
Voter fraud is easy.
Prior to this stunt, have you ever gone to the polls and given your name to get a ballot and found out that someone has already voted in your name? Does anyone here know of anyone that ever happened to in their entire lifetime? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing until now? Ever?
Now that O’Keefe has had his fun publicizing his prank, every Occupy Moonbat will now be looking to do the same thing to even the score.
And how does the ID requirement prevent this? Fake IDs are a dime a dozen. After this, will we demand that voter rolls have pictures to match against the picture ID presented? That we qualify people to vote with biometrics — we are talking about such a thing to fly. Where does this end?
Stupid. Just plain stupid.
If the fraudulent voters have any brains, they’ll have researched to find registered voters who won’t be voting, such as the recently dead.
Lots of talking points, and zero evidence of vote fraud changing election results.
to oppose voter ID is to favor illegal voters voting.
To favor voter ID is to favor disenfranchising legitimate voters who tend to vote for Democrats.
Lots of talking points, and zero evidence of vote fraud changing election results.
ORLY, so what you are saying is that you have zero basis for this statement: There’s also no question that voter id laws help Republicans win elections.
You made that statement with no evidence to back it up? I’m shocked.
Everyone agrees that the registered voters who do not have ids that meet the requirements of new voter id laws are disproportionately Democrats. Do you really doubt that?
Why everyone I know will tell you the dead manage to vote in Chicago and influence elections. Do you really doubt that?
Yes, I really do doubt that.
Then you otherstand that I doubt you as well. It’s not like you provided any links to support your claim; though you demand Al provide you with evidence. And the really hypocritical argument is that you want us to believe that voter fraud doesn’t sway elections, but attempts to prevent voter fraud will sway elections. These statements cannot both be true.
you want us to believe that voter fraud doesn’t sway elections, but attempts to prevent voter fraud will sway elections. These statements cannot both be true.
Of course they can both be true! You seem to be assuming that voter ID laws only prevent fraudulent votes, when most of the votes they prevent are legit.
Can you provide evidence to support your argument, or do you expect us to just take your word for it?
To favor voter ID is to favor disenfranchising legitimate voters who tend to vote for Democrats.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. If someone can’t get it together to get an ID, I don’t want them voting, regardless of political affiliation.
That, rather than the imaginary vote fraud bogeyman, is at least an honest motivation for voter ID laws. It’s also a violation of the 15th Amendment.
This I have to hear. How is voter ID a violation of the 15th?
Spoiler: it isn’t. Sorry.
Here here. As they say, this isn’t a democracy this is a representative republic. I believe the Founding Fathers would certainly be in favor of a voter ID requirement.
Actually, there’s plenty of evidence that vote fraud changes election results, otherwise politicians wouldn’t waste their time engaging in it. Lyndon Johnson had all sorts of stories about vote fraud, including on amusing one from his early days when he was busily engaging in it. He recounted how he and some other staffers were walking through a cemetary writing down the names on the gravestones to swing an election. They were there along with the politician who was going to receive the votes. One of the staffers couldn’t make out the name on an old tombstone and gave up in disgust, and the politician hollered “No! You go back and get that name! He has as much of a right to vote as anyone in here!” Wouldn’t want to disenfranchise the dead, now would we? ^_^
If that kind of fraud didn’t swing elections, why would a politician be spending his time in a graveyard?
Come back with a case from this century.
Okay, how about a statement by Democrat operative Anthony DeFiglio who pled guilty to voter fraud in a 2009 case in New York, who said that voter fraud was “commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.” So he’s admitting to voter fraud, and admitting that it’s accepted, and admitting that it is done to swing an election (why else would anyone engage in it?)
Is 2009 recent enough, or do I need to dig up later convictions?
Two words Jim, Al Franken.
Two more: Mark Dayton.
How come I have to shot a photo ID to buy a Gun, which is a Civil Right but not to vote, which ISN’T a Civil Right but one granted by my state?
This could be an awesome discussion with SCOTUS. The 2nd Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The 15th Amendment says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state”
So if I need an ID to keep and bear arms, despite a statement that my right not be infringed; then I see no reason I can’t provide an ID to vote. Now if the SCOTUS says I don’t need an ID to vote, because it violates the rights given to me in Amendment 15; then I think the need for a CHL should be thrown out. Bonus, state issued IDs are far cheaper than CHLs.
And how come I don’t have to show ID to exercise my First Amendment right to go to church? Clearly we should have worshipper id laws….
You have to have an ID to exercise your first amendment right to protest the DoJ. I’m sure you progressives, Jim, will find a way to require labels on people’s clothes to identify religions. Your ilk have done so in the past.
Ah Leland, those yellow stars, purple triangles and such were just fashion statements.
I almost forgot Jim, since the SCOTUS is sure to strike it down, but your the guy supporting the notion that every American will have to show proof of purchasing health insurance in order to freely live in the US. That’s an affirmative requirement on the part of every citizen, not a passive system. If providing an ID is such a burden, Jim; then I’m sure you agree that demanding every American to purchase healthcare and/or provide evidence they have it is an even greater burden.
Purchasing healthcare insurance is a greater burden than having an ID. Filing a tax return is a bigger burden than either one. The point isn’t that getting an ID is an intolerable burden, but that it’s an unnecessary one, imposed for political advantage. The people pushing voter ID laws don’t want everyone to get an id, they want fewer Democrats to vote.
I’d be happy making voting mandatory.
people pushing voter ID laws don’t want everyone to get an id, they want fewer Democrats to vote
So what if they do? How does that change the fact that voter ID helps to insure one person, one vote?
You are arguing against one person, one vote. Isn’t that just a political stance?
And how come I don’t have to show ID to exercise my First Amendment right to go to church? Clearly we should have worshipper id laws….
That’s silly. You can’t fool God, which is why nobody sends substitutes to church.
Someone needs to remake that scene from Being John Malkovich with Eric Holder.
Haha, I had to dig up this post just for no other reason than to make Jim look stupid. Today a new Wikileaks ddocument dump uncovers an email from a Private Intelligence firm called ‘Stratfor’. Apparently they caught a number of Democrats ballot stuffing in Ohio and Pennsylvania during the 2008 presidential election. They claim that McCain lost Pennsylvania and Ohio because of voter fraud. Bizarrely enough McCain chose not to make an issue out of it for fear of coming across as a bitter loser. It just infuriates me to know that we nominated someone that just didn’t have the gumption to go all the way and do whatever it takes to win.
Proving nothing. Next O’Keefe will almost shoplift to prove that convenience stores should strip-search patrons as they exit.
There’s no question that vote fraud is possible. There’s also no question that voter id laws help Republicans win elections.
Are you saying the only Democrats are dumb and Republicans play to that?
No, he’s admitting that Democrats rely on fraudulent votes to win elections and that opposition to voter ID laws is founded in that political fact and not in any bogus “civil rights” concerns…
Voter id laws, like any requirement, reduce legitimate voting, and both sides agree that they reduce voting by Democrats more than they reduce voting by Republicans. That’s why Republicans fight so hard for voter id laws.
Democrats work to expand legitimate voting, with big registration drives, same-day registration, motor-voter, etc., because the easier it is to vote, the more likely Dem-leaning voters will turn out. Republicans work to make voting harder, for the exact same reason.
It reduces voting by Democrats because 17.3% of Democrat voters are actually dead Republicans and cartoon characters.
There is no earthly reason why voter ID requirements would reduce legitimate voting. Quite the opposite: They would reduce illegitimate voting, which is precisely why the Democrats are hell-bent on opposing it.
Does a store requiring ID to pay by check reduce legitimate purchases, or illegitimate ones? If it reduces legitimate purchases, why would a store want to do that?
If a guy isn’t afraid to flash his ID to an old white clerk for a 40-ounce bottle of Olde English 800 at a liquor store he’s already robbed three times, why would he be afraid to show it to the black woman in a Malcolm-X shirt staffing his polling place?
Given that most states offer free or inexpensive non-driver’s-license photo IDs, I am unconcerned that people who can’t scrape together $15-30 every 4 years can’t vote.
Does a store requiring ID to pay by check reduce legitimate purchases, or illegitimate ones?
It reduces both. Have you ever run a retail business? Every obstacle to a sale reduces sales at the margin.
Every obstacle to a sale reduces sales at the margin.
Well sure, I guess the store owner could sell cigarettes, firearms, and whiskey to any toddler that walked into the establishments with the necessary funds.
But, lets not quibble on voter id; are you saying the US vote has been illegitmate for centuries since it begins with the obstacle that you must be a resident of the US to vote? That’s what the US Constitution says. The states are simply determining a method to make the already required voter registration include an additional check that you are the person that’s registered.
Voter id laws, like any requirement, reduce illegitimate voting…”
FIFY.
The vast majority of people complaining about this ALREADY HAVE some form of picture ID- they have to, in order to do everything from driving (hey Jim, has the requirement for photo driver’s licenses reduced the number of drivers?) to cashing welfare checks. The tiny micropercentage who don’t, probably can’t vote anyway: nonresidents, or felons, or illegal aliens.
Jim said it first, best, and right: voter ID laws discourage voter fraud, which is why Democrats oppose them.
This also tells you all you need to know about Democrats.
Voter id laws, like any requirement, reduce illegitimate voting…”
FIFY.
The vast majority of people complaining about this ALREADY HAVE some form of picture ID- they have to, in order to do everything from driving (hey Jim, has the requirement for photo driver’s licenses reduced the number of drivers?) to cashing welfare checks. The tiny micropercentage who don’t, probably can’t vote anyway: nonresidents, or felons, or illegal aliens.
Jim said it first, best, and right: voter ID laws discourage voter fraud, which is why Democrats oppose them.
This also tells you all you need to know about Democrats.
The tiny micropercentage who don’t, probably can’t vote anyway
Ten percent of voting-age Americans don’t have a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID. That isn’t a micro-percentage. And the rate is much higher in some groups.
….and yet, nobody is claiming that because that “up to” 10% (and what a weasel-worded phrase THAT is) can’t get photo id (too felonious, too illegal, too lazy/stupid) tha photo ID shouldn’t be required to cash checks or drive a car.
Just to vote, where the Democratic Party (as Jim so helpfully admitted) has a need for corruption.
There’s no question that vote fraud is possible. There’s also no question that voter id laws help Republicans win elections.
Well, I’m glad that’s settled. Now there is no question that Democrats win because of vote fraud. I glad you agree, Jim.
Oh, and Jim, it is Obama’s Janet Napolitano that requires us to get a strip search before boarding an aircraft and is considering doing the same for trains and buses.
It proves nothing? Jim, how much proof do you need that voter ID is required to ensure the integrity of elections? Without ID he was able to disenfranchise the US Attorney General. If ID was insisted upon, then this disenfranchisement is not possible.
The harder Democrats fight against this very basic safeguard of democracy, the harder it is to view a Democrat win as legitimate. Down this path lies civil war.
Hey, to a liberal this incident only proves that those pushing for voter ID are already disenfranchings blacks.
Without ID he was able to disenfranchise the US Attorney General
Holder was not able to vote? Prove it.
You mean Democrats like Holder are allowed to vote as often as they like? Darn it, that’s not fair. Republicans are only allowed to vote once.
Be fair to Jim, George. Democrats are only allowed to vote multiple times in a single election if they travel around a bit. That’s a real hardship ya know.
Jim, I didn’t say he disenfranchised the AG, rather that he was able to do so (and rather easily at that). If he had taken a step further and actually cast the ballot then Holder would not have been able to vote.
At some point, Jim, one must realize that one is defending the indefensible. That’s being charitable, by the way.
If he had taken a step further and actually cast the ballot
And yet he didn’t cast the ballot, and no one was disenfranchised.
O’Keefe proved that vote fraud is theoretically possible. But of course we already knew that, which is why it’s a felony.
which is why it’s a felony
Only if one gets caught, which is why the Dems don’t want anyone caught. Keep digging, Jim.
He proved that voter fraud is easier than buying cigarettes. With such a low barrier to use voter fraud why should we rely on the “goodness” of people to insure election outcomes are accurate?
When democrats get elected by boxes of ballots being found in a democrat poll workers trunk weeks after the election (as happened where I live), we should trust the purity of the intentions of the Democrat party?
We need to restore trust to the outcomes of elections. Voter ID is a good first step. Bio-metrics for vote by mail might come later.
In Washington State we had -3000- ballots the court ruled were fraudulent. In a less-than-100-vote election.
The judge ruled that he couldn’t remedy the problem because the ballots were – rightly – secret. There’s no way to put the toothpaste back into the tube once the fraudulent ballot is actually cast.
Had O’Keefe actually handed in Eric’s ballot and kept his mouth shut, there’s literally no sane way to figure out which ballot was fraudulent when Eric Holder comes by later and realizes someone has voted for him. Something even a blue stater should be able to figure out without removing their socks.
If one is too stupid to value the integrity of the election -before- the votes are cast, don’t be shocked when people regard the election as a Chicago-like sham.
Had O’Keefe actually handed in Eric’s ballot and kept his mouth shut,
And yet O’Keefe’s guy didn’t hand in that ballot, which would have made his point more forcefully; why not?
The President could have provided his Birth Certificate from the very beginning which would have made his point more forcefully; why not?
O’Keefe is asking us to believe that vote fraud is regularly used to swing elections, which is like asking us to believe in Bigfoot. Let’s see the video where he gets enough people to actually cast fraudulent ballots to change the outcome of a Congressional race.
Yeah, right, Jim. They’re going to get lots of people to get filmed committing a felony and practically begging to get prosecuted while simultaneously discrediting themselves. Like some moron who brings a gun onto a plane to show authorities how ineffective their Security Theatre (TM) is. To which you would no doubt exclaim that, “But he didn’t actually hijack the plane or shoot anybody, so it’s not like he proved anything at all!”
Meanwhile, the dead can and have voted:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/dead-people-voting-throughout-florida/nFCnL/
Come on, Jim. It’s like you’re not even trying here.
Well, if voter fraud doesn’t swing elections, then you won’t mind providing an ID. Further, you have no evidence to claim that laws requiring a voter id helps Republicans.
Well, if voter fraud doesn’t swing elections, then you won’t mind providing an ID.
A complete non sequitur.
I understand. Whether voter fraud swings elections has nothing to do with establishing methods to prevent it from occurring. One person casting a fraudulant vote has disenfranchised at least one voter. It’s only reasonable to require an ID.
In Washington State we had -3000- ballots the court ruled were fraudulent.
The “fraudulent” label is used for all sorts of things besides an organized attempt to steal an election, e.g., a man who erroneously voted his dead wife’s ballot instead of his own.
e.g., a man who erroneously voted his dead wife’s ballot instead of his own.
Great example of an illegitimate vote that wouldn’t have happened had the man been required to show an id. Had he shown an id, and been on the voter registration rolls, then he would be provided the proper ballot.
Had he shown an id, and been on the voter registration rolls, then he would be provided the proper ballot.
And the election results would have been identical. What problem are you solving?
I thought earlier you noted it was a felony to commit voter fraud. Gee Jim, don’t you think it would be horrible to send a man to jail for voting using his wife’s ballot? I thought that was a problem you wanted to solve?
Besides, since you used a hypothetical, in my variation of your made up story; the man votes with his wife’s ballot then comes back later and votes with his own. But with voter id, he never gets his wife’s ballot the first time. Problem solved.
And yet, that is -not- the type of ballot that that was discovered.
The -judicial system-, not some right-wing-crank, found that 3000 (of the larger pile submitted) were -obvious- fraud.
Mickey Mouse, Joe Dimaggio, John Cusak, Elvis, …
The list passed neither the rough smell test nor the detailed work of tracking these people down via their addresses and phone numbers on a case by case basis.
And that’s the ones where the blatant silliness of the name was the first clue. How many thousands went through just fine because no one can check 10,000 “John Smith” (or Chin, Martinez, Nguyen, and the other zillion massively popular last names).
3000 were proven fraud. I think there were three arrests – and they were, indeed, for exactly the sort of crap you mentioned. Husband voting wife’s ballot, etc. Because for those you can find someone to ask questions of.
3000 proven – and a silently uncountable host that Democrats simply don’t care about because they love the fraud.
3000 were proven fraud
Link?
Mickey Mouse, Joe Dimaggio, John Cusak, Elvis, …
Exactly. Voter ID is not the solution to “Mickey Mouse registering to vote”; the ballot clerk can tell that the voter isn’t Mickey Mouse without having to check id. “Mickey Mouse registering to vote” is a crime, but it isn’t a problem, because it doesn’t change election results. Why are you so worked up about a non-problem?
I think there were three arrests – and they were, indeed, for exactly the sort of crap you mentioned. Husband voting wife’s ballot, etc.
Why arrest someone for making an honest mistake that has no effect on the vote count?
3000 such votes most likely -did- change an actual election Jim. 2004 Gubernatorial election in Washington.
My brain has long since lost the exact URLs that were most informative. But the blog Sound Politics had a complete sea of photographs of signatures like ‘Mickey Mouse’. (Our polls are public records in Washington.)
I do agree that the -actual- Mickey Mouse -name- isn’t likely swing the election itself – 3000 votes by “Mickey Mouse” might be noticed.
But the exact same shenanigans work equally well for completely innocuous names. The dead, fictitious brothers, sisters, mothers, etc.
There was even an entire team that voted – can’t recall which. But -like- the Oakland raiders -all- signing up to vote. In Washington. And voting. With pictures of the signatures. But we don’t know -which- votes they cast, because it wasn’t caught at the polls.
Not even Mickey Mouse was caught at the polls. Because no matter -how- outrageous the name is, it is illegal for the poll watcher to say “Hey, I don’t think you’re actually Mickey Freaking Mouse.”
““Mickey Mouse registering to vote” is a crime, but it isn’t a problem, because it doesn’t change election results. ”
Wait, how can voter id cause democrats to lose elections on one side but voter fraud not effect the outcome of elections on the other. That just doesn’t make sense.
Jim making sense would be the exception to the rule.
Jim what is to prevent him from sending in both his and his deceased wife’s ballot or for filling out the ballot of his alzheimers inflicted father?
Voter fraud is easy.
Prior to this stunt, have you ever gone to the polls and given your name to get a ballot and found out that someone has already voted in your name? Does anyone here know of anyone that ever happened to in their entire lifetime? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing until now? Ever?
Now that O’Keefe has had his fun publicizing his prank, every Occupy Moonbat will now be looking to do the same thing to even the score.
And how does the ID requirement prevent this? Fake IDs are a dime a dozen. After this, will we demand that voter rolls have pictures to match against the picture ID presented? That we qualify people to vote with biometrics — we are talking about such a thing to fly. Where does this end?
Stupid. Just plain stupid.
If the fraudulent voters have any brains, they’ll have researched to find registered voters who won’t be voting, such as the recently dead.
I think this guy says it well.
Lots of talking points, and zero evidence of vote fraud changing election results.
to oppose voter ID is to favor illegal voters voting.
To favor voter ID is to favor disenfranchising legitimate voters who tend to vote for Democrats.
Lots of talking points, and zero evidence of vote fraud changing election results.
ORLY, so what you are saying is that you have zero basis for this statement:
There’s also no question that voter id laws help Republicans win elections.
You made that statement with no evidence to back it up? I’m shocked.
Everyone agrees that the registered voters who do not have ids that meet the requirements of new voter id laws are disproportionately Democrats. Do you really doubt that?
Why everyone I know will tell you the dead manage to vote in Chicago and influence elections. Do you really doubt that?
Yes, I really do doubt that.
Then you otherstand that I doubt you as well. It’s not like you provided any links to support your claim; though you demand Al provide you with evidence. And the really hypocritical argument is that you want us to believe that voter fraud doesn’t sway elections, but attempts to prevent voter fraud will sway elections. These statements cannot both be true.
you want us to believe that voter fraud doesn’t sway elections, but attempts to prevent voter fraud will sway elections. These statements cannot both be true.
Of course they can both be true! You seem to be assuming that voter ID laws only prevent fraudulent votes, when most of the votes they prevent are legit.
Can you provide evidence to support your argument, or do you expect us to just take your word for it?
To favor voter ID is to favor disenfranchising legitimate voters who tend to vote for Democrats.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. If someone can’t get it together to get an ID, I don’t want them voting, regardless of political affiliation.
That, rather than the imaginary vote fraud bogeyman, is at least an honest motivation for voter ID laws. It’s also a violation of the 15th Amendment.
This I have to hear. How is voter ID a violation of the 15th?
Spoiler: it isn’t. Sorry.
Here here. As they say, this isn’t a democracy this is a representative republic. I believe the Founding Fathers would certainly be in favor of a voter ID requirement.
Actually, there’s plenty of evidence that vote fraud changes election results, otherwise politicians wouldn’t waste their time engaging in it. Lyndon Johnson had all sorts of stories about vote fraud, including on amusing one from his early days when he was busily engaging in it. He recounted how he and some other staffers were walking through a cemetary writing down the names on the gravestones to swing an election. They were there along with the politician who was going to receive the votes. One of the staffers couldn’t make out the name on an old tombstone and gave up in disgust, and the politician hollered “No! You go back and get that name! He has as much of a right to vote as anyone in here!” Wouldn’t want to disenfranchise the dead, now would we? ^_^
If that kind of fraud didn’t swing elections, why would a politician be spending his time in a graveyard?
Come back with a case from this century.
Okay, how about a statement by Democrat operative Anthony DeFiglio who pled guilty to voter fraud in a 2009 case in New York, who said that voter fraud was “commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.” So he’s admitting to voter fraud, and admitting that it’s accepted, and admitting that it is done to swing an election (why else would anyone engage in it?)
Is 2009 recent enough, or do I need to dig up later convictions?
Two words Jim, Al Franken.
Two more: Mark Dayton.
How come I have to shot a photo ID to buy a Gun, which is a Civil Right but not to vote, which ISN’T a Civil Right but one granted by my state?
This could be an awesome discussion with SCOTUS. The 2nd Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The 15th Amendment says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state”
So if I need an ID to keep and bear arms, despite a statement that my right not be infringed; then I see no reason I can’t provide an ID to vote. Now if the SCOTUS says I don’t need an ID to vote, because it violates the rights given to me in Amendment 15; then I think the need for a CHL should be thrown out. Bonus, state issued IDs are far cheaper than CHLs.
And how come I don’t have to show ID to exercise my First Amendment right to go to church? Clearly we should have worshipper id laws….
You have to have an ID to exercise your first amendment right to protest the DoJ. I’m sure you progressives, Jim, will find a way to require labels on people’s clothes to identify religions. Your ilk have done so in the past.
Ah Leland, those yellow stars, purple triangles and such were just fashion statements.
I almost forgot Jim, since the SCOTUS is sure to strike it down, but your the guy supporting the notion that every American will have to show proof of purchasing health insurance in order to freely live in the US. That’s an affirmative requirement on the part of every citizen, not a passive system. If providing an ID is such a burden, Jim; then I’m sure you agree that demanding every American to purchase healthcare and/or provide evidence they have it is an even greater burden.
Purchasing healthcare insurance is a greater burden than having an ID. Filing a tax return is a bigger burden than either one. The point isn’t that getting an ID is an intolerable burden, but that it’s an unnecessary one, imposed for political advantage. The people pushing voter ID laws don’t want everyone to get an id, they want fewer Democrats to vote.
I’d be happy making voting mandatory.
people pushing voter ID laws don’t want everyone to get an id, they want fewer Democrats to vote
So what if they do? How does that change the fact that voter ID helps to insure one person, one vote?
You are arguing against one person, one vote. Isn’t that just a political stance?
And how come I don’t have to show ID to exercise my First Amendment right to go to church? Clearly we should have worshipper id laws….
That’s silly. You can’t fool God, which is why nobody sends substitutes to church.
Someone needs to remake that scene from Being John Malkovich with Eric Holder.
Haha, I had to dig up this post just for no other reason than to make Jim look stupid. Today a new Wikileaks ddocument dump uncovers an email from a Private Intelligence firm called ‘Stratfor’. Apparently they caught a number of Democrats ballot stuffing in Ohio and Pennsylvania during the 2008 presidential election. They claim that McCain lost Pennsylvania and Ohio because of voter fraud. Bizarrely enough McCain chose not to make an issue out of it for fear of coming across as a bitter loser. It just infuriates me to know that we nominated someone that just didn’t have the gumption to go all the way and do whatever it takes to win.