Reply With Quote
Isn't it possible, that the states targeted, are the states that had unexpected democrat wins?
Study confirms every bad thing you suspected about voter ID laws...
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/21/stud...d_laws_partnerThe news: According to new research by University of Massachusetts Boston sociologist Keith Bentele and political scientist Erin O’Brien, the states that have enacted tougher voter ID laws in the past few years are also the same states where both minority and lower-income voter turnout had increased in recent years. Focusing further analysis on just 2011, when the vast majority of voter ID regulations were passed, the researchers found that states which passed the legislation were highly likely to have:
- Republicans in control of both houses of the state legislature and the governorship
- Strong probabilities of being swing states in the 2012 elections
- Minority turnout which was higher in the 2008 election and with high proportions of African-American voters
- Larger numbers of allegations of fraud in 2004, though these had a “much smaller substantive impact relative to partisan and racial factors”
The authors note that the study’s results carry ominous implications and demonstrate voter ID laws have “an uncomfortable relationship to the political activism of blacks and the poor.” Their paper further situates voter ID within a realm of policies that “collectively reduce electoral access among the socially marginalized.”
ers can't win it honestly anymore, so you get this...
Isn't it possible, that the states targeted, are the states that had unexpected democrat wins?
unexpected? due to your oft-repeated, totally evidence-free myth of massive, election-throwing Dem voter fraud?
the states "targeted" by the Repgs all red states, mostly Confederate/racist states and Western (rural bubba) states, the states they already control. The real advantage is the Repug voter suppression strategy is in the bigger purple states, like FL and VA.
By gutting the VRA act, "thing have changed" since the 1960s, the Repug activist SCOTUS majority made a purely political decision to allow Repug to suppress Dem voters.
The Repugs know they are and will be screwed demographically for decades, so the only way they can achieve Federal power is to gerrymander and suppress Dem voters at the state level.
Isn't it possible that you are a dumb mother er that inserts wishful thinking for facts and analysis?
I think you are reflecting your wishful thinking and don't realize it is dumber than what you are accusing me of. I simply pointed out a possibility. Those tho flat out refuse to accept it as a possibility are the dumb s, unless they have facts to know it isn't possible.
Do you know for a fact it isn't a possibility?
ah, the famous WC emphasis on the importance of open-mindedness.
it's related to his penchant for improvising wild implausibilites, providing no support whatsoever for them, then turning on his critics as being narrow-minded.
Oh, Boy, is that whining I hear? Poor babies, they cant vote more than once or twice. LBJ feels your pain.
, I wish that the only people that could vote were the ones that paid taxes.
everybody pays taxes, and the wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in taxes than the poor. so GFY
Paying sales tax with your free welfare check isn't paying taxes for brains. If you want me to be specific, I was referring to productive people that work and pay income tax.
there's been more than one study, including one for TX, where total tax payments, income, SS, sales, property, etc, etc, as percentage of income for (working) poor people exceeds the total percentage for wealthy people. "Do You Own Research"
Paying sales tax with your free welfare check isn't paying taxes for brains. If you want me to be specific, I was referring to productive people that work and pay income tax.
and it seems that once you reach a certain level of wealth you NEVER pay more the 20% of your income in taxes, iow, HIGHLY regressive.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-23-2013 at 07:31 PM.
Of course you do, you're a plutocrat
I just pointed out a possibility. As for plausability. You have given nothing as to give basis to your assertion. There is not really any basis given for 'unexpected' being grounds to dismiss the studies findings.
What we do have is a basis for you being stupid in years of experience from your postings. Like when you think that simple arithmetic suffices to model heat transfer or misunderstand the properties of simple electronic and mechanical devices like caps and flywheels when you work on such things all the time. "THE OCEAN IS LIKE A BIG SODA, GOING FLAT," WC SAID.
I am a skeptic as well an empirical reductionist. That paradigm means I don't give credence to asinine assertions such as yours without basis. If you show that there is merit in your assertion then fine but just throwing against the wall and holding it true until disproven is not the way to the truth.
Guess old boutons has forgotten about EIC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
