The Quotable Reich

Quote:

Where the consequences of getting caught is deportation, a $10,000 fine, and maybe jail time.

It doesn't stop people from committing ID fraud so that they can work in the US. There are fines and jail time associated with those crimes as well. They think it is worth it. They also use those same ID's to apply for tax returns, which is another form of fraud with fines and jail time. Yet it happens all the time.

Quote:

Where did the illegal immigrants get the names and addresses of non-voters?

Now you are just ignoring how the system works. They don't have to steal anyone's name to vote. When we fail to confirm citizenship status when someone registers to vote and then fail to check ID's when people vote, it isn't hard to game the system. Mover Voter laws and giving illegal immigrants drivers license and not verifying ID prior to voting makes this all possible.

Robert Reich
1 hr ·
Trump’s attack on democracy shouldn’t divert our attention from other attacks now underway. A group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC — at the direction of billionaire GOP donors Charles and David Koch and their corporate cohorts — is pushing to convene a constitutional convention, permitted under Article V of the Constitution. At their convention, they’d attempt to rewrite the Constitution to reduce the power of the people and enhance the power of big corporations.
This is no conspiratorial joke. It takes 34 states to convene a constitutional convention, and 28 states have already passed resolutions to do exactly that. The ALEC/Koch consortium is now targeting 11 others.

Yes, but the benefit of living in America (even illegally) and working for a paycheck making much more money than you can in your home country VASTLY outweighs the penalties.

The benefit for a single in person voter fraud is infinitesimal to the individual person. Without a coordinated effort to get millions of illegals to commit this kind of voter fraud (which you said you don't believe could happen) then it make no sense for someone to do that.

So you think that random mexican housekeeper at a tiny bed and breakfast is going to go to a voter precinct and when asked for their name and address that they're just going to make something up and hope that it works??

but even 1 vote like this is too many.

and the one duplicate voter that was caught was someone who voted for Mr. Trump. I can certainly agree that was too many.

Quote:

So you think that random mexican housekeeper at a tiny bed and breakfast is going to go to a voter precinct and when asked for their name and address that they're just going to make something up and hope that it works??

No I think a group of illegal immigrant construction workers sitting around and talking about a US President candidate who wants to deport them is motivation enough. How about a push from the Unions who want illegal immigrants to join their ranks?

Did you know that there are more than just Mexicans who cross the southern border illegally?

Quote:

The benefit for a single in person voter fraud is infinitesimal to the individual person. Without a coordinated effort to get millions of illegals to commit this kind of voter fraud (which you said you don't believe could happen) then it make no sense for someone to do that.

One illegal vote cast is 1 too many.

Ok so help me understand how exactly this group of illegal immigrant construction workers goes from thinking about committing an act of voter fraud, to actually executing that act.

Leaving aside your insulting question,

let's for simplicity focus on Mexican immigrants since that's the focus of the Trump administration.

Quote:

Ok so help me understand how exactly this group of illegal immigrant construction workers goes from thinking about committing an act of voter fraud, to actually executing that act.

Have you not been paying attention to how the registration laws work or to the lack of verification at the voting booth? It doesn't have to be just construction workers, any more than it had to be a single maid working in a bNb. Single person or a group of people, it works the same way. It's in how the laws work or don't work. What's hard to understand about that?

Do you think changing the laws, requiring citizens to obtain "papers" to vote in their own country for the first time ever (against the wishes of the founding fathers)

then paying for and providing more people and locations to allow people to vote in every election henceforth (more things to check = more time to vote = need for more polling locations = more money) is a good idea even if only to protect from a single illegal vote?

only to protect from a single illegal vote?

I wonder why you don't take such a hard line stance on the 2nd amendment.

I mean saving even 1 life has to be more important than protecting 1 vote.

If you're not worried about restricting the rights of individual people to vote then why are you so worried about protecting the rights of individuals to buy/own guns.

Baldimo has nothing to back up his claim on voter fraud. Just parroting Trump.

Quote:

Do you think changing the laws, requiring citizens to obtain "papers" to vote in their own country for the first time ever (against the wishes of the founding fathers)

Nice spin with that phrase. I've never read anything about the Founding Fathers being against an ID of any sort. You are going to have to find that one for me. From everything I've read there is no restriction in the Constitution on requiring an ID to vote. Unless you got something to prove this, you are just making things up. Make sure you quote the FF in your proof.

Quote:

only to protect from a single illegal vote?

Yes. As you keep pointing out, there is nothing more sacred to a democracy then the right to vote. We should do everything we can to ensure we protect the vote from fraud, no matter how "small" it could be. There is a difference between securing the vote and restricting the vote, they are not the same thing, no matter how you guys try and spin it.

Quote:

I wonder why you don't take such a hard line stance on the 2nd amendment.

I do, that's what you miss. This is were you confuse secure with restrict.

Quote:

I mean saving even 1 life has to be more important than protecting 1 vote.

How are these 2 things related?

Quote:

If you're not worried about restricting the rights of individual people to vote then why are you so worried about protecting the rights of individuals to buy/own guns.

What kind of mental gymnastics are you trying to pull here? There is no relation to guns rights with securing the vote. Don't pull a brain muscle there Maporsche.

You lost it when you took a turn towards the 2nd Amendment.

Robert Reich
1 hr ·
Trump’s attack on democracy shouldn’t divert our attention from other attacks now underway. A group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC — at the direction of billionaire GOP donors Charles and David Koch and their corporate cohorts — is pushing to convene a constitutional convention, permitted under Article V of the Constitution. At their convention, they’d attempt to rewrite the Constitution to reduce the power of the people and enhance the power of big corporations.
This is no conspiratorial joke. It takes 34 states to convene a constitutional convention, and 28 states have already passed
to do exactly that. The ALEC/Koch consortium is now targeting 11 others.

What I'm trying to understand is this, and if I'm misstating your thoughts here, I don't mean to be I'm just trying to get an idea of what you're thinking happens:

1) group of illegal immigrant construction workers meet for a smoke
2) they all decided Trump is a jackass and they're going to vote for Clinton illegally
3) they show up at the voting booth on election day
4) the poll workers asks them for their name and address
5) they give them a fake name and address
6) the poll worker looks up the fake name and address
7) the poll worker doesn't find a matching fake name and address
8) ........what do you think happens next?

Maybe I'm just not creative enough but I can't think of how this could play out.

I'll add, that when I went to vote in Illinois I was asked for my name, address, ID, and a credit card just to vote and I'm about as white looking cornbread American as it can get. There aren't any voter ID laws in Illinois AFAIK either.

Maybe I'm just not creative enough but I can't think of how this could play out.

I'll add, that when I went to vote in Illinois I was asked for my name, address, ID, and a credit card just to vote and I'm about as white looking cornbread American as it can get. There aren't any voter ID laws in Illinois AFAIK either.

Hold one Baldimo. I'm pretty sure I've heard you say before that you're pretty strict with this constitutionist approach. That you'd like judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia, who believes if it's not explicitly outlined in the constitution then it is indeed unconstitutional.

It's not in the constitution because the founding fathers didn't want it to be there. If they did, it would be, right?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Voting is important. That's why I don't want to eliminate or discourage literally thousands of potential legal citizen voters from voting to catch a handful of criminals.

God you have such a problem with using analogies to help illustrate a point. I'm not even debating gun ownership. I'm analogizing the right to vote to the right to own guns and hoping (hoping) that you'll understand why both are important. I'm simply using something you support (and so do I) to help you understand something I support.

It's common in writing and in literature. I'd think you'd have the hang of it by now.

I wonder why you don't take such a hard line stance on the 2nd amendment. I mean saving even 1 life has to be more important than protecting 1 vote. If you're not worried about restricting the rights of individual people to vote then why are you so worried about protecting the rights of individuals to buy/own guns.

maporsche wrote:

I wonder why you don't take such a hard line stance on the 2nd amendment. I mean saving even 1 life has to be more important than protecting 1 vote. If you're not worried about restricting the rights of individual people to vote then why are you so worried about protecting the rights of individuals to buy/own guns.

This is why I accuse you of changing the subject being your thing. It's what you do.