Originally posted by no1marauder Actually the point of the thread according to its title is a false claim that Democrats "rewarded" voter fraud.
Really? She was invited to a campaign function ironically for an Ohio Bill of Rights fund raiser. Then she was lovingly embraced by Al Sharpton and treated like a celebrity.
God only knows what other under the table kick backs she received for being a good little soldier.
Originally posted by whodey Really? She was invited to a campaign function ironically for an Ohio Bill of Rights fund raiser. Then she was lovingly embraced by Al Sharpton and treated like a celebrity.
God only knows what other under the table kick backs she received for being a good little soldier.
Getting hugged by Al Sharpton = voter fraud being rewarded by Democrats?
That's nutty even for you. BTW, did you read the title of the article:
Originally posted by wittywonka Aw, whodey. One step forward, two steps back, eh?
Why oh why do you persist in taking one example at a time and extrapolating from it to make unsubstantiated, vastly oversimplified, absolutist conclusions like this one?
The Democratic position is against further defense against voter fraud. Sure both parties engage in stretching the rules, but one party actively fights against controls that could minimize fraud, and blatantly celebrates the practitioners.
Originally posted by no1marauder BTW I know you hate it when I bring up these annoying facts, but Charlie Rangel was found guilty of 11 ethics counts and was censured with more than 2/3 of House Democrats voting for that penalty.
Did he do any time for those violations, or face expulsion from Congress?
Originally posted by whodey But in the end, you are all one big happy left winged family and will not seek to prosecute law breakers like these because there is more "progress" going on that not.
Here's another example.
Are you using hyperbole to be annoying, or because you actually believe what you're saying?
Originally posted by normbenign The Democratic position is against further defense against voter fraud. Sure both parties engage in stretching the rules, but one party actively fights against controls that could minimize fraud, and blatantly celebrates the practitioners.
No, the Democratic position is that the potential costs of stricter "voter fraud prevention mechanisms"--e.g., effectively and systematically disenfranchising thousands of otherwise eligible voters--are not worth the minimal gains, given that voter fraud is already extremely rare.
It's always going to be a balancing act. We could restrict voting to those of whose identities we are absolutely certain, but then no one would be eligible to vote (ID? Nope. Fingerprints and DNA? Closer, but maybe the results were forged? Etc.) We could allow anyone to vote anytime, anywhere, but then there would be absolutely no mechanism to prevent voter fraud whatsoever. So Democrats have simply come to the conclusion that the minimal gains in reducing already rare voter fraud are not worth the costs, whereas Republicans argue that the costs justify the gains.
Originally posted by wittywonka No, the Democratic position is that the potential costs of stricter "voter fraud prevention mechanisms"--e.g., effectively and systematically disenfranchising thousands of otherwise eligible voters--are not worth the minimal gains, given that voter fraud is already extremely rare.
It's always going to be a balancing act. We could restrict voting to tho ...[text shortened]... voter fraud are not worth the costs, whereas Republicans argue that the costs justify the gains.
Voter fraud is probably as common as corruption in the federal government. If so, the wrong doers simply avoid getting caught, and if they do get caught, it is just a slap on the wrist.
Originally posted by whodey Voter fraud is probably as common as corruption in the federal government. If so, the wrong doers simply avoid getting caught, and if they do get caught, it is just a slap on the wrist.
The antecedents of your "ifs" is entirely unsubstantiated. On what basis do you assume that voter fraud is probably as common as corruption? For that matter, how prevalent is serious corruption?
Originally posted by whodey Tyranny knows no bounds to the laws of the land, hence ignoring illegal immigration laws, the War Powers Act, etc, hence the term anarchy.
In the end, tyrants remain above the law and are free to exempt anyone they please so long as they like them, including themselves.
Even if I conceded that the current U.S. government is as shoddy as you make it out to be--which I don't believe--then it's still a form of a government, which is thus by definition not an anarchy.
Your use of oxymoron reflects your desire, again, to paint the world in all-or-nothing, win-or-lose, black-or-white, absolutist terms.
Originally posted by wittywonka The antecedents of your "ifs" is entirely unsubstantiated. On what basis do you assume that voter fraud is probably as common as corruption? For that matter, how prevalent is serious corruption?
23 Mar '14 16:01
Voter fraud rewarded by democrats
Back to Top