I actually read all your links and it turns out only a small number (if any) of them would be solved by voter ID laws. You managed to perpetrate some fraud of your own in double-posting the same cases and including a bunch of bull**** with absentee ballots that, STRANGELY, Republicans are loathe to reform in any way (I guess because white people use them to vote a lot?). A few links had to do with politicians lying about their home address when running for office which really has nothing to do with voter ID, and one really special article literally had nothing to do with voting at all. What the **** are you doing?

In this entire collection, Inso0 has found, like, under 50 fraudulent votes out of hundreds of millions (maybe billions) cast during the timeframe covered by these articles. The vast majority of the fraudulent votes he did find were perpetrated through absentee fraud that voter ID would not have stopped. By any measure whatsoever, this is a miserable failure of providing evidence of "widespread ineligible voters".

Ban.

Well, your party wouldn't, or it would be done by now.

You don't seem to comprehend that there are a lot of poor people who don't own cars, and thus don't have driver's licenses... and due to the lack of a car and a license, getting to the DMV to get an ID is not easy... or getting somewhere to register to vote is not easy. There are people in rural areas in the South for whom registering to vote is an all-day weekday affair, and since they're poor they're often paycheck to paycheck, and losing eight hours of pay to register to vote is not feasible. **** em, though, right?

Deep down we know that there is NO SUCH THING as widespread voter fraud. Like, what'd you post, 15-20 links of individuals voting once illegally? That's widespread? SHUT IT DOWN GUYS! GOTTA DISENFRANCHISE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS SO THESE 15-20 CAN'T VOTE! JUST GOTTA DO IT! SECURITY! GTFOOH.

I technically didn't, but that's not an unreasonable conclusion for him to make given the thread. Still, how many individual cases are necessary until it meets Wookie's definition of widespread? It's rather easy to commit vote fraud as it stands today, so the people who get caught are just extra special.

I could probably come up with a few hundred more links with individual cases given time to find them. Certainly more examples of law-breakers than people claiming they cannot register or obtain an ID, if that's the metric you want to use.

You're right that many of those above are absentee ballot related, but you still need to provide proof of identification (unique ID number) in the case of absentee voting where Voter ID is required by law. So, not really sure how that invalidates anything I've said. If nothing else, it requires one extra step to commit fraud. You need to obtain a fake ID in the case of falsified registrations, or you need to get your hands on the ID of the person you intend to absentee vote in place of.

Claiming? What about the ones who are successfully disenfranchised, but don't happen to find their way to a reporter. Is your contention that there exists more voter fraud than disenfranchisement?

No, you can't. We know this because this thread is 6 years old and we've been over this again and again and again, but pigheaded ignoramuses like you can always be relied on to stubbornly parade their obliviousness to facts no matter how many times they are clubbed over the head with them.

As far as you should be concerned, those people are just as real as the illegal voters you feel I failed to provide proof of.

Why do you hold me to a higher standard than yourself?

I don't. Here's an article citing a study that 200,000 votes were suppressed in Wisconsin. But, damn, those 15 or so that you found, those are way worse, right?

https://www.thenation.com/article/wi...-won-by-23000/

You need to cite that ID laws make absentee fraud harder, but beyond that, how about because with most (possibly all, some articles lack specific details) of the absentee fraud you posted about, the people involved didn't lack ID info for the people voting?

Hey, the Conservative is poor shaming, what a shock!

Well this is just a flat out lie. Here are the first three I clicked from your earlier post where you took the time to label my links:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...fraud/2087893/ Voted for a woman she knew was dead. You honestly think she also had a copy of that woman's ID?

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/2...ter-fraud-case Forged at least 9 absentee ballots in her position as the woman in charge of absentee ballots. You think she also had access to the IDs for those 9 ballots she was nailed for? What about any they didn't catch?

http://www.dothaneagle.com/news/crim...4d325bbc6.html Criminal claimed her leg hurt so she couldn't walk up to the houses to actually get those people to fill out their own ballots, so she stayed in the van and filled ballots out for them. How exactly do you think she would've gotten IDs?

Responded in bold above, and you're still missing the cite I asked for. Contrary to your claim that I'm lying, you are lying in how you described the second article.

This is wrong. The vast majority of people who want voting to be easy just want it because they think it's the right thing. I guess that's hard for you to believe because you don't think that way.

Like, Dems even want old people to be able to vote, even though they vote hugely R. Bernie supporters wanted Black people to be able to vote, even though they voted H.

RE: 9 ballots in the second case - that was pulled from the criminal complaint, found here.

I don't know what the protocol is for dead nuns, but you're simply assuming she had access to her ID in that first one. It's certainly possible, but my guess is all of that would've been wherever her corpse was at the time given the recent nature of the death. Given that

Cite what laws exactly? Some states require a copy of your photo ID to absentee vote, some require just a DL# or SSN, some require nothing at all if you've voted before. It's going to be a lot easier to vote absentee for someone else if you simply need to fill out a ballot as opposed to also obtain their ID#, no? Are you actually disputing this?

Cite your claim that voter ID laws that have been passed have cracked down on avenues for absentee ballot fraud.

Quickly scanned, saw the reference to "9 ballots" on page 11 but nothing suggesting specifically that the ballots were forged, this could easily be referring to the same ballots that the article discussed being improperly certified. Cite?

Remember the GOP trolling handbook - something to the effect of "make your opponent do all the work to refute your claims, then ignore the response, it will demoralize him". That's exactly what Ins0 just did with the spam of links that mostly wouldn't be prevented by voter fraud - then of course ignored the response.

If you go read this thread that exact same scenario has been repeated a dozen times at least.

Yup, these folks only respond when their opponent offers a weak response that is open to criticism. When they get dunked on its crickets. Responding to them only provides a platform for their nonsense.

He's still going HAM with absentee voter fraud as a reason for in-person voter ID laws because - SHOCKER - Inso has absolutely no ****ing idea how voting works or what he is talking about. I mean, he's PROUD of this ****! Look at him go, dozens of posts where he's basically just dunking on himself.

He knows, he just doesn't care. He's making us do all the work and laughing about it. It's all a game to him and he assumes all democrats would subvert democracy just as bad if they could get away with it. In his mind souls to the polls is equal and opposite.

There is no cargo and probably never was.

Is this what you do to those guys on the conservative forum you're always cross-posting from? I don't do this. At least not intentionally.

I'm sure most of you are nice guys and think we would get along in a civilized social setting. I am somewhat saddened that a number of you enlightened and tolerant libs feel the need to belittle me at every single opportunity even though I haven't given you the same treatment, but I don't take it too personally. I realize that every post I make is to a hostile crowd in a place where anonymity enables harsher responses.

I also get that no minds were ever changed on an internet forum. Life experiences are what make you who you are, and there's very little that anything some dude on the internet who you've judged as the enemy is going to do to change that. So yes, you could say that I generally hang out here for the entertainment value.

Inso0,

You said that we all only care about voting rights because we think it will help Dems get elected. That's slander. That's you belittling us.

I care about voting rights in no small part because it will help get democrats elected. But he accused us of wanting to get ineligible voters to vote, which is false.

WaPo: Do Voter ID Laws Suppress Minority Voting? You betcha!!!!i

Heritage: Do Voter ID Laws Suppress Minority Voting? No ****ing way!!!!

Discuss

Common sense: Why are Republicans across the country spending all this effort to stop a handful of known fraud cases that would have been prevented by voter ID laws? Why do they also ignore voting methods like absentee voting which has orders of magnitude more fraud? Is it because they are actually worried about voter fraud? No of course not.

Discuss.

If you're legitimately not trolling, than I am even more saddened and discouraged for the future - that your emotional pull blinds you from admitting to yourself that your party has figured out it needs to cheat to win - something that should patently obvious to a reasonably intelligent, non emotionally-invested grade-schooler.

I wouldn't believe you except that I've seen the same phenomenon in a bunch of otherwise level-headed conservative friends and family - who I've known to criticize the Republican party plenty of times. But this issue is just a bridge to far for them apparently, even though the evidence is beyond overwhelming. Even when the NC ruling came out, that seemed to set some of them I talk to back for a day or two. But then they just came back undaunted a few days later with some new tidbit from FoxNews. Amygdala and tribalism win again.

From the state SC ruling, which btw the conservative majority SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal of, so it's sealed until NC figures out how to impeach their SC or something:

Can you at least admit in this case that clearly the NC legislature moved to suppress black votes, with no concern about voter fraud?

Btw this is why your party is also going bananas appointing very young, radically ideological federal judges -- so that these kinds of rulings won't happen anymore. They're trying to turn us into a sham democracy and you enthusiastically support it. Go team!