this is brilliant

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

you can tell he was implying he was Holder, right?..

How did he demonstrate that if he didn't actually vote?

what he specifically asked the poll worker was..

“Do you have an Eric Holder, 50th Street?"

yes, that could imply to the poll worker that he was Eric Holder and was there to vote, but anyone could walk in and ask if they have anyone on their list at a particular address, I don't think it's illegal or lying.....does show just how pathetically easy it is to make a mess of the system...imagine if some organization(oh, say ACORN) was dedicated to making a mess of the system?


he demonstrated that it was very easy to walk into a polling place, ask if they had a name and an address and get a ballot by simply signing on the line, now in this case, if he had taken the ballot and voted(that woud be illegal), and if Holder had shown up at a later date there would be a contested ballot...if the name he asked for was a dead guy, there wouldn't be anyone to walk in later and try to vote under the same name and create a contested ballot...is this really that difficult to grasp?

the obvious irony is that he went to ask for Holder, the top law official in the land who adamantly opposes voter id.....outstanding

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

the obvious irony is that he went to ask for Holder, the top law official in the land who adamantly opposes voter id.....outstanding

But he wasn't able to vote - which is the whole point (the same w/the Acorn examples).

W/Acorn, they were paying people by the # of folks they got to register. There is no indication any of them actually voted. There has never been any indication of wide spread voter fraud - never (Although I don't know how that hasn't happened in New Orleans or Chicago).

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

But he wasn't able to vote - which is the whole point (the same w/the Acorn examples).

the poll worker clearly "implies"(your word) that he very well could have

the only thing that stopped him was his honesty?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

W/Acorn, they were paying people by the # of folks they got to register. nice, paying to undermine America


There is no indication any of them actually voted. how would you know? There has never been any indication of wide spread voter fraud - never (Although I don't know how that hasn't happened in New Orleans or Chicago).

huh???

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

huh???

nice, paying to undermine America How if someone lies on a registration form is that undermining America if they didn't vote? Weren't some of the names obviously fake?


how would you know? - Well, how would you know that they voted? We've heard many stories about Acorn and voter fraud. I would have thought you could pull up many articles about how numerous folks got arrested for voter fraud related to the Acorn registrations?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

nice, paying to undermine America How if someone lies on a registration form is that undermining America if they didn't vote? Weren't some of the names obviously fake?


how would you know? - Well, how would you know that they voted? We've heard many stories about Acorn and voter fraud. I would have thought you could pull up many articles about how numerous folks got arrested for voter fraud related to the Acorn registrations?

Paul, you said earlier you would not have an issue with being required to show an id to vote. All O'Keefe is doing is showing how easy it is to commit voter fraud, and thus highlight the need for some common sense protocals. He's not doing anything wrong.

Common sense suggests that you can't just identify yourself verbally and vote as whomever you say you are. The 2000 presidential election was decisded by a cat's whisker, that clearly shows how vital it is that elections are conducted fairly.

I've asked a few times what the big deal is. Not one liberal has addressed that. Spence says identity verification causes disenfranchisement, which is as hard to type as antidisestablishmentarianism. I'm not suere what it means (I'm not sure what either word means), but I am sure that it's supposed to make id verification look "mean".

I just cannot see how any rational person can feel slighted when asked to show an id to vote. It's about protecting one's rights, not violating one's rights...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, you said earlier you would not have an issue with being required to show an id to vote. All O'Keefe is doing is showing how easy it is to commit voter fraud, and thus highlight the need for some common sense protocals. He's not doing anything wrong.

Yes, in my opinion a free Id is not a big deal. But I'm also confused why it is such a big issue if there is no wide spread fraud. O'Keefe isn't showing voter fraud, he is showing registration fraud. I don't know what happens to a registration card that has an obviously fake name.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes O'Keefe isn't showing voter fraud, he is showing registration fraud. I don't know what happens to a registration card that has an obviously fake name.

he went to Holder's primary polling location and demonstrated how easy it would have been to get a ballot and vote...even using the name of a very high level official, the only reason he didn't get a ballot is because he insisted on getting his ID first, the poll worker never asked for an ID and told him that he didn't need it, simply said "sign here"....if it were a dead guy he'd asked for or if Holder decided to not vote in the primary and he'd signed and taken the ballot he could have voted without any issue and no way of anyone knowing that he'd done so...I think that would be voter fraud

how is he showing "registration fraud"? was Holder fraudulently registered?

the fact that this doesn't disturb you beyond venom for O'Keefe & Co. is a little disturbing