YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



"Frankly, we did win this election." * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia "wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing".

Trumps dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been "at the store, shopping for airhorns." We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasnt yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is "far from over" and promising an intense legal fight.

"The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor," the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

"Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots," he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[AgnosticBoy]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

You have already been given evidence that voter fraud can happen. You've acknowledged that with your own sources that you've posted here.

But even if I couldn't provide empirical evidence of fraud happening, but my point is still supported by logic, in that I've shown that cheating can happen. You not only need security AFTER something happens, but security should also be proactive to PREVENT things that can happen. The argument from ignorance that you keep bringing up ("absence of evidence...") is not just about lacking empirical evidence but also about lacking logic or not having any form of proof at all. I've used logic to support my case.

I'm asking for evidence that it's a significant problem at all.

I'm pointing out that absent any evidence, you can't logically assume what you have assumed. Otherwise you need to do something about those leprechauns.

There is logic and evidence. I presented an article that shows 31 cases involving voter impersonation. You've presented no logic nor evidence for leprechauns so your point in using that is obviously a false equivalence.

["I can't prove it's a problem, so we have to do stuff to prevent it." I don't see that as a good argument.

Well let's put it like this. Even if it weren't a problem, there's no harm in doing something about it. For instance, even if there were no documented cases of voter impersonation, that doesn't make the idea of voter ID a bad thing. And I wouldn't even say that the only way to show that it's a problem is by showing evidence that it has happened, but another way is by showing logically that it can happen.

Again, if no one is planning on cheating, then why be against that? You certainly haven't shown that requiring voter ID would suppress LEGAL voters.

[The Barbarian]

Well, let's take a look...
California requires a valid driver's license, social security number, or some other identification for which you have to apply to the local county registrar.
https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/

New York:
As of November 2019, voters could present the following forms of identification:

A current, valid photo ID, including but not limited to a drivers' license or a DMV-issued non-driver photo ID
A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document with the voter's name and address
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_New_York

You can register without ID, but in that case, you have to present ID when voting.

I'm sorry but your claim is very misleading. Why didn't you quote this part of my source:
"New York does not require voters to present identification while voting"

It does, if they haven't previously shown ID when they register. That's what your source says.

You used my ballotpedia source but did not even acknowledge that it supports my claim, and furthermore,

The site contracts your claim.

you left out the part that supported my claim and presented information that would mislead someone into thinking that ID is required.

Notice it says that one must present ID to register, and if one does not, then one must present iD when voting to confirm one's eligibility.

For the record, do you acknowledge that voter ID is NOT needed at the time of voting in New York and California?

Notice that if you didn't present ID to register in New York, you must present ID when you vote.

But that's a moot point, since you have seen that election fraud is a very rare thing. There actually was a systemic attempt at voter fraud, but of course it was caught because of the various controls in place:

Election Fraud in North Carolina Leads to New Charges for Republican Operative
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/m ... tment.html

Sometimes other people try it, but apparently not in a systemic way:

GREENSBORO, N.C. (WTVD) -- Nineteen people, including several from the Triangle, have been charged with voter fraud and, in some instances, related offenses, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Matthew G.T. Martin said in a news release Wednesday that each person charged voted in a federal election in 2016 despite not being U.S. citizens, according to court documents. One also allegedly voted illegally in the 2018 federal election.
https://abc11.com/voter-fraud-non-citiz ... e/6402999/

North Carolina had about 2,500,000 votes recorded. About 8 fraudulent votes per million votes cast. I don't think that supports your position very well.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #63]
The problem is that you only presented information that involves showing ID. That was misleading because that makes it seem that ID is always required.

Only after I pressed the matter, now you have acknowledged that voter ID is not always required. And that is of course the scenario I was using in my example of voter fraud.

[The Barbarian]

Again, if no one is planning on cheating, then why be against that? You certainly haven't shown that requiring voter ID would suppress LEGAL voters.

Well, let's take a look...

Voter ID Laws Deprive Many Americans of the Right to Vote

Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens or more than 21 million Americans do not have government-issued photo identification.1
Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.
Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2
The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.3
Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points,4 which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.5

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter ... fact-sheet

If someone comes up with a plan to give every qualified voter an ID with no expense to the voter, that would be fine. But that won't happen, because as you see, it would defeat the whole purpose of requiring IDs. It wouldn't suppress turnout at all.

From a right-wing site (Red State)

The study also revealed that requiring voters to show ID at the polls does not effectively curtail voter fraud. After the researchers investigated documented cases of voter fraud in states with voter ID measures, they found that these laws do not prevent certain people from defrauding the electoral system.
...
But what about the conservative side? Many on the right have long believed that voter ID laws were the key to prevent voter fraud. Despite the fact that instances in which individuals have defrauded the electoral system are rare, it is still important to preserve the integrity of our elections.

For those who are concerned about voter fraud, it presents an opportunity. Requiring ID at the polls is clearly not the way to tamp down on this crime. Now that we know this, we can look at other methods that might prove more effective.
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2020/04/13/h ... ws-n134288

Notice that in North Carolina which requires voters to present ID, it didn't work. The republicans who did this were caught by other means.

[The Barbarian]

The problem is that you only presented information that involves showing ID. That was misleading because that makes it seem that ID is always required.

As you see, both NY and California require ID.

Only after I pressed the matter, now you have acknowledged that voter ID is not always required.

See above. I showed you from the website that you cited, that both states do require ID. In fact, NY requires you to present it when you vote, if you have not previously done so at registraion.

And as you see, (even Red State admits this) ID laws don't prevent fraud.

[AgnosticBoy]

Again, if no one is planning on cheating, then why be against that? You certainly haven't shown that requiring voter ID would suppress LEGAL voters.

Well, let's take a look...

Voter ID Laws Deprive Many Americans of the Right to Vote

Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens or more than 21 million Americans do not have government-issued photo identification.1
Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.
Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2
The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.3
Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points,4 which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.5

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter ... fact-sheet

Your source says requiring voter ID is discriminatory because it effects minorities disproportionately. There are a couple of things wrong with this point.
- First, even in places where voter ID is not required at the time of voting, but you do need ID when registering to vote. So ask yourself, why is it hard for someone to provide ID for one process and not the other? I bet if they wanted to drive or drink, they'd have no problem having their ID.
- Second, effecting one class more than another doesn't necessarily make something discriminatory. It would depend on why the policy is in place, and if it's for security reasons, like to prevent voter impersonation, then that certainly isn't a "discriminatory" reason. Not only that, but a simple solution to this is to get an ID. You need one to get a job, drive, and drink the booze, and we don't hear complaints about voter ID requirements for those things being discriminatory. You wanna know or verify who is working for you, right? You wanna know you're not giving some teen alcohol, right?

Your source also keeps relying on a GAO study but I wonder if they highlighted the fact that the results were inconsistent:

Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant.

Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-634

Any more agenda or partisan-driven sources?

[AgnosticBoy]

The problem is that you only presented information that involves showing ID. That was misleading because that makes it seem that ID is always required.

As you see, both NY and California require ID.

Just out of curiosity, is your name also Koko, username?

This is evidence of you not acknowledging that there are scenarios where voter ID is NOT required at the time of voting. I've presented logic and evidence for my point and made the distinction between your point and mine so that people won't be misled.

If you can't acknowledge that simple fact then I'll respectfully move on.

[The Barbarian]

This is evidence of you not acknowledging that there are scenarios where voter ID is NOT required at the time of voting.

Where the voter had already been IDed, yes. That's what I told you.

I'd rather not go back through the same process.

[The Barbarian]

Any more agenda or partisan-driven sources?

Some republicans...
Heres Schlafly:
"The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats get-out-the-vote campaign."

She later adds that early voting "violates the spirit of the Constitution" and facilitates "illegal votes" that "cancel out the votes of honest Americans." Im not sure what she means by "illegal votes," but it sounds an awful lot like voting by Democratic constituencies: students, low-income people, and minorities.

Schlafly, it should be noted, isnt the first Republican to confess the true reason for voter-identification laws. Among friendly audiences, they cant seem to help it.

Last spring, for example, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told a gathering of Republicans that their voter identification law would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #70]
Do you know what hearsay is? If you do, why do you think it would matter more than the study I posted earlier showing voter ID laws not decreasing voter turnout?