(10-31-2014 10:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  QS, sorry...I can't read the whole article. I'm not subscribed or have an account with the WSJ. But I did notice that it's an opinion piece. Thanks for trying though.

Maybe you should subscribe. It might help clear your confusion about a lot of things, since it is obvious that all you read are the biased pieces from the left. But if you're too cheap, I can't help you. Maybe Obama can pay for your subscription.

With all due respect, please take this kind of nonsense to the WWE room. Thanks.

And sorry...but I have no desire to provide anything to Murdoch and his empire.

(10-31-2014 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 10:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  QS, sorry...I can't read the whole article. I'm not subscribed or have an account with the WSJ. But I did notice that it's an opinion piece. Thanks for trying though.

Maybe you should subscribe. It might help clear your confusion about a lot of things, since it is obvious that all you read are the biased pieces from the left. But if you're too cheap, I can't help you. Maybe Obama can pay for your subscription.

With all due respect, please take this kind of nonsense to the WWE room. Thanks.

And sorry...but I have no desire to provide anything to Murdoch and his empire.

I can't help it if you choose ignorance over knowledge and the way I understand it, as long as I don't call you an asshat, I can stay here.

Someone from the Left please try and defend this.

(10-31-2014 09:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 09:21 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 09:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Every state is different. You'll need to start here: http://www.longdistancevoter.org/voter_r...FOZU8Y0V8c

Of course it is. I just wanted you to admit you don't know if there's really any true verification. I'd wager there's little to no true verification across the board for these registration drives. You stated that the "state then does all the required validation parts". I wanted to see if you knew this for a fact or whether you knew what that entailed or were you just assuming.

Aren't you registered? When I registered, I had to prove my citizenship. This is pretty much standard for every state, as seen in the link I provided. I don't know what each state uses...but in my dealings, I had to always at least show my birth certificate and I think at least a couple other things to verify my address for precinct identification.
And when I ultimately vote in Michigan, I have to show my drivers license so they can verify that I'm who I am.

The link you provided shows nothing of the kind. Simply because there is a requirement does not mean there is any particular mechanism for effectively enforcing that requirement.

While there are multiple means of registering in most states, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires all states to allow residents to register to vote by using a federal form that does not require any proof of citizenship. All that the applicant has to do is swear they are a US citizen. States can add individual requirements to the form, providing they follow the proper process (Arizona was sued for not following the proper procedure and rejecting applications without the documentation required by state law, see Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc.), but I believe only Louisiana requires actual proof of citizenship to be submitted with the form.

(10-31-2014 12:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Someone from the Left please try and defend this.

It can't be, which is why the topic was deflected.

Quote:A number of academics and commentators have already expressed skepticism about the paper’s assumptions and conclusions, though. In a series of tweets, New York Times columnist Nate Cohn focused his criticism on Richman et al’s use of Cooperative Congressional Election Study data to make inferences about the non-citizen voting population. That critique has some merit, too. The 2008 and 2010 CCES surveyed large opt-in Internet samples constructed by the polling firm YouGov to be nationally representative of the adult citizen population. Consequently, the assumption that non-citizens, who volunteered to take online surveys administered in English about American politics, would somehow be representative of the entire non-citizen population seems tenuous at best.

Methodological challenges affect study of non-citizens’ voting

And some more information on this flawed study:
Voter-fraud crusader just can’t help himself
What Other Academics Think Of The Questionable Study On Non-Citizen Voters Hyped By Conservative Media

Finally, here's a brutal take down of the author of your wonderful piece in the WSJ:
Do Not Vote for This Guy

You're welcome.

(10-31-2014 01:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:A number of academics and commentators have already expressed skepticism about the paper’s assumptions and conclusions, though. In a series of tweets, New York Times columnist Nate Cohn focused his criticism on Richman et al’s use of Cooperative Congressional Election Study data to make inferences about the non-citizen voting population. That critique has some merit, too. The 2008 and 2010 CCES surveyed large opt-in Internet samples constructed by the polling firm YouGov to be nationally representative of the adult citizen population. Consequently, the assumption that non-citizens, who volunteered to take online surveys administered in English about American politics, would somehow be representative of the entire non-citizen population seems tenuous at best.

Methodological challenges affect study of non-citizens’ voting

And some more information on this flawed study:
Voter-fraud crusader just can’t help himself
What Other Academics Think Of The Questionable Study On Non-Citizen Voters Hyped By Conservative Media

Finally, here's a brutal take down of the author of your wonderful piece in the WSJ:
Do Not Vote for This Guy

You're welcome.

Those sound like opinion pieces

See this is racist against undocumented Americans.

(10-31-2014 01:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 12:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Someone from the Left please try and defend this.

It can't be, which is why the topic was deflected.

What those people on the video did? There is no defense for it.

With that said, it would take an illegal with balls the size of basketballs to try to go into the DMV and try to get a license. Are there people that would try it? I'm sure there are, but the number of people who would attempt it has got to be very small. Over the years I've actually known a fair number of undocumented people and NONE of them have ever gotten a license. Then you would have to take into account the fact that not all of these people would actually vote, but rather to buy and register cars, open bank accounts, etc.

I just voted and they only required a driver's license. In states that give out drivers licenses to illegals, they are voting. No doubt about it.

Long ago, I thought one thing liberals and conservatives could agree on was that voting should be limited to U.S citizens. I was so naive. Libs want all RESIDENTS to vote.

Just because they voted doesn't mean it's going to count.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(11-02-2014 01:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just because they voted doesn't mean it's going to count.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Doesn't mean it will get tossed either. The point is that it could happen. That alone should piss of ANY legitimate US citizen...regardless of gang affiliation.

(10-31-2014 07:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I just voted and they only required a driver's license. In states that give out drivers licenses to illegals, they are voting. No doubt about it.

Long ago, I thought one thing liberals and conservatives could agree on was that voting should be limited to U.S citizens. I was so naive. Libs want all RESIDENTS to vote.

We do all agree on that.

And FWIW, you declare you are a US citizen when you register, not when you vote.