danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, the Administration that assures us they know how to refine healthcare for all Americans, can't seem to implement voting protections for servicemen overseas--after four years in office.

An administration that constantly talks about voter disenfranchisement appears unconcerned that a study by the nonpartisan Military Voters Protection Project found that in 2008 less than 20% of 2.5 million military voters successfully voted by absentee ballot. In 2010, that participation shrank to a scandalous 5%. We need to encourage military voting and make it easier.

Ok, some simple questions:

1) How many military voters in those years were able to vote using early voting or on-the-day voting? (and so how many in total were able to vote)

Now, why did I call this DFDS? Because this question indicates you don't really get it. You can't vote "on-the-day" when you are overseas (that word was part of my original post). Ballots are counted by State, therefore there would need to be 50 of them at every post overseas. Not gonna happen.

The Act was supposed to iron out problems with the military vote, but that would have required an Administration that cared about the military vote.

2) How many military voters in those years were overseas or out of state?

3) What was the turnout among the non-military vote in those years?

Contact the Department of Defense.

The point is the Administration failed to implement the law effectively.

What is interesting is that absentee ballots don't require ID. And the 'suppression' was often for not even getting the witness from completed properly. Surely if you are concerned about fraud, you would want to ensure that military (or non-military) absentee ballots were more rigorously checked in line with wanting to make in-person voters show ID.

Utter nonsense, but I would expect that from you. Did you serve in the military? Probably not. Overseas? Definitely not.

If you had, you would understand the absurdity of "voter fraud" committed by servicemen from out of the country.

Really bizarre thinking on your part.

So you go back 13 years during a fight over votes where literally every vote counted to determine who is president and you want to criticize Democrats for not accepting military ballots that were clearly invalid. And of course because of Lieberman we caved on that issue anyway. Then you make kind of vague allegation that the Obama Administration is not implementing a law--what is the military doing to make sure that soldiers can vote? You call this speculation and innuendo evidence? It's laughable. And you have not rebutted the consensus that these laws suppress voting by 2 percent and that any proven fraud is something on the one-thousands of a percent. 4 states apparently don't even convictions for fraud.
Sass, I get the argument that it shouldn't be hard to get an ID. But you're talking about the poor, the elderly and people who are not that politically engaged. The reason that it such a big fight is voter suppression can effect the outcome of elections If voter ID laws cost 2 percent in turn-out and most of those votes would go to Democrats, then they have the possibility of affecting elections. During the 2012 election a Republican official from Pennsylvania equated the passage of the voter ID law there with enabling Romney to win the state (unfortunately for Republicans implementation was blocked) When laws affect the outcome of elections, I don't know why you would be surprised that there are heated arguments about them.

freeman3 wrote:So you go back 13 years during a fight over votes where literally every vote counted to determine who is president and you want to criticize Democrats for not accepting military ballots that were clearly invalid. And of course because of Lieberman we caved on that issue anyway. Then you make kind of vague allegation that the Obama Administration is not implementing a law--what is the military doing to make sure that soldiers can vote? You call this speculation and innuendo evidence? It's laughable. And you have not rebutted the consensus that these laws suppress voting by 2 percent and that any proven fraud is something on the one-thousands of a percent. 4 states apparently don't even convictions for fraud.
Sass, I get the argument that it shouldn't be hard to get an ID. But you're talking about the poor, the elderly and people who are not that politically engaged. The reason that it such a big fight is voter suppression can effect the outcome of elections If voter ID laws cost 2 percent in turn-out and most of those votes would go to Democrats, then they have the possibility of affecting elections. During the 2012 election a Republican official from Pennsylvania equated the passage of the voter ID law there with enabling Romney to win the state (unfortunately for Republicans implementation was blocked) When laws affect the outcome of elections, I don't know why you would be surprised that there are heated arguments about them.

I have provided actual numbers. You have provided projected numbers.

I'll trust the jury.

and still more of the same, "we have no proof of fraud so it doesn't happen".
As I said earlier, we must not have any jay walking either, we have no proof of it in citations given so it must not happen.

If you do not enforce something, if you make it near impossible to detect fraud, then you will not see any "proof" will you?

Doctor Fate wrote:Yet more DFDS.

Huh? Did you write the article you quoted and that I was questioning? If not, check you ego.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Yet more DFDS.

Huh? Did you write the article you quoted and that I was questioning? If not, check you ego.

My ego? See, more DFDS!

I like this game! It works for you, so why not for me?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:1) How many military voters in those years were able to vote using early voting or on-the-day voting? (and so how many in total were able to vote)

Now, why did I call this DFDS? Because this question indicates you don't really get it. You can't vote "on-the-day" when you are overseas (that word was part of my original post). Ballots are counted by State, therefore there would need to be 50 of them at every post overseas. Not gonna happen.

The point being that not all 2.5 million military voters are overseas. Perhaps you didn't grasp the context of the quote.

At the moment, the US has a total active military personnel number of about 1.5 million, with another 800-900,000 reserves.

As of the end of 2009, about 1,000,000 of the US active military personnel were in the USA, not overseas.

So chances are that the vast majority of US military personnel do not need an overseas ballot as they are not 'overseas'.

However, we know that there were more stationed abroad in 2008 than in 2010.

2) How many military voters in those years were overseas or out of state?

3) What was the turnout among the non-military vote in those years?

Contact the Department of Defense.

The point is the Administration failed to implement the law effectively.

except that the 'point' using that data misses the context that I mentioned - military voters who are stationed in the US - particularly those in National Guards in their own states, or permanently resident at domestic bases - do not need absentee ballots as they are able to vote in person.

I don't expect you to know the answers, but I do wish you'd be less apt to swallow whole dodgy statistics without questioning them yourself.

What is interesting is that absentee ballots don't require ID. And the 'suppression' was often for not even getting the witness from completed properly. Surely if you are concerned about fraud, you would want to ensure that military (or non-military) absentee ballots were more rigorously checked in line with wanting to make in-person voters show ID.

Utter nonsense, but I would expect that from you. Did you serve in the military? Probably not. Overseas? Definitely not.

If you had, you would understand the absurdity of "voter fraud" committed by servicemen from out of the country.

Really bizarre thinking on your part.

Well, in that case, instead of sneering, you could educate me. What measures are taken to ensure that military overseas voters cannot possibly commit fraud? Do they need to present ID to vote? Are they monitored as they vote?

Doctor Fate wrote:My ego? See, more DFDS!

I like this game! It works for you, so why not for me?

If I were constantly starting threads about how terrible you are, and how you are destroying the country, perhaps you'd have a point.

If you want to make it a 'game', that's your issue. I seriously think that you have been out for Obama since before he was elected, and have not given him the benefit of the doubt on any single issue, not because he's so awful, but because you are incapable of accepting that he may not be the disastrous, 'to the left of Mao', radical agent of evil that you've been telling us he is for nearly 5 years.

He's no saint, I think he was preferable to McCain (losing it, basically) and Romney, but is kind of a curate's egg of a President. Most are 'good, in parts'. But as far as you seem to be concerned, any defence of anything, or questioning of your sources or evidence, is equivalent to 'worship' - which I think says more about how you perceive the world than it does about reality.

As I've said before, your one-eyed focus on the person of the President is bordering on the obsessive. It seems to be shared by a lot of other people. That a few years ago a load of liberals had exactly the same issue with Bush just highlights how full of pathos the situation is.

danivon wrote:The point being that not all 2.5 million military voters are overseas. Perhaps you didn't grasp the context of the quote.

Perhaps you are being brick-headed?

At the moment, the US has a total active military personnel number of about 1.5 million, with another 800-900,000 reserves.

As of the end of 2009, about 1,000,000 of the US active military personnel were in the USA, not overseas.

So chances are that the vast majority of US military personnel do not need an overseas ballot as they are not 'overseas'.

However, we know that there were more stationed abroad in 2008 than in 2010.

Smh! From wiki:

90 percent of absentee ballots sent to American civilians living abroad are returned and counted, compared to 2/3rds of absentee ballots mailed by overseas military personnel.[2] In a report by the Overseas Vote Foundation released in January 2013, 21.6 percent of military voters did not receive their ballots, and 13.8 percent of military voters tried to vote but couldn't

In other words, civilians overseas have a better chance of having their vote recorded than our service people, who often do not even get their ballots. The MOVE Act was supposed to address that--and the mighty Obama Administration didn't implement it.

except that the 'point' using that data misses the context that I mentioned - military voters who are stationed in the US - particularly those in National Guards in their own states, or permanently resident at domestic bases - do not need absentee ballots as they are able to vote in person.

So what?

I was not addressing them. I'm looking specifically at troops overseas. Democrats, historically, have done all they can to make sure troops are not able vote without being too obvious about it.

What is interesting is that absentee ballots don't require ID. And the 'suppression' was often for not even getting the witness from completed properly. Surely if you are concerned about fraud, you would want to ensure that military (or non-military) absentee ballots were more rigorously checked in line with wanting to make in-person voters show ID.

Utter nonsense, but I would expect that from you. Did you serve in the military? Probably not. Overseas? Definitely not.

If you had, you would understand the absurdity of "voter fraud" committed by servicemen from out of the country.

Really bizarre thinking on your part.

Well, in that case, instead of sneering, you could educate me. What measures are taken to ensure that military overseas voters cannot possibly commit fraud? Do they need to present ID to vote? Are they monitored as they vote?[/quote]

Oh, I can't help but sneer because this question is either borne out of willful ignorance or something worse.

When you are overseas, there are no "polling places." You have to request an absentee ballot. There is NO OTHER WAY to vote.

So, if you don't get that ballot, or you don't get it in a timely fashion, you don't vote. That's what the MOVE Act was supposed to address. And, it's why the Obama Administration did very little to implement it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:My ego? See, more DFDS!

I like this game! It works for you, so why not for me?

If I were constantly starting threads about how terrible you are, and how you are destroying the country, perhaps you'd have a point.

Make your case. Am I "constantly starting threads on how terrible" the President is? Before this one, you would have to go back to the middle of May--and that was about the explosion of scandals. If one (arguably) every 3 months is "constant," then you've got an interesting definition of "constant."

If you want to make it a 'game', that's your issue.

You invented the term; I'm returning the favor.

I seriously think that you have been out for Obama since before he was elected, and have not given him the benefit of the doubt on any single issue, not because he's so awful, but because you are incapable of accepting that he may not be the disastrous, 'to the left of Mao', radical agent of evil that you've been telling us he is for nearly 5 years.

Actually, I'll say something nice, he's not to the left of Mao. He's only killed a few Americans and hasn't started gulags. So, good for him!

He has sabotaged the recovery, the economy, the energy production, the middle class, the poor, the military, the political climate, and our future. Other than that, he's been pretty good.

But as far as you seem to be concerned, any defence of anything, or questioning of your sources or evidence, is equivalent to 'worship' - which I think says more about how you perceive the world than it does about reality.

Actually, I welcome defense of Obama--when accompanied by facts. Sadly, those sorts of posts are lacking. Who can defend the economic record? Record levels of part-time employment and food stamps? Precedent-setting printing of money? Constant calls for more "investment?"

As I've said before, your one-eyed focus on the person of the President is bordering on the obsessive.

As I've said before, your one-eyed focus on me is bordering on the obsessive.

I don't get into his personal life. I don't talk about his kids, his wife, or what he eats or whatever. I'm pointing to his policies and public pronouncements. It seems to me that is fair game.

If you actually defended him instead of attacking me, that would be impressive.

And, he is the President.

It seems to be shared by a lot of other people. That a few years ago a load of liberals had exactly the same issue with Bush just highlights how full of pathos the situation is.

Bush had his flaws, which I don't feel obligated to recount here.

However, this President has created an environment unlike any in our history. He has campaigned consistently for the last 9 years. He "reaches out" to Republicans every few months while never stopping the beatings. He speaks out on issues like the Zimmerman trial and the Cambridge Police without knowing all the facts, but never apologizes about them publicly. He "blesses" Planned Parenthood while claiming to be a Christian and has never said anything about any limits on abortion. He boasts about the jobs "he" has created without noting that they're largely part-time and that the inequality gap he decries has become worse under his stewardship.

Nothing is his fault. Just ask him and listen. He is the first President in our history to be a victim every single time he's not the hero. OBL dead? "I got him." Economy in turmoil? "Bush did it." Gridlock? "It's those horrible Republicans."

Ron Fournier's piece had a lot right:

Two New York Times reporters recently posited for President Obama this grim scenario: Low growth, high unemployment, and growing income inequality become "the new normal" in the nation he leads. "Do you worry," the journalists asked him, "that that could end up being your legacy simply because of the obstruction ... and the gridlock that doesn't seem to end?"

Obama's reply was telling. "I think if I'm arguing for entirely different policies and Congress ends up pursuing policies that I think don't make sense and we get a bad result," he said, "it's hard to argue that'd be my legacy."

Actually, it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be his legacy. History judges U.S. presidents based upon what they did and did not accomplish. The obstinacy of their rivals and the severity of their circumstances is little mitigation. Great presidents overcome great hurdles.

In Obama's case, the modern GOP is an obstructionist, rudderless party often held hostage by extremists. So … get over it. His response to The New York Times is another illustration that Obama and his liberal allies have a limited—and limiting—definition of presidential leadership.

I call it the White Flag Syndrome.

Even when he takes responsibility, and says, "The buck stops here," he only means, "well, until I figure out where else I can put it."

He is the anti-leader.

Defend him. Use facts.

I'll go get some popcorn.

DF, calm down
You have to realize these guys claim it's not a big deal. So what if we have "some" voter fraud, because it isn't caught, it doesn't exist. So what if our servicemen overseas can't vote, the number is fairly small and is no big deal.

Funny how liberals continue this same story from thread to thread
When it suits them, who cares as long as the number is small.
Yet when the situation is reversed and it does not suit them, then it doesn't matter how small the number is, it matters greatly! These guys are pretty funny to follow, can't you see the humor in their rants? It doesn't matter what you are talking about, they will twist things to their position every single time.

Doctor Fate wrote:Make your case. Am I "constantly starting threads on how terrible" the President is? Before this one, you would have to go back to the middle of May--and that was about the explosion of scandals. If one (arguably) every 3 months is "constant," then you've got an interesting definition of "constant."

I already did an analysis of how many threads had been started, how many by you, and how many mentioned the President in person negatively in the title or first post. I don't notice much of a change since then (about 6 months ago).

By constant, I mean pretty much since he was elected.

You invented the term; I'm returning the favor.

Actually, Purple coined it on here, not me.

Actually, I'll say something nice, he's not to the left of Mao. He's only killed a few Americans and hasn't started gulags. So, good for him!

So you have mellowed then? That was a recalled quote from you.

I don't get into his personal life. I don't talk about his kids, his wife, or what he eats or whatever. I'm pointing to his policies and public pronouncements. It seems to me that is fair game.

Umm, you did mention his wife - quoting something she said as some kind of evidence that he hates America.

Defend him. Use facts.

I'll go get some popcorn.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of your 'facts' first.

I still remain to be educated on how it is apparently impossible for an absentee ballot from a member of the military to be fraudulent. Yes, I have not served. So it's not obvious to me as it is to you. So how is it done?

danivon wrote:

I don't get into his personal life. I don't talk about his kids, his wife, or what he eats or whatever. I'm pointing to his policies and public pronouncements. It seems to me that is fair game.

Umm, you did mention his wife - quoting something she said as some kind of evidence that he hates America.

I didn't "talk about" his wife. I quoted her.

Defend him. Use facts.

I'll go get some popcorn.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of your 'facts' first.

Or, more likely, you know it's hopeless to defend, so go on offense! That's the Obama Playbook!

I still remain to be educated on how it is apparently impossible for an absentee ballot from a member of the military to be fraudulent.

Because you're being obstinate. Read carefully:

OVERSEAS

I don't want to overburden you. Do you understand "overseas?" It seems to be crippling your faculties to fathom that term. I never said it was "impossible" or "apparently impossible" for a stateside ballot to be fraudulent. I specifically said "overseas."

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Do I need to go more slowly? Bring in a translator? Someone who speaks baby talk?

Doctor Fate wrote:

I still remain to be educated on how it is apparently impossible for an absentee ballot from a member of the military to be fraudulent.

Because you're being obstinate. Read carefully:

OVERSEAS

I don't want to overburden you. Do you understand "overseas?" It seems to be crippling your faculties to fathom that term. I never said it was "impossible" or "apparently impossible" for a stateside ballot to be fraudulent. I specifically said "overseas."

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Do I need to go more slowly? Bring in a translator? Someone who speaks baby talk?

I quoted what you wrote before asking, and here it is again in case you forgot:

Doctor Fate wrote:Utter nonsense, but I would expect that from you. Did you serve in the military? Probably not. Overseas? Definitely not.

If you had, you would understand the absurdity of "voter fraud" committed by servicemen from out of the country.Really bizarre thinking on your part.

Bolded to pick out the relevant section.

Whether at home or overseas, the question is relevant as absentee ballots can and have been used fraudulently in the past - but I did not mean to exclude overseas military personnel at all

So how is it bizarre? What is the "absurdity" of voter fraud from overseas voters in the military? I ask again, restated:

What are the measures taken to ensure that votes via military overseas absentee ballots are not fraudulent? Are they asked to present ID before receiving their ballot letters, and before sending them? Are the letters kept secure at all times? What would stop, for example, someone intercepting mail and filling in ballots on someone else's behalf? Certainly it is an issue with absentee ballots generally. So what is different about the way that the military handle overseas it that makes the very idea that a single vote could be fraudulent absurd and bizarre?

'Overseas' is not really an answer.

danivon wrote:I quoted what you wrote before asking, and here it is again in case you forgot:

Doctor Fate wrote:Utter nonsense, but I would expect that from you. Did you serve in the military? Probably not. Overseas? Definitely not.

If you had, you would understand the absurdity of "voter fraud" committed by servicemen from out of the country.Really bizarre thinking on your part.

Bolded to pick out the relevant section.

Whether at home or overseas, the question is relevant as absentee ballots can and have been used fraudulently in the past - but I did not mean to exclude overseas military personnel at all

Okay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Why? Because that last phrase is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. You do not understand what I am saying.

So how is it bizarre? What is the "absurdity" of voter fraud from overseas voters in the military? I ask again, restated:

No, I'm not going to explain it.

Let's play it this way: you explain to me how it would be possible. Joe Private in Afghanistan--how does he commit voter fraud? Go ahead, explain it.

Oh, and, if it's not too much trouble, maybe you can cite a few examples of said fraud?

What are the measures taken to ensure that votes via military overseas absentee ballots are not fraudulent? Are they asked to present ID before receiving their ballot letters, and before sending them? Are the letters kept secure at all times? What would stop, for example, someone intercepting mail and filling in ballots on someone else's behalf?

Again, that's a DoD question.

All I know is that, in addition to federal mail laws and federal voting laws, someone would be violating the UCMJ. If stealing someone else's mail is in the realm of what you're thinking, then you should be against absentee voting across the board.

However, I think that is one of the least likely scenarios--domestically and overseas.The recorded incidents of voter fraud are not that intricate.

If you can cite even one case of overseas military voter fraud, we can continue this discussion. I'm dubious.

Certainly it is an issue with absentee ballots generally. So what is different about the way that the military handle overseas it that makes the very idea that a single vote could be fraudulent absurd and bizarre?

This is just a stupid question. Again, do you have a modicum of proof for the validity of your suspicion?

'Overseas' is not really an answer.

[/quote]

Yes it is. If you were not being so brain-slushy, you'd know that.

I'm sure many Marines, Airmen, and soldiers are thinking, "You know, after we dodge a few rounds today, what say we request a lot of bogus ballots?"

Again, you think it happens? Prove it.