(08-02-2016 07:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:33 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:31 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 06:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  My favorite NC GOP Voting Right plan was when they decided to move the voting location for ten thousand App State people (liberal college students) to a location with no public transport, six parking spots, and over a mile from any people.

What a travesty. A 20 minute walk.

Liberals are inherently lazy.

Why not do the same in a GOP area of Gastonia? Let them walk 20 minutes down a muddy path to vote.

Fine by me. I would walk if I had to. I would pick up old,folks in my 4 wheeler if I had to.

(08-02-2016 06:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 05:20 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  2214 reasons why we need voter IDs...

this is not a voter ID issue and even the very proponents of Voter ID on this forum have said so. this is an issue with the rolls needing to be cleaned up and if dead votes are being counted, it is far more likely someone handling the ballot box is doing it than a bunch of impersonators.

You keep saying this, but are you really suggesting that 'the party in control' of every state should be in charge of cleaning up the rolls? That's what would happen, and you would be against that as well... and I would too.

Voter ID would solve the problem... in the simplest way by having the number of 'swipes' need to match the number of votes. It is easy to forge signatures on the paper rolls (whether a ballot stuffer or impersonator) and there is no risk of 'the other side' removing YOUR voters, but not theirs. You couldn't slide the same ID a bunch of times, you'd have to have a bunch of valid IDs... one for every vote you want to cast.

SO yeah, voter ID solves this problem, as well as the 'ballot stuffer' you imagine... AND the 'legislature unfairly vexing, rather than vetting the rolls'

Thanks for your support

(08-02-2016 06:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  My favorite NC GOP Voting Right plan was when they decided to move the voting location for ten thousand App State people (liberal college students) to a location with no public transport, six parking spots, and over a mile from any people.

Mountaineer students are used to walking in tough conditions...lots of them relish it. You evidently have no clue about the school and its students in Boone.

You could end voter fraud by moving the elections to April 15th and bundle voting with filing your taxes. No ID needed, no dead people voting.

(08-02-2016 08:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 06:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 05:20 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  2214 reasons why we need voter IDs...

this is not a voter ID issue and even the very proponents of Voter ID on this forum have said so. this is an issue with the rolls needing to be cleaned up and if dead votes are being counted, it is far more likely someone handling the ballot box is doing it than a bunch of impersonators.

You keep saying this, but are you really suggesting that 'the party in control' of every state should be in charge of cleaning up the rolls? That's what would happen, and you would be against that as well... and I would too.

Voter ID would solve the problem... in the simplest way by having the number of 'swipes' need to match the number of votes. It is easy to forge signatures on the paper rolls (whether a ballot stuffer or impersonator) and there is no risk of 'the other side' removing YOUR voters, but not theirs. You couldn't slide the same ID a bunch of times, you'd have to have a bunch of valid IDs... one for every vote you want to cast.

SO yeah, voter ID solves this problem, as well as the 'ballot stuffer' you imagine... AND the 'legislature unfairly vexing, rather than vetting the rolls'

Thanks for your support

you're wrong. dead wrong and don't posses the skills to understand why.

cleaning up the roles fixes the problem 100% and doesn't have any side effects of denying eligible voters. it is something you will find bipartisan support on.

and if you want to claim you are smarter than me...riddle me this. there is absolutely no proof that a dead voter on the rolls = a person voting on behalf of that dead person. only when a dead person is marked as voting in an election. the two are not identical.

just shows how partisan, biased, and unfair you are. you hammy would go to the ends of the earth to give me crap about backing things up to the point where you take "unreasonable doubt" to a whole new level. but here you are trying to equate rolls to election turnout results when if our roles were reversed you would have called me out on it in a heartbeat over this and you freaking know it.

(08-02-2016 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 08:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 06:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 05:20 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  2214 reasons why we need voter IDs...

this is not a voter ID issue and even the very proponents of Voter ID on this forum have said so. this is an issue with the rolls needing to be cleaned up and if dead votes are being counted, it is far more likely someone handling the ballot box is doing it than a bunch of impersonators.

You keep saying this, but are you really suggesting that 'the party in control' of every state should be in charge of cleaning up the rolls? That's what would happen, and you would be against that as well... and I would too.

Voter ID would solve the problem... in the simplest way by having the number of 'swipes' need to match the number of votes. It is easy to forge signatures on the paper rolls (whether a ballot stuffer or impersonator) and there is no risk of 'the other side' removing YOUR voters, but not theirs. You couldn't slide the same ID a bunch of times, you'd have to have a bunch of valid IDs... one for every vote you want to cast.

SO yeah, voter ID solves this problem, as well as the 'ballot stuffer' you imagine... AND the 'legislature unfairly vexing, rather than vetting the rolls'

Thanks for your support

you're wrong. dead wrong and don't posses the skills to understand why.

cleaning up the roles fixes the problem 100% and doesn't have any side effects of denying eligible voters. it is something you will find bipartisan support on.

and if you want to claim you are smarter than me...riddle me this. there is absolutely no proof that a dead voter on the rolls = a person voting on behalf of that dead person. only when a dead person is marked as voting in an election. the two are not identical.

just shows how partisan, biased, and unfair you are. you hammy would go to the ends of the earth to give me crap about backing things up to the point where you take "unreasonable doubt" to a whole new level. but here you are trying to equate rolls to election turnout results when if our roles were reversed you would have called me out on it in a heartbeat over this and you freaking know it.

So you cant read what he wrote.

(08-02-2016 10:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 08:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 06:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 05:20 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  2214 reasons why we need voter IDs...

this is not a voter ID issue and even the very proponents of Voter ID on this forum have said so. this is an issue with the rolls needing to be cleaned up and if dead votes are being counted, it is far more likely someone handling the ballot box is doing it than a bunch of impersonators.

You keep saying this, but are you really suggesting that 'the party in control' of every state should be in charge of cleaning up the rolls? That's what would happen, and you would be against that as well... and I would too.

Voter ID would solve the problem... in the simplest way by having the number of 'swipes' need to match the number of votes. It is easy to forge signatures on the paper rolls (whether a ballot stuffer or impersonator) and there is no risk of 'the other side' removing YOUR voters, but not theirs. You couldn't slide the same ID a bunch of times, you'd have to have a bunch of valid IDs... one for every vote you want to cast.

SO yeah, voter ID solves this problem, as well as the 'ballot stuffer' you imagine... AND the 'legislature unfairly vexing, rather than vetting the rolls'

Thanks for your support

you're wrong. dead wrong and don't posses the skills to understand why.

cleaning up the roles fixes the problem 100% and doesn't have any side effects of denying eligible voters. it is something you will find bipartisan support on.

and if you want to claim you are smarter than me...riddle me this. there is absolutely no proof that a dead voter on the rolls = a person voting on behalf of that dead person. only when a dead person is marked as voting in an election. the two are not identical.

just shows how partisan, biased, and unfair you are. you hammy would go to the ends of the earth to give me crap about backing things up to the point where you take "unreasonable doubt" to a whole new level. but here you are trying to equate rolls to election turnout results when if our roles were reversed you would have called me out on it in a heartbeat over this and you freaking know it.

So you cant read what he wrote.

that's rich coming from you.

This whole thread is a setup. It is four year old misinformation.

(08-02-2016 10:16 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  This whole thread is a setup. It is four year old misinformation.

oh you mean breibart is a bad source? color me shocked.

but hey all the "smart" cons are saying this is a critical piece of information that validates the calls for voter ID.

i mean screw the whole court system saying otherwise.

(08-02-2016 05:11 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...age-older/

North Carolina voters roll shows that the Tar Heel State has 2,214 voters that are 110-years-old. Most of these voters are democrats and most seem to live in four democrat-controlled counties. Some of these aged voters have already voted absentee.

There must be something in the water. They sure do live long up there.

(08-02-2016 07:49 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:33 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:31 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 06:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  My favorite NC GOP Voting Right plan was when they decided to move the voting location for ten thousand App State people (liberal college students) to a location with no public transport, six parking spots, and over a mile from any people.

What a travesty. A 20 minute walk.

Liberals are inherently lazy.

Why not do the same in a GOP area of Gastonia? Let them walk 20 minutes down a muddy path to vote.

Fine by me. I would walk if I had to. I would pick up old,folks in my 4 wheeler if I had to.

Everything has to be made super easy, not effort is to be expected, at all.

(08-03-2016 06:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:49 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:33 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 07:31 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  What a travesty. A 20 minute walk.

Liberals are inherently lazy.

Why not do the same in a GOP area of Gastonia? Let them walk 20 minutes down a muddy path to vote.

Fine by me. I would walk if I had to. I would pick up old,folks in my 4 wheeler if I had to.

Everything has to be made super easy, not effort is to be expected, at all.

If everyone shared equally in the effort to vote that would be one thing, but when on segment is offered easy access while another is set up with obstacles that is entirely different. The Watagua Co BofE has repeatedly done this. It is obvious voter suppression.

(08-02-2016 08:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 06:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  My favorite NC GOP Voting Right plan was when they decided to move the voting location for ten thousand App State people (liberal college students) to a location with no public transport, six parking spots, and over a mile from any people.

Mountaineer students are used to walking in tough conditions...lots of them relish it. You evidently have no clue about the school and its students in Boone.

Young people would have to walk as far as a *MILE*.... Woah!

(08-02-2016 06:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 05:20 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  2214 reasons why we need voter IDs...

this is not a voter ID issue and even the very proponents of Voter ID on this forum have said so. this is an issue with the rolls needing to be cleaned up and if dead votes are being counted, it is far more likely someone handling the ballot box is doing it than a bunch of impersonators.

This is absolutely a voter ID issue. Show an ID to vote and those mistakenly left on the voter roles become a non issue. When 'outside' opportunities for voter fraud (impersonators) are eliminated, only those working the ballot boxes are possible suspects when likely dead voters are casting ballots.

NC has had numerous races at the local state level decided by 10 votes or less (some as few a single vote) in the past few elections. A single fraudulent vote can change the outcome of a race and every reasonable effort (voter ID) should be made to keep that from happening.

(08-02-2016 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you're wrong. dead wrong and don't posses the skills to understand why.

cleaning up the roles fixes the problem 100% and doesn't have any side effects of denying eligible voters. it is something you will find bipartisan support on.

and if you want to claim you are smarter than me...riddle me this. there is absolutely no proof that a dead voter on the rolls = a person voting on behalf of that dead person. only when a dead person is marked as voting in an election. the two are not identical.

just shows how partisan, biased, and unfair you are. you hammy would go to the ends of the earth to give me crap about backing things up to the point where you take "unreasonable doubt" to a whole new level. but here you are trying to equate rolls to election turnout results when if our roles were reversed you would have called me out on it in a heartbeat over this and you freaking know it.

More personal insults.
and I'm unfamiliar with the term 'unreasonable doubt' as something that would be quoted (as if it were common in the lexicon)

Here you go...

Simple search

http://www.bing.com/search?q=purge+voter...dlt=strict


Here from one of them
http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voter-purges

After a detailed study of the purge practices of 12 states, Voter Purges reveals that election officials across the country are routinely striking millions of voters from the rolls through a process that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation

Are you telling me you support such a process over an ID?

If you'd prefer to go straight to biometrics, at least that would make sense.

but preferring a system so UNIVERSALLY panned as being subject to manipulation by whichever party/people is/are in control/setting the rules/doing the purging makes no sense...

Get everyone an ID. Make it as easy to get as possible. I'm not worried about 'duplicates' since once an ID is swiped, it can't vote again. Yes, one person can still potentially have 5 IDs, but at least that makes it very difficult for them to vote (no ballot stuffing) AND we have 2 years between elections to use computers to compare pictures (facial recognition software)... and we can literally go to someone's registered address and find them to investigate... OR we can check to see if the similar IDs all voted in a contiguous block, and then we can flag their IDs so that next year when they vote, we can catch them committing fraud.... but hey... if there are simply 5 people who all look so similar that a computer can't tell them apart and they live close enough to cast ballots in the same day, then so be it... and they ALL can vote.

Not to mention that now the people who need public services and access to reasonably priced financial services now have access to them as opposed to having to deal in the 'shadow' banking world because they lack sufficient ID.

As an aside, John. You spend an awful lot of time being righteously indignant about being persecuted and how unfair 'cons' (or me, or owl or others) are...

yet you rarely actually address the issues being discussed.

You say it's not a voter ID issue... I said that even if it isn't, it is still one better solved by voter ID than by voter purging... since the RISK is that you get purged, you probably don't know about it until you try and vote. You certainly know if you have ID or not, well in advance of an election... and if you don't have it, we need to make sure you get it. If there is a state managed database of IDs, it should be as easy as either going to a location and asking for a new one (and even being given a temporary one right then and there) OR as with what the TSA does, if you don't have an ID, they can still look you up on the database right there at the polling station and SEE your ID.

Voter rolls are thus NEVER wrongfully purging ANYONE, unless a person CHOOSES to purge themselves (by not renewing their ID), yet they can also reinstate that ID at almost any time. If we put facial recognition software (or biometrics) in place, you could even reinstate your ID on the spot. All we have to do is establish some 'level' of confidence... like say 98% probability = match. At least make it so someone trying to commit fraud has to LOOK like the person they're defrauding. I don't think we're quite there yet... but maybe.

I think it'd be a far better use of the billions of dollars spent arguing over voter rolls.

Now, you're free to disagree with my contention... but acting indignant simply because I disagree is not the way to do so.


Most often when people are asked for a link, its because their statement is in question. If you'd like to question one of my statements, then by all means... tell me what you think I need to 'prove' and I will provide a link...

unless (as in this situation) it is merely my opinion against yours. My opinion about voter purging is certainly supported by a link... but if you disagree with it, that's fine.

(08-03-2016 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As an aside, John. You spend an awful lot of time being righteously indignant about being persecuted and how unfair 'cons' (or me, or owl or others) are...

yet you rarely actually address the issues being discussed.

You say it's not a voter ID issue... I said that even if it isn't, it is still one better solved by voter ID than by voter purging... since the RISK is that you get purged, you probably don't know about it until you try and vote. You certainly know if you have ID or not, well in advance of an election... and if you don't have it, we need to make sure you get it. If there is a state managed database of IDs, it should be as easy as either going to a location and asking for a new one (and even being given a temporary one right then and there) OR as with what the TSA does, if you don't have an ID, they can still look you up on the database right there at the polling station and SEE your ID.

Voter rolls are thus NEVER wrongfully purging ANYONE, unless a person CHOOSES to purge themselves (by not renewing their ID), yet they can also reinstate that ID at almost any time. If we put facial recognition software (or biometrics) in place, you could even reinstate your ID on the spot. All we have to do is establish some 'level' of confidence... like say 98% probability = match. At least make it so someone trying to commit fraud has to LOOK like the person they're defrauding. I don't think we're quite there yet... but maybe.

I think it'd be a far better use of the billions of dollars spent arguing over voter rolls.

Now, you're free to disagree with my contention... but acting indignant simply because I disagree is not the way to do so.

He only comes here for message board swordplay.

Lady killer alert:

(08-02-2016 06:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  My favorite NC GOP Voting Right plan was when they decided to move the voting location for ten thousand App State people (liberal college students) to a location with no public transport, six parking spots, and over a mile from any people.

While I'm sure that it's not beyond the Republicans to do some electoral fiddling, your story doesn't quite check out.

This is an image of the agricultural center and a bus stop next to it. The bus ride takes five minutes (direct, no changes) from ASU.


This is a map of Boone, NC showing the college and the agricultural center (my graphic design capabilities ARE for hire). /sarcasm. Not "over a mile from any people", not even a mile (0.8) from the campus.

(08-03-2016 02:46 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 06:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  My favorite NC GOP Voting Right plan was when they decided to move the voting location for ten thousand App State people (liberal college students) to a location with no public transport, six parking spots, and over a mile from any people.

While I'm sure that it's not beyond the Republicans to do some electoral fiddling, your story doesn't quite check out.

This is an image of the agricultural center and a bus stop next to it. The bus ride takes five minutes (direct, no changes) from ASU.


This is a map of Boone, NC showing the college and the agricultural center (my graphic design capabilities ARE for hire). /sarcasm. Not "over a mile from any people", not even a mile (0.8) from the campus.

But but but but it's sooooooooooooooooooooooo inconvenient.

Tom is prone to histrionics.

I've been to Boone and loved the campus. About a mile from anywhere puts you on the side of a very steep hill.