Man Offered Holder's Ballot in DC - Project Veritas

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

PapaG

Banned User
BANNED
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
32,870
Likes
291
Points
0
I'm sure this will be the lead story on the nightly news tonight. :sigh:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny.
In a new video (below) provided to Breitbart.com, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates why Holder should stop attacking voter ID laws--by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s primary ballot. Literally.

The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year--April 3, 2012--and giving Holder’s name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.

The young man then suggests that he should show his ID; the poll worker, in compliance with DC law, states: “You don’t need it. It’s all right. As long as you’re in here, you’re on our list, and that’s who you say you are, you’re okay.”
The young man replies: “I would feel more comfortable if I just had my ID. Is it alright if I go get it?" The poll worker agrees.


"I’ll be back Faster than you can say Furious,” the young man jokes on his way out, in a reference to the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that has plagued Holder’s Department of Justice.

Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.

As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple--and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws.

Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they’ve also shown people can use celebrity names like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
 
That's sad to read about. I hope that upstanding citizen was promptly arrested for impersonating an attorney general. ;]
 
the harder it is to vote, the easier it is for the majority opinion to remain under the rug

aka

republicans love to make it harder to vote, and pretty soon, democrats will too
 
That's sad to read about. I hope that upstanding citizen was promptly arrested for impersonating an attorney general. ;]

I'm sure you do. That's what matters more than vote fraud.
 
:lol:

riiiiight

take it to the street, im sure you could scare a few votes up
 
I'm sure you do. That's what matters more than vote fraud.

wait, this guy (the same guy from NH?) committed voter fraud, right? so far it seems only conservatives are doing this, maybe you should be in favor of it :lol:
 
wait, this guy (the same guy from NH?) committed voter fraud, right? so far it seems only conservatives are doing this, maybe you should be in favor of it :lol:

Hey now, PapaG is an independant, not a Republican. He's going to vote for someone other than Romney and Obama entirely. ;]
 
im going to go around the country robbing banks, just to prove they should hire more security, and then have a right wing blog about it
 
For every post Papa makes about voter fraud I will vote 5 times for Barack Obama.
 
im going to go around the country robbing banks, just to prove they should hire more security, and then have a right wing blog about it

Well, since they didn't break any laws (unlike robbing a bank), I really don't get your point.

The dude never claimed he was Holder; he never accepted the ballot; he never voted in Holder's place. It was recorded in a state where 1 party acceptance is legal. What law do you think was broken?

They just did this to show how easy it is to game the voting process in many states. Holder was picked on because he is a rabid attacker of voter id laws.

We have to produce valid goverment ID in order to just about anything in this country - and yet - we don't have to in order to vote. To travel by plane or train; buy alcohol; drive; enter many federal buildings; apply for school; appl for a job; cross a border; place a legal bet; by a lottery ticket; get medical care; cash a check; use a credit card in some areas; rent things, on and on and on.

There really is something rotten about the thought process.

Either guys like Holder take a stance against the government ID demand creep in our country, or they accept it as reasonable for voting.

I happen to think it is reasonable for a state to require it, if they also offer to issue valid id's for free. What is the argument against it? The dead can no longer as easily cast ballots? Felons can't as easily cast ballots? Folks who like to cast two, three and four ballots will find it more difficult?
 
Last edited:
I happen to think it is reasonable for a state to require it, if they also offer to issue valid id's for free.

this is the crux of the matter. its obvious to anyone with a half a brain why conservatives are so up in arms about this issue. they want less poor people to vote.

anyone that thinks there is anything more behind all this "omg voter fraud!" is just fooling themselves.

if you want to learn about voter fraud, look at the electronic voting systems that are, not very coincidentally, supported by conservatives
 
Well, since they didn't break any laws (unlike robbing a bank), I really don't get your point.

The dude never claimed he was Holder; he never accepted the ballot; he never voted in Holder's place. It was recorded in a state where 1 party acceptance is legal. What law do you think was broken?

I would disagree that he didn't misrepresent himself but he did shoot video in a polling place which is illegal in DC.

Voter ID does little to stop voter fraud. If a person will go out of their way to vote twice what's stopping them from getting a fake ID?
 
Well, since they didn't break any laws (unlike robbing a bank), I really don't get your point.

The dude never claimed he was Holder; he never accepted the ballot; he never voted in Holder's place. It was recorded in a state where 1 party acceptance is legal. What law do you think was broken?

They just did this to show how easy it is to game the voting process in many states. Holder was picked on because he is a rabid attacker of voter id laws.

We have to produce valid goverment ID in order to just about anything in this country - and yet - we don't have to in order to vote. To travel by plane or train; buy alcohol; drive; enter many federal buildings; apply for school; appl for a job; cross a border; place a legal bet; by a lottery ticket; get medical care; cash a check; use a credit card in some areas; rent things, on and on and on.

There really is something rotten about the thought process.

Either guys like Holder take a stance against the government ID demand creep in our country, or they accept it as reasonable for voting.

I happen to think it is reasonable for a state to require it, if they also offer to issue valid id's for free. What is the argument against it? The dead can no longer as easily cast ballots? Felons can't as easily cast ballots? Folks who like to cast two, three and four ballots will find it more difficult?

I'll add that part of ObamaCare is that all citizens will need a federal photo ID to enter the system and get their benefits from it. But, asking somebody for a state ID to vote is racist according to the federal government.
 
Last edited:
this is the crux of the matter. its obvious to anyone with a half a brain why conservatives are so up in arms about this issue. they want less poor people to vote.

That's your opinion. I, personally, think it just makes sense that someone should have to show ID.

Even if it's free, people will argue that it's more of a strain on a poor person's resources to go to a location where ID is given. I'm not sure I buy it, but that argument will be made.

Ed O.
 
I would disagree that he didn't misrepresent himself but he did shoot video in a polling place which is illegal in DC.

Link?

Voter ID does little to stop voter fraud. If a person will go out of their way to vote twice what's stopping them from getting a fake ID?

The inconvenience of making a fake ID and/or the complexity of making ones that register as "real" and/or the consequences for trying to use a fake one.

That's like asking why we should lock our front doors, since if someone really wants to burgle our house they can bust in a window.

Ed O.
 
this is the crux of the matter. its obvious to anyone with a half a brain why conservatives are so up in arms about this issue. they want less poor people to vote.

anyone that thinks there is anything more behind all this "omg voter fraud!" is just fooling themselves.

if you want to learn about voter fraud, look at the electronic voting systems that are, not very coincidentally, supported by conservatives

You are misinformed.

The largest electronic voting company in the world is controlled by a partisan Democrat. Look it up.
 
I would disagree that he didn't misrepresent himself but he did shoot video in a polling place which is illegal in DC.

Voter ID does little to stop voter fraud. If a person will go out of their way to vote twice what's stopping them from getting a fake ID?

Does little?

That is a plainly absurd claim just on its face.
 
According to this website (which may or may not be correct), it's not expressly illegal to do so in DC.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/documenting-your-vote#StateResources

I'm interested to see what source you have that says it's illegal.

Ed O.

I stand corrected. He may have broken the law by shooting video.

Nearly all states prohibit conduct that intimidates voters, interferes with their exercise of the right to vote, or disrupts the voting process. Election officials may take the view that photography or videography runs afoul of these laws.

District of Columbia regulations:

1-1001.12: "No one shall interfere with the registration or voting of another person, except as it may be reasonably necessary in the performance of a duty imposed by law."

1-1001.09.a: " Voting in all elections shall be secret. "

LINKhttp://www.flickr.com/groups/dcphotorights/discuss/72157608264220420/
 
The inconvenience of making a fake ID and/or the complexity of making ones that register as "real" and/or the consequences for trying to use a fake one.

That's like asking why we should lock our front doors, since if someone really wants to burgle our house they can bust in a window.

Ed O.

It's more like asking why we should install facial recognition technology on our front doors, since if someone really wants to burgle our house they can bust in a window. You acknowledge the inconvenience of making a fake ID but there is also cost associated with make a real ID (excluding the actual price of the ID).

There are lots of things you can do in this country if you're willing to lie to someone, but they're illegal and you have to stiff penalties if caught. Sending in people to physically cast fraudulent votes is time consuming, expensive and risky. How many of these would you have to do to influence most elections?

The end goal here is to make it more difficult for people to vote. There's no statistical evidence that voting fraud is having a major impact on elections.
 
The end goal here is to make it more difficult for people to vote. There's no statistical evidence that voting fraud is having a major impact on elections.

this is really just common sense people
 
It's more like asking why we should install facial recognition technology on our front doors, since if someone really wants to burgle our house they can bust in a window.

No. Your logic was "people can make fake IDs, so why check IDs at all"? You saying your logic would extend to facial recognition on doors is silly.

You acknowledge the inconvenience of making a fake ID but there is also cost associated with make a real ID (excluding the actual price of the ID).

I don't know what you mean. The cost of going to a government office and getting it?

There are lots of things you can do in this country if you're willing to lie to someone, but they're illegal and you have to stiff penalties if caught. Sending in people to physically cast fraudulent votes is time consuming, expensive and risky. How many of these would you have to do to influence most elections?

Who cares about "most elections"? A thousand fake votes here and there can make a big difference in some elections.

The end goal here is to make it more difficult for people to vote.

The end goal is to ensure that voters are all voting legally. Excluding illegal votes will make it more difficult for some people to vote, no doubt, and even some legal voters may be inconvenienced, but it seems a reasonable price to pay to help ensure votes are legitimate.

There's no statistical evidence that voting fraud is having a major impact on elections.

#1: How could there be? When no identification is needed, how can illegal votes be captured properly?

#2: Voter fraud is having a major impact on the perceived legitimacy of elections. Without legitimacy, the whole thing falls apart. Voter fraud alone won't cripple the system, but it definitely will chip away at it.

Ed O.
 
requiring ids will UNDOUBTEDLY stop more people from legally voting, than it will stop from illegally voting, yall can disagree if you really want to, but seriously...common sense
 
requiring ids will UNDOUBTEDLY stop more people from legally voting, than it will stop from illegally voting, yall can disagree if you really want to, but seriously...common sense

Does it stop more people from drinking alcohol legally than it does stop people from drinking illegally?

And does that matter?

Ed O.
 
No. Your logic was "people can make fake IDs, so why check IDs at all"? You saying your logic would extend to facial recognition on doors is silly.
Locking the door is a convenient way of securing your home and it's something we do on a daily basis. It doesn't prevent burglary but it deters it. How many homes are built without locks on the front door?

Facial recognition also deters bulglary but how many homes come with this technology?

I don't know what you mean. The cost of going to a government office and getting it?
Right, also taking time off from work. Try living the rural south for a while.

Who cares about "most elections"? A thousand fake votes here and there can make a big difference in some elections.
Again, sending in people to physically cast fraudulent votes is time consuming, expensive and risky. Who has those kinds of resources?

The end goal is to ensure that voters are all voting legally. Excluding illegal votes will make it more difficult for some people to vote, no doubt, and even some legal voters may be inconvenienced, but it seems a reasonable price to pay to help ensure votes are legitimate.
It inconveniences some more than others. You're OK with that?

#1: How could there be? When no identification is needed, how can illegal votes be captured properly?
Nobody even knows if this is a problem or not? We're just passing these laws just in case?

#2: Voter fraud is having a major impact on the perceived legitimacy of elections. Without legitimacy, the whole thing falls apart. Voter fraud alone won't cripple the system, but it definitely will chip away at it.
When was the last time we had an issue with the legitimacy of elections?
 
You are misinformed.

The largest electronic voting company in the world is controlled by a partisan Democrat. Look it up.

Election Systems & Software Inc.

under the McCarthy Group. founded by campaign treasurer to Chuck Hagel. McCarthy is a partisan democrat?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top