Should the US Get Rid of Facebook and other Social Media Outlets?

[Peter McLennan]

Judging the voter fraud by the number of caught cases is like judging the amount of drugs smuggled into the country by the amount of drugs captured by the DEA.

Precisely the type of ad hominem attack referenced in another thread as being against the rules of engagement. Perhaps those rules apply only to that thread...

Comparing drug smuggling data with voter suppression data is irrelevant.

[Craig Lamson]

Precisely the type of ad hominem attack referenced in another thread as being against the rules of engagement. Perhaps those rules apply only to that thread...

Comparing drug smuggling data with voter suppression data is irrelevant.

Voter Suppression Data?  Your statement is irrelevant. 

[James Clark]

Voter Suppression Data?  Your statement is irrelevant.

Sort of, but also not..

First, there's absolutely no reason to assume that Democratic voter fraud is any more prevalent that Republican voter fraud.  One could assume that in aggregate, they cancel out.

Second, we should be able to agree that, along with freedom of expression, the right to have your vote counted (and correspondingly, the right to vote at all) is among the most important rights we have as a free and self-determinate people.  To that end, it's entirely relevant when actions taken to "prevent voter fraud" have the effect of (intentionally or otherwise) subverting the right of another to have his or her vote registered. 

 

[TechTalk]

Unvalidated assertions are precisely that.  "Unvalid"

For example, his claim that there's rampant voter fraud.  He says it all the time, without evidence.  It's never been proven or demonstrated.

Nice try but an utter failure.   He went right past Rampant, when he went to it has never been proven or demonstrated. 

Voter fraud clearly has been proven and demonstrated, and that’s only the cases where the preps have actually been caught.    I’ll wager voter fraud has been happening since the first vote was cast. But that’s yet another discussion.   To think it’s all sweetness and light would be a silly.  Your  mileage may vary.

I’m so glad  you actually went looking at the data.  That makes you a standout in this forum. 

Once you go to “never” you are just offering up bullshit and lies.

So the problem was with your reading comprehension then. Thanks for clarifying.

It would be evident to anyone with base-level reading comprehension skills that the reference to "never proven or demonstrated" referes to the subject of the  preceding sentences which was "rampant voter fraud" as there was never any other subject to which he referred. I've underlined the whole set of sentences, if that helps you.

The writer that you replied to didn't go right past "rampant"; YOU did. He did not reference anything except "rampant voter fraud". Please try reading it again. Using the word "never" does not change the subject about which he is referring. Getting it yet?

For instance, if I say... Italy looks like a nice place to visit. I've never been there. It does not mean that I've never been anywhere. Each of the three words "never been there" specifically refers to Italy, the subject of the preceding sentence to which I am referring.

When the writer says "it has never been proven". You have to understand what "it" means by looking to the subject of the preceding sentence or sentences. In this case, when the writer says "rampant voter fraud. He says it all the time, without evidence.  It's never been proven. What is the "it" being referred to as a subject? I bet you've got "it" by now. (I never thought that I'd be teaching remedial reading!)

The writer did not say there has never been any case of voter fraud in the country and I haven't either. He only referred to statements that it was rampant (profusely widespread by definition).

My friendly advice is... drop the shovel.

[Craig Lamson]

So the problem was with your reading comprehension then. Thanks for clarifying.

It would be evident to anyone with base-level reading comprehension skills that the reference to "never proven or demonstrated" referes to the subject of the  preceding sentences which was "rampant voter fraud" as there was never any other subject to which he referred. I've underlined the whole set of sentences, if that helps you.

The writer that you replied to didn't go right past "rampant"; YOU did. He did not reference anything except "rampant voter fraud". Please try reading it again. Using the word "never" does not change the subject about which he is referring. Getting it yet?

For instance, if I say... Italy looks like a nice place to visit. I've never been there. It does not mean that I've never been anywhere. Each of the three words "never been there" specifically refers to Italy, the subject of the preceding sentence to which I am referring.

When the writer says "it has never been proven". You have to understand what "it" means by looking to the subject of the preceding sentence or sentences. In this case, when the writer says "He says it all the time, without evidence.  It's never been proven. What is the "it" being referred to as a subject? I bet you've got "it" by now. (I never thought that I'd be teaching remedial reading!)

My friendly advice is... drop the shovel.

Oh yea, I got “it”.  It is voter fraud. Wanna try again. 

[TechTalk]

Oh yea, I got “it”.  It is voter fraud. Wanna try again.

Nope. Just keep on digging.

[Craig Lamson]

Sort of, but also not..

First, there's absolutely no reason to assume that Democratic voter fraud is any more prevalent that Republican voter fraud.  One could assume that in aggregate, they cancel out.

Second, we should be able to agree that, along with freedom of expression, the right to have your vote counted (and correspondingly, the right to vote at all) is among the most important rights we have as a free and self-determinate people.  To that end, it's entirely relevant when actions taken to "prevent voter fraud" have the effect of (intentionally or otherwise) subverting the right of another to have his or her vote registered.

I have no doubt all parties engage in the practice of voter fraud. 

As for the rest, if you don’t have rules to prevent voter fraud you subvert the votes of everyone.  Fake votes destroy legal ones.  Why would a society not want to assure everyone who casts a vote is really who they claim to be.

[Craig Lamson]

Nope. Just keep on digging.

Yep, Rampant is just an indication of degree. You need a backhoe.

[TechTalk]

Yep, Rampant is just an indication of degree. You need a backhoe.

Rampant is an adjective which serves as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else.

Rampant: 1) profusely widespread 2) flourishing or spreading unchecked

or

3) marked by a menacing wildness, extravagance, or absence of restraint... Like your digging

I'm done with remedial reading comprehension lessons. I don't need a backhoe. I need a back massage.

[James Clark]

I have no doubt all parties engage in the practice of voter fraud. 

As for the rest, if you don’t have rules to prevent voter fraud you subvert the votes of everyone.  Fake votes destroy legal ones. 

Not when they offset, or are statistically insignificant.

Why would a society not want to assure everyone who casts a vote is really who they claim to be.

Because it doesn't make sense to eliminate 1 fake vote if the cure disenfranchises 10 legitimate ones.

[Craig Lamson]

Not when they offset, or are statistically insignificant.

Because it doesn't make sense to eliminate 1 fake vote if the cure disenfranchises 10 legitimate ones.

You have no idea of the volume or if they offset, that’s noting more than a generalized assumption.

Again a baseless assumption that one face vote might disenfranchise 10 others.  I live in state that requires proof of who you are to vote,  There  is no reason anyone should be disenfranchised.  Voters are offered a number of ways to provide ID  and if they don’t have one they can still cast a provisional vote and have even more time to obtain an valid ID.

Voter ID causes Voter suppression claims are just an invitation to fraud.

[James Clark]

You have no idea of the volume or if they offset, that’s noting more than a generalized assumption.

That's true, but there's absolutely no reason to assume anything other than the idea that they offset.  Multiple examinations have been done, (including the most recent by Trump's guy, Kris Kobach, who I think we can safely assume would have announced very loudly any evidence to the contrary) and they show, over and over, that voter fraud just isn't a statistically significant issue, and they certainly don't show that it favors one party over another.   

Again a baseless assumption that one face vote might disenfranchise 10 others.  I live in state that requires proof of who you are to vote,  There  is no reason anyone should be disenfranchised.  Voters are offered a number of ways to provide ID  and if they don’t have one they can still cast a provisional vote and have even more time to obtain an valid ID.

Yes, I was just using that ratio as an example. And I'm not necessarily talking about Voter ID.  I'm simply talking about the general proposition that when you create more restrictions, you make it harder to vote, and that shouldn't really be the goal, especially when we know that, again, as has been repeatedly concluded, voter fraud just isn't a problematic issue.

[Craig Lamson]

Rampant is an adjective which serves as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else.

Rampant: 1) profusely widespread 2) flourishing or spreading unchecked

or

3) marked by a menacing wildness, extravagance, or absence of restraint... Like your digging

I'm done with remedial reading comprehension lessons. I don't need a backhoe. I need a back massage.

Quite right, I’m well aware of the definition of Rampant, and exactly why it’s useless in the discussion of voter fraud simply because it’s diffuse and ill  defined.  Is rampant 10 cases in one election or 100 case in 2 elections.?  If fraud is happening and not investigated is it rampant?  Is it spreading unchecked?  A meaningless descriptor in this instance.  The Op claimed a “undetermined” quantity of voter fraud had NEVER been proven or demonstrated.  We now know that is false. 

I was  wrong, a backhoe will simple not suffice for the mine you are digging.  Perhaps  Big Brutus would be more suitable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brutus

[Craig Lamson]

That's true, but there's absolutely no reason to assume anything other than the idea that they offset.  Multiple examinations have been done, (including the most recent by Trump's guy, Kris Kobach, who I think we can safely assume would have announced very loudly any evidence to the contrary) and they show, over and over, that voter fraud just isn't a statistically significant issue, and they certainly don't show that it favors one party over another.   

Yes, I was just using that ratio as an example. And I'm not necessarily talking about Voter ID.  I'm simply talking about the general proposition that when you create more restrictions, you make it harder to vote, and that shouldn't really be the goal, especially when we know that, again, as has been repeatedly concluded, voter fraud just isn't a problematic issue.

The attempt to try and ascertain the extent of voter fraud by Kobach was derailed by many States  refusing to provide information.  It was a wasted effort.  I don’t think there will ever be a substantial investigation because no one really wants the answers. Why kill the system? I’m not convinced  will ever know just how limited or widespread it really is.  Elections in this country are really just a massive set of tiny election run by entrenched political operatives. Given the makeup of our Presidential election system it only takes a small number  of votes in key places to change a national outcome. Many times I’ve sat amazed on election night while some crucial precinct finds a box of ballots at the last minute that changes the outcome.  Is it fraud?  Don’t know but it stinks.

Again we really don’t know if fraud is a significant problem or not.  We know it exists and if it does can we assume it’s being used to change results?  Why do it if there is no benefit?

We as a country behind over backwards to make it easy to vote.  Early voting for weeks in many places, absentee and provisional votes amount other things.  Trying to make sure the voter is really qualified to vote is simply not too much to ask from a voter.

[Robert Roaldi]

The way you guys describe things, maybe the UN should be looking at sending in observers to this fall's election. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Precisely the type of ad hominem attack referenced in another thread as being against the rules of engagement. Perhaps those rules apply only to that thread...

Comparing drug smuggling data with voter suppression data is irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant, but it certainly isn't argumentum ad hominem.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Precisely the type of ad hominem attack...

 

This is what happens when you let leftists redefine the ad hominem logical fallacy as being about feelings and emotions.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

..., voter fraud just isn't a problematic issue.

If you are dead, it indeed isn’t.

If you are dead, and someone voted 11 times on your behalf, as in Chicago, it indeed isn’t problematic for you... you are dead.

[Craig Lamson]

The way you guys describe things, maybe the UN should be looking at sending in observers to this fall's election. 

Some have suggested  just that.

[Craig Lamson]

If you are dead, it indeed isn’t.

If you are dead, and someone voted 11 times on your behalf, as in Chicago, it indeed isn’t problematic for you... you are dead.

Sometimes it takes just a very few votes to potentially change the course of the country.  Perhaps just a few hundred votes elects a Senator or Representitive that changes the balance of power. It does not need to be massive numbers of votes. Even national elections for President can turn on something as small as 537 votes.  James says vote fraud is statistically insignificant. In that case the difference between candidates was 0.009%.  Was fraud involved?  That depends on who you ask.