Philly Election Officials Charged With Voter Fraud

[g5000]

It takes a special kind of retard to be told time and time and time again his Voter ID will not stop fraud, and then to start a topic which PROVES it and then say, "Those guys WANT fraud!"

Geezus. It just doesn't get more stupid than that!

Goddam. You clowns are killing me. Just killing me.

 

[JoshuaZ]

*Raise hand* - left of center person here. Voter fraud is a real problem, and there are examples of it. This isn't the only example- there are lots of local problems, and in fact massive problems with absentee ballot fraud. But that's not the same as the next step which is often claimed- in person, voter fraud where someone is pretending to be someone they are not. That's what's nearly non-existent and that's what liberals/progressives are objecting to people claiming is an issue. There's no evidence of any substantial number of people pretending to be people they aren't, and voter ID laws block by multiple orders of magnitude more people from voting than they stop voting fraud.

In fact, they don't. Why not do some research on voter ID in other nations and get back to us.

Funny you should say that. Why don't you go look to the reply to The Rabbi [sic] above about how actual examples. Voter ID in the US has a different impact than it does in Europe because getting IDs takes money here (whereas it generally doesn't in many European countries), and this is compounded by other barriers in the US, such as not having a universal government ID and having election day not be a holiday.

Are you going to be dishonest in our entire exchange? I need to know now so I can decide whether or not to ignore you from here on out.

Everywhere voter ID was proposed, free ID's were part of the legislation.

So tell Me. If I require EVERYONE to show an ID to get...oh, lets say welfare........who am I disenfranchising?

See the reply to The Rabbi[sic] above, which answers the same thing (and has the same basic response about apparently wanting to assume that people who disagree with you must be lying and why that's not generally helpful).

It has been proven time and again that no one is disenfranchised because they don't have an ID, and each time that the left says that people can't afford it, they simply ignore the basic fact that each time the ID is provided free of charge. When you are told that the ID's are free, and you continue to say, "But if they have to pay for them...." You are being dishonest. Basic comprehension skills.

Yet they seem to be able to produce that same ID for a check from the government.

So, answer My question.


If I require EVERYONE to show an ID to get...oh, lets say welfare........who am I disenfranchising?

Why don't you read the sources I linked to? There are a lot of people of low income who don't have IDs but aren't on wellfare, or are people are on social security. And many states have less strict ID requirements for welfare than they have for voting. Please read the sources given.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's see how quick the liberal turds jump in to claim that voter fraud isn't a problem:

Philly Election Officials Charged With Voter Fraud NBC 10 Philadelphia​

On the night before Philly’s primary, four local election officials are accused of casting extra votes in order to balance their numbers.

Sandra Lee, 60, Alexia Harding, 22, James Collins, 69, and Gregory Thomas, 60, are all charged with voter fraud. Warrants for their arrests were issued Monday. All four suspects were election officials from Philly’s 18th Ward, 1st Division. ​

*Raise hand* - left of center person here. Voter fraud is a real problem, and there are examples of it. This isn't the only example- there are lots of local problems, and in fact massive problems with absentee ballot fraud. But that's not the same as the next step which is often claimed- in person, voter fraud where someone is pretending to be someone they are not. That's what's nearly non-existent and that's what liberals/progressives are objecting to people claiming is an issue. There's no evidence of any substantial number of people pretending to be people they aren't, and voter ID laws block by multiple orders of magnitude more people from voting than they stop voting fraud.

Please show me the people blocked from voting. Hint: there arent any.

Let's see. How about here, or here or here or here . Did you try checking your claim at all before making it?

You should read your own links, dumbshit. In the first one the woman ultimately was able to vote.
The efforts to find people disenfranchised are pathetic. Go anywhere and offer people $100 to show their ID and watch how fast everyone gets an ID.

You shouldn't violate basic halacha in almost every post, why don't you read that link and the other three links? She was only able to get an ID because of massive support, and the other cases were not at all the same. Or even better why not look at an unambiguously neutral statistical analysis of what voter ID laws do that includes a link to a list of references with academic papers backing up the same result.

He is rarely halakhic. He's more the ben zona type...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Makes you wonder how much blacks really support Dems when they have to fake votes in Philly

 

[JoshuaZ]

All I see from the Left are attacks and smears on ID. They don't believe there are vulnerabilities worth addressing. The only time I heard them cry about voter fraud was in the 2000 Elections and even then they concentrated efforts of faulty ballots and black voter oppression in 4 Florida counties run by Democrats. In that case, no voter fraud was found. Still, I thought Democrats would be motivated to enhance and shore up the system to mitigate the risk of voter fraud. They are just not interested nor do they believe it exists until their guy or gal loses

That's not true. Again, left-of-center person here. I'm strongly in favor of better voting systems and better voting machines, and if you look all over the left-wing blogopshere you'll see discussion about how there are serious problems with digital voting systems.

Not thinking that voter ID will help prevent substantial fraud is not the same thing at all as thinking that fraud isn't a very real problem that needs to be handled.

 

[LeftofLeft]

One illegal vote is one too many. It fraudulently cancels out the legitimate vote of someone else. Voter ID may be part of the authenticity. Perhaps authentication verification and additional steps comes on behalf of local election commissions with checks and balances.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Let's see how quick the liberal turds jump in to claim that voter fraud isn't a problem:

Philly Election Officials Charged With Voter Fraud NBC 10 Philadelphia​

On the night before Philly’s primary, four local election officials are accused of casting extra votes in order to balance their numbers.

Sandra Lee, 60, Alexia Harding, 22, James Collins, 69, and Gregory Thomas, 60, are all charged with voter fraud. Warrants for their arrests were issued Monday. All four suspects were election officials from Philly’s 18th Ward, 1st Division. ​

I'm waiting for you to explain how requiring poll workers to check a voters photo ID will prevent poll workers from casting illegal votes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

One illegal vote is one too many. It fraudulently cancels out the legitimate vote of someone else. Voter ID may be part of the authenticity. Perhaps authentication verification and additional steps comes on behalf of local election commissions with checks and balances.

So disenfranchising a hundred thousand is worth stopping one illegal vote?

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's see how quick the liberal turds jump in to claim that voter fraud isn't a problem:

Philly Election Officials Charged With Voter Fraud NBC 10 Philadelphia​

On the night before Philly’s primary, four local election officials are accused of casting extra votes in order to balance their numbers.

Sandra Lee, 60, Alexia Harding, 22, James Collins, 69, and Gregory Thomas, 60, are all charged with voter fraud. Warrants for their arrests were issued Monday. All four suspects were election officials from Philly’s 18th Ward, 1st Division. ​

*Raise hand* - left of center person here. Voter fraud is a real problem, and there are examples of it. This isn't the only example- there are lots of local problems, and in fact massive problems with absentee ballot fraud. But that's not the same as the next step which is often claimed- in person, voter fraud where someone is pretending to be someone they are not. That's what's nearly non-existent and that's what liberals/progressives are objecting to people claiming is an issue. There's no evidence of any substantial number of people pretending to be people they aren't, and voter ID laws block by multiple orders of magnitude more people from voting than they stop voting fraud.

Please show me the people blocked from voting. Hint: there arent any.

Let's see. How about here, or here or here or here . Did you try checking your claim at all before making it?

You should read your own links, dumbshit. In the first one the woman ultimately was able to vote.
The efforts to find people disenfranchised are pathetic. Go anywhere and offer people $100 to show their ID and watch how fast everyone gets an ID.

You shouldn't violate basic halacha in almost every post, why don't you read that link and the other three links? She was only able to get an ID because of massive support, and the other cases were not at all the same. Or even better why not look at an unambiguously neutral statistical analysis of what voter ID laws do that includes a link to a list of references with academic papers backing up the same result.

Yes, Nate Silver's blog is certainly where I want to go for unbiased information, ben niddah.
All the other cases are similar: hard luck stories because people caused their own trouble and expected others to bail them out. There is not one where a person was prevented from voting if they actually wanted to.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Makes you wonder how much blacks really support Dems when they have to fake votes in Philly

We have a massive amount of polling data showing that blacks overwhelmingly support the Democrats. That's completely distinct from any voting issues unless you that every major polling firm is in on the same conspiracy.

In the case in question, the voter fraud was for a local election. That's where the worst voter fraud occurs and where it can actually have the most impact since the total number of votes is small.

 

[The Rabbi]

Makes you wonder how much blacks really support Dems when they have to fake votes in Philly

We have a massive amount of polling data showing that blacks overwhelmingly support the Democrats. That's completely distinct from any voting issues unless you that every major polling firm is in on the same conspiracy.

In the case in question, the voter fraud was for a local election. That's where the worst voter fraud occurs and where it can actually have the most impact since the total number of votes is small.

You are unable to comprehend subtle differences. It is true that black overwhelmingly support Democrats. The question is, what is "overwhelmingly"? Traditionally it was about 92%. In Obama's 2 elections that number rose to like 97%. That's a big difference. What accounts for it? Was it enthusiasm for the first black president? Or was it ballot stuffing? Was it some combination of both?

 

[JoshuaZ]

One illegal vote is one too many. It fraudulently cancels out the legitimate vote of someone else. Voter ID may be part of the authenticity. Perhaps authentication verification and additional steps comes on behalf of local election commissions with checks and balances.

One illegal vote is one too many, but you do have to ask how many resources you want to use to prevent one such vote and what impact it would have. For example, you could insist on genetic profiles of all voters, and that would help prevent more fraud, but I doubt you'd be ok with that. To use an example in a different line of thinking, one death due to a car crash is one too many, but we aren't going to outlaw cars. One murder is one too many, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to outlaw all guns and knives and rat poison as well.

 

[Skylar]

One illegal vote is one too many. It fraudulently cancels out the legitimate vote of someone else. Voter ID may be part of the authenticity. Perhaps authentication verification and additional steps comes on behalf of local election commissions with checks and balances.

One illegal vote is one too many, but you do have to ask how many resources you want to use to prevent one such vote and what impact it would have. For example, you could insist on genetic profiles of all voters, and that would help prevent more fraud, but I doubt you'd be ok with that. To use an example in a different line of thinking, one death due to a car crash is one too many, but we aren't going to outlaw cars. One murder is one too many, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to outlaw all guns and knives and rat poison as well.

Voter fraud is very rare in the US. And among this comparatively tiny fraction, absentee balloting is the largest source of it.

Yet republicans aren't proposing we get rid of absentee balloting, despite it being the most abused form of voting. Why? Old people use absentee balloting and old folks skew republican. So republicans completely ignore it.

Putting a bullet in the head of the 'one illegal vote is too many' logic.

 

[JoshuaZ]

*Raise hand* - left of center person here. Voter fraud is a real problem, and there are examples of it. This isn't the only example- there are lots of local problems, and in fact massive problems with absentee ballot fraud. But that's not the same as the next step which is often claimed- in person, voter fraud where someone is pretending to be someone they are not. That's what's nearly non-existent and that's what liberals/progressives are objecting to people claiming is an issue. There's no evidence of any substantial number of people pretending to be people they aren't, and voter ID laws block by multiple orders of magnitude more people from voting than they stop voting fraud.

Please show me the people blocked from voting. Hint: there arent any.

Let's see. How about here, or here or here or here . Did you try checking your claim at all before making it?

You should read your own links, dumbshit. In the first one the woman ultimately was able to vote.
The efforts to find people disenfranchised are pathetic. Go anywhere and offer people $100 to show their ID and watch how fast everyone gets an ID.

You shouldn't violate basic halacha in almost every post, why don't you read that link and the other three links? She was only able to get an ID because of massive support, and the other cases were not at all the same. Or even better why not look at an unambiguously neutral statistical analysis of what voter ID laws do that includes a link to a list of references with academic papers backing up the same result.

Yes, Nate Silver's blog is certainly where I want to go for unbiased information, ben niddah.
All the other cases are similar: hard luck stories because people caused their own trouble and expected others to bail them out. There is not one where a person was prevented from voting if they actually wanted to.

Funny, in the 2012 election, people on the right repeatedly complained that Silver was biased, because apparently he was predicting things they didn't want to have happen. In 2014, there was much less noise about him being biased when he predicted a win for the Republicans. So, in what universe is Silver biased, and what makes you decide he is biased? I'm incidentally curious if you have any ability to write a reply to someone without including an insult.

 

[Skylar]

Please show me the people blocked from voting. Hint: there arent any.

Let's see. How about here, or here or here or here . Did you try checking your claim at all before making it?

You should read your own links, dumbshit. In the first one the woman ultimately was able to vote.
The efforts to find people disenfranchised are pathetic. Go anywhere and offer people $100 to show their ID and watch how fast everyone gets an ID.

You shouldn't violate basic halacha in almost every post, why don't you read that link and the other three links? She was only able to get an ID because of massive support, and the other cases were not at all the same. Or even better why not look at an unambiguously neutral statistical analysis of what voter ID laws do that includes a link to a list of references with academic papers backing up the same result.

Yes, Nate Silver's blog is certainly where I want to go for unbiased information, ben niddah.
All the other cases are similar: hard luck stories because people caused their own trouble and expected others to bail them out. There is not one where a person was prevented from voting if they actually wanted to.

Funny, in the 2012 election, people on the right repeatedly complained that Silver was biased, because apparently he was predicting things they didn't want to have happen. In 2014, there was much less noise about him being biased when he predicted a win for the Republicans. So, in what universe is Silver biased, and what makes you decide he is biased? I'm incidentally curious if you have any ability to write a reply to someone without including an insult.

You know the game, Joshua: a sources's credibility is based solely on their agreement with what Rabbi and his ilk already believe. If a source doesn't, then they aren't credible. If a source does, then they are credible.

Even if its the exact same source.

You can't fix stupid.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Makes you wonder how much blacks really support Dems when they have to fake votes in Philly

We have a massive amount of polling data showing that blacks overwhelmingly support the Democrats. That's completely distinct from any voting issues unless you that every major polling firm is in on the same conspiracy.

In the case in question, the voter fraud was for a local election. That's where the worst voter fraud occurs and where it can actually have the most impact since the total number of votes is small.

You are unable to comprehend subtle differences. It is true that black overwhelmingly support Democrats. The question is, what is "overwhelmingly"? Traditionally it was about 92%. In Obama's 2 elections that number rose to like 97%. That's a big difference. What accounts for it? Was it enthusiasm for the first black president? Or was it ballot stuffing? Was it some combination of both?

Wow. Unable to comprehend subtle differences is probably the nicest thing I've ever heard from you. Note by the way that the comment I was responding to by CrusaderFrank made no comment whatsoever that was specific to the Obama election. But to answer your question, yes it was enthusiasm. The conclusion that it was that high came from *exit polls* and pre-election polling. Neither of those would be impacted at all by voter fraud.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please show me the people blocked from voting. Hint: there arent any.

Let's see. How about here, or here or here or here . Did you try checking your claim at all before making it?

You should read your own links, dumbshit. In the first one the woman ultimately was able to vote.
The efforts to find people disenfranchised are pathetic. Go anywhere and offer people $100 to show their ID and watch how fast everyone gets an ID.

You shouldn't violate basic halacha in almost every post, why don't you read that link and the other three links? She was only able to get an ID because of massive support, and the other cases were not at all the same. Or even better why not look at an unambiguously neutral statistical analysis of what voter ID laws do that includes a link to a list of references with academic papers backing up the same result.

Yes, Nate Silver's blog is certainly where I want to go for unbiased information, ben niddah.
All the other cases are similar: hard luck stories because people caused their own trouble and expected others to bail them out. There is not one where a person was prevented from voting if they actually wanted to.

Funny, in the 2012 election, people on the right repeatedly complained that Silver was biased, because apparently he was predicting things they didn't want to have happen. In 2014, there was much less noise about him being biased when he predicted a win for the Republicans. So, in what universe is Silver biased, and what makes you decide he is biased? I'm incidentally curious if you have any ability to write a reply to someone without including an insult.

I'd be impressed if you could write a post that was actually responsive to the post you were responding to

 

[The Rabbi]

Makes you wonder how much blacks really support Dems when they have to fake votes in Philly

We have a massive amount of polling data showing that blacks overwhelmingly support the Democrats. That's completely distinct from any voting issues unless you that every major polling firm is in on the same conspiracy.

In the case in question, the voter fraud was for a local election. That's where the worst voter fraud occurs and where it can actually have the most impact since the total number of votes is small.

You are unable to comprehend subtle differences. It is true that black overwhelmingly support Democrats. The question is, what is "overwhelmingly"? Traditionally it was about 92%. In Obama's 2 elections that number rose to like 97%. That's a big difference. What accounts for it? Was it enthusiasm for the first black president? Or was it ballot stuffing? Was it some combination of both?

Wow. Unable to comprehend subtle differences is probably the nicest thing I've ever heard from you. Note by the way that the comment I was responding to by CrusaderFrank made no comment whatsoever that was specific to the Obama election. But to answer your question, yes it was enthusiasm. The conclusion that it was that high came from *exit polls* and pre-election polling. Neither of those would be impacted at all by voter fraud.

Missing the point.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Makes you wonder how much blacks really support Dems when they have to fake votes in Philly

We have a massive amount of polling data showing that blacks overwhelmingly support the Democrats. That's completely distinct from any voting issues unless you that every major polling firm is in on the same conspiracy.

In the case in question, the voter fraud was for a local election. That's where the worst voter fraud occurs and where it can actually have the most impact since the total number of votes is small.

You are unable to comprehend subtle differences. It is true that black overwhelmingly support Democrats. The question is, what is "overwhelmingly"? Traditionally it was about 92%. In Obama's 2 elections that number rose to like 97%. That's a big difference. What accounts for it? Was it enthusiasm for the first black president? Or was it ballot stuffing? Was it some combination of both?

Wow. Unable to comprehend subtle differences is probably the nicest thing I've ever heard from you. Note by the way that the comment I was responding to by CrusaderFrank made no comment whatsoever that was specific to the Obama election. But to answer your question, yes it was enthusiasm. The conclusion that it was that high came from *exit polls* and pre-election polling. Neither of those would be impacted at all by voter fraud.

Missing the point.

Please explain then what the point is that I'm missing.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Let's see. How about here, or here or here or here . Did you try checking your claim at all before making it?

You should read your own links, dumbshit. In the first one the woman ultimately was able to vote.
The efforts to find people disenfranchised are pathetic. Go anywhere and offer people $100 to show their ID and watch how fast everyone gets an ID.

You shouldn't violate basic halacha in almost every post, why don't you read that link and the other three links? She was only able to get an ID because of massive support, and the other cases were not at all the same. Or even better why not look at an unambiguously neutral statistical analysis of what voter ID laws do that includes a link to a list of references with academic papers backing up the same result.

Yes, Nate Silver's blog is certainly where I want to go for unbiased information, ben niddah.
All the other cases are similar: hard luck stories because people caused their own trouble and expected others to bail them out. There is not one where a person was prevented from voting if they actually wanted to.

Funny, in the 2012 election, people on the right repeatedly complained that Silver was biased, because apparently he was predicting things they didn't want to have happen. In 2014, there was much less noise about him being biased when he predicted a win for the Republicans. So, in what universe is Silver biased, and what makes you decide he is biased? I'm incidentally curious if you have any ability to write a reply to someone without including an insult.

I'd be impressed if you could write a post that was actually responsive to the post you were responding to

It should be clear what I'm responding to. I'm making the point that there's no good reason that much of the right doesn't like Silver's analysis other than that he disagrees with them. If you'd like to explain why in your view Silver's analysis should be ignored, I'd be happy to hear it. If you meant by responding, responding to your insult, then I have better things to do with my time than trade insults.