School Voucher Epic Fail

Ginger Beer

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
4,203
Reaction score
6,885
I don't buy it. The voter IDs are supposedly there to prevent poor minorities from voting. However, these same poor minorities need IDs to get their gubmint benefits. Voter ID laws are necessary.

53,000 Dead Registered Voters in Florida, Millions Nationwide

The Cutting Edge News

We already have E-Verify for employers.

The evidence is simply not there so it's boils down to faith. You have faith that there is no ulterior motive and that there is widespread voter fraud. They repeat it because they want you to believe. They don't cite numbers because they don't want you to question. It has worked beautifully for them so far. Why change? They know the flock.

Madison -- The chairman of the Republican National Committee said Wednesday GOP candidates have to perform 1 or 2 percentage points better than they otherwise would to overcome voter fraud -- claiming that voter fraud is far more pervasive than what official reports have shown.
About 2.1 million votes were cast in the 2010 race for governor, and 1 to 2 percent would equate to 21,000 to 42,000 votes. Some law enforcement officials have raised concerns about isolated incidents of voter fraud, but never suggested it approached a scale like that.


“I’m always concerned about voter fraud, you know, being from Kenosha, and quite frankly having lived through seeing some of it happen,” said Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman and former state Republican Party chairman. “Certainly in Milwaukee we have seen some of it and I think it’s been documented. Any notion that’s not the case, it certainly is in Wisconsin. I’m always concerned about it which is why I think we need to do a point or two better than where we think we need to be to overcome it.”


Richard Saks, an attorney who has successfully challenged Wisconsin’s new voter ID law, said Priebus can’t back up that claim.
“They have zero, zero evidence to substantiate it,” Saks said. “It’s simply demagoguery to whip up fear.”


He noted that a 2008 investigation in Milwaukee County by Democratic District Attorney John Chisholm and Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen resulted in 20 prosecutions, mostly for voting by felons who were not qualified to vote.


“The notion there’s any kind of large scale fraud is simply not borne out by the facts,” Saks said. “It’s a scare tactic that’s used … to try to claim that primarily vulnerable people shouldn’t have a full opportunity to vote.”
Lester Pines, an attorney involved in a separate legal challenge to the voter ID law, also denounced Priebus' comments, saying they were baseless.


"His statement that Republicans need to outperform Democrats by one to two percent to account for vote fraud is an absolute, total 100% lie," Pines said. "It is a fantasy. And Reince Priebus and his ilk are saying this and they’re saying it over and over and over because they’re using the well known propaganda tool called the big lie. If you say it enough times, people will believe it. There’s no other way to characterize this except that Reince Priebus is a liar."

also

Says his Texas election fraud investigations have resulted in 50 convictions.

Greg Abbott on Monday, March 12th, 2012 in a press release
Greg Abbott claims 50 election fraud convictions since 2002

rulings%2Ftom-halftrue.gif
Share this story:





Texas’ attorney general, Greg Abbott, says he needs the state’s stalled voter identification mandate to ward off fraud at the polls.

When the U.S. Justice Department rejected the Texas voter ID law March 12, 2012, preventing it from taking effect, Abbott issued a press release saying: "Since 2002 ... election fraud investigations by the Texas Attorney General's Office have resulted in 50 convictions."

We asked Abbott’s office for backup on his statement, and spokesman Jerry Strickland sent a list of 57 election fraud prosecutions, as well as documents showing how the cases were resolved.

We also asked how many election fraud cases had been referred to the attorney general’s office since 2002. Abbott’s list shows 311 accusations of election fraud spanning 2002-12. The 57 investigations we’re checking represent only those cases that were both prosecuted and resolved.

Six of the prosecutions ended in dismissal or acquittal, Strickland told us by telephone, leaving 51 prosecutions that resulted in convictions.

By our analysis, three-quarters of the cases involved election code violations classified as "illegal voting" -- which includes acts such as voting more than once, impersonating a voter or voting despite ineligibility -- and "method of returning marked ballot," often meaning the defendant was accused of having someone else’s ballot.

Only two cases are described as "voter impersonation" on the list. Whether voter impersonation is a standing problem has been a hot button in the state’s legislative debates over proposed voter ID laws in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011; Austin American-Statesman news stories say legislators mostly split along party lines, with Democrats claiming impersonation is rare and Republicans claiming the problem is significant. Abbott drew criticism in 2006 for creating a special unit to target voter fraud that by mid-2008 had yielded, according to a May 19, 2008, Associated Press news story, only 26 prosecutions.

Looking at all 57 election fraud prosecutions from 2002 to 2012, we tallied up the resolutions (some had multiple outcomes, when charges were pursued as separate cases):

  • Specified as convictions: 26
  • Guilty plea resulting in conviction: 2
  • Deferred adjudication: 19
  • Pre-trial diversion: 10
  • Acquitted: 2
  • Dismissed: 4

For clarification of the middle two categories, we turned to the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, an Austin-based nonprofit that provides continuing legal education and technical assistance to prosecutors.

The group’s executive director, Rob Kepple, told us in an interview that although deferred adjudication falls short of a conviction, he would not consider it a stretch to classify it with the convictions.

In deferred adjudication, Kepple said, the defendant pleads guilty, and then "the court defers any finding of guilt and places you on probation or community supervision." If the terms are met, the case is dismissed -- but it remains on the defendant’s record, he said.

This means it can carry the weight of a conviction in later cases, Kepple said. For example, if a person is given deferred adjudication in a domestic violence case and then later is charged again with domestic violence, he said, the adjudication counts as the first offense, making the new charge a second offense.

But a pre-trial diversion is not a conviction, he said. There’s not even necessarily a guilty plea or admission of guilt.

"Basically, they sat down with the defendant and say, ‘Here’s what’s going to happen. You agree not to mess up for 12 months and we’ll just dismiss the case.’ So in no common parlance can this be considered a conviction," Kepple said. The case can even be expunged from the defendant’s record, he said.

"There’s no way you can mistake a pre-trial diversion for a conviction, I don’t think."

We also consulted the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, a group that provides support and education for its members.

Like Kepple, the association’s capital assistance attorney, Rick Wardroup, pointed out via email that the final outcome of a pre-trial diversion or deferred adjudication depends on whether the defendant meets the terms of their probation or supervision.

Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean told us by telephone that the attorney general counts pre-trial diversions as a successful outcome for two main reasons: First, although the defendants do not plead guilty, such agreements are made in order to avoid an expected criminal trial, and second, because the defendant receives a punishment.

After we shared our findings with her, Bean sent us another bit of backup: a section of Texas local government code on court costs that classes deferred adjudication and pre-trial diversions with convictions.

University of Texas law school assistant professor Jennifer Laurin told us via email that clauses like this in state laws indicate the reverse -- they illustrate that these two outcomes are not normally considered convictions. And Kepple said, "That section is the definition of ‘conviction’ for the purpose of collecting fines and fees. But in common parlance, a deferred prosecution and deferred adjudications simply are not criminal convictions."

Our ruling

Abbott’s statement refers to 50 "convictions," which he might better have termed "satisfactory results."

It looks to us like 60 percent of his cited "convictions" were not convictions.

We recognize, though, that our analysis presumes that all the non-convicted defendants fulfilled or will fulfill all terms of the agreements they made to avoid going to trial. That may not be so.

On balance, we rate Abbott’s claim Half True.




and in florida


Florida 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Shark Attacks 28 19 14 11 72
Voter Fraud Cases 16 9 10 14 49



I smell a banana republic in the making.....
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,667
I wonder why someone would work against ensuring a voter is who they say they are.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,141
Reaction score
45,007
The driving principal behind the Voter ID law has nothing to do with voter fraud. It's about winning elections by "legally" preventing certain demographic groups of US citizens from casting a ballot. Period. All of the justifications come later. I'm just amazed by how easily "educated citizens" are fooled by their argument. Once again, the truth is in the "why".

That's nonsensical.:laugh2::laugh2: If you can find a way to register to vote, find a way to either get to a poll or vote by mail, figure out who to vote for...then you certainly have the means, intelligence and ability to obtain a valid ID. To suspect that any particular group, culture, race or political ideology is too weak or stupid to find a way to ID themselves legally...is preposterous at best. I'm amazed that any "educated citizen" with even a lick of common sense can think otherwise.

I do agree, the truth is in the "why".:thumb:
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,141
Reaction score
45,007
That would require decent...dare I say it... public schools.. :wow:

Yes, if only.:thumb: We have what we have though and the same group of asshats has been in charge of it for decades. Low graduation rates, vast numbers of kids that can't read at grade level, can't do enough basic math to get a job as a craftsman, near zero knowledge of economics, civics, objective history or hard sciences. We spend more money per student than almost any other country on earth and our school system sucks.:laugh2:

Since the entrenched bureaucracy in the public school system doesn't appear interested in improving their results, we should have competition in education...maybe that will spark some positive changes in the public schools and help students and parents get some real value in their investment.

Where do the politicians send their kids if given a choice?
 

Ginger Beer

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
4,203
Reaction score
6,885
I wonder why someone would work against ensuring a voter is who they say they are.

Because that's not what it's about. It's about already knowing the voting patterns of demographic groups and ensuring your victory by disenfranchising those groups if they happen to vote against you. One of the ways to do that is by throwing up a red herring issue, based not in fact, but on conjecture.

That is no way to form rational policy. But the underlying motivation is not based on forming a rational policy, it's about winning - democracy be damned.

Between this and Citizens United, we are being willing fully led down the path to a banana republic.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,667
Call me crazy, but I think 30,000 illegal voters in one state is a matter of civic concern, and I question the motivations of those who would work to dilute one of my privileges as a citizen.
 

Engel

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
7,878
Reaction score
9,768
This state is dead last in everything. I am kicking and screaming to get stationed somewhere else. I doubt it's going to happen anytime soon though, this base is like a black hole that you get sucked into and stuck, unfortunately. With the current temps I like to call it hell.
 

Actinic

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
2,956
Conceptually, the idea of a state or national ID makes sense. It keeps the system clean, prevents the Martians from taking over the country (lol). District 9 was one of the first movies to allude to such a possibility. But the real reason it ain't gonna happen soon is money. First, the states don't want to implement the ID system at no charge. They prefer a fee system, like drivers' licenses. The public does not want a fee system, since it is tantamount to a tax. The illegals don't want it for obvious reasons. So who pays? Ha, ha, make the conservatives pay. Take a state's population and multiply it by $100/year. Fork over the money to ID everyone.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,667
Because that's not what it's about. It's about already knowing the voting patterns of demographic groups and ensuring your victory by disenfranchising those groups if they happen to vote against you. One of the ways to do that is by throwing up a red herring issue, based not in fact, but on conjecture.

That is no way to form rational policy. But the underlying motivation is not based on forming a rational policy, it's about winning - democracy be damned.

Between this and Citizens United, we are being willing fully led down the path to a banana republic.

I wonder if that's why the Obama Administration is trying to block the Florida efforts ... because out of the 2,700 illegal voters found thus far, 58% are Hispanic?

Do you think the Administration is banking on Hispanics voting Democrat, and is using the machinery of government in the hope that that is the case?

I do. They know it's going to be a very close election, and they will need every vote they can muster, and they don't really care if that vote is legal or not. They're politicians too, they play dirty pool as well, and only an idiot thinks otherwise.

Given that, I would rather that we simply make sure that when you register to vote, you provide proof of citizenship, and when you show uip to vote, you provide proof of being who you say you are, both under penalty of perjury. The vote is too precious a privilege to dilute.

Also, many Hispanics vote Republican. The assumption that they all vote and act as a group is in itself pretty racist.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,141
Reaction score
45,007
Because that's not what it's about. It's about already knowing the voting patterns of demographic groups and ensuring your victory by disenfranchising those groups if they happen to vote against you. One of the ways to do that is by throwing up a red herring issue, based not in fact, but on conjecture.

That is no way to form rational policy. But the underlying motivation is not based on forming a rational policy, it's about winning - democracy be damned.

Between this and Citizens United, we are being willing fully led down the path to a banana republic.

It IS about protecting the system...It just might be the case though, that a number of people who would vote for the politicians in your circle of trust, might be affected negatively by a secure vote. Thus the butthurt.:thumb:

We do know the voting patterns of felons and we do know what kinds of shenanigans can occur with absentee votes...To favor a system where non-legal votes can compete with legal votes is lunacy.:cool:

Have you ever read Citizen's United v. the FEC? Do you know what a banana republic is?

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
 

Thundergod

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,934
Reaction score
11,131
Awesome. Not only did she screw up but also went and opened her mouth to make things even wort for her agenda. :laugh2:

I say it's ok. If a group wants to have certain rights (including having their kids educated and indoctrinated with THEIR views) then they must support the same treatment for everyone else, especially those who oppose their faith and beliefs.

I was baptized and everything else and on paper am a Christian, but I don't practice Christianity, at least not the way they well it, I just try to be helpful with everyone and not to hurt anyone, all the while being hard working and honest. But most people believe they need to force their views on you, and that everyone else is wrong and only they deserve everything ( like the ignorant lady on the article), IMO those are the ones that give religion/science/politics/music/whatever a bad reputation.
 

Thundergod

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,934
Reaction score
11,131
Somehow I don't think Jesus would like to be associated with a plesiosaur, if it was a good plesiosaur maybe but that rascal nessie? No no no. :D


Loch-Ness-Monster.jpg
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
23,617
Reaction score
33,587
Prevent what exactly? They have failed to prove that any of these things have been happening but as long as you keep people outraged over them, real or not, then you can disenfranchise legal voters with public approval behind you.


The New York Times yesterday underscored an important fact that so many legislators have willfully ignored: "There is almost no voter fraud in America." Indeed, The Department of Justice investigated over 300 million votes cast between 2002 and 2007 and found no cases of voter impersonation fraud. In Texas, where Governor Rick Perry used a highly unusual procedural maneuver to accelerate passage of a bill requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote, the state Attorney General found no cases of voter impersonation fraud. Zero.
Nonetheless, under the guise of fighting "voter fraud," legislators instead limited voters' access to democracy. An unprecedented wave of restrictive laws added burdens to virtually every aspect of the voting process in fourteen states. A sampling of such ill-considered measures include:

  • Florida: onerous regulations now make voter registration drives virtually impossible;
  • Kansas: voters must show proof of citizenship when registering to vote and then show government-issued photo ID when voting;
  • Maine: Election Day Registration, which had been in place since 1973, has been eliminated;
  • Ohio: voters can no longer cast a ballot on the Sunday before Election Day; and
  • Texas: students' state university-issued IDs are not acceptable for voter identification purposes.
Combined, these suppressive measures disproportionately affect the young, elderly, disabled, low-income, minority, and working voters. Moreover, these regressive laws, especially those requiring government-issued photo ID, are expensive to implement.



Democracy? How does it work?

F all of that. Show ID. :thumb:
 

bertzie

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
19,423
Reaction score
24,556
Not sure if southern, or religious fundamentalist.
 

Latest Threads



Top