How to rig an election

[RandomGuy]

It's the suppression, silly.

On election night, Anthony was shocked to see Trump carry Wisconsin by nearly 23,000 votes. The state, which ranked second in the nation in voter participation in 2008 and 2012, saw its lowest turnout since 2000. More than half the state’s decline in turnout occurred in Milwaukee, which Clinton carried by a 77-18 margin, but where almost 41,000 fewer people voted in 2016 than in 2012. Turnout fell only slightly in white middle-class areas of the city but plunged in black ones. In Anthony’s old district, where aging houses on quiet tree-lined streets are interspersed with boarded-up buildings and vacant lots, turnout dropped by 23 percent from 2012. This is where Clinton lost the state and, with it, the larger narrative about the election.

Clinton’s stunning loss in Wisconsin was blamed on her failure to campaign in the state, and the depressed turnout was attributed to a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate. “Perhaps the biggest drags on voter turnout in Milwaukee, as in the rest of the country, were the candidates themselves,” Sabrina Tavernise of the New York Times wrote in a post-election dispatch that typified this line of analysis. “To some, it was like having to choose between broccoli and liver.”


A New Study Shows Just How Many Americans Were Blocked From Voting in Wisconsin Last Year
The impact of Wisconsin’s voter ID law received almost no attention. When it did, it was often dismissive. Two days after the election, Talking Points Memo ran a piece by University of California-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen under the headline “Democrats Blame ‘Voter Suppression’ for Clinton Loss at Their Peril.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said it was “a load of crap” to claim that the voter ID law had led to lower turnout. When Clinton, in an interview with New York magazine, said her loss was “aided and abetted by the suppression of the vote, particularly in Wisconsin,” the Washington Examiner responded, “Hillary Clinton Blames Voter Suppression for Losing a State She Didn’t Visit Once During the Election.” As the months went on, pundits on the right and left turned Clinton’s loss into a case study for her campaign’s incompetence and the Democratic Party’s broader abandonment of the white working class. Voter suppression efforts were practically ignored, when they weren’t mocked.

Stories like Anthony’s went largely unreported. An analysis by Media Matters for America found that only 8.9 percent of TV news segments on voting rights from July 2016 to June 2017 “discussed the impact voter suppression laws had on the 2016 election,” while more than 70 percent “were about Trump’s false claims of voter fraud and noncitizen voting.” During the 2016 campaign, there were 25 presidential debates but not a single question about voter suppression. The media has spent countless hours interviewing Trump voters but almost no time reporting on disenfranchised voters like Anthony.

Three years after Wisconsin passed its voter ID law in 2011, a federal judge blocked it, noting that 9 percent of all registered voters did not have the required forms of ID. Black voters were about 50 percent likelier than whites to lack these IDs because they were less likely to drive or to be able to afford the documents required to get a current ID, and more likely to have moved from out of state. There is, of course, no one thing that swung the election. Clinton’s failings, James Comey’s 11th-hour letter, Russian interference, fake news, sexism, racism, and a struggling economy in key swing states all contributed to Trump’s victory. We will never be able to assign exact proportions to all the factors at play. But a year later, interviews with voters, organizers, and election officials reveal that, in Wisconsin and beyond, voter suppression played a much larger role than is commonly understood.

Republicans said the ID law was necessary to stop voter fraud, blaming alleged improprieties at the polls in Milwaukee for narrow losses in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. But when the measure was challenged in court, the state couldn’t present a single case of voter impersonation that the law would have stopped. “It is absolutely clear that [the law] will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes,” Judge Lynn Adelman wrote in a 2014 decision striking down the law. Adelman’s ruling was overturned by a conservative appeals court panel, which called Wisconsin’s law “materially identical” to a voter ID law in Indiana upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008, even though Wisconsin’s law was much stricter. The panel said the state had “revised the procedures” to make it easier for voters to obtain a voter ID, which reduced “the likelihood of irreparable injury.” Many more rounds of legal challenges ensued, but the law was allowed to stand for the 2016 election.

After the election, registered voters in Milwaukee County and Madison’s Dane County were surveyed about why they didn’t cast a ballot. Eleven percent cited the voter ID law and said they didn’t have an acceptable ID; of those, more than half said the law was the “main reason” they didn’t vote. According to the study’s author, University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist Kenneth Mayer, that finding implies that between 12,000 and 23,000 registered voters in Madison and Milwaukee—and as many as 45,000 statewide—were deterred from voting by the ID law. “We have hard evidence there were tens of thousands of people who were unable to vote because of the voter ID law,” he says.

...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016

[boutons_deux]

no surprise,

within HOURS of the oligarchy SCOTUS gutting the VRA, TX and other red states implemented their Vote ID (suppression) regulations.

Also, 538 saw significant movement in WI, MI, PA from Hillary to Trash in the days after Comey's letter about emails on Huma's machine was leaked by the Repugs. Those 3 states' electoral votes gave Trash the WH.

And what about Pootin's cyber army posting shit on Facebook, targeted to those 3 states, posting shit on twitter?

Hillary has every right and justification, as do any serious Americans, to condemn Trash as an ILLEGITIMATE President.

[SpursforSix]

Too bad. You want to vote then spend the $28 and get an ID.

[Chucho]

Too bad. You want to vote then spend the $28 and get an ID.

Voting isn't as important as:

Cashing a check
Buying a fishing/hunting license
Buying smokes or alcohol
Getting a library card
Picking up your meds/certain OTCs
Blowing your family savings at a casino
See an R rated movie

What a load of shit. To call it "voter suppression" is a crock of shit and the epitome of "hyperbole". Not having something that is basically essential to American adulthood for one of the most important things isn't suppression, it's consistency with the practices of the times.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Voting isn't as important as:

Cashing a check
Buying a fishing/hunting license
Buying smokes or alcohol
Getting a library card
Picking up your meds/certain OTCs
Blowing your family savings at a casino
See an R rated movie

What a load of shit. To call it "voter suppression" is a crock of shit and the epitome of "hyperbole". Not having something that is basically essential to American adulthood for one of the most important things isn't suppression, it's consistency with the practices of the times.

One is a Constitutional right and the other's are not. And the article lays out a clear case with evidence that your shitposting has not response to.

[koriwhat]

https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTE4MDAzNDEwMDU4NTc3NDIy/hillary-clinton-9251306-2-402.jpg

[koriwhat]

don't have an ID, you don't get to vote. should be as simple as that. I can't buy alcohol, tobacco, a gun, etc without an ID so why the exception to vote?

[koriwhat]

no surprise,

within HOURS of the oligarchy SCOTUS gutting the VRA, TX and other red states implemented their Vote ID (suppression) regulations.

Also, 538 saw significant movement in WI, MI, PA from Hillary to Trash in the days after Comey's letter about emails on Huma's machine was leaked by the Repugs. Those 3 states' electoral votes gave Trash the WH.

And what about Pootin's cyber army posting shit on Facebook, targeted to those 3 states, posting shit on twitter?

Hillary has every right and justification, as do any serious Americans, to condemn Trash as an ILLEGITIMATE President.

it's funny because you shoot the messenger but not the person behind the message or cough cough the emails... as well, you don't mention how HRC and co fucked over bernie and then you claim HRC should've won but still dismissing her and her cronies shit tactics. yall want that dumb bitch in office no matter what but why? she's an evil **** who gives no fucks about the good ol USA and yet neither do yall i see so hand in hand right?

[Chucho]

One is a Constitutional right and the other's are not. And the article lays out a clear case with evidence that your shitposting has not response to.


Considering how big of a jackass you've been made you look this past couple of days, and the majority of your tenure, your faux intellectualism holds no water. Put me back on your ignore list, you simpleton.



But, to humor your idiocy, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, are you saying we don't need ID's to buy/own guns as well? You're not as smart as you think you are.

[koriwhat]

Considering how big of a jackass you've been made you look this past couple of days, and the majority of your tenure, your faux intellectualism holds no water. Put me back on your ignore list, you simpleton.



But, to humor your idiocy, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, are you saying we don't need ID's to buy/own guns as well? You're not as smart as you think you are.

he talks in circles trying to come off as intellectual. dudes a sad excuse of a troll.

[boutons_deux]

it's funny because you shoot the messenger but not the person behind the message or cough cough the emails... as well, you don't mention how HRC and co fucked over bernie and then you claim HRC should've won but still dismissing her and her cronies shit tactics. yall want that dumb bitch in office no matter what but why? she's an evil **** who gives no fucks about the good ol USA and yet neither do yall i see so hand in hand right?

you're a very confused, so typical, right wing asshole

Where have I defended Hillary other than to say that she and her cabinet would be vastly better than Trash and his kakistrocracy?

and of course, she wouldn't sign every single piece of shit law, as Trash would do, given to her by a Repug Congress. that would be, as it was with Obama, a gridlock postive for USA.

Whatever, Trash is an ILLEGITIMATE President, of a rigged, stolen election.

[Chucho]

he talks in circles trying to come off as intellectual. dudes a sad excuse of a troll.

Exactly- not as smart as he thinks he is.

[koriwhat]

you're a very confused, so typical, right wing asshole

Where have I defended Hillary other than to say that she and her cabinet would be vastly better than Trash and his kakistrocracy?

and of course, she wouldn't sign every single piece of shit law, as Trash would do, give to her by a Repug Congress.

Whatever, Trash is an ILLEGITIMATE President, of a rigged, stolen election.

do you realize what bs you type when you're typing it?

i'm a right wing asshole or right wing at all just because i HATE hrc, bernie, the democRATS, shit lib mentality, etc? so because of all that i suppose i am right wing. don't agree with you but that must mean i am right wing. so anyone not on your side is right wing, got it.

remember, hillary rigged the primaries against bernie but yeah she's so vastly better than a dude who paid for his own campaign and actually went to states hillary deemed unworthy to campaign in.

and yes, hillary would sign whatever stupid fucking PC bs comes across her desk. you obviously don't realize how corrupt that bitch really is huh? she would do much much worse than signing this or that law. she's the trash and we(well, not myself) took her out!

as for hillary being anymore legitimate of a candidate that trump is laughable. last time i checked trump didn't rig a damn thing to get to the presidency. with that said, i'd like to think the majority of americans would prefer someone other than a total lying pig who cheats her way to the top by playing identity politics. fuck hillary, her entitled mentality, her cheating ways, her lying, her anger, etc.... fuck that dumb fucking ****!

[Pavlov]

But, to humor your idiocy, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, are you saying we don't need ID's to buy/own guns as well?I don't think one is needed for a private sale.

I'm fine with the IDs -- you just have to make them free and easily available and advertised as such. Anything else makes it a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.

[Spurminator]

do you realize what bs you type when you're typing it?

i'm a right wing asshole or right wing at all just because i HATE hrc, bernie, the democRATS, shit lib mentality, etc? so because of all that i suppose i am right wing. don't agree with you but that must mean i am right wing. so anyone not on your side is right wing, got it.

remember, hillary rigged the primaries against bernie but yeah she's so vastly better than a dude who paid for his own campaign and actually went to states hillary deemed unworthy to campaign in.

and yes, hillary would sign whatever stupid fucking PC bs comes across her desk. you obviously don't realize how corrupt that bitch really is huh? she would do much much worse than signing this or that law. she's the trash and we(well, not myself) took her out!

as for hillary being anymore legitimate of a candidate that trump is laughable. last time i checked trump didn't rig a damn thing to get to the presidency. with that said, i'd like to think the majority of americans would prefer someone other than a total lying pig who cheats her way to the top by playing identity politics. fuck hillary, her entitled mentality, her cheating ways, her lying, her anger, etc.... fuck that dumb fucking ****!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/022/266/brain.jpg

[Chucho]

I don't think one is needed for a private sale.

I'm fine with the IDs -- you just have to make them free and easily available and advertised as such. Anything else makes it a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.


I do agree with this. ID's should be given out free, especially after a Census period or that social security cards be amalgamated with IDs- something like that.

[Pavlov]

I do agree with this. ID's should be given out free, especially after a Census period or that social security cards be amalgamated with IDs- something like that.Well elections are the responsibility of the states -- that's why everything is so fucked up. The very idea of national IDs makes some people shit themselves even though I have no idea what those people think SS and tax ID numbers are. The whole process will need an overhaul that probably includes a good deal of federalization -- but Republicans in particular will never want that.

[boutons_deux]

"Republicans in particular will never want that"

.... are happy with the rigged status quo, since their paymasters in the oligarchy are happy with the rigghed status quo (economy, tax system, govt, gerrymandering, increasing voter suppression).

Oligarchy will block EVERYTHING that makes life better for the bottom 4 quintiles, that doesn't also enrich/empower the oligarchy even more.

"free federal photo ID" cards, documents will cost $10Bs to introduce and maintain, $Bs that the oligarchy will not allow to be taken from their tax cuts.

[boutons_deux]

in some states, if you're in default on some debt, you can't vote

and many states, ex-cons can't vote for life

[RandomGuy]

Voting isn't as important as:

Cashing a check
Buying a fishing/hunting license
Buying smokes or alcohol
Getting a library card
Picking up your meds/certain OTCs
Blowing your family savings at a casino
See an R rated movie

What a load of shit. To call it "voter suppression" is a crock of shit and the epitome of "hyperbole". Not having something that is basically essential to American adulthood for one of the most important things isn't suppression, it's consistency with the practices of the times.

"when the measure was challenged in court, the state couldn’t present a single case of voter impersonation that the law would have stopped."

The people pushing for it, know exactly what they are doing, and are rather out about the fact it is suppressing votes.

[RandomGuy]

don't have an ID, you don't get to vote. should be as simple as that. I can't buy alcohol, tobacco, a gun, etc without an ID so why the exception to vote?

Because we have age limits on these products, and people are motivated to cheat those laws.

No one really fakes being someone else to go vote.

They just... don't.

If you think it happens, prove it. Every time a state gets challenged on that in court, they fucking fail miserably.

Why do we need a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
.

[Chucho]

"when the measure was challenged in court, the state couldn’t present a single case of voter impersonation that the law would have stopped."

The people pushing for it, know exactly what they are doing, and are rather out about the fact it is suppressing votes.

I want to make sure I'm hearing this right. Are they saying that fraud voting can't be stopped by implementing an ID procedure? So, for instance fake ID's couldn't be detected?

[RandomGuy]

I want to make sure I'm hearing this right. Are they saying that fraud voting can't be stopped by implementing an ID procedure? So, for instance fake ID's couldn't be detected?

Not sure what you are hearing. what you are reading:

In-person voter fraud (the only problem what ID laws would fix), for all practical purposes, doesn't exist. No state with voter ID laws has EVER shown it does when it had to prove it in court.

Voter fraud does exist, but the types of fraud that do happen, won't be prevented by voter ID laws.

So, no, real voter fraud wouldn't be stopped by ID laws.

The people that pass the laws, know that the problem (in person voter fraud) doesn't exist. They pass the ID laws for the sole purpose of suppressing likely blocks of Democratic voters.

[Chucho]

Not sure what you are hearing. what you are reading:

In-person voter fraud (the only problem what ID laws would fix), for all practical purposes, doesn't exist. No state with voter ID laws has EVER shown it does when it had to prove it in court.

Voter fraud does exist, but the types of fraud that do happen, won't be prevented by voter ID laws.

So, no, real voter fraud wouldn't be stopped by ID laws.

The people that pass the laws, know that the problem (in person voter fraud) doesn't exist. They pass the ID laws for the sole purpose of suppressing likely blocks of Democratic voters.


Because they can't afford an ID?

[RandomGuy]

Who is right? Scholars have been able to show that racial and ethnic minorities have less access to photo IDs, and extensive analysis reveals almost no evidence of voter fraud of the type ostensibly prevented by these laws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/do-voter-identification-laws-suppress-minority-voting-yes-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.87e589ab557a


n The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine C. Minnite presents the results of her meticulous search for evidence of voter fraud. She concludes that while voting irregularities produced by the fragmented and complex nature of the electoral process in the United States are common, incidents of deliberate voter fraud are actually quite rare. Based on painstaking research aggregating and sifting through data from a variety of sources, including public records requests to all fifty state governments and the U.S. Justice Department, Minnite contends that voter fraud is in reality a politically constructed myth intended to further complicate the voting process and reduce voter turnout.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/research-and-publications-voter-id

If you want to sift through the academic research feel free.

[RandomGuy]

Allegations of election-related fraud make for enticing press. Many Americans remember vivid stories of voting improprieties in Chicagoland, or the suspiciously sudden appearance of LBJ's alphabetized ballot box in Texas, or Governor Earl Long's quip: "When I die, I want to be buried in Louisiana, so I can stay active in politics." Voter fraud, in particular, has the feel of a bank heist caper: roundly condemned but technically fascinating, and sufficiently lurid to grab and hold headlines. Perhaps because these stories are dramatic, voter fraud makes a popular scapegoat. In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up - when any exists - is not usually deemed newsworthy. Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/truth-about-voter-fraud

[RandomGuy]

Because they can't afford an ID?

Does the reason they don't have an ID matter, if the problem the law is supposed to solve doesn't exist?

[Chucho]

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/research-and-publications-voter-id

If you want to sift through the academic research feel free.


No interest. I just don't think that "all" people being suppressed don't drive, fish, hunt, buy cigs and everything else necessary to function in adulthood in modern America.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs have sent their snoops and US Atty's FOR YEARS to find in-person voting fraud, and found a few in many 100Ms of votes :lol

[rmt]

Dropped ds off yesterday to take the bus back to Gainesville:

Departures and Arrivals

What do I need to show at the departure to board the bus?
When checking in to board the bus, passengers will be required to provide a valid photo ID and his/her Booking Confirmation.

https://www.gmgtrans.com/faq

When I pick my kid up early for a dental appointment, I have to show a valid photo ID. Why would I not need to show id to vote especially when elections are so contentious?

[Pavlov]

Dropped ds off yesterday to take the bus back to Gainesville:

Departures and Arrivals

What do I need to show at the departure to board the bus?
When checking in to board the bus, passengers will be required to provide a valid photo ID and his/her Booking Confirmation.

https://www.gmgtrans.com/faq

When I pick my kid up early for a dental appointment, I have to show a valid photo ID. Why would I not need to show id to vote especially when elections are so contentious?Anecdotes are not constitutional.

Massive vote fraud is a myth.

[koriwhat]

"Democrats in particular will never want that"

.... are happy with the rigged status quo, since their paymasters in the oligarchy are happy


yep.


and many states, ex-cons can't vote for life

good and rightfully so!


They pass the ID laws for the sole purpose of suppressing likely blocks of Democratic voters.

lmao! but said cheap asses mooching off taxpaying citizens while buying big rims, blunts, and chains can't afford a $20 ID. fuck out of here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Considering how big of a jackass you've been made you look this past couple of days, and the majority of your tenure, your faux intellectualism holds no water. Put me back on your ignore list, you simpleton.



But, to humor your idiocy, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, are you saying we don't need ID's to buy/own guns as well? You're not as smart as you think you are.

You ignore my arguments and instead go for insults then call me a faux intellectual? Rich in vitamin I, I see.

There is a right to life and a mandate for providing security in the constitution as well. The background check is to protect those rights and uphold that responsibility.

Meanwhile, as pointed out by the article, there is no evidence of voter fraud and WI was unable to show any in court. Therefore there is no reason to ask for an ID to vote. OTOH there is a right to vote that is being infringed.

Next time at least try to answer someone's arguments before you tell them how dumb they are. You come across as petty and ignorant when you do as you are doing now.

[RandomGuy]

Dropped ds off yesterday to take the bus back to Gainesville:

Departures and Arrivals

What do I need to show at the departure to board the bus?
When checking in to board the bus, passengers will be required to provide a valid photo ID and his/her Booking Confirmation.

https://www.gmgtrans.com/faq

When I pick my kid up early for a dental appointment, I have to show a valid photo ID. Why would I not need to show id to vote especially when elections are so contentious?

Because some people have a problem getting IDs.

Why should we have a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

[Chucho]

You ignore my arguments and instead go for insults then call me a faux intellectual? Rich in vitamin I, I see.

There is a right to life and a mandate for providing security in the constitution as well. The background check is to protect those rights and uphold that responsibility.

Meanwhile, as pointed out by the article, there is no evidence of voter fraud and WI was unable to show any in court. Therefore there is no reason to ask for an ID to vote. OTOH there is a right to vote that is being infringed.

Next time at least try to answer someone's arguments before you tell them how dumb they are. You come across as petty and ignorant when you do as you are doing now.


That's fuckin rich comin from you. Again, put me on your ignore list, you twit.

[RandomGuy]

yep.



good and rightfully so!



lmao! but said cheap asses mooching off taxpaying citizens while buying big rims, blunts, and chains can't afford a $20 ID. fuck out of here.

Come one mother fucker, show me the problem exists.

You are the one saying we need the law to solve it, dumbass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yep.



good and rightfully so!



lmao! but said cheap asses mooching off taxpaying citizens while buying big rims, blunts, and chains can't afford a $20 ID. fuck out of here.

It figures that you are dumb enough to make the "they're all lazy and wasteful so it is okay to oppress them" argument.

:lol you claim to not be right wing when you are just to the right of David Duke.

[RandomGuy]

No interest. I just don't think that "all" people being suppressed don't drive, fish, hunt, buy cigs and everything else necessary to function in adulthood in modern America.

We have them because there is motivation to cheat. In person voter fraud doesn't exist. Minors trying to buy alcohol is a problem that does exist.

Are you going to ask for mandatory invisible unicorn inspections next?

[Chucho]

Because some people have a problem getting IDs.

Why should we have a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

If everyone was provided acceptable, standardized identification, at no cost, would you be against having to be ID'd to vote?


I ask because, and I hate to stereotype, but generally, the vast majority of the people too lazy, unwilling, or unable to purchase an ID, aren't exactly going to be...umm..."quality" or "intelligent" voters. There going to be in that same bracket of "stupid" and "ill-informed" voters that is tagged to voters who vote for Republican policy that is proving to fail. I think that poverty pimping is worked on both sides and I think that, especially in the era of so many people grandstanding with their opinions on social media, that many of these people who say they couldn't vote because of not having an ID wouldn't vote if they had one in the first place.

[koriwhat]

Come one mother fucker, show me the problem exists.

You are the one saying we need the law to solve it, dumbass.

i said that? i don't specifically remember saying that but sure. i believe IDs should be required. i get no help in life, barely scrape by, and yet i can still afford an ID so what's the excuse for all the losers out there without one?

whether or not it will fix or not fix the issue is besides the point. need an ID to prove you're of age for many things and same should be the case to vote imo.



:lol you claim to not be right wing when you are just to the right of David Duke.

hilarious! now i'm a white supremacist? hahaha! go figure that would be next on your insults/name calling. it's par for the course though you've yet to call me a russian bot or a nazi. actually was it you calling me a ruski or am i mistaken?

[koriwhat]

btw fuzzy, do you sit back and drool over how much HRC drools over an actual grand wizard or you just brush that to the side because she's so progressive?

[Chucho]

We have them because there is motivation to cheat. In person voter fraud doesn't exist. Minors trying to buy alcohol is a problem that does exist.

Are you going to ask for mandatory invisible unicorn inspections next?

OK, so voter fraud doesn't exist, so it shouldn't be illegal then? To assume that a law can't be broken is ridiculous.

[Pavlov]

OK, so voter fraud doesn't exist, so it shouldn't be illegal then? To assume that a law can't be broken is ridiculous.It's already illegal and the laws do get broken -- it's just that fraudulent votes counted for 0.000002% of the total cast in the 2016 election. As an actual problem it's a non-issue.

[Chucho]

It's already illegal and the laws do get broken -- it's just that fraudulent votes counted for 0.000002% of the total cast in the 2016 election.

Correct. So preventive measures aren't a good idea? That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Pavlov]

Correct. So preventive measures aren't a good idea? That's the point I'm trying to make.Not when it results in disenfranchising many more people than the four people who tried -- and failed -- to cast fraudulent votes under current law.

[Chucho]

Not when it results in disenfranchising many more people than the four people who tried -- and failed -- to cast fraudulent votes under current law.

But can't that same logic hold true to everything that an ID is required for?

[Pavlov]

But can't that same logic hold true to everything that an ID is required for?Those aren't constitutional rights.

[Chucho]

Those aren't constitutional rights.

That's a fair and valid point, and honestly, end of the conversation. But, going back to our earlier tangent, what if every American was given a standardized ID, would you be against it then?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's fuckin rich comin from you. Again, put me on your ignore list, you twit.

:lol I'm a fake intellectual yet you run like hell from a real argument.

[Pavlov]

That's a fair and valid point, and honestly, end of the conversation. But, going back to our earlier tangent, what if every American was given a standardized ID, would you be against it then?If the process were free, easy, federalized and advertised, that would take away most objections I could think of.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But can't that same logic hold true to everything that an ID is required for?

It should be obvious that is not the case. All the other things are either not a right or have other rights that are being infringed. There is no right being infringed that voter IDs protects.

[Chucho]

:lol I'm a fake intellectual

Something we can agree on.

[Chucho]

It should be obvious that is not the case. All the other things are either not a right or have other rights that are being infringed. There is no right being infringed that voter IDs protects.

Aside from RG's data, the hypothesis would be that the integrity of the election outcome is as uncompromised as possible. Everyone has the right to vote, that includes the right to a fair and clean election result.

[Chucho]

If the process were free, easy, federalized and advertised, that would take away most objections I could think of.

Thank you.

[DMC]

One is a Constitutional right and the other's are not. And the article lays out a clear case with evidence that your shitposting has not response to.

There's no constitutional right to vote, Fuzz nuts.

There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but guess what? You have to have an ID! You going to protest that or do you want even more restrictions?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Aside from RG's data, the hypothesis would be that the integrity of the election outcome is as uncompromised as possible. Everyone has the right to vote, that includes the right to a fair and clean election result.

And if there were proof that there was fraud that the ID laws would stop they would have won their case. This was litigated in court.

You're wrong. Deal with it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's no constitutional right to vote, Fuzz nuts.

There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but guess what? You have to have an ID! You going to protest that or do you want even more restrictions?

Just because it not in the bill of rights doesn't mean that it is not articulated in the Constitution, dimwit.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

And again their is a right to life and property given by the 14th which IDs for gun purchases protects. The court weighed the two and decided to allow ID for background checks.

[spurraider21]

We've been over this in another thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264991

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i said that? i don't specifically remember saying that but sure. i believe IDs should be required. i get no help in life, barely scrape by, and yet i can still afford an ID so what's the excuse for all the losers out there without one?

whether or not it will fix or not fix the issue is besides the point. need an ID to prove you're of age for many things and same should be the case to vote imo.




hilarious! now i'm a white supremacist? hahaha! go figure that would be next on your insults/name calling. it's par for the course though you've yet to call me a russian bot or a nazi. actually was it you calling me a ruski or am i mistaken?


btw fuzzy, do you sit back and drool over how much HRC drools over an actual grand wizard or you just brush that to the side because she's so progressive?

You made a go to argument of the KKK and the like when you painted the minorities being oppressed as lazy and wasteful. It is what it is.

I don't like the Clintons. I did not vote for her nor do I support her. I put her in the same boat as Wasserman, Schuler, Pelosi, and Feinstein. Nice strawman though.

[Chucho]

And if there were proof that there was fraud that the ID laws would stop they would have won their case. This was litigated in court.

You're wrong. Deal with it.

You're not as smart as you think you are and you were exposed for the umpteenth time by Pavlov. Deal with it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We've been over this in another thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264991

Precisely why DMC is not to be taken seriously. He lost the argument that time too yet here he is blithely making the same initial assertion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're not as smart as you think you are and you were exposed for the umpteenth time by Pavlov. Deal with it.

:lol if you so say so.

We both know you cannot articulate how that is the case.

[spurraider21]

The government can't discriminate voting rights by race, age, sex, etc.

It is the states that grant the affirmative right to vote, through their state constitutions. This is because states vote for president (electors), and those states have given citizens the right to vote on their behalf

[Chucho]

:lol if you so say so.

We both know you cannot articulate how that is the case.


There's no need to articulate the case, you simpleton. There's pages of him owning you and showing you exactly where you were wrong. It's very simple, you were wrong. This is just another episode, on the never-ending list, of you not being as smart as you think you are. Feel free to put me back on your ignore list, you're a bore.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's no need to articulate the case, you simpleton. There's pages of him owning you and showing you exactly where you were wrong. It's very simple, you were wrong. This is just another episode, on the never-ending list, of you not being as smart as you think you are. Feel free to put me back on your ignore list, you're a bore.

Need or not, you cannot do it.

And I am such a bore you are compelled to respond. You are trying much too hard to be believable. Assert less and demonstrate more, dimwit.

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuHXF0016qE

[Pavlov]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuHXF0016qEDo you think this guy in the video actually voted twice, Darrin?

Yes or no.

[Clipper Nation]

Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Mexico, India, and many other countries have voter ID laws on the books. Is that voter suppression too, or is it only problematic if the US does it?

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAg3zDHn7pI

[DarrinS]

Judge obviously a racist


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wEXL6Z3KLk

[Pavlov]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAg3zDHn7pIID law would have done nothing in this case. Thanks for proving the system works though.

Are you going to comment on anything or just post YouTubes, Darrin?

[Pavlov]

Judge obviously a racist Not the judge.

[spurraider21]

Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Mexico, India, and many other countries have voter ID laws on the books. Is that voter suppression too, or is it only problematic if the US does it?
Most of those don't require photo ID. Just something with their name and address. Heck, Mexico and Switzerland send voters their registration cards in the mail, and if you bring that with you, you're good. In Ireland you can show a credit card with your name on it and that's good enough :lol.

[Clipper Nation]

Most of those don't require photo ID. Just something with their name and address. Heck, Mexico and Switzerland send voters their registration cards in the mail, and if you bring that with you, you're good. In Ireland you can show a credit card with your name on it and that's good enough :lol.
Personally, I like how India does it:

India allows the use of fifteen different types of identification, ranging from property documents to arms licenses to income tax identity cards. Included, too, are forms of identification most likely to be possessed by the poor.... For instance, voters can present ration cards issued to the poor to allow them to buy food staples and kerosene oil at subsidized prices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/voter-id-proponents-point-to-laws-in-other-countries/2012/07/12/gJQAVlGCfW_blog.html?utm_term=.bf0b3c6753e3

So inclusive that there is literally no excuse that anyone can use to discredit it.

[Will Hunting]

IMO the bigger form of voter suppression is the fact we still hold elections on a random fucking Tuesday morning in November without declaring the day a holiday and (for whatever reason) there are always areas that have 4+ hour lines to vote.

[DarrinS]

IMO the bigger form of voter suppression is the fact we still hold elections on a random fucking Tuesday morning in November without declaring the day a holiday and (for whatever reason) there are always areas that have 4+ hour lines to vote.


Yeah, that's absolutely the ONLY day you can vote.

[Spurminator]

Once again DarrinS absolutely shuts down a Spurstalk argument by posting a couple of examples of something.

[Pavlov]

Once again DarrinS absolutely shuts down a Spurstalk argument by posting a couple of examples of something.

Black people.

[DarrinS]

:cry Black people :cry.

[DarrinS]

Once again DarrinS absolutely shuts down a Spurstalk argument by posting a couple of examples of something.

If you took a small sample of the ocean and saw one or two examples of life, you could reasonably conclude that there’s no evidence of widespread life in the ocean.

[boutons_deux]

...

[DMC]

Just because it not in the bill of rights doesn't mean that it is not articulated in the Constitution, dimwit.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

And again their is a right to life and property given by the 14th which IDs for gun purchases protects. The court weighed the two and decided to allow ID for background checks.

It's not a constitutional right. The states reserve the right to not even allow citizens to vote.

[DMC]

Most of those don't require photo ID. Just something with their name and address. Heck, Mexico and Switzerland send voters their registration cards in the mail, and if you bring that with you, you're good. In Ireland you can show a credit card with your name on it and that's good enough :lol.

Yeah then they open a tab at the pub with it.

[DMC]

Personally, I like how India does it:

India allows the use of fifteen different types of identification, ranging from property documents to arms licenses to income tax identity cards. Included, too, are forms of identification most likely to be possessed by the poor.... For instance, voters can present ration cards issued to the poor to allow them to buy food staples and kerosene oil at subsidized prices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/voter-id-proponents-point-to-laws-in-other-countries/2012/07/12/gJQAVlGCfW_blog.html?utm_term=.bf0b3c6753e3

So inclusive that there is literally no excuse that anyone can use to discredit it.

Then they issue rewards for beheading movie stars. I kinda like that as well.

[Spurminator]

If you took a small sample of the ocean and saw one or two examples of life, you could reasonably conclude that there’s no evidence of widespread life in the ocean.

You haven't taken a sample of the ocean. You've found one or two examples in the entire ocean.

It's like posting two pictures of an albino alligator while trying to claim the albino alligator population is substantial. We have the numbers.

[spurraider21]

Personally, I like how India does it:

India allows the use of fifteen different types of identification, ranging from property documents to arms licenses to income tax identity cards. Included, too, are forms of identification most likely to be possessed by the poor.... For instance, voters can present ration cards issued to the poor to allow them to buy food staples and kerosene oil at subsidized prices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/voter-id-proponents-point-to-laws-in-other-countries/2012/07/12/gJQAVlGCfW_blog.html?utm_term=.bf0b3c6753e3

So inclusive that there is literally no excuse that anyone can use to discredit it.
Sure. They can use shit that the government provides them for free. And not the photo ID being pushed for. All to "solve" the "massive" voter fraud issue.

[Will Hunting]

Yeah, that's absolutely the ONLY day you can vote.
In a lot of states it is.

[DarrinS]

In a lot of states it is.

In 37 states you can, including the state being bitched about.

Wisconsin — Early voting opening dates are set by the county/municipality. Wisconsin Rapids began voting Sept. 19

[Will Hunting]

In 37 states you can, including the state being bitched about.

Wisconsin — Early voting opening dates are set by the county/municipality. Wisconsin Rapids began voting Sept. 19
I wasn’t speaking about Wisconsin (I also think Hillary has no one to blame but herself on that one), I was speaking in Moreno general terms.

[DarrinS]

I wasn’t speaking about Wisconsin (I also think Hillary has no one to blame but herself on that one), I was speaking in Moreno general terms.

I’ve known a few Moreno’s

[Will Hunting]

I’ve known a few Moreno’s
That’s a really fucking weird auto correct :lol

[Will Hunting]

I would actually say the OP is more of the same bullshit from the Democratic Party.

”Abandoning the white working class for the last 30 years isn’t the problem, :cry muh minority vote :cry just keeps getting suppressed!”

[DarrinS]

That’s a really fucking weird auto correct :lol

I know — just messin

[pgardn]

It's not a constitutional right. The states reserve the right to not even allow citizens to vote.

This is absolutely the most misguided, disingenuous response possible.

The idea is very simple, start with everyone should be able to vote in a democracy. Then start arguing species should be important, then infants should not vote (shit, what age?...) , continue....

And DMC interjects... Yeah, completely off the wall crap. But, but states... Are you Fckn kidding? Just don't call us United States how about. Let's start there first. Let's start all over with individual states, that'll work. 13 distinct stars, real distant stars...

Good stuff chief.

[pgardn]

Democrats:

You tried to coronate some distorted legacy in Hillary Clinton.

Republicans

Congrats. You actually allowed people to overpower your party structure and elected... a buffoon.

To the US:

Yeah Hillary won the popular vote but tough tomato if you feel bad. Donald is the president. As fair as it's ever been. Yep. He's a paranoid childish Ahole that can't get over the fact he lost the popular vote yet won the election. So now we have a problem with illegals voting? No. Just Fckn, No.

Voting "problem" solved.

[DMC]

This is absolutely the most misguided, disingenuous response possible.

The idea is very simple, start with everyone should be able to vote in a democracy. Then start arguing species should be important, then infants should not vote (shit, what age?...) , continue....

And DMC interjects... Yeah, completely off the wall crap. But, but states... Are you Fckn kidding? Just don't call us United States how about. Let's start there first. Let's start all over with individual states, that'll work. 13 distinct stars, real distant stars...

Good stuff chief.

Nothing you say makes any fucking sense, per par.

[DMC]

Democrats:

You tried to coronate some distorted legacy in Hillary Clinton.

Republicans

Congrats. You actually allowed people to overpower your party structure and elected... a buffoon.

To the US:

Yeah Hillary won the popular vote but tough tomato if you feel bad. Donald is the president. As fair as it's ever been. Yep. He's a paranoid childish Ahole that can't get over the fact he lost the popular vote yet won the election. So now we have a problem with illegals voting? No. Just Fckn, No.

Voting "problem" solved.

Are you Avante's bastard child?

[pgardn]

Nothing you say makes any fucking sense, per par.

But you are crystal clear in your post...

Make the most arcane, ill informed bat shit argument you can. But, but states... Mr. 13 colonies.

[pgardn]

Are you Avante's bastard child?

And you did participate on the poop deck of that vessel with our military hero.
Being one yourself, of course.

[Pavlov]

If you took a small sample of the ocean and saw one or two examples of life, you could reasonably conclude that there’s no evidence of widespread life in the ocean.Are you claiming massive vote fraud, Darrin?

Yes or no.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you took a small sample of the ocean and saw one or two examples of life, you could reasonably conclude that there’s no evidence of widespread life in the ocean.

You did not take a random sample, dipshit. Nevermind your examples were not of things that voter ID could stop, you googled and failed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not a constitutional right. The states reserve the right to not even allow citizens to vote.

When that happens let me know. In the meantime, the right to vote shall not be infringed.

[DarrinS]

Are you claiming massive vote fraud, Darrin?

Yes or no.


No way to tell, tbh.

[Pavlov]

No way to tell, tbh.Actually, yes there is.

Your examples had nothing to do with showing ID.

You just saw some black people and were compelled to post them. :lol

Sorry to break it to you.

[DarrinS]

Actually, yes there is.
.

Explain away. Be specific.

[DMC]

But you are crystal clear in your post...

Make the most arcane, ill informed bat shit argument you can. But, but states... Mr. 13 colonies.

Yes, Bush v Gore settles it. There is no constitutional right to vote.

[Pavlov]

Explain away. Be specific.Bush devoted years of his administration to finding it.

Can you guess how the investigation went?

[DMC]

When that happens let me know. In the meantime, the right to vote shall not be infringed.

Bush v Gore. It happened already.

[DarrinS]

Bush devoted years of his administration to finding it.

Can you guess how the investigation went?

You didn’t explain how you would find it.

[Pavlov]

You didn’t explain how you would find it.I don't have to. They already did it.

Can you guess what they found, Darrin?

[ElNono]

I would actually say the OP is more of the same bullshit from the Democratic Party.

”Abandoning the white working class for the last 30 years isn’t the problem, :cry muh minority vote :cry just keeps getting suppressed!”

pretty much. No mention of Shillary being a horrible candidate.

[DarrinS]

I don't have to.

Fair answer.

[Pavlov]

Fair answer.Many, many experts and officials have studied this very thing, Darrin.

Why are you demanding I reinvent the wheel, Darrin?

Do you know of any of these studies, Darrin? There are quite a few recent ones, Darrin.

[DarrinS]

Perhaps photo ID is not the answer. It still depends on another person’s judgement.

Can we all agree on the following:

Every US citizen has the right to vote

Every US citizen has the right to vote (only once)

Non US citizens do NOT have the right to vote

Dead people do NOT have the right to vote

Fictional characters do not have the right to vote

[Pavlov]

Perhaps photo ID is not the answer. It still depends on another person’s judgement.

Can we all agree on the following:

Every US citizen has the right to vote

Every US citizen has the right to vote (only once)

Non US citizens do NOT have the right to vote

Dead people do NOT have the right to vote

Fictional characters do not have the right to voteDon't get DNC started again.

What's your answer to what you think is the very serious and pressing problem of perceived massive vote fraud by the two black people of whom you posted videos?

[DarrinS]

https://fpmshield.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Democrats.jpg

[Pavlov]

Why do you always run away like a little bitch, Darrin?

[pgardn]

Yes, Bush v Gore settles it. There is no constitutional right to vote.

In a democracy let's not look for as much participation as possible, let's put in as many meaningless impediments as possible so that only the king can vote. I mean, this is why we came over from Europe to begin with, to start a new aristocracy.

This is your history of our democracy apparently. The fire all started by a Bozo who lost the popular vote by 3 million conveniently counted illegal votes. It's now an issue again. Nada...

[DMC]

In a democracy let's not look for as much participation as possible, let's put in as many meaningless impediments as possible so that only the king can vote. I mean, this is why we came over from Europe to begin with, to start a new aristocracy.

This is your history of our democracy apparently. The fire all started by a Bozo who lost the popular vote by 3 million conveniently counted illegal votes. It's now an issue again. Nada...

You're talking about "ought". I am talking about "is". There is no constitutional right to vote. Run for office, change the status quo. Make America Great Again and such.

Bush v Gore is the best reference of USSC case law that clearly interprets the constitution and states that voting isn't a constitutional right, but reserved for states to decide on. The BoR only states that discrimination cannot be based on specific protected categories like age (over 18), gender, race, religion and such.

Your other mumblings are moot.

[DMC]

Don't get DNC started again.

What's your answer to what you think is the very serious and pressing problem of perceived massive vote fraud by the two black people of whom you posted videos?

There's a difference between "right to vote" and "constitutional right to vote".

Person A: "I bought this car, so I want to drive it without changing the oil"

Person B: "You have that right"

Person C: "It's not in the constitution!"


vs


Person A: "I bought this car, so I want to drive it without changing the oil"

Person B: "You have that constitutional right"

Person C: "It's not in the constitution!"


In the 1st example, Person C is a douchebag. In the 2nd, Person C is correcting person B.

Funny how you guys like to pontificate about "facts" and get everything all fucked up, then when corrected you cite "pedantics!"

[boutons_deux]

I wasn’t speaking about Wisconsin (I also think Hillary has no one to blame but herself on that one).

Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/#

... then add in Pootin's cyber army targeting WI (and MI, PA) and Repug's releasing Comey's letter 10 days before the election.

[RandomGuy]

If everyone was provided acceptable, standardized identification, at no cost, would you be against having to be ID'd to vote?


I ask because, and I hate to stereotype, but generally, the vast majority of the people too lazy, unwilling, or unable to purchase an ID, aren't exactly going to be...umm..."quality" or "intelligent" voters. There going to be in that same bracket of "stupid" and "ill-informed" voters that is tagged to voters who vote for Republican policy that is proving to fail. I think that poverty pimping is worked on both sides and I think that, especially in the era of so many people grandstanding with their opinions on social media, that many of these people who say they couldn't vote because of not having an ID wouldn't vote if they had one in the first place.

You would have to work pretty hard at making it "no cost" to the people you wanted to get IDs. How much are you willing to increase taxes for this?

I don't mind raising taxes to make IDs really easy to get.

The thing is, though, all of this assumes a problem exists.

Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

[RandomGuy]

i said that? i don't specifically remember saying that but sure. i believe IDs should be required. i get no help in life, barely scrape by, and yet i can still afford an ID so what's the excuse for all the losers out there without one?

whether or not it will fix or not fix the issue is besides the point. need an ID to prove you're of age for many things and same should be the case to vote imo.



:bang

There is no "issue" to fix, and that is exactly the point.

We have IDs in all sorts of other cases, because IDs solve problems that actually exists.

You are saying something like "We need to have special IDs to prove we aren't bank-robbing unicorns, so that we can show police when they stop us".

Do you think we should have special IDs to prove we aren't bank-robbing unicorns?

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, that's absolutely the ONLY day you can vote.

In many places it is. Republicans roll back early voting in Democratic areas.

Thanks for bringing that method of voter suppression too.

[RandomGuy]

It's not a constitutional right. The states reserve the right to not even allow citizens to vote.

:tu Because we all know that worked out so well in the past. I mean, no state has ever allowed a majority of people to decide that some other group of people shouldn't be able to vote because of an unjust reason.

Because states have been so careful not to take voting rights away from people for shitty reasons, no one has ever had to protest, and no one ever got killed or tortured to fight any of these hypothetical unjust laws.

Thanks for pointing out that we can always completely trust states to never pass laws that take voting rights away for shitty reasons. We all needed a refresher.

[Pavlov]

There's a difference between "right to vote" and "constitutional right to vote".

Person A: "I bought this car, so I want to drive it without changing the oil"

Person B: "You have that right"

Person C: "It's not in the constitution!"


vs


Person A: "I bought this car, so I want to drive it without changing the oil"

Person B: "You have that constitutional right"

Person C: "It's not in the constitution!"


In the 1st example, Person C is a douchebag. In the 2nd, Person C is correcting person B.

Funny how you guys like to pontificate about "facts" and get everything all fucked up, then when corrected you cite "pedantics!"See what I mean? :lol

[DarrinS]

In many places it is. Republicans roll back early voting in Democratic areas.

Thanks for bringing that method of voter suppression too.


http://fox6now.com/2016/11/07/wisconsin-sets-new-early-voting-record/

[boutons_deux]

In many places it is. Republicans roll back early voting in Democratic areas

and reduce the number of voting locations in black, brown areas.

Repugs also refused to fund replacing old, hackable voting machines.

Repugs also dead set against paper voting trails

[DarrinS]

Maybe photo ID isn’t the answer



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0uedSCARlc

[RandomGuy]

[another half-assed attempt]

Whatevs.

[Spurminator]

If you took a small sample of the ocean and saw one or two examples of life, you could reasonably conclude that there’s no evidence of widespread life in the ocean.


You haven't taken a sample of the ocean. You've found one or two examples in the entire ocean.

It's like posting two pictures of an albino alligator while trying to claim the albino alligator population is substantial. We have the numbers.


You did not take a random sample, dipshit. Nevermind your examples were not of things that voter ID could stop, you googled and failed.

Guess we're just going to pretend these exchanges didn't happen and post more Youtubes.

[RandomGuy]

[another video, no actual arguments]

meh. Not watching.

[RandomGuy]

If you took a small sample of the ocean and saw one or two examples of life, you could reasonably conclude that there’s no evidence of widespread life in the ocean.

That isn't how sampling works. Wow.

I showed this statement to an actuary (advanced degree in statistics). She laughed a lot, and thought I was trying to prank her.

I am embarrassed for you. This is normally where I would carefully, and patiently explain why, but I don't think you give a shit what is true, so I am going to put as much effort into this as you do.

[RandomGuy]

Guess we're just going to pretend these exchanges didn't happen and post more Youtubes.

Darrin's statement was painfully stupid. It hurt to read it.

It is almost as bad as his "thermometer in an office" argument in the global warming thread.

[Chucho]

You would have to work pretty hard at making it "no cost" to the people you wanted to get IDs. How much are you willing to increase taxes for this?

I don't mind raising taxes to make IDs really easy to get.

The thing is, though, all of this assumes a problem exists.

Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?


Again, why is a preventive measure so bad? And your stance that it isn't an issue is 50-50, what about states like California where IDs aren't required but are huge for sanctuary cities? Cynicism matches naivety. And it isn't fair to conjure that the ID law prevented voter fraud?

And, on the flip side of the coin, how many people who "couldn't" vote because they didn't have an ID would have voted? There's no legitimate way to prove that number aside from taking their word for it.

[Spurminator]

Confirmation bias is the single biggest plague of the right and no one on this forum personifies it better.

That and a Teflon resistance to self awareness and reflection.

[spurraider21]

Yes, Bush v Gore settles it. There is no constitutional right to vote.
Bush v Gore was specific to voting for Electors for Presidential elections tbh. but even then, the constitution says that voting rights can't be discriminated... so this whole argument is moot, since the crux if voter ID is the discriminatory effect

people have always had the right to vote for members of the House (17th amendment gave right to vote for senate)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're talking about "ought". I am talking about "is". There is no constitutional right to vote. Run for office, change the status quo. Make America Great Again and such.

Bush v Gore is the best reference of USSC case law that clearly interprets the constitution and states that voting isn't a constitutional right, but reserved for states to decide on. The BoR only states that discrimination cannot be based on specific protected categories like age (over 18), gender, race, religion and such.

Your other mumblings are moot.

Prove this. The case law is easy to find. Quote the portion of the decision that states what you claim. You once again are long on assertions and short on anything resembling proof. Experience shows that when you do this tactic, you cannot do it but will instead wave your hands and failing that resort to ridicule. It's what you do.

Bush vs Gore was about states having different standards for counting votes and ensuring equal protection. Prima facie there is no reason to believe your claim.

You are making a huge strawman and being an idiot about it. No one is saying that the states and municipalities don't decide on what to vote on. What is being said is that if a government vote is being held then citizens within said jurisdiction have a right to vote in it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bush v Gore was specific to voting for Electors for Presidential elections tbh

people have always had the right to vote for members of the House (17th amendment gave right to vote for senate)


We agree, of course, with Mr. Justice Holmes that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics" (Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 198 U. S. 75). Likewise, the Equal Protection Clause is not shackled to the political theory of a particular era. In determining what lines are unconstitutionally discriminatory, we have never been confined to historic notions of equality, any more than we have restricted due process to a fixed catalogue of what was at a given time deemed to be the limits of fundamental rights. See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 378 U. S. 5-6. Notions of what constitutes equal treatment for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause do change.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/663/case.html


"[S]ince the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 377 U. S. 562 (1964). See Williams v. Rhodes, supra, at 393 U. S. 31; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 376 U. S. 17 (1964). This careful examination is necessary because statutes distributing the franchise constitute the foundation of our representative society. Any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government.

Thus, state apportionment statutes, which may dilute the effectiveness of some citizens' votes, receive close scrutiny from this Court. Reynolds v. Sims, supra. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968). No less rigid an examination is applicable to statutes denying the franchise to citizens who are otherwise qualified by residence and age. [Footnote 6] Statutes granting the franchise to

Page 395 U. S. 627

residents on a selective basis always pose the danger of denying some citizens any effective voice in the governmental affairs which substantially affect their lives. [Footnote 7] Therefore, if a challenged state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise to others, the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. See Carrington v. Rash, supra at 380 U. S. 96.

And, for these reasons, the deference usually given to the judgment of legislators does not extend to decisions concerning which resident citizens may participate in the election of legislators and other public officials. Those decisions must be carefully scrutinized by the Court to determine whether each resident citizen has, as far as is possible, an equal voice in the selections. Accordingly, when we are reviewing statutes which deny some residents the right to vote, the general presumption of constitutionality afforded state statutes and the traditional approval given state classifications if the Court

Page 395 U. S. 628

can conceive of a "rational basis" for the distinctions made [Footnote 8] are not applicable. See Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 383 U. S. 670 (1966). The presumption of constitutionality and the approval given "rational" classifications in other types of enactments [Footnote 9] are based on an assumption that the institutions of state government are structured so as to represent fairly all the people. However, when the challenge to the statute is, in effect, a challenge of this basic assumption, the assumption can no longer serve as the basis for presuming constitutionality. And the assumption is no less under attack because the legislature which decides who may participate at the various levels of political choice is fairly elected. Legislation which delegates decisionmaking to bodies elected by only a portion of those eligible to vote for the legislature can cause unfair representation. Such legislation can exclude a minority of voters from any voice in the decisions just as effectively as if the decisions were made by legislators the minority had no voice in selecting. [Footnote 10]

The need for exacting judicial scrutiny of statutes distributing the franchise is undiminished simply because, under a different statutory scheme, the offices subject

Page 395 U. S. 629

to election might have been filled through appointment. [Footnote 11] States do have latitude in determining whether certain public officials shall be selected by election or chosen by appointment and whether various questions shall be submitted to the voters. In fact, we have held that, where a county school board is an administrative, not legislative, body, its members need not be elected. Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education, 387 U. S. 105, 387 U. S. 108 (1967). However,

"once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/621/case.html

[RandomGuy]

Again, why is a preventive measure so bad? And your stance that it isn't an issue is 50-50, what about states like California where IDs aren't required but are huge for sanctuary cities? Cynicism matches naivety. And it isn't fair to conjure that the ID law prevented voter fraud?

And, on the flip side of the coin, how many people who "couldn't" vote because they didn't have an ID would have voted? There's no legitimate way to prove that number aside from taking their word for it.

A preventive measure that prevents a problem that doesn't exist is bad because it is all cost and no benefit. It is like spending money on a unicorn steak at a restaurant. I have a cost, the price, and no benefit, i.e. I can't eat a non-existent steak.


Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

[RandomGuy]

Prove this. The case law is easy to find. Quote the portion of the decision that states what you claim. You once again are long on assertions and short on anything resembling proof. Experience shows that when you do this tactic, you cannot do it but will instead wave your hands and failing that resort to ridicule. It's what you do.

Bush vs Gore was about states having different standards for counting votes and ensuring equal protection. Prima facie there is no reason to believe your claim.

You are making a huge strawman and being an idiot about it. No one is saying that the states and municipalities don't decide on what to vote on. What is being said is that if a government vote is being held then citizens within said jurisdiction have a right to vote in it.

Shit, you're asking DMC to do some mental work. Good luck with that.

[DarrinS]

That isn't how sampling works. Wow.

I showed this statement to an actuary (advanced degree in statistics). She laughed a lot, and thought I was trying to prank her.

I am embarrassed for you. This is normally where I would carefully, and patiently explain why, but I don't think you give a shit what is true, so I am going to put as much effort into this as you do.


Sounds like a true story.



Darrin's statement was painfully stupid. It hurt to read it.

It is almost as bad as his "thermometer in an office" argument in the global warming thread.



It's so obvious when you are mad. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A preventive measure that prevents a problem that doesn't exist is bad because it is all cost and no benefit. It is like spending money on a unicorn steak at a restaurant. I have a cost, the price, and no benefit, i.e. I can't eat a non-existent steak.


Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

You would think that so called conservatives would not struggle to grasp this concept. It is the underpinning of the ethic for small government. Emerson talked about it 150 years ago.

It's a good way to spot people that lack introspection. People that will follow mindlessly those they have chosen to trust.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sounds like a true story.

It's so obvious when you are mad. :lol

That you don't care that you have once again been discredited as incompetent does not show well for you. Stoic indifference is not a virtue, dimwit.

[Pavlov]

Maybe photo ID isn’t the answer



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0uedSCARlcWhat is your answer, Darrin?

[Chucho]

A preventive measure that prevents a problem that doesn't exist is bad because it is all cost and no benefit. It is like spending money on a unicorn steak at a restaurant. I have a cost, the price, and no benefit, i.e. I can't eat a non-existent steak.


Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?


So, assume it was never an issue because data based on where the ID law was implemented showed the law prevented voter fraud?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, assume it was never an issue because data based on where the ID law was implemented showed the law prevented voter fraud?

You can repeat yourself, scream, handwave, jump up and down, etc but this take has been refuted. WI made that argument and when asked for proof by the court showed nothing. They lost their case on that basis.

You've had this pointed out to you 4 times now. You like to go back to your initial assertion don't you.

Now I am guessing that this si the part where you call me psuedo-intellectual or "not as smart as I think I am," but what you are doing with this tactic is monumentally stupid in and of itself. It is what really stupid, pigheaded people do when struck by cognitive dissonance.

[DarrinS]

What is your answer, Darrin?


There appears to be no foolproof solution. Any system that can be exploited, will be exploited.

[RandomGuy]

Sounds like a true story.

It's so obvious when you are mad. :lol

You got me. She just chuckled, went on to point out the various flaws in it in rather more detail than was necessary (if you ever deal with actuaries, expect answers like this), and said "is this person serious?"

[Chucho]

You can repeat yourself, scream, handwave, jump up and down, etc but this take has been refuted. WI made that argument and when asked for proof by the court showed nothing. They lost their case on that basis.

You've had this pointed out to you 4 times now. You like to go back to your initial assertion don't you.

Now I am guessing that this si the part where you call me psuedo-intellectual or "not as smart as I think I am," but what you are doing with this tactic is monumentally stupid in and of itself. It is what really stupid, pigheaded people do when struck by cognitive dissonance.


LOL, someone's still upset. You do realize this is what you were doing when you were calling someone "brotherkiller", right? Your projecting doesn't change your pseudo intellectualism and that's why you're trying to "Get a win".

And I should take a court case as the be all, end all? How often are cases overturned? You're standing by that because you're a pig headed, tool trying to stroke his ego. You're basically saying "don't question anything, the Government said it's this way." So, why do you question everything the administration says? Because it's stupid and vain to think everything is correct.

[Chucho]

My question is, how can you prove there was no voter fraud before ID laws were instituted and then disprove the lack of effectiveness when they're implemented?

[DarrinS]

A preventive measure that prevents a problem that doesn't exist is bad because it is all cost and no benefit. It is like spending money on a unicorn steak at a restaurant. I have a cost, the price, and no benefit, i.e. I can't eat a non-existent steak.


Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?


I can find examples of voter fraud. No unicorns tho.

[RandomGuy]

So, assume it was never an issue because data based on where the ID law was implemented showed the law prevented voter fraud?

"Assume bank robbing unicorns exist. How much money would you want to spend catching them?"

If bank-robbing unicorns existed, I would want the police to catch them.

If in-person voter fraud were proven to be a material problem, I would be fine with having voter ID laws, especially if some care was made to make the IDs easier.

In principle, I am not opposed to ID laws. The problem is that they are all cost, and no benefit.

You can't prove the problem exists, any more than any of the state attorney generals could when they got called to the mat in court, where it counts.

Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

[DarrinS]

You got me. She just chuckled, went on to point out the various flaws in it in rather more detail than was necessary (if you ever deal with actuaries, expect answers like this), and said "is this person serious?"


Yeah, I was definitely trying to do a rigorous statistical analysis and not make an analogy. Glad you ran that past the actuary tho.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL, someone's still upset. You do realize this is what you were doing when you were calling someone "brotherkiller", right? Your projecting doesn't change your pseudo intellectualism and that's why you're trying to "Get a win".

And I should take a court case as the be all, end all? How often are cases overturned? You're standing by that because you're a pig headed, tool trying to stroke his ego. You're basically saying "don't question anything, the Government said it's this way." So, why do you question everything the administration says? Because it's stupid and vain to think everything is correct.

:lol called it.

Now I expect here in the next 4 -24 hours you will once again repeat the initial assertion.

And dumbfuck, WI is the government making the claim that there was proof of voter fraud. If we are not to trust the government then we don't trust WI in the circumstance. This goes back to what I was talking about when I was pointing out how you lack introspection. Frankly, that is just some piss poor critical thinking.

:lol pseudo intellectualism. You wouldn't know an intellectual if they punched you in the face.

[DarrinS]

Now we’re on to bank-robbing unicorns. Good stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, I was definitely trying to do a rigorous statistical analysis and not make an analogy. Glad you ran that past the actuary tho.

No one is saying that you were trying to do a rigorous analysis, sophist. You cherry picked anecdotes in your normal halfbaked way and then tried to pass it off as a valid representation of the whole.

It's like being asked to multiply two numbers and you subtract two random numbers you googled. When it's pointed out how ignorant it is you turn around and say you weren't being rigorous. You are once again completely missing the point.

Not surprising but its there just the same.

[Pavlov]

There appears to be no foolproof solution. Any system that can be exploited, will be exploited.To make a YouTube video, sure.

[RandomGuy]

I can find examples of voter fraud. No unicorns tho.

Sure voter fraud exists. Easy.

Different types of voter fraud exist. Also easy.

The kind of voter fraud that would be prevented by a voter ID law doesn't exist. We can quibble over semantics if you want.

I can then clarify that it has an effect in .00000000000000001% of votes, which is, for all practical purposes, non-existant.

How much do you want your taxes to go up to prevent 00.00000000000000001% of voter fraud? If you have a better figure than .00000000000000001%, then present it. Maybe you will have better luck than the highly-paid lawyers who tried to argue this shit in court and came up with nada. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Now we’re on to bank-robbing unicorns. Good stuff.

They are as real as the fraud you say we need laws to prevent. Sort of my point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure voter fraud exists. Easy.

Different types of voter fraud exist. Also easy.

The kind of voter fraud that would be prevented by a voter ID law doesn't exist. We can quibble over semantics if you want.

I can then clarify that it has an effect in .00000000000000001% of votes, which is, for all practical purposes, non-existant.

How much do you want your taxes to go up to prevent 00..00000000000000001% of voter fraud? If you have a better figure than .00000000000000001%, then present it. Maybe you will have better luck than the highly-paid lawyers who tried to argue this shit in court and came up with nada. :lol

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fokd83nn4x6wuw9/OnePersonOneVote.pdf?dl=0

Here is another study from Penn from last month. It actually is a rigorous statistical analysis.

[RandomGuy]

No one is saying that you were trying to do a rigorous analysis, sophist. You cherry picked anecdotes in your normal halfbaked way and then tried to pass it off as a valid representation of the whole.

It's like being asked to multiply two numbers and you subtract two random numbers you googled. When it's pointed out how ignorant it is you turn around and say you weren't being rigorous. You are once again completely missing the point.

Not surprising but its there just the same.

+1

He doesn't even realize it fails as an analogy.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fokd83nn4x6wuw9/OnePersonOneVote.pdf?dl=0

Here is another study from Penn from last month. It actually is a rigorous statistical analysis.


We find that one of Crosscheck’s proposed purging strategies

would eliminate about 300 registrations used to cast a seemingly legitimate vote

for every one registration used to cast a double vote.

Basically 300 false positives for every case of actual error elimination. All cost, no benefit. More Republican failure.

Again.

[Chucho]

You wouldn't know an intellectual if they punched you in the face.

I know you're not one. Not even close. The only person who'd call you intellectual is you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know you're not one. Not even close. The only person who'd call you intellectual is you.

I've never called myself one that I can recall. It's always just been important to people like yourself that I not be one.

So anywho what makes you qualified to judge who is or is not an intellectual? You have demonstrated poor critical thinking and a disingenuous nature. I see no reason to find you credible in just about anything but perhaps you can make a case for yourself. I'm willing to listen.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Basically 300 false positives for every case of actual error elimination. All cost, no benefit. More Republican failure.

Again.

The article does a good job quantifying the issue. Even if you take the most generous extreme of possible outcomes given the error, there has never been remotely enough preventable fraud to affect an election.

OTOH, you article in the OP points out how 10s of thousands were disenfranchised which is a significant and outcoming level of change to the electorate.

It is quite easy to weigh and it is no surprise that the states have lost on ID laws repeatedly. It's an easy case to figure.

[RandomGuy]

The article does a good job quantifying the issue. Even if you take the most generous extreme of possible outcomes given the error, there has never been remotely enough preventable fraud to affect an election.

OTOH, you article in the OP points out how 10s of thousands were disenfranchised which is a significant and outcoming level of change to the electorate.

It is quite easy to weigh and it is no surprise that the states have lost on ID laws repeatedly. It's an easy case to figure.

It's about the suppression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxvw2Is0pLM

Republican county chair, and executive committee member of the NC Republican party gave an interview, where he pretty much admitted that the laws were intended to hurt groups that vote Democratic. He didn't once mention fraud.


The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, published Friday, quotes former Buncombe County, North Carolina, precinct chairman Don Yelton as saying on the Daily Show three years ago: If the N.C. voter ID law “hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.”



Yelton also previously testified at a N.C. General Assembly committee in 2013 that changing state election laws could help Republicans win elections by disenfranchising some Democratic Party “special voting blocks” and that was “that reason for the photo ID” requirement.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article93060687.html


(edit)

Did I mention the interview was with the Daily Show? :lmao It wasn't even a serious interview, but he admitted on tape what he thought the real reason for the ID law was...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's about the suppression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxvw2Is0pLM

Republican county chair, and executive committee member of the NC Republican party gave an interview, where he pretty much admitted that the laws were intended to hurt groups that vote Democratic. He didn't once mention fraud.





http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article93060687.html


(edit)

Did I mention the interview was with the Daily Show? :lmao It wasn't even a serious interview, but he admitted on tape what he thought the real reason for the ID law was...

That's all been known for a long time. The issue is that you like many others are rational and use critical thinking skills to weight new evidence and incorporate it into your outlook.

Board conservatives around here are rife with people that simply ignore contrary evidence and repeat initial claims. The one's that are not like that for the most part no longer post here. Instead we are left with Darrin and all of m>s and TSA trolls.

[RandomGuy]

Robert Gleason, Chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party says that the Voter ID law helped to lessen Obama's margin of victory in the 2012 election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXF9euvxreE

[RandomGuy]

(R) Admits Voter ID Laws About Helping Romney Win Election

"The Pennsylvania House majority leader says voter ID "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win" the presidency."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60


Looks like the GOP in Pennsylvania didn't get the memo about how to prevent fraud, and were more concerned about turnout.

[RandomGuy]

Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP’s voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12774066/voter-id-laws-racist

[RandomGuy]

Note how easy it was to find Republicans talking about reducing turn out, but so hard to find actual "fraud" that ID laws can prevent.

I wonder why that is?

[dabom]

Note how easy it was to find Republicans talking about reducing turn out, but so hard to find actual "fraud" that ID laws can prevent.

I wonder why that is?

Always the crux in the argument.

[DarrinS]

Note how easy it was to find Republicans talking about reducing turn out, but so hard to find actual "fraud" that ID laws can prevent.

I wonder why that is?


Easiest way to reduce turnout — shitty candidates.

[RandomGuy]

Easiest way to reduce turnout — shitty candidates.

But that wasn't what the Republican officials credited the shifting margins to. They credited the voter ID law for tilting things.

Just....stop, Wile E.

[DMC]

Bush v Gore was specific to voting for Electors for Presidential elections tbh. but even then, the constitution says that voting rights can't be discriminated... so this whole argument is moot, since the crux if voter ID is the discriminatory effect

people have always had the right to vote for members of the House (17th amendment gave right to vote for senate)

ID laws don't single out anyone based on race, religion, gender, age, etc...

If one sector of the population decides they want to remain anonymous, cannot afford an ID, whatever, that's not covered under the Bill of Rights.

[DMC]

:tu Because we all know that worked out so well in the past. I mean, no state has ever allowed a majority of people to decide that some other group of people shouldn't be able to vote because of an unjust reason.

Because states have been so careful not to take voting rights away from people for shitty reasons, no one has ever had to protest, and no one ever got killed or tortured to fight any of these hypothetical unjust laws.

Thanks for pointing out that we can always completely trust states to never pass laws that take voting rights away for shitty reasons. We all needed a refresher.

I never said anything about trust but your plea to emotive jargon is duly noted. The facts are what they are. You folks who "ought" your way though life often don't do shit to change anything.

[spurraider21]

ID laws don't single out anyone based on race, religion, gender, age, etc...

If one sector of the population decides they want to remain anonymous, cannot afford an ID, whatever, that's not covered under the Bill of Rights.
Disparate impact is always something to look for with discrimination claims

[Pavlov]

ID laws don't single out anyone based on race, religion, gender, age, etc...

If one sector of the population decides they want to remain anonymous, cannot afford an ID, whatever, that's not covered under the Bill of Rights.Poll tax.

[DMC]

Prove this. The case law is easy to find. Quote the portion of the decision that states what you claim. You once again are long on assertions and short on anything resembling proof. Experience shows that when you do this tactic, you cannot do it but will instead wave your hands and failing that resort to ridicule. It's what you do.

Bush vs Gore was about states having different standards for counting votes and ensuring equal protection. Prima facie there is no reason to believe your claim.

You are making a huge strawman and being an idiot about it. No one is saying that the states and municipalities don't decide on what to vote on. What is being said is that if a government vote is being held then citizens within said jurisdiction have a right to vote in it.

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,”

[DMC]

Poll tax.

"shall not be infringed"

ID required

Gun tax

[DMC]

Disparate impact is always something to look for with discrimination claims

Does the 2nd Amendment fall under this as well, that poor folk cannot exercise their 2nd Amendment rights legally since they cannot afford an ID?

[Pavlov]

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,”Is voting for congress in the constitution?

[spurraider21]

"shall not be infringed"

ID required

Gun taxpoll taxes are explicitly unconstitutional. Has its own amendment

[spurraider21]

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,”
You keep parading this quote as your " a ha! I know something you don't know" moment when it's moot.

you have a federal right not to have a discriminatory voting restriction. Voter ID has been found to be just that

[DMC]

You keep parading this quote as your " a ha! I know something you don't know" moment when it's moot.

you have a federal right not to have a discriminatory voting restriction. Voter ID has been found to be just that

Which protected class does it discriminate against?

[Pavlov]

Which protected class does it discriminate against?The class protected from poll taxes.

[spurraider21]

Which protected class does it discriminate against?
You can ask the courts that have ruled on that issue

[DMC]

The class protected from poll taxes.

What if the ID was free?

[Pavlov]

What if the ID was free?Is it?

[DMC]

You can ask the courts that have ruled on that issue

Seven states have enacted voter ID laws. Are they violating the Bill of Rights?

[spurraider21]

What if the ID was free?
If apa's aunt had balls, he'd be fucking his uncle

[DMC]

Is it?

I'm asking you. Are you upset at the price or the need for an ID? Be specific.

[DMC]

If apa's aunt had balls, he'd be fucking his uncle

:lol

At least one of them would have balls.

How much does a an ID cost, any state issued ID?

[Pavlov]

I'm asking you. Are you upset at the price or the need for an ID? Be specific.I asked you if they are free since you explicitly said too bad if the can't afford it.

Are the IDs that you originally said weren't affordable to some actually free?

Yes or no.

[spurraider21]

:lol

How much does a an ID cost, any state issued ID?
Dno tbh. Presumably varies state to state.

[DMC]

You keep parading this quote as your " a ha! I know something you don't know" moment when it's moot.

you have a federal right not to have a discriminatory voting restriction. Voter ID has been found to be just that

Fuzzy said citizens have a constitutional right to vote. I said they don't. Since then it's been "ought to" and "you're eroding the freedoms this nation was founded on!"

[RandomGuy]

My question is, how can you prove there was no voter fraud before ID laws

Can't ask someone to prove a negative. That isn't how it works. e.g. "prove you aren't a child molester".

Burden of proof is on those making the claim. "there is in person voter fraud that requires an ID law to fix" is the positive claim.

[DMC]

Dno tbh. Presumably varies state to state.

Do you agree with background checks and ID requirements to purchase a firearm?

[Pavlov]

Fuzzy said citizens have a constitutional right to vote. I said they don't. Since then it's been "ought to" and "you're eroding the freedoms this nation was founded on!"Is there anything in the constitution about voting for congress?

[koriwhat]

Do you agree with background checks and ID requirements to purchase a firearm?

of course he/she doesn't... they want guns outlawed altogether because guns kill and not people behind the triggers.

[spurraider21]

Seven states have enacted voter ID laws. Are they violating the Bill of Rights?
Depends on which courts you ask. Indiana has an id law up and running. Texas can't stop getting theirs overturned.

[DMC]

Can't ask someone to prove a negative. That isn't how it works. e.g. "prove you aren't a child molester".

Burden of proof is on those making the claim. "there is in person voter fraud that requires an ID law to fix" is the positive claim.

Then it would be "did it swing the election?" or "that's a rare case!"

One example is all you need to prove the assertion. After that caveats follow.

[DMC]

Is there anything in the constitution about voting for congress?

Scurry off and find out. Let us know what you find in this mythical "constitution" I keep hearing about.

[RandomGuy]

What if the ID was free?

ID's are never "free".

You can make it free to people, but then you have to have some government agency to do it. Costs to tax payers, so it will cost someone, somewhere.

The answer to this question is : it doesn't matter two shits in a pot.

If the ID is meant to solve a problem that doesn't exist, then the ID is pointless, even if you could magically shit them out of your butt for "free".

Prove that free IDs solve a problem that exists. all cost, no benefit.

[Pavlov]

Scurry off and find out. Let us know what you find in this mythical "constitution" I keep hearing about.Nah, your whining all but shouts it's definitely in there.

Thanks for that. Pretty much makes everything you've been saying moot.

[RandomGuy]

https://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Melania-Trump-Trolled-Over-White-House-Christmas-Decor-940x460.jpg

[Spurtacular]

It's the suppression, silly.

On election night, Anthony was shocked to see Trump carry Wisconsin by nearly 23,000 votes. The state, which ranked second in the nation in voter participation in 2008 and 2012, saw its lowest turnout since 2000. More than half the state’s decline in turnout occurred in Milwaukee, which Clinton carried by a 77-18 margin, but where almost 41,000 fewer people voted in 2016 than in 2012.

What!?!?!?! Blacks didn't show up to support an old, rich, white hag? OMG!

[Spurtacular]

ID's are never "free".

You can make it free to people, but then you have to have some government agency to do it. Costs to tax payers, so it will cost someone, somewhere.



So, you're worried about paying marginal costs that go to ensuring civil rights? WTF do you think was the point of taxes in the first place?

[RandomGuy]

Then it would be "did it swing the election?" or "that's a rare case!"

One example is all you need to prove the assertion. After that caveats follow.

34 votes out of 800,000,000

That's what the evidence shows.

[RandomGuy]

So, you're worried about paying marginal costs that go to ensuring civil rights? WTF do you think was the point of taxes in the first place?

[smiley][derision]

[DMC]

34 votes out of 800,000,000

That's what the evidence shows.

Then it's proven.

There were 800 million votes?

[RandomGuy]

Then it's proven.

There were 800 million votes?

Feel free to find the study too. Go forth into the peer-reviewed papers.

[RandomGuy]

After that caveats follow.

Caveats are good things. I would hope so.

[Spurtacular]

[smiley][derision]

No smiley/derision, dipshit. You just went extra lazy on your schtick.

So, you're worried about paying marginal costs that go to ensuring civil rights? WTF do you think was the point of taxes in the first place?

[pgardn]

You're talking about "ought". I am talking about "is". There is no constitutional right to vote. Run for office, change the status quo. Make America Great Again and such.

Bush v Gore is the best reference of USSC case law that clearly interprets the constitution and states that voting isn't a constitutional right, but reserved for states to decide on. The BoR only states that discrimination cannot be based on specific protected categories like age (over 18), gender, race, religion and such.

Your other mumblings are moot.

Im talking about the basics of a democracy, not what our constitution says or anything else.

Your starting spot is with only the king can vote. (Grant rights from here carefully)
The democratic starting point is that anything can vote. (Restrict from here)
This is why you can't even begin to understand how important the basic idea of everyone having input is. It's Nothing more than this. Quit trying to riggle out of something so incredibly basic.

This debate has started yet again because Trump lost the popular vote. Something he, and the Trumpeteers, can't get over.

Or possibly boots now thinking Russians voted in our election. The paranoia deepens for both groups.

[DarrinS]

34 votes out of 800,000,000

That's what the evidence shows.


Where do these numbers come from?

[rmt]

Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/#

... then add in Pootin's cyber army targeting WI (and MI, PA) and Repug's releasing Comey's letter 10 days before the election.




mmm, Trump would have won without any 2 of WI, MI and PA. And absentee ballots in WI must be sent by 47 days before a federal election.

This is like Obama's 92 day aca enrollment period. NC - had 27 days of voting plus absentee ballot that was available 60 days prior to the date of a statewide general election - that's plenty of time. Early and absentee voting started on Oct 12, 2016 - that's 34 days. How much longer does one need to vote?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where do these numbers come from?

Brennan Center

[pgardn]

Im talking about the basics of a democracy, not what our constitution says or anything else.

Your starting spot is with only the king can vote. (Grant rights from here carefully)
The democratic starting point is that anything can vote. (Restrict from here)
This is why you can't even begin to understand how important the basic idea of everyone having input is. It's Nothing more than this. Quit trying to riggle out of something so incredibly basic.

This debate has started yet again because Trump lost the popular vote. Something he, and the Trumpeteers, can't get over.

Or possibly boots now thinking Russians voted in our election. The paranoia deepens for both groups.

The, "But I have to have a divers license crew in order to drive", is so totally lost...

[rmt]

Im talking about the basics of a democracy, not what our constitution says or anything else.

Your starting spot is with only the king can vote. (Grant rights from here carefully)
The democratic starting point is that anything can vote. (Restrict from here)
This is why you can't even begin to understand how important the basic idea of everyone having input is. It's Nothing more than this. Quit trying to riggle out of something so incredibly basic.

This debate has started yet again because Trump lost the popular vote. Something he, and the Trumpeteers, can't get over.

Or possibly boots now thinking Russians voted in our election. The paranoia deepens for both groups.

That'd be the Hillary fans. I doubt any Trump voter spent any time worrying over him losing the popular vote - it is meaningless - Trump is President.

[pgardn]

mmm, Trump would have won without any 2 of WI, MI and PA. And absentee ballots in WI must be sent by 47 days before a federal election.

This is like Obama's 92 day aca enrollment period. NC - had 27 days of voting plus absentee ballot that was available 60 days prior to the date of a statewide general election - that's plenty of time. Early and absentee voting started on Oct 12, 2016 - that's 34 days. How much longer does one need to vote?

In close elections this is exciting for the Networks and the crew that must win to feel worthy. Bush v. Gore included.

What the big picture says is we have had very close elections, the country is basically split, flip a coin.

Move on. (An impossible task for some)
The thing that we must ask for is frrgn govern now, you won. Start now. And now there are very strict rules, because now you are actually making and trying to implement policy; Not simply choosing a "leader".

[pgardn]

That'd be the Hillary fans. I doubt any Trump voter spent any time worrying over him losing the popular vote - it is meaningless - Trump is President.

Oh I do doubt, I totally doubt the ability to move on in about 1/3 of the electorate. They are still in the we won stage, a massive victory to be relished in Hillary's tears. Retribution and basking in a win is the driver.

Meanwhile... the wall?? What?

[koriwhat]

how to rig an election....

HRC > MSM > HOLLYWOOD > Campaign Funds from Terrorist Countries > Buying the DNC > Pushing out 2face Bernie > ....

basically just ask HRC and the DNC how it's done. they got the blueprint.

[pgardn]

how to rig an election....

HRC > MSM > HOLLYWOOD > Campaign Funds from Terrorist Countries > Buying the DNC > Pushing out 2face Bernie > ....

basically just ask HRC and the DNC how it's done. they got the blueprint.

And they got greeted with a stunning upset.
Great strategy huh?

So now we look for all those illegals (3 frkn million votes) and look forward to building a wall?
Way to govern Republicans, just beautiful.

[spurraider21]

You forgot benghazi and uranium One

[koriwhat]

And they got greeted with a stunning upset.
Great strategy huh?

So now we look for all those illegals (3 frkn million votes) and look forward to building a wall?
Way to govern Republicans, just beautiful.

fuck it, build that wall or enforce those laws already! it's time this country stops being the worlds melting pot and world police.

[Spurtacular]

That'd be the Hillary fans. I doubt any Trump voter spent any time worrying over him losing the popular vote - it is meaningless - Trump is President.

Not counting the cheating, Trump probably won by at least 10 million votes, anyways.

[DarrinS]

Well, we know for sure how to rig a primary. :lol

[koriwhat]

Well, we know for sure how to rig a primary. :lol

indeed we do.

[Spurtacular]

Well, we know for sure how to rig a primary. :lol

Not a problem for the Dems. Repubs tried and failed.

[koriwhat]

it's glorious seeing the far left lose their minds because another rich old man is the president. a rich old man they all loved prior to his campaign. a rich old man whose name was known to all around the world. a rich old man who had rappers praising him only to shoot him down nowadays. a rich old man that hollywood revered until he ran for president. a rich old man.... lmao!

from an outsiders pov, i am loving the meltdown from the far left. i say build 10 walls!

[spurraider21]

it's glorious seeing the far left lose their minds because another rich old man is the president. a rich old man they all loved prior to his campaign. a rich old man whose name was known to all around the world. a rich old man who had rappers praising him only to shoot him down nowadays. a rich old man that hollywood revered until he ran for president. a rich old man.... lmao!

from an outsiders pov, i am loving the meltdown from the far left. i say build 10 walls!
Triggering libs a higher priority than that fiscal responsibility thingy

[DMC]

Im talking about the basics of a democracy, not what our constitution says or anything else.


Holy shit

You're out there, moonbat

[koriwhat]

Triggering libs a higher priority than that fiscal responsibility thingy

if most weren't getting gov't help we'd be fiscally fine!

[DMC]

Well, we know for sure how to rig a primary. :lol


http://31.media.tumblr.com/83670da352bcdbf107071da48ef9844e/tumblr_mf1o4eRAov1qijr10o1_500.gif

[Spurtacular]

if most weren't getting gov't help we'd be fiscally fine!

That's what repubs want you to think. That's only a sliver of a problem that is corporate controlled govt.

[Spurtacular]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/83670da352bcdbf107071da48ef9844e/tumblr_mf1o4eRAov1qijr10o1_500.gif

[koriwhat]

That's what repubs want you to think. That's only a sliver of a problem that is corporate controlled govt.

as well, fuck aid to all outside of the USA. fuck all the bs! i'm down for MAGA if it means we stop meddling all over the world, selling our tech and innovations off to other countries, etc... fuck it!

[pgardn]

Holy shit

You're out there, moonbat

You have completely lost sight of the fundamentals.

You are trying calculus when you can't even do algebra. You can't even start the process.
And that feigned outrage. Oh my. Holy shit? Really? You are going as far as I do.

[pgardn]

as well, fuck aid to all outside of the USA. fuck all the bs! i'm down for MAGA if it means we stop meddling all over the world, selling our tech and innovations off to other countries, etc... fuck it!

No ya see we get a whole bunch of fantastic ideas from foreigners who see the possibilities.
Im selling that shit because I live it and have seen it directly. Indian and Chinese immigrants have done wonderful work in biomedical sciences and physics. We got a lot of white European parasites hanging on sucking us dry thinking they will work in coal mines. Not gonna happen.

[DMC]

You have completely lost sight of the fundamentals.

You are trying calculus when you can't even do algebra. You can't even start the process.
And that feigned outrage. Oh my. Holy shit? Really? You are going as far as I do.

Try to stay on topic.

[RandomGuy]

No smiley/derision, dipshit. You just went extra lazy on your schtick.

So, you're worried about paying marginal costs that go to ensuring civil rights? WTF do you think was the point of taxes in the first place?

[smiley][derision] was merely my lazy response to your own lazy response. Your question has several assumptions buried in it that make it about as logically valid as asking me if a pie made out of Jupiter tastes good.

I just don't feel like explaining to you what those assumptions are, and why they are invalid, because you don't care what is true. In that you are a bit like whoever posts as Thread.

You don't care what is true, and don't take anything seriously. This is already more time than I think this deserves, so I'll stop there.

[RandomGuy]

Where do these numbers come from?

Feel free to find the study too. Go forth into the peer-reviewed papers.

I have asked repeatedly for anyone who thinks we need ID laws to show evidence of in-person voter fraud that might require ID laws.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[RandomGuy]

The, "But I have to have a divers license crew in order to drive", is so totally lost...

It is a bit sad to watch people struggle so hard with the idea. Maybe we should put that on the voter qualification test...

[RandomGuy]

I doubt any Trump voter spent any time worrying over him losing the popular vote - it is meaningless - Trump is President.

He is indeed. Two things:

1) that should worry you. You just said that Trump voters don't really care about the ideals of democracy.

And

2) if the situation had been reversed, I have little doubt that the right would be screaming about it, and it would be the only thing Fox Propaganda would be talking about.

[pgardn]

Try to stay on topic.

When you use unnecessary esoteric fancy toppings to feel good, you need to be brought back to fundamentals. The idea is full participation in a democracy, start there.

[pgardn]

Well, we know for sure how to rig a primary. :lol

Or not rig a primary so as not to be stunned in the general election.

its easy in hindsight though for me as well. The frustration at the Democratic convention was real and a harbinger of things to come from the general election. I think we can say this now, which is of course, easy.

[RandomGuy]

When you use unnecessary esoteric fancy toppings to feel good, you need to be brought back to fundamentals. The idea is full participation in a democracy, start there.

DMC would rather argue semantics. It's his go-to, feel-good thing. Good luck trying to get him into anything substantive, but I think you are probably wasting your time.