Eric Holder & Voter ID

[Slowplay]

After exposing yet another example of how easy it is to commit voter fraud, will Eric Holder change his tune about Voter ID?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw[/youtube]

ETA: sorry, didn't get the embedded player to work at first...but, figured it out!

[Dave2]

Oh that's funny.

I wouldn't hold my breath on Holder getting the message though. And even if it does get through to Holder's desk, his Fast & Furious testimony indicated that he "reads" messages rather than reading them.

Edit: Fixed typo

[texanron]

The line O'keefe used "I'll be back faster than you can say furious" was great!

[terryg]

The line O'keefe used "I'll be back faster than you can say furious" was great!

[hi-power]

The DOJ response:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... aud-OKeefe

The Department of Justice is in full-on spin mode over the James O’Keefe Project Veritas tape in which a young white man is offered Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot. Desperate to prove that voter ID should not be presented in order to obtain a ballot, the DOJ fired back at O’Keefe and Project Veritas today, with a DOJ official telling tried-and-true media ally Talking Points Memo, “It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”

This is nonsensical. Obviously this wasn’t an actual case of voter fraud—O’Keefe and Project Veritas didn’t want to break the law. And obviously the situation is manufactured—it’s the only way to show that voter fraud is easy and plausible, since we presumably don’t know when voter fraud takes place. That, in fact, is the point of the video: that voter fraud in this way is virtually undetectable and bears almost zero risk.

But the DOJ isn’t interested in the real point of the video. They know full well that voter fraud is simple when nobody has to show identification. They just don’t care, since they’re happy to watch political allies take advantage of the loopholes. Instead of targeting O’Keefe and Project Veritas for showing the American public the dangers of the current voter identification system, the Department of Justice and Holder are apparently interested only in preserving the absence of voter ID, no matter how many fraudulent ballots are actually cast.

[Slowplay]

The DOJ response:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... aud-OKeefe

It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”

Well, I would like to see modern-day examples of rampant voter disenfrachisement in States where voter ID laws have been passed.

Even if it's pointed out that the States with current voter ID laws don't have the historical precedence of voter disenfranchisement, that never stopped the legal challenges to invalidate or overturn those voter ID laws at every turn.

[Birdshot70]

The DOJ response:“It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”

Maybe I'm just being thick headed here but wouldn't any voter fraud be manufactured?
I understand the mis-handling of things in error due to lack of attention to detail. We all make mistakes.
But in my understanding of historical voter fraud, it has been intended and manufactured.

My issue is this...
If I get stopped by a LEO, my ID proves I am allowed to drive and proof of insurance shows I am covered should I have an accident.
If I buy alcohol at a store, my ID proves I am over the age needed to purchase such an item (should they think I look too young )
I'll be honest and wish more cashiers looked at my ID when I used my CC/Debit card to prove they are verifying who is using the card.

If an ID is required for me to go and vote, showing proof that it is me voting and having my voter registration card to prove I have everything in order...I'll be more than happy to show it.

I'm tired of all the crying about 'the constituency can't all get ID's in time to be able to vote' .. which tells me there is more 'intent' going on here to 'manufacture' votes from the other side of this issue than they want us to be aware of. But that's just my ramblings...

[JustMe]

I just don't know what all the fuss about ID is anyway! You have to have ID for EVERYTHING!!! I guess it doesn't matter to me, because I have used my DL to vote for years---our county sends out those flimsy little paper voter ID's that are never in my wallet when I need them. My DL matches up to my name & address on the list-they hand me a ballot--never had a problem

[RoyGBiv]

I'll be honest and wish more cashiers looked at my ID when I used my CC/Debit card to prove they are verifying who is using the card.

offtopic....

I do not sign the back of my credit cards...
Instead... in the signature space I write.... ----CHECK ID---- with a Sharpie.
Not only do I want the cashier to check the ID of the guy holding my card, but, if that guy is not me, I don't want them to have an example of my signature to copy.

I'm seeing about 20 to 25% hit rate on being asked for my ID these days... But places like grocery stores and gas stations where the clerk never sees my card (swipe it myself) are the biggest part of my CC use...

/offtopic....

[sjfcontrol]

I'll be honest and wish more cashiers looked at my ID when I used my CC/Debit card to prove they are verifying who is using the card.

offtopic....

I do not sign the back of my credit cards...
Instead... in the signature space I write.... ----CHECK ID---- with a Sharpie.
Not only do I want the cashier to check the ID of the guy holding my card, but, if that guy is not me, I don't want them to have an example of my signature to copy.

I'm seeing about 20 to 25% hit rate on being asked for my ID these days... But places like grocery stores and gas stations where the clerk never sees my card (swipe it myself) are the biggest part of my CC use...

/offtopic....

Credit card signatures are NEVER verified unless somebody (the legitimate card holder) claims the charge was fraudulent. By that time, it's too late.
Also...

Credit and debit cardholders who believe that writing "See ID" or "Check ID" on the signature panel of their cards will help prevent fraud should think again. According to Visa and MasterCard, when a merchant sees "See ID" on the back of a card instead of a signature, that card should not be processed. But as merchants continue to implement technology where the customer does her own card swiping, well, who is really checking?

from: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card- ... D-1282.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Birdshot70]

Credit card signatures are NEVER verified unless somebody (the legitimate card holder) claims the charge was fraudulent. By that time, it's too late.

Especially with the new 'blink' technology where you don't even have to swipe it!

You don't need an ID for cash though...

[sjfcontrol]

Credit card signatures are NEVER verified unless somebody (the legitimate card holder) claims the charge was fraudulent. By that time, it's too late.

Especially with the new 'blink' technology where you don't even have to swipe it!

You don't need an ID for cash though...

Ummm, YET! DHS is working on it...

[fickman]

To preface: I FULLY SUPPORT VOTER ID LAWS.

But I do understand the philosophical argument against vote ID laws. We in the gun community share the frustration:
An ID shouldn't be required to exercise a Constitutional right.

We don't show ID to go to church, to publish a newspaper, or to say what's on our mind. When not driving, we champion that we don't have to show ID even during detainment or arrest (we have to give our name and address at arrest).

In the same vein, we shouldn't have to show our ID to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.

If we do implement a voter ID law, we'll have to ensure that all citizens who are eligible to vote have access to an ID - probably for free (or else it becomes a backdoor poll tax). We'll also need provisional solutions for people who misplace their ID or have it stolen e.g. immediate, same day, no wait replacement; temporary ballot that is counted after proof of ID is later proven; plenty of alternate IDs accepted.

I support the idea and can overcome the philosophical argument that we don't need an ID to exercise a Constitutional right on the basis that the ID will protect our rights from being infringed upon, but there are definitely issues to overcome.

In regards to the OP, that video was genius! I almost spit my coffee out when he said the "before you can say 'furious'" line.

[terryg]

But places like grocery stores and gas stations where the clerk never sees my card (swipe it myself) are the biggest part of my CC use...

BTW, did you know that the stores pay a lower fee to the credit card companies for the self swipe transaction than the teller swipe transaction???

[fickman]

I'll be honest and wish more cashiers looked at my ID when I used my CC/Debit card to prove they are verifying who is using the card.

offtopic....

I do not sign the back of my credit cards...
Instead... in the signature space I write.... ----CHECK ID---- with a Sharpie.
Not only do I want the cashier to check the ID of the guy holding my card, but, if that guy is not me, I don't want them to have an example of my signature to copy.

I'm seeing about 20 to 25% hit rate on being asked for my ID these days... But places like grocery stores and gas stations where the clerk never sees my card (swipe it myself) are the biggest part of my CC use...

/offtopic....

Credit card signatures are NEVER verified unless somebody (the legitimate card holder) claims the charge was fraudulent. By that time, it's too late.
Also...

Credit and debit cardholders who believe that writing "See ID" or "Check ID" on the signature panel of their cards will help prevent fraud should think again. According to Visa and MasterCard, when a merchant sees "See ID" on the back of a card instead of a signature, that card should not be processed. But as merchants continue to implement technology where the customer does her own card swiping, well, who is really checking?

from: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card- ... D-1282.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree on the "Check ID" clarification. . . cards with that written on the back are technically not acceptable for transactions.

Unless, of course, you insist that "Check ID" is how you sign your name, and then do so on receipt. . .