Current Events > Social Justice League Warrior Logic 10: COMIC EDITION! *Trigger Warning: TTI*

(+) Yeah! (+)

lol
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Suffice to say

Suffice to say "MAY" isn't "PROVEN."

When a real investigation was done they found most of the people listed were not felons but eligible voters with the same name. As stated before.

Mal_Fet posted...

how many people eventually got charged is irrelevant

Right. How many people were CONVICTED is the only relevant number to whether or not voter fraud was PROVEN.

Suspicion != Proof
---

The Deadpool posted...

Suffice to say "MAY" isn't "PROVEN."

When a real investigation was done they found most of the people listed were not felons but eligible voters with the same name. As stated before.

How convenient that it's rarely possible to convict people without voter ID laws.

Show your source k?

The Deadpool posted...

Right. How many people were CONVICTED is the only relevant number to whether or not voter fraud was PROVEN.

You can prove voter fraud happened while not knowing who exactly did it.

Because, ya know, no voter IDs...
---

Mal_Fet posted...

How convenient that it's rarely possible to convict people without voter ID laws.

It's rarely proven because it rarely HAPPENS.

I mean, the laws have been shown, in a court of law, to be designed to hurt minorities more. This isn't a maybe, it's actually proven.

Even one of the guys who's written one of these laws admits they aren't to protect the vote...

Mal_Fet posted...

Show your source k?

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud

Like, you don't even have to open the link../

Mal_Fet posted...

You can prove voter fraud happened while not knowing who exactly did it.

They should have done that then! If they had, then we wouldn't be having this conversation...
---

The thing about Voter ID laws that amazes me is that even without the racism they're still super indefensible.

You're talking about definitely, 100% disenfranchising thousands of innocent citizens to stop maybe dozens of voter fraud cases...

That's a... inarguably bad thing to do. There's really no grey area.
---

The Deadpool posted...

It's rarely proven because it rarely HAPPENS.

"We can't prove this specific person murdered this man....therefore the murder didn't happen!"

Hey, how about we implement voter ID laws so that we can prove voter fraud when it happens? Just a thought.

The Deadpool posted...

Like, you don't even have to open the link../

At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.

Like, maybe you should have actually opened the link.

The Deadpool posted...

They should have done that then!

Ok, let's introduce robust voting laws to enforce it then.

The Deadpool posted...

The thing about Voter ID laws that amazes me is that even without the racism they're still super indefensible.

You're talking about definitely, 100% disenfranchising thousands of innocent citizens to stop maybe dozens of voter fraud cases...

Oh nooo, you have to go to the DMV once every 5 years to renew a $20 personal ID card

Cry me a fuckin river.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

"We can't prove this specific person murdered this man....therefore the murder didn't happen!"

But this isn't murder. There is no body. There is no PROOF.

Some watchdog group SUSPECTED it happened, the governor had an investigation and found out they were WRONG.

Mal_Fet posted...

Like, maybe you should have actually opened the link.

The line before it:

The group found, in what appears to clearly warrant further and official inquiry

There's that lack of certainty.

Then the official inquiry was actually done, but actual impartial people with more data than them and they found that the real number was once again some statistically irrelevant number.

Mal_Fet posted...

Ok, let's introduce robust voting laws to enforce it then.

For the crime that you haven't proven even happened?

Mal_Fet posted...

Oh nooo, you have to go to the DMV once every 5 years to renew a $20 personal ID card

Yeah. For thousands of people in this country that is an actual problem. Real, actual people who would really actually be disenfranchised.

Poor people are still citizens, are they not?

Why are you willing to take away their rights so flippantly?

Should we not be making it easier for our citizens to vote? Isn't that the true goal of a democracy?
---

The Deadpool posted...

But this isn't murder. There is no body. There is no PROOF.

Because there are no preventative laws to know for sure how much there is to begin with. Do you actually not see the problem with that?

The Deadpool posted...

There's that lack of certainty.

So you support implementing laws that would make finding these numbers for certain?

No, of course you don't, because you don't actually care about voter fraud as long as it tips the votes in your favor.

The Deadpool posted...

For the crime that you haven't proven even happened?

Because there are no preventative laws to know for sure how much there is to begin with. Do you actually not see the problem with that?

The Deadpool posted...

Yeah. For thousands of people in this country that is an actual problem. Real, actual people who would really actually be disenfranchised.

Poor people are still citizens, are they not?

Why are you willing to take away their rights so flippantly?

Democrats don't seem to care about everyone's right to buy a gun without expensive red tape (and neither do I), so why should voting be different? Is a one-time fee of $20 actually going to disenfranchise people, or are you just making an excuse because you aren't willing to confront the reality that Democrats are getting voted in thanks to illegal votes.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Because there are no preventative laws to know for sure how much there is to begin with.

It's a 10,000 dollar fine for voter fraud in Minnesota.

People are actually charged with a crime. It IS possible to prove voter fraud, and there ARE laws against it.

Mal_Fet posted...

So you support implementing laws that would make finding these numbers for certain?

We already have laws for that. The watchdog group found anomalies and called them out. The government followed through and checked the numbers out.

We then found out for certain those numbers were wrong.

Mal_Fet posted...

Democrats don't seem to care about everyone's right to buy a gun without expensive red tape (and neither do I), so why should voting be different?

Really? Because voter fraud doesn't kill people. Because there has yet to be proof of a single case of voter fraud that wasn't statistically insignificant. Because the number of people who wouldn't be able to buy a gun PALES in comparison to the number of lives saved by those laws. Meanwhile the number of voter fraud prevented PALES in comparison to the number of people disenfranchised by these laws.

And because, and I can't believe I have to point this out, the right to vote is paramount to the very foundation of this country, this political system and this society without which everything out forefather built would be for nothing. While a gun is a glorified toy.
---

The Deadpool posted...

It's a 10,000 dollar fine for voter fraud in Minnesota.

And what do they use to prove someone voted fraudulently?

The honor system, apparently. As the anti-voter ID sources support.

The Deadpool posted...

We already have laws for that. The watchdog group found anomalies and called them out. The government followed through and checked the numbers out.

You keep saying that, yet I still see no source.

The Deadpool posted...

Really? Because voter fraud doesn't kill people.

Disagree.

The Deadpool posted...

Because there has yet to be proof of a single case of voter fraud that wasn't statistically insignificant.

So let's implement laws so we can effectively find such cases. What's the problem?

The Deadpool posted...

Because the number of people who wouldn't be able to buy a gun PALES in comparison to the number of lives saved by those laws.

Empirically false.

The Deadpool posted...

And because, and I can't believe I have to point this out, the right to vote is paramount to the very foundation of this country,

As is the right to bear arms. So either you support ID laws for guns AND voting or you don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

And what do they use to prove someone voted fraudulently?

Wait wait wait: How do you think they found these 400+ cases of voter fraud if you think you can't find voter fraud?

Mal_Fet posted...

You keep saying that, yet I still see no source.

I will provide a source when you give me something to disprove.

Minnesota Majority is a conservative watchdog group. They're just a group of dudes. They aren't a part of any government institution. They aren't accredited. Their reasearch isn't some peer reviewed scientific paper or anything.

Just a bunch of guys who looked over some shit and went "Hey, this is bullshit!" They're not proof.

So go googling and find a real investigation, done by real officials. Find a real source and then I will send you a counter source.

Mal_Fet posted...

As is the right to bear arms.

Did you just compare the right to vote to some stupid half a century old interpretation of the second amendment a bunch of gun manufacturers made up?

Are you real? Is this real life?
---

The Deadpool posted...

Wait wait wait: How do you think they found these 400+ cases of voter fraud if you think you can't find voter fraud?

Look, I know I can't make you read the source I give you, but at least read through it before acting like you know what's in it.

The Deadpool posted...

I will provide a source when you give me something to disprove.

This is a joke, right?

The Deadpool posted...

Did you just compare the right to vote to some stupid half a century old interpretation of the second amendment a bunch of gun manufacturers made up?

The founding fathers' interpretation of the 2nd amendment was that all people had the right to bear arms period. It's three centuries old, not half a century.
---

That original post was obnoxious, too many images, didn't bother.

I didn't even know I was tagged in this...? System is broken!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Look, I know I can't make you read the source I give you, but at least read through it before acting like you know what's in it.

Again, you State there is PROOF that Al Franken only won because of illegal votes AND that illegal votes are impossible to PROVE.

So which is it? Is there proof? Or is it impossible to prove?

Mal_Fet posted...

This is a joke, right?

No. It's real life. Do you have any reliable source that backs up your claim?

Do you find it unfair that I want your source to be more than just the rantings of some random dudes?

Mal_Fet posted...

The founding fathers' interpretation of the 2nd amendment

Allowed them to restrict the use of guns. Which is why gun control laws date back to the 1600s, with restrictions in purchase and manufacture and sales and open carry and use and all sorts of fun things.

This carried on for centuries. In the 1800s, as gun violence became more prominent, gun control became tighter. Many frontier towns in the west made you check your gun at the sheriff's office before entering. Gun possession was illegal in much of the Wild West.

And the NRA for its part helped right some of legislation controlling gun sales. It wasn't until 1970s that a few coincidental things started happening. For one, the NRA had a radical shift in leadership. They created their own lobbying arm thatstarted advocating for making the manufacture and sale of guns as simple and far reaching as possible. They also, oddly enough, started getting most of their funding from gun manufacturers. Just a bunch of weird coincidences.

But the absurdity of comparing the right to vote, tantamount to a democracy whose rallying rebel cry was "taxation without representation" with owning a toy? That's some desperate idiocy right there...
---

Lol, I didn't realize that he replied two days after my post. Ok then.

The Deadpool posted...

Again, you State there is PROOF that Al Franken only won because of illegal votes AND that illegal votes are impossible to PROVE.

No, they PROVED the number of fraudulent votes that were cast were larger than Al Franken's margin of victory. The hilariously low arrest numbers is simply a highlight of how badly voter ID laws are needed in order to enforce the law, because it's really not possible to prove the people on the ballot actually cast the ballot themselves. If there were voter IDs, it would be possible to prove such a thing. But you don't want voter IDs because you believe an expense of $20 every 5 years would break the backs of poor people. I say that's bullshit and I think you know it's bullshit too. You're just hesitant to support voter ID laws because most felons and illegals would vote Democrat.

The Deadpool posted...

No. It's real life. Do you have any reliable source that backs up your claim?

From the link you didn't read:

At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.

The Deadpool posted...

Allowed them to restrict the use of guns. Which is why gun control laws date back to the 1600s, with restrictions in purchase and manufacture and sales and open carry and use and all sorts of fun things.

Did they impose a requirement to show an ID to buy a gun? If they did, would you have a righteous meltdown over the plight of poor people who would be unable to pay for the cost of an ID card in order to exercise their fundamental rights?
---

http://toonhole.com/comic/nice-girls-bike/
---

WesternMedia posted...

http://toonhole.com/comic/nice-girls-bike/

lol, but what does this have to do with anything
---

Mal_Fet posted...

No, they PROVED [...] If there were voter IDs, it would be possible to prove such a thing.

Again. Did they prove it or is it impossible to prove without voter ID laws?

Pick one.


Mal_Fet posted...

At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath,

Why is Dan McGrath a reliable source?

Mal_Fet posted...

Did they impose a requirement to show an ID to buy a gun? If they did, would you have a righteous meltdown over the plight of poor people who would be unable to pay for the cost of an ID card in order to exercise their fundamental rights?

Buying toys isn't a fundamental right.
---

The Deadpool posted...

Again. Did they prove it or is it impossible to prove without voter ID laws?

Read this part again, slowly:

The hilariously low arrest numbers is simply a highlight of how badly voter ID laws are needed in order to enforce the law, because it's really not possible to prove the people on the ballot actually cast the ballot themselves.

It is possible to prove that there were at least 341 cases of voter fraud. It is not possible to prove who exactly cast them, thanks to the lack of voter ID laws. Do you understand now, or should I use words with less syllables?

The Deadpool posted...

Why is Dan McGrath a reliable source?

Dan McGrath spearheaded the inquiry...he's not the one who investigated. The actual authorities did that.

Let's see what sort of bullshit you come up with to keep defending this. Gonna ask me why the police are a reliable source?

The Deadpool posted...

Buying toys isn't a fundamental right.

The ability to buy guns is a fundamental right, according to the Supreme Court.

"Uhh, yeah, but why is the Supreme Court a reliable source?"
---

What is with SJWs and their need to nitpick and be intentionally dense after they've been proven wrong? It doesn't make them look clever, all it does is make them look stupid.
---

i still find it funny that mal posted that random anti-socialism post
---

Mal_Fet posted...

It is possible to prove that there were at least 341 cases of voter fraud. It is not possible to prove who exactly cast them, thanks to the lack of voter ID laws.

Oh, then how did they charge people with a crime that's impossible to prove?

Mal_Fet posted...

Dan McGrath spearheaded the inquiry...he's not the one who investigated. The actual authorities did that.

Not in that article they didn't.

Your article only talks about one investigation, done by Dan McGrath and Minnesota Majority, a group of private citizens with special interests. MM is the one who says there was fraud, and that's all your article showed.

That's why the article says MAY. If the authorities had investigated and found the same numbers, it would have been more certain.

It should also be easy for you to find an article where an official investigation done by people with access to the proper information found evidence of an election being stolen by fake votes. I mean every single Republican would be referencing that for six years now... And that would be a pretty reliable source to.

Mal_Fet posted...

The ability to buy guns is a fundamental right, according to the Supreme Court.

The ability to buy toys is a right. Not a FUNDAMENTAL one.

Although it's funny that the last Head Justice before the NRA started dumping millions into changing people's minds about the second amendment thought this change was a fraud on the American people...
---

The Deadpool posted...

Oh, then how did they charge people with a crime that's impossible to prove?

It's impossible to prove with the ballots. You can of course get a confession or have an eyewitness say that they saw that person vote, but obviously these would be rare.

So how about we implement voter ID laws and make it so we can prosecute people who commit voter fraud?

The Deadpool posted...

Not in that article they didn't.

Your article only talks about one investigation, done by Dan McGrath and Minnesota Majority, a group of private citizens with special interests. MM is the one who says there was fraud, and that's all your article showed.

That's why the article says MAY.

It actually says they definitively found an amount of voter fraud cases greater than the margin Al Franken won by (That's why you're supposed to read the whole article and not just the fucking title). And if you want to question the integrity of their study, you're free to explain where they went wrong.

The Deadpool posted...

The ability to buy toys is a right. Not a FUNDAMENTAL one.

The Bill of Rights is about as fundamental as you get. So yes, it is as much of a fundamental right to buy a gun as it is to vote.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

You can of course get a confession or have an eyewitness say that they saw that person vote, but obviously these would be rare.

Is that how you think these criminal charges are being made?

Mal_Fet posted...

It actually says they definitively found

You should read that again.

Minnesota Majority (a group of private citizens with special interests) says it is definite. The article writer does not. He says it warrants investigation (which means the police had NOT investigated as of when the article was published).

Your statement that this was a police investigation is a lie. Minnesota Majority isn't a reliable source. Do you have a reliable source?

Mal_Fet posted...

The Bill of Rights is about as fundamental as you get.

No the Constitution is as fundamental as you get. The Bill of Rights is a series of Ammendments, which are, by definition, add ons.

And the right to own guns isn't explicitly listed there either. Which is why it was restricted FOR ALL OF AMERICAN HISTORY.
---

The Deadpool posted...

Is that how you think these criminal charges are being made?

It's how they could be made, because they certainly can't use the votes themselves as evidence of wrongdoing since, y'know, no ID laws.

The Deadpool posted...

Minnesota Majority (a group of private citizens with special interests) says it is definite. The article writer does not.

So? I would support an investigation. And afaik the MM hasn't faked findings ever, so why the hostility towards them?

The Deadpool posted...

No the Constitution is as fundamental as you get. The Bill of Rights is a series of Ammendments, which are, by definition, add ons.

The Bill of Rights...

Is a part of the Constitution...

And the 2nd Amendment was there from the beginning...It wasn't added on

Do you know anything about this subject? Or are you just bullshitting here by using whatever information you've heard from Piers Morgan?
---

Why are you taking The Deadpool seriously? He's a gimmick account. He's always going to be as far left as humanly possible.

Mal_Fet posted...

It's how they could be made,

How do you think they are actually made?

Mal_Fet posted...

So? I would support an investigation. And afaik the MM hasn't faked findings ever, so why the hostility towards them?

The investigation already happened. When doing research try to look for ALL the information, instead of stopping at the bits you like. Time carries on even after you get the answer you like.

MM are private citizens with biases BY DEFINITION. They see what they want to see. And to make matters worse they don't have access to all the information needed to make these kinds of claims.

They are unreliable sources of information. That's why they get dismissed.

Mal_Fet posted...

The Bill of Rights...

Is a part of the Constitution...

And the 2nd Amendment was there from the beginning...It wasn't added on

Do you know anything about this subject? Or are you just bullshitting here by using whatever information you've heard from Piers Morgan?

Here's a little middle school American history lesson for you:

Constitution was created in September 17, 1787, ratified in June 21, 1788 and became he law of the land in March 4, 1789.

The Bill of Rights were the first ten Ammendments (look up what the word "ammend" means) were written and approved September 25, 1789 (that's AFTER the Contitution was written, ratified and officially went into effect) and it was finally ratified December 15, 1791 (and went into effect essentially then and there too). That's well over 2 years after the Constitution was already law and about 4.25 years after it was written.

All Ammendments are add ons. That is literally what the word means.

Take the time you waste with petty and boring insults and try using the internet for information gathering.
---

The Deadpool posted...

How do you think they are actually made?

Are you going to get to a point? Just stop fucking around and ask me how they arrested each of the 38 people, because that's what you want to ask me.

The Deadpool posted...

The investigation already happened.

Yeah, and it led to a couple dozen arrests, so there ya go.

The Deadpool posted...

All Ammendments are add ons. That is literally what the word means.

So I'm waiting for the explanation for why this means the second amendment isn't a right outlined in the constitution and confirmed by the Supreme Court, ergo "fundamental".
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Are you going to get to a point?

In a second...

Mal_Fet posted...

Yeah, and it led to a couple dozen arrests, so there ya go.

I know. I said that. Like a dozen posts ago.

MM correlated names of voters with convicted felons, and marked all the names that matched. So they didn't know if they were real felons or not (most weren't).They don't even know who these people voted for! Just that they had the same name!

A real investigation was launched. The real number was found to be statistically insignificant to the election. The few real cases were tried (remember kids, in America you're innocent until proven guilty).

The point? That's the system working. While still allowing the poor to vote. Fancy that...

Mal_Fet posted...

So I'm waiting for the explanation for why this means the second amendment isn't a right outlined in the constitution and confirmed by the Supreme Court, ergo "fundamental"

You said "as fundamental as you get," I corrected you, you got all uppity about it and I figuratively took you to school on the subject.

It's not as fundamental as you get. It's also not an unrestricted right as described by the Constitution or the Supreme Court.

And it's not a fundamental right because if someone took your gun away, this country would still function. If someone took your vote away our government is unrecognizable.

Voting is literally a right this nation cannot survive without. That's what makes it fundamental. While a gun is a glorified toy a bunch of rich people convinced idiots was important so they can sell more of them and get richer.

The idea you'd even attempt a comparison is laughable. More so than your lack of American history knowledge.
---

The Deadpool posted...

I know. I said that. Like a dozen posts ago.

MM correlated names of voters with convicted felons, and marked all the names that matched. So they didn't know if they were real felons or not (most weren't).They don't even know who these people voted for! Just that they had the same name!

Too bad there's no voter ID laws then, huh? Since there's effectively nothing actually stopping felons from voting, huh?

So what's the problem? You think the honor system is good enough to stop people who break the law from breaking the law?

The Deadpool posted...

And it's not a fundamental right because if someone took your gun away, this country would still function. If someone took your vote away our government is unrecognizable.

We take away felons' right to vote just like we take away their right to bear arms. We take away their freedom of movement just like we take their right to bear arms. Yet, strangely, society still functions!

According to you, it's not a fundamental right to not be a slave since the 13th amendment is only an amendment!

just lol. Stop trying so hard and answer my question, k?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Since there's effectively nothing actually stopping felons from voting, huh?

...

Have you ever voted?

Mal_Fet posted...

We take away felons' right to vote

We disenfranchise the poor too. And it's an afront to democracy. Just because it is done doesn't mean it's not abhorrent.

Did you think this was some "gotcha" moment?
---

Bump
---

Jokeaccountinc posted...

The Deadpool posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Since there's effectively nothing actually stopping felons from voting, huh?

...

Have you ever voted?

Mal_Fet posted...

We take away felons' right to vote

We disenfranchise the poor too. And it's an afront to democracy. Just because it is done doesn't mean it's not abhorrent.

Did you think this was some "gotcha" moment?

Waluigi7 posted...

Bump

So many valued workers in one topic

---

Bump.
---