Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Princess L on October 09, 2014, 08:16:17 PM
-
fucking ACLU >:( ::)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/09/supreme-court-wisconsin-voter-id/16985963/
"The court gave no reason for its action,"
"After a federal appeals court upheld the law earlier this week, a coalition of private groups had asked the high court to intervene"
http://fox6now.com/2014/10/09/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-from-implementing-voter-id-law/
-
Wtf..... even mexico requires proof of citizenship to vote.... but when we ask our mexicans to prove their citizens, were racist.
-
Republican plan to win elections = turn voters away.
-
Republican plan to win elections = turn voters away.
So let me get this right, I have to have a driver license to drive, a Social Security Number for employment, in Illinois a FOID card to own a gun. But asking for asking for identification to vote, is to much to ask...............
-
So let me get this right, I have to have a driver license to drive, a Social Security Number for employment, in Illinois a FOID card to own a gun. But asking for asking for identification to vote, is to much to ask...............
Are guns and voting really equivalent in your mind?
-
Are guns and voting really equivalent in your mind?
I guess you completely missed the point of my post
-
Are guns and voting really equivalent in your mind?
well, yeah, actually. Voting can much larger ramificiations.
Seriously, we have to ids for oretty much anything, often in duplicate.
Yet when asked to show ID to vote, its somehow wrong? Its simply ensuring you are who you say you are, and that youre legally eligable to vote in this country. I dont see how this disenfranchises anyone.... if you cant prove your OD, you shouldnt be allowed to vote
This has absolutley zero to do with republicans. Its basic logic that pretty much every other 1st world democracy does.
-
Same thing in texas...'Obama- appointed US district judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos' ::) blocked Texas voter ID laws
http://news.yahoo.com/courts-block-voter-id-laws-texas-wisconsin-050359994.html (http://news.yahoo.com/courts-block-voter-id-laws-texas-wisconsin-050359994.html)
The article is of course by libs who make every effort to point out in their 'reporting' how 'racist and harsh' the simple requirement of having to show an ID is to vote ::)
Makes my fucking blood boil. There is NO CONCEIVABLE REASON to fight these laws other than to maintain voter fraud.
These activist judges need to be removed by force...
-
Crazy. I don't believe requiring someone to show an ID to vote is discriminatory at all, particularly when people literally have years to obtain an ID before an election.
-
Republicans should turn Democrats' dirty tricks on them by taking advantage of this and bringing in truck loads and ships full of undocumented foreigners from commie hating nations to vote Republican.
-
Crazy. I don't believe requiring someone to show an ID to vote is discriminatory at all, particularly when people literally have years to obtain an ID before an election.
The democrats' entire platform is emotion and the race card. Never have to back it up with anything, just yell racism over and over.
-
Are guns and voting really equivalent in your mind?
both can be equally as dangerous yes.. and in fact voting more so
-
Are guns and voting really equivalent in your mind?
Actually - yes moron. No go back to sleep and wait for your check to arrive from Uncle Sugga
-
fucking ACLU >:( ::)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/09/supreme-court-wisconsin-voter-id/16985963/
"The court gave no reason for its action,"
"After a federal appeals court upheld the law earlier this week, a coalition of private groups had asked the high court to intervene"
http://fox6now.com/2014/10/09/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-from-implementing-voter-id-law/
Maybe they read the recent GAO report on states that implemented voter ID laws which concluded the that laws, whether intentional or not, resulted in lower voter turnout among eligible voters, most notably among black people, young people and newly registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/gao-voter-id-laws-in-kansas-and-tennessee-dropped-2012-turnout-by-over-100000-votes/
-
Republican plan to win elections = turn voters away.
only the dead ones, or the felons, or the illegals....pretty much the liberal base
-
Maybe they read the recent GAO report on states that implemented voter ID laws which concluded the that laws, whether intentional or not, resulted in lower voter turnout among eligible voters, most notably among black people, young people and newly registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/gao-voter-id-laws-in-kansas-and-tennessee-dropped-2012-turnout-by-over-100000-votes/
And?
-
Are guns and voting really equivalent in your mind?
one is extremely dangerous for stoopid people to have rights to...
the other is a gun.
-
one is extremely dangerous for stoopid people to have rights to...
the other is a gun.
Heh.
-
Maybe they read the recent GAO report on states that implemented voter ID laws which concluded the that laws, whether intentional or not, resulted in lower voter turnout among eligible voters, most notably among black people, young people and newly registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/gao-voter-id-laws-in-kansas-and-tennessee-dropped-2012-turnout-by-over-100000-votes/
LOL, having to show a drivers license or other form of ID caused people not to vote? I always have my drivers license on me, guess the process of pulling their wallet from their back pocket is simply to much effort.
-
LOL, having to show a drivers license or other form of ID caused people not to vote? I always have my drivers license on me, guess the process of pulling their wallet from their back pocket is simply to much effort.
They literally have no legitimate arguement for it. None.
This is just yet another case where something that has the support of the vast majority of the population is shot down by an acfivist liberal judge
-
They literally have no legitimate arguement for it. None.
This is just yet another case where something that has the support of the vast majority of the population is shot down by an acfivist liberal judge
That ain't very nice of you. Straw Man spent an hour searching Google for the best possible argument for this. He found it, and was kind enough to share with us all.
-
I like how no one yet has actually responded to the facts of the GAO report
-
I like how no one yet has actually responded to the facts of the GAO report
who fucking cares? Waahhh, if i have to show id i wont turn out.
Fuck you then.
-
The democrats' entire platform is emotion and the race card. Never have to back it up with anything, just yell racism over and over.
They definitely play the race card early and often.
-
So what's to stop people voting multiple times?
Out here in Thailand, you are registered at a polling station. You have to go to that polling station, show your id card & vote.
Without the id card, it'd still work 'cause you can't just pitch up & vote.
So in the US - do you get assigned to a particular place to vote?
-
who fucking cares? Waahhh, if i have to show id i wont turn out.
Fuck you then.
Pretty much. Not a burdensome requirement at all.
-
I like how no one yet has actually responded to the facts of the GAO report
Did the court read the GAO report?
-
Pretty much. Not a burdensome requirement at all.
there are plenty of eligible voters for which it is a burden and that's the entire point of the laws
they know it will suppress a certain amount of eligible voters and that is good for Republicans
-
Did the court read the GAO report?
try reading my post next time
Maybe they read the recent GAO report on states that implemented voter ID laws which concluded the that laws, whether intentional or not, resulted in lower voter turnout among eligible voters, most notably among black people, young people and newly registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/gao-voter-id-laws-in-kansas-and-tennessee-dropped-2012-turnout-by-over-100000-votes/
-
try reading my post next time
So no?
-
That ain't very nice of you. Straw Man spent an hour searching Google for the best possible argument for this. He found it, and was kind enough to share with us all.
LOL - maybe it would take you that long
I just saw it on the TV machine and remembered it
that's just how my brain works
-
So no?
or yes
apparently you are unfamiliar with the word "maybe"
I honestly did not know you there that stupid
-
or yes
apparently you are unfamiliar with the word "maybe"
I honestly did not know you there that stupid
Didn't take you long to start with the insults. Typical liberal.
-
Didn't take you long to start with the insults. Typical liberal.
what else is left when you ask me a stupid question and then truly appear to not understand the definition of a word you should have known by the first grade?
-
what else is left when you ask me a stupid question and then truly appear to not understand the definition of a word you should have known by the first grade?
Come back when you have evidence that the court read the report. Otherwise, your post is irrelevant.
-
there are plenty of eligible voters for which it is a burden and that's the entire point of the laws
they know it will suppress a certain amount of eligible voters and that is good for Republicans
suppress? Choosing not to go because you might havento pull your wallet out isnt 'suppression', thats choice.
If they enacted a law saying everone had tonhave original burth certificates verified by an attorney, then theyd have a burden.
Showing ID is not, thats laziness.
-
Come back when you have evidence that the court read the report. Otherwise, your post is irrelevant.
I never said they read it and more significantly it doesn't matter because the report is germane to the topic of this thread
come back when you learn basic elementary school vocabulary
-
I never said they read it and more significantly it doesn't matter because the report is germane to the topic of this thread
come back when you learn basic elementary school vocabulary
Then you are correct, that your post doesn't matter.
-
If MSNBC is against it - so is Straw - is that easy to grasp.
-
if voter id laws existed, these poor folks wouldn't be able to vote.
-
Then you are correct, that your post doesn't matter.
I get it dude, you want to argue but first you have to learn how to read
it doesn't matter whether they read it or not but the report (which is the topic of my first post) is germane to the topic so the post is relevant
why don't you try making a post about the subject at hand or even try making about post about the conclusions of the GAO report
-
suppress? Choosing not to go because you might havento pull your wallet out isnt 'suppression', thats choice.
If they enacted a law saying everone had tonhave original burth certificates verified by an attorney, then theyd have a burden.
Showing ID is not, thats laziness.
Exactly. And people literally have years to get an ID before an election.
Also, they are cheap. This is from 2008, but gives you an idea of how much they are in every state.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/04/28/what-does-a-state-id-cost/
-
I get it dude, you want to argue but first you have to learn how to read
it doesn't matter whether they read it or not but the report (which is the topic of my first post) is germane to the topic so the post is relevant
why don't you try making a post about the subject at hand or even try making about post about the conclusions of the GAO report
You have no evidence the court even read the report. So why even bring up that maybe they did. ::)
Others here have already asked you more than once how the report results are even an argument against voter ID laws. You have yet to answer.
-
You have no evidence the court even read the report. So why even bring up that maybe they did. ::)
Others here have already asked you more than once how the report results are even an argument against voter ID laws. You have yet to answer.
yes, we all get it that you don't understand the word "maybe"
why do you keep pointing that out?
-
suppress? Choosing not to go because you might havento pull your wallet out isnt 'suppression', thats choice.
If they enacted a law saying everone had tonhave original burth certificates verified by an attorney, then theyd have a burden.
Showing ID is not, thats laziness.
It creates an obstacle and the people who wrote these laws know it and that is the purpose.
It has nothing (or very little) to do with preventing voter fraud and much more to do with creating an extra burden that some people will choose not do to.
They know it will eliminate a certain number of eligible voters and it would be refreshing if they just admitted this fact
Republicans admit this behind closed doors and when they get caught on tape so how about just being honest in public too and then we can have the real debate about whether we want to have a democratic system that tries to discourage certain people from voting
-
It creates an obstacle and the people who wrote these laws know it and that is the purpose.
It has nothing (or very little) to do with preventing voter fraud and much more to do with creating an extra burden that some people will choose not do to.
They know it will eliminate a certain number of eligible voters and it would be refreshing if they just admitted this fact
Republicans admit this behind closed doors and when they get caught on tape so how about just being honest in public too and then we can have the real debate about whether we want to have a democratic system that tries to discourage certain people from voting
so what?
-
It creates an obstacle and the people who wrote these laws know it and that is the purpose.
It has nothing (or very little) to do with preventing voter fraud and much more to do with creating an extra burden that some people will choose not do to.
They know it will eliminate a certain number of eligible voters and it would be refreshing if they just admitted this fact
Republicans admit this behind closed doors and when they get caught on tape so how about just being honest in public too and then we can have the real debate about whether we want to have a democratic system that tries to discourage certain people from voting
What evidence to do you have to substantiate these accusations, claims and conspiracy theories?
Others here have already asked you more than once how the GAO report results are even an argument against voter ID laws. You have yet to answer.
-
so what?
the firs honest poster on this thread
since you're in favor of creating obstacles that will suppress voters what other things with the same purpose in mind would you like to see done?
-
It creates an obstacle and the people who wrote these laws know it and that is the purpose.
It has nothing (or very little) to do with preventing voter fraud and much more to do with creating an extra burden that some people will choose not do to.
They know it will eliminate a certain number of eligible voters and it would be refreshing if they just admitted this fact
Republicans admit this behind closed doors and when they get caught on tape so how about just being honest in public too and then we can have the real debate about whether we want to have a democratic system that tries to discourage certain people from voting
thr purpose is to prove who you are. I couldnt give a fuck less if it reduces republican turnout, democrat turnout, ot transexual turnout, its basic logic... you should prive your identity and your eligibility to vote.
Period.
Nothing youre saying is logical.
'The laws suppress people because they wont turn out to. Vote if they have to show ID, proving who you are is an extra burden'
No shit, the burden of proof that everyone has to do multiple times a week to do anything in this country. I dont give a fuck, there is literally no logical explanation of why someone shouldnt have to prove their identity to vote in this country.
Ironically almost every other countey requires ID, INCLUDING MEXICO.
-
What evidence to do you have to substantiate these accusations, claims and conspiracy theories?
Others here have already asked you more than once how the GAO report results are even an argument against voter ID laws. You have yet to answer.
if you want me to take you seriously you first have to admit you understand the definition of the word "maybe"
just admit you understand the definition of that word so that I don't waste my time showing you other words you don't understand (or pretend not to understand)
deal?
-
I am for obstacles that will force people to prove they can legally vote.....and severe punishments for people who vote illegally.
I also think you should be 25 before you vote, not be receiving welfare....including food stamps and that everything in the voting precinct be in English and English only!
-
thr purpose is to prove who you are. I couldnt give a fuck less if it reduces republican turnout, democrat turnout, ot transexual turnout, its basic logic... you should prive your identity and your eligibility to vote.
Period.
Nothing youre saying is logical.
'The laws suppress people because they wont turn out to. Vote if they have to show ID, proving who you are is an extra burden'
No shit, the burden of proof that everyone has to do multiple times a week to do anything in this country. I dont give a fuck, there is literally no logical explanation of why someone shouldnt have to prove their identity to vote in this country.
Ironically almost every other countey requires ID, INCLUDING MEXICO.
you should know that there are plenty of people who are dirt poor, don't drive, etc... and they still have the right to vote and what's a simple everyday task for most us is a much larger burden for them.
-
if you want me to take you seriously you first have to admit you understand the definition of the word "maybe"
just admit you understand the definition of that word so that I don't waste my time showing you other words you don't understand (or pretend not to understand)
deal?
LOL
You have no evidence the court even read the report. So why even bring up that maybe they did. ::)
You really want anybody to take you seriously when you want to base an entire discussion on a "maybe"?
-
you should know that there are plenty of people who are dirt poor, don't drive, etc... and they still have the right to vote and what's a simple everyday task for most us is a much larger burden for them.
Do you volunteer to drive these people to the voting booth and then back to their home on election day?
-
you should know that there are plenty of people who are dirt poor, don't drive, etc... and they still have the right to vote and what's a simple everyday task for most us is a much larger burden for them.
fuck them, if theyre that lazy or stoopid to get an id card....their vote is a liability not an asset to America
-
you should know that there are plenty of people who are dirt poor, don't drive, etc... and they still have the right to vote and what's a simple everyday task for most us is a much larger burden for them.
Oh please - more liberal cry baby pansie ass shit
-
thr purpose is to prove who you are. I couldnt give a fuck less if it reduces republican turnout, democrat turnout, ot transexual turnout, its basic logic... you should prive your identity and your eligibility to vote.
Period.
Nothing youre saying is logical.
'The laws suppress people because they wont turn out to. Vote if they have to show ID, proving who you are is an extra burden'
No shit, the burden of proof that everyone has to do multiple times a week to do anything in this country. I dont give a fuck, there is literally no logical explanation of why someone shouldnt have to prove their identity to vote in this country.
Ironically almost every other countey requires ID, INCLUDING MEXICO.
Straw Man is not known here for being logical. He constantly argues with people he claims are mentally ill,
people he claims are pointless to have a discussion with.
-
This seems like a temporary problem to me.
Why should you need to carry some document to try to prove your identity? -- We've got fingerprint scanners on iphones and laptops these days, don't we?
-
This seems like a temporary problem to me.
Why should you need to carry some document to try to prove your identity? -- We've got fingerprint scanners on iphones and laptops these days, don't we?
They aren't very reliable. The most reliable devices, the ones at top security agencies, are very expensive.
-
This seems like a temporary problem to me.
Why should you need to carry some document to try to prove your identity? -- We've got fingerprint scanners on iphones and laptops these days, don't we?
In this context, you only need to carry an ID on Election Day. I had to show my ID when I voted a couple months ago.
The fact this is tied up in the court system, including the U.S. Supreme Court, is mind boggling.
-
Make IDs free.
-
Make IDs free.
They are in most states - its just an excuse for failed liberals too stupid to tie their own shoes
-
They are in most states - its just an excuse for failed liberals too stupid to tie their own shoes
If its such a problem for people to acquire IDs the community step up and help. Local organizations and churches can provide transportation. It's not hard. Up until 2008 election I transported the poor and elderly from the city of Detroit to and from the poles. By the way, the volunteers were 99% white despite efforts to recruit more blacks. Blacks didn't want to volunteer.
-
Straw Man is not known here for being logical. He constantly argues with people he claims are mentally ill,
people he claims are pointless to have a discussion with.
I've only called certain fundie mindsets as examples of being mentally ill
I'm sure you know the type I'm referring to
-
Pennsylvania GOP Chief Admits Voter ID Laws Suppressed Democratic Vote In 2012
http://www.nationalmemo.com/pennsylvania-gop-chief-admits-voter-id-laws-suppressed-democratic-vote-in-2012/
6 Other Times Republicans Admitted Voting Restrictions Are Just About Disenfranchising Democrats
http://www.nationalmemo.com/6-other-times-republicans-admitted-voting-restrictions-are-just-about-disenfranchising-democrats/
Texas AG Admits If Minorities Voted For Us, Republicans Wouldn’t Have to Suppress Votes
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/24/texas-ag-admits-minorities-voted-republican-suppress-votes.html
There is no shortage of Republicans admitting the true intent of these laws
This whole thing started after the 2008 election and it's mostly (if not virtually all) Republican pushing these things and they have no problem admitting the real intent, and now we have a GAO report that confirm the effect, whether intentional or not, so how about we just drop all the BS and discuss the issue at hand instead of all pretending it's something else
-
Pennsylvania GOP Chief Admits Voter ID Laws Suppressed Democratic Vote In 2012
http://www.nationalmemo.com/pennsylvania-gop-chief-admits-voter-id-laws-suppressed-democratic-vote-in-2012/
6 Other Times Republicans Admitted Voting Restrictions Are Just About Disenfranchising Democrats
http://www.nationalmemo.com/6-other-times-republicans-admitted-voting-restrictions-are-just-about-disenfranchising-democrats/
Texas AG Admits If Minorities Voted For Us, Republicans Wouldn’t Have to Suppress Votes
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/24/texas-ag-admits-minorities-voted-republican-suppress-votes.html
There is no shortage of Republicans admitting the true intent of these laws
This whole thing started after the 2008 election and it's mostly (if not virtually all) Republican pushing these things and they have no problem admitting the real intent, and now we have a GAO report that confirm the effect, whether intentional or not, so how about we just drop all the BS and discuss the issue at hand instead of all pretending it's something else
Guess what for just about everything in life you have to provide some form of identification, shit I bet to get welfare you have to. Do you really expect me to believe that people have no form of identification? The fucking ridiculousness of all this, you have to be a citizen to vote, so what's the problem with proving it? The GOP it wants it because it supposedly suppresses the dem vote, the dems don't want it because they can't get the illegal vote. Fuck all of them........
-
I am for obstacles that will force people to prove they can legally vote.....and severe punishments for people who vote illegally.
I also think you should be 25 before you vote, not be receiving welfare....including food stamps and that everything in the voting precinct be in English and English only!
Shit.
Why not just call for a poll tax, Mr. Connor?
-
Shit.
Why not just call for a poll tax, Mr. Connor?
Just call me Jim, you commie pinko queer.
-
Just call me Jim, you commie pinko queer.
Yes, voting is so communist.
-
Yes, voting is so communist.
Hard to express sarcasm in a 1D medium
-
Shit.
Why not just call for a poll tax, Mr. Connor?
This is a ridiculous answer. Nothing but hyperbole.
-
They are in most states - its just an excuse for failed liberals too stupid to tie their own shoes
LMAO!
Sorry, that's categorically and completely not true, bro.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/04/28/what-does-a-state-id-cost/
This is a PRO-REPUBLICAN page showing the fees aren't that high. But "free"? Oh no, not even close.
Whoever told you that, please tell them to GoRuck themselves.
-
They aren't very reliable. The most reliable devices, the ones at top security agencies, are very expensive.
Reliable in what sense?
Cuz I find that a little hard to believe since I use a fingerprint scanner at my gym (a 24 Hour Fitness in Riverside County) to check in every day.
How it works is I punch my phone number into one of about 4 keypads at the front counter and then hold my forefinger over the scanner next to the keypad for about 10 seconds. When the light turns green, I enter the gym.
BTW, I've had no issues using the fingerprint scanner for entry at either the Eastvale or Irvine 24 Fitness gyms either.
-
This is a ridiculous answer. Nothing but hyperbole.
To be fair, the idea that someone on welfare should be prohibited from voting is ridiculous, too.
-
To be fair, the idea that someone on welfare should be prohibited from voting is ridiculous, too.
You're framing the issue in those terms. I dont see it that way.
-
way to go; now start blocking Texas and the others
-
You're framing the issue in those terms. I dont see it that way.
I'm not trying to frame the issue here at all, I don't think. (In this thread the only way I'm framing the issue is to suggest that ID cards might totally unnecessary due to the seeming widespread availability of fingerprint scanning technology these days.)
I didn't mean to imply that you supported limiting anyone's right to vote; Tedim did that (wrote that he supports welfare and food stamp recipients not being allowed to vote), though, in post #50.
And, if I read it right, the silly poll tax proposal (in post #66) was suggested in response to Tedim's post, not anything you said.
When you said (rightly) that the poll tax post was ridiculous, I'm just saying that it's not so inappropriate since Tedim's post was, too.
-
I'm not trying to frame the issue here at all, I don't think. (In this thread the only way I'm framing the issue is to suggest that ID cards might totally unnecessary due to the seeming widespread availability of fingerprint scanning technology these days.)
I didn't mean to imply that you supported limiting anyone's right to vote; Tedim did that (wrote that he supports welfare and food stamp recipients not being allowed to vote), though, in post #50.
And, if I read it right, the silly poll tax proposal (in post #66) was suggested in response to Tedim's post, not anything you said.
When you said (rightly) that the poll tax post was ridiculous, I'm just saying that it's not so inappropriate since Tedim's post was, too.
Gotcha, man. Makes total sense.
-
The resident libs/dems want illegal immigrants to vote in american elections.
Its as simple as that. Everything else they say is just bullshit fluff.
-
So whats to stop ANYONE from voting multiple times? Since its too racist to record their ID ::)
-
So whats to stop ANYONE from voting multiple times? Since its too racist to record their ID ::)
Instead of fighting the ID laws. Time, money and effort should have been focused on providing those with the inability to obtain an ID the means to do so. What does it say about a community when obtaining an ID is a impossible task. Now, its understandable that the elderly might have a difficult time and something should be done about that but any healthy capable person really has no excuse. You need an ID for most things.
In my opinion any picture ID should be accepted. I know that most schools these days require a picture ID. Why not host ID nights at local schools where people can get IDs for free. There are enough schools in any given area where most people would be able to get to one.
-
Instead of fighting the ID laws. Time, money and effort should have been focused on providing those with the inability to obtain an ID the means to do so. What does it say about a community when obtaining an ID is a impossible task. Now, its understandable that the elderly might have a difficult time and something should be done about that but any healthy capable person really has no excuse. You need an ID for most things.
In my opinion any picture ID should be accepted. I know that most schools these days require a picture ID. Why not host ID nights at local schools where people can get IDs for free. There are enough schools in any given area where most people would be able to get to one.
have you ever wondered why voter ID laws were a total non-issue until after the 2008 election and then suddenly Republicans decided it was a problem contrary to all evidence ?
do you honestly think the Republican would be in favor of a system that would actually make it easier to vote and/or to expand the voter base?
-
have you ever wondered why voter ID laws were a total non-issue until after the 2008 election and then suddenly Republicans decided it was a problem contrary to all evidence ?
do you honestly think the Republican would be in favor of a system that would actually make it easier to vote and/or to expand the voter base?
I don't care what Republicans think or why they are motivated to do what they do. I personally feel ID laws are practical and necessary. I don't consider whether to support someone or something based on which party supports it and why.
-
I don't care what Republicans think or why they are motivated to do what they do. I personally feel ID laws are practical and necessary. I don't consider whether to support someone or something based on which party supports it and why.
you wrote
Instead of fighting the ID laws. Time, money and effort should have been focused on providing those with the inability to obtain an ID the means to do so
.
do you think Republican have any interest in making it easy and cheap to obtain an ID
why not skip the ID's and have a national voter registry. Everyone get's a voter ID card when they turn 18 and that's it. No need for all these state laws or issues if you move or whatever
do you think Repubs would be in favor of that?
-
you wrote
.
do you think Republican have any interest in making it easy and cheap to obtain an ID
why not skip the ID's and have a national voter registry. Everyone get's a voter ID card when they turn 18 and that's it. No need for all these state laws or issues if you move or whatever
do you think Repubs would be in favor of that?
As I said, I don't care what Republicans are motivated by or what they would or would not do. That has nothing to do with me and my choices. Whatever makes it easier to obtain an ID I am for. Whether that is IDs being available at local schools or a national ID car doesn't matter to me at all.
-
Dems don't want Id laws since it makes it harder for them to commit vote fraud
-
As I said, I don't care what Republicans are motivated by or what they would or would not do. That has nothing to do with me and my choices. Whatever makes it easier to obtain an ID I am for. Whether that is IDs being available at local schools or a national ID car doesn't matter to me at all.
I assume you are aware that nothing will get done to make getting ID's cheaper, easier or putting something better in place without Republican support
I also assume you're aware that it's Republican who promoted/enacted all (or the vast majority of the voter ID laws)
so, if you don't want to discuss Republican motivations then you're basically saying you just want to stick your head in the sand
-
I assume you are aware that nothing will get done to make getting ID's cheaper, easier or putting something better in place without Republican support
I also assume you're aware that it's Republican who promoted/enacted all (or the vast majority of the voter ID laws)
so, if you don't want to discuss Republican motivations then you're basically saying you just want to stick your head in the sand
Someone too stupid to get an id is too stupid to vote
-
I assume you are aware that nothing will get done to make getting ID's cheaper, easier or putting something better in place without Republican support
I also assume you're aware that it's Republican who promoted/enacted all (or the vast majority of the voter ID laws)
so, if you don't want to discuss Republican motivations then you're basically saying you just want to stick your head in the sand
Many thing can be done on a local level, both governmentally and privately. I don't think that means my head is in the sand at all. The real problem is the inability of people to separate the core issue, voter ID laws, from the republicans motivations. It would be foolish to throw out the issue of voter IDs because republicans support it.
-
Someone too stupid to get an id is too stupid to vote
simplistic point of view from a simpleton
Paul Carroll, an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same Ohio town for four decades, was denied a chance to vote in the state’s primary contests today after a poll worker denied his form of identification, a recently-acquired photo ID from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The poll worker rejected the ID because it did not contain an address, as required by Ohio law.
Carroll told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he got the ID from the VA after his driver’s license expired because he doesn’t drive anymore:
“My beef is that I had to pay a driver to take me up there because I don’t walk so well and have to use this cane and now I can’t even vote,” said Paul Carroll, 86, who has lived in Aurora nearly 40 years, running his own business, Carroll Tire, until 1975.
“I had to stop driving, but I got the photo ID from the Veterans Affairs instead, just a month or so ago. You would think that would count for something. I went to war for this country, but now I can’t vote in this country.”
A local Veterans Affairs employee told the Plain Dealer that the decision not to include the address was likely made at the federal level, and because VA IDs are accepted at any location, “the actual address of a veteran isn’t as critical to us.” Carroll was offered a provisional ballot, but the type was too small for him to read and “I was kind of perturbed by then,” he said.
Republicans across the country have pushed voter ID laws to address a voter fraud “problem” that rarely, if ever, exists. Multiple laws have been challenged in court over claims that they disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities and the elderly. Carroll’s story isn’t altogether unique — Tennessee voter authorities denied a 96-year-old woman a voter ID last year because she didn’t have an original copy of her marriage license.
-
Many thing can be done on a local level, both governmentally and privately. I don't think that means my head is in the sand at all. The real problem is the inability of people to separate the core issue, voter ID laws, from the republicans motivations. It would be foolish to throw out the issue of voter IDs because republicans support it.
Republicans have explicitly told us their motivations with these laws and we also know the effects (whether intentional or not) from the recent GAO study
I choose not to ignore the statements of Republicans as to their motivations nor the reality of the effect of these laws from the GAO study
-
Republicans have explicitly told us their motivations with these laws and we also know the effects (whether intentional or not) from the recent GAO study
I choose not to ignore the statements of Republicans as to their motivations nor the reality of the effect of these laws from the GAO study
You choose to let the motivation of the republicans influence and dictate your opinion on ID laws. Republicans are for it so you are against it. I prefer to look at the issue independently.
-
You choose to let the motivation of the republicans influence and dictate your opinion on ID laws. Republicans are for it so you are against it. I prefer to look at the issue independently.
?
"Republicans are for it so you are against it"?
seriously dude, go back and read what I wrote again
Republican have explicitly told us their motivation for these laws
Why should I choose to ignore their statements especially when their statements are confirmed by a GAO report on the actual effects of these laws?
-
?
"Republicans are for it so you are against it"?
seriously dude, go back and read what I wrote again
Republican have explicitly told us their motivation for these laws
Why should I choose to ignore their statements especially when their statements are confirmed by a GAO report on the actual effects of these laws?
I'm talking about the issue. You're talking about the republicans.
-
I'm talking about the issue. You're talking about the republicans.
I'm absolutely talking about the issue
how is the GAO report not about the issue?
how is the motivation of the people who made these laws not about the issue
-
I absolutely talking about the issue
how is the GAO report not about the issue?
how is the motivation of the people who made these laws not about the issue
The motivations of the republicans is a separate issue and has very little to do with whether ID laws are good or bad. Focusing on Republican motivations results in several fallacies.
The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists.
The genetic fallacy creates a fallacious argument that is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy but is frequently not a Bayesian one: some sources are so consistently full of it that they reasonably constitute a refutation for all practical purposes. However, that this is a logical fallacy means you will still need to convince the source's fans and bystanders by engaging the source material.
-
LMAO!
Sorry, that's categorically and completely not true, bro.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/04/28/what-does-a-state-id-cost/
This is a PRO-REPUBLICAN page showing the fees aren't that high. But "free"? Oh no, not even close.
Whoever told you that, please tell them to GoRuck themselves.
^Misleading information (at least re: WI)^
A free ID card is available under Wisconsin law to anyone who:
will be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election and;
requests an ID card for the purpose of voting.
https://kb.wisc.edu/vip/page.php?id=9762
-
The motivations of the republicans is a separate issue and has very little to do with whether ID laws are good or bad. Focusing on Republican motivations results in several fallacies.
The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists.
The genetic fallacy creates a fallacious argument that is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy but is frequently not a Bayesian one: some sources are so consistently full of it that they reasonably constitute a refutation for all practical purposes. However, that this is a logical fallacy means you will still need to convince the source's fans and bystanders by engaging the source material.
nice copy and past job as a way to obfuscate and avoid the question
The motivations of Republicans in creating these laws is a central component of the discussion
If you want to avoid the topic all together than why don't you just say so
I choose not to ignore the statements by Republicans as to why they created these laws and I choose not to ignore the conclusions of the GAO report on the effect of these laws...which just so happens to conform with the Republicans reasons for creating them
If you want to ignore that or pretend it's not part of the conversation then that's fine with me
If you want to discuss whether bringing up the motivations of the creators of these laws and the consequences of these laws is actually an example of an "argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin" then I'll be glad to have that discussion
hint - just because I was talking about the consequences of the law does not automatically make it an argument ad consequentiam
and if you're going to copy someone elses words at least have the decency to use quotes
http://bit.ly/1tTiuhA
-
Strawman getting bent over as usual ;D
-
nice copy and past job as a way to obfuscate and avoid the question
The motivations of Republicans in creating these laws is a central component of the discussion
If you want to avoid the topic all together than why don't you just say so
I choose not to ignore the statements by Republicans as to why they created these laws and I choose not to ignore the conclusions of the GAO report on the effect of these laws...which just so happens to conform with the Republicans reasons for creating them
If you want to ignore that or pretend it's not part of the conversation then that's fine with me
If you want to discuss whether bringing up the motivations of the creators of these laws and the consequences of these laws is actually an example of an "argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin" then I'll be glad to have that discussion
hint - just because I was talking about the consequences of the law does not automatically make it an argument ad consequentiam
and if you're going to copy someone elses words at least have the decency to use quotes
http://bit.ly/1tTiuhA
Your position is that the republican interest in the law somehow reflects its merit. You wouldn't be focusing exclusively on the republicans motivation if you had a valid counter-argument against ID laws. I care about examining the law, you care about the republicans and what they are doing.
-
Strawman getting bent over as usual ;D
as he loves it - just like Obama his lord high messiah and savior
-
Reliable in what sense?
Cuz I find that a little hard to believe since I use a fingerprint scanner at my gym (a 24 Hour Fitness in Riverside County) to check in every day.
How it works is I punch my phone number into one of about 4 keypads at the front counter and then hold my forefinger over the scanner next to the keypad for about 10 seconds. When the light turns green, I enter the gym.
BTW, I've had no issues using the fingerprint scanner for entry at either the Eastvale or Irvine 24 Fitness gyms either.
I doubt anyone would be interested in fooling or tricking your gym's fingerprint scanner. At best, you'll eventually start getting FAR (False acceptance rate) and FRR (False rejection rate) with the less expensive scanners. At worst:
"But, as effective as they are, they certainly aren't infallible, and they do have major disadvantages. Optical scanners can't always distinguish between a picture of a finger and the finger itself, and capacitive scanners can sometimes be fooled by a mold of a person's finger. If somebody did gain access to an authorized user's prints, the person could trick the scanner. In a worst-case scenario, a criminal could even cut off somebody's finger to get past a scanner security system. Some scanners have additional pulse and heat sensors to verify that the finger is alive, rather than a mold or dismembered digit, but even these systems can be fooled by a gelatin print mold over a real finger. (This site explains various ways somebody might trick a scanner.)
To make these security systems more reliable, it's a good idea to combine the biometric analysis with a conventional means of identification, such as a password (in the same way an ATM requires a bank card and a PIN code).
The real problem with biometric security systems is the extent of the damage when somebody does manage to steal the identity information. If you lose your credit card or accidentally tell somebody your secret PIN number, you can always get a new card or change your code. But if somebody steals your fingerprints, you're pretty much out of luck for the rest of your life. You wouldn't be able to use your prints as a form of identification until you were absolutely sure all copies had been destroyed. There's no way to get new prints.
But even with this significant drawback, fingerprint scanners and biometric systems are an excellent means of identification. In the future, they'll most likely become an integral part of most peoples' everyday life, just like keys, ATM cards and passwords are today."
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/fingerprint-scanner5.htm
-
(http://i59.tinypic.com/smazjr.jpg)
-
Your position is that the republican interest in the law somehow reflects its merit. You wouldn't be focusing exclusively on the republicans motivation if you had a valid counter-argument against ID laws. I care about examining the law, you care about the republicans and what they are doing.
Absolutely wrong
I'm not saying their interests in the law somehow reflects it's merit. You're trying to create are argument to avoid simply addressing the topic
pay close attention because my point is simple to understand
I'm saying the intent when creating the laws was to suppress the vote
Republicans have admitted to this intent
We now have proof that the laws had the intended effect of suppressing the vote
again, if you want to dissect the argument ad consequentiam I will be glad to do so but you can't create that where it doesn't exist (go back and look at the diagram at one of those sites where you copied and pasted the text of your post)
If you want to avoid talking about the intent of the authors of these laws and the ultimate success of that intent then just say so
-
Strawman getting bent over as usual ;D
save your gay fantasies for 333
-
Absolutely wrong
I'm not saying their interests in the law somehow reflects it's merit. You're trying to create are argument to avoid simply addressing the topic
pay close attention because my point is simple to understand
I'm saying the intent when creating the laws was to suppress the vote
Republicans have admitted to this intent
We now have proof that the laws had the intended effect of suppressing the vote
again, if you want to dissect the argument ad consequentiam I will be glad to do so but you can't create that where it doesn't exist (go back and look at the diagram at one of those sites where you copied and pasted the text of your post)
If you want to avoid talking about the intent of the authors of these laws and the ultimate success of that intent then just say so
Christ this is comical.
-
Christ this is comical.
I find it comical that Archer will go to absurd lengths to simply avoid addressing 2 facts
fact 1 - multiple Republicans are on the record stating the true intent these laws is to reduce voter turnout
fact 2 - the recent GAO report has concluded, whether intended or not, these laws have, in part, resulted in lower voter turnout and specifically among young voters and black voters.
-
I find it comical that Archer will go to absurd lengths to simply avoid addressing 2 facts
fact 1 - multiple Republicans are on the record stating the true intent these laws is to reduce voter turnout
fact 2 - the recent GAO report has concluded, whether intended or not, these laws have, in part, resulted in lower voter turnout and specifically among young voters and black voters.
Yes - if you are illegal, voting in 2 states, not registered properly despite having months on end to fix your shit - then stay the fuck home. Sorry asswipe not every illegal alien welfare thug deserves a vote
-
Absolutely wrong
I'm not saying their interests in the law somehow reflects it's merit. You're trying to create are argument to avoid simply addressing the topic
pay close attention because my point is simple to understand
I'm saying the intent when creating the laws was to suppress the vote
Republicans have admitted to this intent
We now have proof that the laws had the intended effect of suppressing the vote
again, if you want to dissect the argument ad consequentiam I will be glad to do so but you can't create that where it doesn't exist (go back and look at the diagram at one of those sites where you copied and pasted the text of your post)
If you want to avoid talking about the intent of the authors of these laws and the ultimate success of that intent then just say so
I'm not trying to avoid anything. As I've told you numerous times my approach is to examine voter ID laws independently. You keep bringing the republicans into the conversation, not I. I made it clear the motivations of the republicans are not my concern and do not influence my opinions on the issue one bit.
-
I'm not trying to avoid anything. As I've told you numerous times my approach is to examine voter ID laws independently. You keep bringing the republicans into the conversation, not I. I made it clear the motivations of the republicans are not my concern and do not influence my opinions on the issue one bit.
Republicans created the laws
Republicans stated their intent with the laws
We have a study showing the results of these laws which conform with Republicans intentions
If you prefer to ignore all of those salient facts and pretend they don't exist then that's fine with me
-
I find it comical that Archer will go to absurd lengths to simply avoid addressing 2 facts
fact 1 - multiple Republicans are on the record stating the true intent these laws is to reduce voter turnout
fact 2 - the recent GAO report has concluded, whether intended or not, these laws have, in part, resulted in lower voter turnout and specifically among young voters and black voters.
So what. If such a problem exists its the fault of the young and black voters and their responsibility to rectify. You can't drive a car without a license. Does this mean to make it easier on people we should abolish drivers licenses? No, it doesn't
-
Republicans created the laws
Republicans stated their intent with the laws
We have a study showing the results of these laws which conform with Republicans intentions
If you prefer to ignore all of those salient facts and pretend they don't exist then that's fine with me
Again, so what. You need to change your screen name. You abuse logic. I'm going to personally write Ron on this issue.
The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists.
-
The association fallacy is an informal version of the fallacious argument known as affirming the consequent. It consists of promoting an opinion or philosophy by recounting the values a specific person or a group that held that opinion or philosophy. The Richard Hammond quote above may have been made in jest, to appeal to the stupidity of such associations, but it is an extremely common, and often easy fallacy to make. It is, to an extent, a version of a non sequitur.
-
So what. If such a problem exists its the fault of the young and black voters and their responsibility to rectify. You can't drive a car without a license. Does this mean to make it easier on people we should abolish drivers licenses? No, it doesn't
yet we also know that it can actually be quite a difficult for someone who is very poor, doesn't drive, doesn't have easy access to get the appropriate id, etc...
exactly as intended and hoped for by the creators of the law
and of course let's not forget that it's a law created to address a virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud
the impact on legitimate voters (more than 100k in Tennessee and Kansas) far outweigh the impact on fraudulent voters (which we've seen from many examples are very isolated incidents to the point of being statistically insignificant)
btw - glad yo finally just admitted you're fine with this.....as are many Republicans
-
Oh please - you make it sound as if these same fools don't get an id to get welfare and food stamps and housing etc either.
FNG fool
yet we also know that it can actually be quite a difficult for someone who is very poor, doesn't drive, doesn't have easy access to get the appropriate id, etc...
exactly as intended and hoped for by the creators of the law
and of course let's not forget that it's a law created to address a virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud
the impact on legitimate voters (more than 100k in Tennessee and Kansas) far outweigh the impact on fraudulent voters (which we've seen from many examples are very isolated incidents to the point of being statistically insignificant)
btw - glad yo finally just admitted you're fine with this.....as are many Republicans
-
yet we also know that it can actually be quite a difficult for someone who is very poor, doesn't drive, doesn't have easy access to get the appropriate id, etc...
exactly as intended and hoped for by the creators of the law
and of course let's not forget that it's a law created to address a virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud
the impact on legitimate voters (more than 100k in Tennessee and Kansas) far outweigh the impact on fraudulent voters (which we've seen from many examples are very isolated incidents to the point of being statistically insignificant)
btw - glad yo finally just admitted you're fine with this.....as are many Republicans
I provided possible solutions to the problems of access previously. This isn't personal.
-
Again, so what. You need to change your screen name. You abuse logic. I'm going to personally write Ron on this issue.
The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists.
LOL - yes please do contact Ron immediately
maybe he can point out this forum rule to you
Quoting Sources: If your thread or post uses material created from another source, you must provide a link to the source. Do not post full articles; only copy a portion of the source material with a link to read the rest.
If you want to keep insisting that I'm making an argumentum ad consequentiam then here is the formula from one of those sites where you plagiarized that text
The argument takes this form:
If A is true then it implies, causes, or creates, B.
B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, or undesirable.
Therefore, A is false.
Some zoologists are saying the monkey is ancestor of the human. Then ask the scholar, "Sir, who is your grandfather? Is he a monkey? Then you are a descendant of a monkey." Will he like that? No way. It will turn him off. Would you like a monkey to be your grandfather?
So what is A, B in what you claim is my argumentum ad consequentiam
I've started out by saying that Republicans created voter ID laws with the intent of suppressing voter turn out
-
I provided possible solutions to the problems of access previously. This isn't personal.
I know and I asked you whether you really think that Republicans would be amenable to those solutions or even better ones (given the fact that nothing could get done without their support) and instead of having a dialogue you refused to even address the question
-
There is no problem getting an id if you have two legs, feet, and breath. Funny how stupid and worthless leftists feel their base of voters are.
Fuck - a corpse in the cemetery has more ID on the tombstone than the average Democrat leftist voter
-
I know and I asked you whether you really think that Republicans would be amenable to those solutions or even better ones (given the fact that nothing could get done without their support) and instead of having a dialogue you refused to even address the question
What the republicans would or would not do is irrelevant. Many things can be done without republican support and have. Republicans don't support voter registration drives or transporting citizens from impoverished areas to and from the poles. Both activities I have personally volunteered for many many times. Citizens don't need government support to help other citizens.
-
Republicans created the laws
Republicans stated their intent with the laws
We have a study showing the results of these laws which conform with Republicans intentions
If you prefer to ignore all of those salient facts and pretend they don't exist then that's fine with me
who fucking cares what thwir motivatiom was? It has nothing, nothing to do with the merits of said laws. The laws have plenty of their own merits separate from the republicans intentions (not even arguing the fact that there are plenty of republicans who dont view the laws with that intent anyway).
You act like since a couple repubs hope it suppress' votes, that somehow invalidates the laws merits, which is complete horseshit and a hollow argument.
Its literally no ones fault but their own if they cant spend the fckn 10 dollars to get an ID. There was a point when i got out of school that i applied and recieved temporary food stamps and cash assistance... and for those 3 months until i found a job, i lived as well as i did making 35k/yr when i started.
The 'i cant afford an ID' is fckn horseshit excuse and pure laziness, theyre just complaining. You have to have ID to even apply for benefits.
Youre just arguing because a couple shitheads said they want to suppress votes, whoopty fucking do. That in no way invalidates the many merits of making people prove their identity to vote.
-
who fucking cares what thwir motivatiom was? It has nothing, nothing to do with the merits of said laws. The laws have plenty of their own merits separate from the republicans intentions (not even arguing the fact that there are plenty of republicans who dont view the laws with that intent anyway).
You act like since a couple repubs hope it suppress' votes, that somehow invalidates the laws merits, which is complete horseshit and a hollow argument.
Its literally no ones fault but their own if they cant spend the fckn 10 dollars to get an ID. There was a point when i got out of school that i applied and recieved temporary food stamps and cash assistance... and for those 3 months until i found a job, i lived as well as i did making 35k/yr when i started.
The 'i cant afford an ID' is fckn horseshit excuse and pure laziness, theyre just complaining. You have to have ID to even apply for benefits.
Youre just arguing because a couple shitheads said they want to suppress votes, whoopty fucking do. That in no way invalidates the many merits of making people prove their identity to vote.
The kid is a logical fallacy machine. May I suggest we all demand a name change to fallacy man.
-
What the republicans would or would not do is irrelevant. Many things can be done without republican support and have. Republicans don't support voter registration drives or transporting citizens from impoverished areas to and from the poles. Both activities I have personally volunteered many many times. Citizens don't need government support to help other citizens.
sure, Democrats can make extra efforts in those states where these laws exist to try to mitigate the effect of voter suppression and I fully expect Republicans would launch counter efforts
How about we discuss whether there is a better solution such as a national voter registry, a federal holiday for election day, free federal voter ID that works in all states, etc...
Any of these would ameliorate the effect that these laws have in suppressing the vote
Do you think Republican would be in favor of such measures?
Yes or no is fine
-
who fucking cares what thwir motivatiom was? It has nothing, nothing to do with the merits of said laws. The laws have plenty of their own merits separate from the republicans intentions (not even arguing the fact that there are plenty of republicans who dont view the laws with that intent anyway).
You act like since a couple repubs hope it suppress' votes, that somehow invalidates the laws merits, which is complete horseshit and a hollow argument.
Its literally no ones fault but their own if they cant spend the fckn 10 dollars to get an ID. There was a point when i got out of school that i applied and recieved temporary food stamps and cash assistance... and for those 3 months until i found a job, i lived as well as i did making 35k/yr when i started.
The 'i cant afford an ID' is fckn horseshit excuse and pure laziness, theyre just complaining. You have to have ID to even apply for benefits.
Youre just arguing because a couple shitheads said they want to suppress votes, whoopty fucking do. That in no way invalidates the many merits of making people prove their identity to vote.
if their intention is voter suppression then anyone who cares about the democratic process in this country should care
-
The kid is a logical fallacy machine. May I suggest we all demand a name change to fallacy man.
diagram it for us then
I've given you the formula straight from one of the locations where you plagiarized text for your post
simply prove your point
-
sure, Democrats can make extra efforts in those states where these laws exist to try to mitigate the effect of voter suppression and I fully expect Republicans would launch counter efforts
How about we discuss whether there is a better solution such as a national voter registry, a federal holiday for election day, free federal voter ID that works in all states, etc...
Any of these would ameliorate the effect that these laws have in suppressing the vote
Do you think Republican would be in favor of such measures?
Yes or no is fine
I don't care if Republicans would be in favor of any of those. As I told you before any potentially effective strategy to facilitat access to IDs is fine by me. It's not a hard process.
-
if their intention is voter suppression then anyone who cares about the democratic process in this country should care
My intention is not having my vote cancelled out by fraud, waste, scams, welfare thugs voting multiple times, etc
-
diagram it for us then
I've given you the formula straight from one of the locations where you plagiarized text for your post
simply prove your point
I was giving you accepted definitions. If I had created my own you would have claimed I was making stuff up. Regardless, you have a terrible handle on logic.
-
I don't care if Republicans would be in favor of any of those. As I told you before any potentially effective strategy to facilitat access to IDs is fine by me. It's not a hard process.
Any potentially effective strategy would need their assistance or at the very least their lack of opposition
are you aware that Republican run many of the functions in these states that would need to be utilized to facilitate access to ID's
-
My intention is not having my vote cancelled out by fraud, waste, scams, welfare thugs voting multiple times, etc
He's dead set on making the whole issue about evil republicans.
-
I was giving you accepted definitions. If I had created my own you would have claimed I was making stuff up. Regardless, you have a terrible handle on logic.
well if you're going to complain to Ron about my abuse of logic then you might actually want to be able to prove it
fill in the blanks
The argument takes this form:
If A is true then it implies, causes, or creates, B.
B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, or undesirable.
Therefore, A is false.
-
Any potentially effective strategy would need their assistance or at the very least their lack of opposition
are you aware that Republican run many of the functions in these states that would need to be utilized to facilitate access to ID's
No it doesn't require republicans. Private citizens have power and they need to exercise that power within their communities. Not everything needs government intervention.
-
well if you're going to complain to Ron about my abuse of logic then you might actually want to be able to prove it
fill in the blanks
The argument takes this form:
If A is true then it implies, causes, or creates, B.
B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, or undesirable.
Therefore, A is false.
I have several times over multiple threads. You simply don't have a handle on logic. You're arguing from a purely emotional position.
-
I have several times over multiple threads. You simply don't have a handle on logic. You're arguing from a purely emotional position.
No you have not
you have claimed it but you can't prove it because you're wrong
What is A
What is B
Again, I've said that the intent of these laws was to suppress voter turnout and we have Republican admitting this and we have proof that it's actually happening
fill in the blanks of my alleged argumentum ad consequentiam
-
No you have not
you have claimed it but you can't prove it because you're wrong
What is A
What is B
Again, I've said that the intent of these laws was to suppress voter turnout and we have Republican admitting this and we have proof that it's actually happening
fill in the blanks of my alleged argumentum ad consequentiam
I have proven it. You've done it multiple times. I've come to understand that you are not motivated by having a discussion. Your desire is to derail threads with irrational and emotional pleading. I've told you numerous times, to the point of exhaustion, that I wanted to focus on ID laws and not Republican motivations but you couldn't do it. For you, the issue is a vehicle for a tirade against republicans.
-
I have proven it. You've done it multiple times. I've come to understand that you are not motivated by having a discussion. Your desire is to derail threads with irrational and emotional pleading. I've told you numerous times, to the point of exhaustion, that I wanted to focus on ID laws and not Republican motivations but you couldn't do it. For you, the issue is a vehicle for a tirade against republicans.
you've done nothing more than copy and paste examples of argumentum ad consequentiam
you haven't and apparently are unable to provide a simple diagram of my alleged argumentum ad consequentiam
dude - if you're going to copy and paste the words of other and pretend they are your own then you should at least be able to step up and provide a simple diagram to prove your point....assuming you actually understand the argument you're trying to make
All you have to do is fill in Point A and Point B
why is that so hard for you to do?
-
Straw Queen - the princess of shell games.
Need an id to get benefits of welfare but not vote and somehow that makes sense to this fool.
-
Straw Queen - the princess of shell games.
Need an id to get benefits of welfare but not vote and somehow that makes sense to this fool.
Hey closet case
if you want to help out Archer then go right ahead and fill in the blanks
otherwise STFU
-
Lmao no wonder his name is 'straw man'....
-
lol
-
Lmao no wonder his name is 'straw man'....
no doubt. I think he really believess that a couple guys w
hoping the laws supress votes somehow negates all the legitimate reasons for such laws.
My opinion, is that if these fucks cant het a federal ID thwyre probably not supposed to be voting anyway.
-
^Misleading information (at least re: WI)^
A free ID card is available under Wisconsin law to anyone who:
will be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election and;
requests an ID card for the purpose of voting.
https://kb.wisc.edu/vip/page.php?id=9762
If it's free then how can people claim this is some kind of financial burden? Or that it prevents people from voting?
-
If it's free then how can people claim this is some kind of financial burden? Or that it prevents people from voting?
Because them getting off their ass to get an id is a burden to the welfare thugs
-
no doubt. I think he really believess that a couple guys w
hoping the laws supress votes somehow negates all the legitimate reasons for such laws.
My opinion, is that if these fucks cant het a federal ID thwyre probably not supposed to be voting anyway.
There is no significant voter fraud but it's a nice side effect of maybe stopping ten people who might attempt voter fraud if we can also discourage (or make very difficult) 100k of legitimate voters from showing up at the polls
Pennsylvania’s GOP chairman, Rob Gleason, is pleased with how effective Voter ID laws were in the 2012 election. Despite President Obama’s victory, Gleason believes the laws did what they were designed to do: suppress the Democratic vote.
When asked by a Pennsylvania cable news reporter earlier this week if the laws affected last year’s elections, Gleason responded: “I think we had a better election. Think about this: we cut Obama by 5 percent…I think Voter ID helped a bit in that.”
-
There is no significant voter fraud but it's a nice side effect of maybe stopping ten people who might attempt voter fraud if we can also discourage (or make very difficult) 100k of legitimate voters from showing up at the polls
Pennsylvania’s GOP chairman, Rob Gleason, is pleased with how effective Voter ID laws were in the 2012 election. Despite President Obama’s victory, Gleason believes the laws did what they were designed to do: suppress the Democratic vote.
When asked by a Pennsylvania cable news reporter earlier this week if the laws affected last year’s elections, Gleason responded: “I think we had a better election. Think about this: we cut Obama by 5 percent…I think Voter ID helped a bit in that.”
LOL.
Oh man, you're just like this guy at my work who only hears and sees what he wants, and throws away everything but the argument he likes.
-
LOL.
Oh man, you're just like this guy at my work who only hears and sees what he wants, and throws away everything but the argument he likes.
Maybe you will consider the point of view of the the Reagan appointed judge who was the person who actually approved the first vote ID law in the country and has done a complete reversal of his opinion on the topic
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gop_voter_id_law_gets_crushed_why_judge_richard_posners_ruling_is_so_amazing/
If you read just one top-to-bottom dismantling of every supposed premise in support of disenfranchising Photo ID voting restrictions laws in your lifetime, let it be this one [PDF].
It is a dissent, released on Friday, written by Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana’s) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner’s ruling was affirmed.
If there was ever evidence that a jurist could change their mind upon review of additional subsequent evidence, this is it. If there was ever a concise and airtight case made against Photo ID laws and the threat they pose to our most basic right to vote, this is it. If there was ever a treatise revealing such laws for the blatantly partisan shell games that they are, this is it.
His dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous rightwing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions, describing them as “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government.”
Posner is, by far, the most widely cited legal scholar of the 20th century, according to The Journal of Legal Studies. His opinions are closely read by the Supreme Court, where the battle over the legality and Constitutionality of Photo ID voting laws will almost certainly wind up at some point in the not too distant future. That’s just one of the reasons why this opinion is so important.
This opinion, written on behalf of five judges on the 7th Circuit, thoroughly disabuses such notions such as: these laws are meant to deal with a phantom voter fraud concern (“Out of 146 million registered voters, this is a ratio of one case of voter fraud for every 14.6 million eligible voters”); that evidence shows them to be little more than baldly partisan attempts to keep Democratic voters from voting (“conservative states try to make it difficult for people who are outside the mainstream…to vote”); that rightwing partisan outfits like True the Vote, which support such laws, present “evidence” of impersonation fraud that is “downright goofy, if not paranoid”; and the notion that even though there is virtually zero fraud that could even possibly be deterred by Photo ID restrictions, the fact that the public thinks there is, is a lousy reason to disenfranchise voters since there is no evidence that such laws actually increase public confidence in elections and, as new studies now reveal, such laws have indeed served to suppress turnout in states where they have been enacted.
There is far too much in it to appropriately encapsulate here for now. You just really need to take some time to read it in full. But it was written, largely, in response to the Appellate Court ruling last week by rightwing Judge Frank Easterbrook which contained one embarrassing falsehood and error after another, including the canards about Photo ID being required to board airplanes, open bank accounts, buy beer and guns, etc. We took apart just that one paragraph of Easterbrook’s ruling last week here, but Posner takes apart his colleague’s entire, error-riddled mess of a ruling in this response.
Amongst my favorite passages (and there are so many), this one [emphasis added]…
The panel is not troubled by the absence of evidence. It deems the supposed beneficial effect of photo ID requirements on public confidence in the electoral system “‘a legislative fact’-a proposition about the state of the world,” and asserts that “on matters of legislative fact, courts accept the findings of legislatures and judges of the lower courts must accept findings by the Supreme Court.” In so saying, the panel conjures up a fact-free cocoon in which to lodge the federal judiciary. As there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials? If the Supreme Court once thought that requiring photo identification increases public confidence in elections, and experience and academic study since shows that the Court was mistaken, do we do a favor to the Court-do we increase public confidence in elections-by making the mistake a premise of our decision? Pressed to its logical extreme the panel’s interpretation of and deference to legislative facts would require upholding a photo ID voter law even if it were uncontested that the law eliminated no fraud but did depress turnout significantly
And this one…
There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens
And remember, once again, this is written by Richard Posner, the conservative Republican icon of a federal appellate court judge — the judge who wrote the opinion on behalf of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals approving of the first such Photo ID law in the country in 2008, the very case that rightwingers from Texas to Wisconsin now cite over and over (almost always incorrectly) in support of similar such laws — now, clearly admitting that he got the entire thing wrong.
One last point (for now): Our legal analyst Ernie Canning, who (along with me) will undoubtedly have much more to say on this dissent in upcoming days, suggests we award The BRAD BLOG’s almost-never-anymore-bestowed Intellectually Honest Conservative Award to Judge Posner. And so it shall be.
Now go read Posner’s dissent.
You can read his entire dissent from October 10, 2014 here
http://bradblog.com/Docs/JudgePosnerDissent_PhotoID_WI_101014.pdf
-
LMFAO HHAHAHAH this is one of the funniest strawman threads I have seen in a while.
-
Thank you Archer, thank you shock and most of all thank you straw...you delusional fucking retard!!!! hahhhahahah
-
Thank you Archer, thank you shock and most of all thank you straw...you delusional fucking retard!!!! hahhhahahah
Archer is giving you a run for the money as a dopey logic professor
I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate that he actually understands argumentum ad consequentiam and use his own words to demonstrate that my statements on this thread are an example of such.
there are only two parts to the equation so it should be really easy for him
-
Archer is giving you a run for the money as a dopey logic professor
I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate that he actually understands argumentum ad consequentiam and use his own words to demonstrate that my statements on this thread are an example of such.
there are only two parts to the equation so it should be really easy for him
you remind me of a guy in my fantasy football league who suggested a trade and then promptly reject said trade when I submitted it acting like I was a jack ass for thinking he would consider such a thing forgetting all along that he was the one who brought it up.
hahha youre so fucking lost in this argument straw you dont know whats up or down.
-
you remind me of a guy in my fantasy football league who suggested a trade and then promptly reject said trade when I submitted it acting like I was a jack ass for thinking he would consider such a thing forgetting all along that he was the one who brought it up.
hahha youre so fucking lost in this argument straw you dont know whats up or down.
please clarify it for me
-
Next thing you know, gay people are going to be able to vote.
-
you remind me of a guy in my fantasy football league who suggested a trade and then promptly reject said trade when I submitted it acting like I was a jack ass for thinking he would consider such a thing forgetting all along that he was the one who brought it up.
hahha youre so fucking lost in this argument straw you dont know whats up or down.
You remind me of this idiot poster on GB who is retarded.
His name is Tony something..
-
Next thing you know, gay people are going to be able to vote.
oh oh....that means SoulCrusher finally gets to vote!
-
If it's free then how can people claim this is some kind of financial burden? Or that it prevents people from voting?
It's just a veiled excuse to commit fraud. It's so ridiculously easy.
Especially with groups like the Greater Wisconsin Committee, (a lefty group sending out these letters with your neighbor's names and addresses telling you whether they've voted or not).
Trust me, there are going to be people armed with these little computer printouts at 6-8 o'clock with the names of people who have not yet voted. If people someone from out of state, one of these union guys, etc. walk in to one of your polling places and says,"I'm so and so," there's nothing that stops that person from voting. Nothing.
-
It's just a veiled excuse to commit fraud. It's so ridiculously easy.
Especially with groups like the Greater Wisconsin Committee, (a lefty group sending out these letters with your neighbor's names and addresses telling you whether they've voted or not).
Trust me, there are going to be people armed with these little computer printouts at 6-8 o'clock with the names of people who have not yet voted. If people someone from out of state, one of these union guys, etc. walk in to one of your polling places and says,"I'm so and so," there's nothing that stops that person from voting. Nothing.
Yeah, fuck that. I feel like this whining about people staying home if they have to show ID is just them throwing a fit and pouting that theyll have to prove their identity.
Fuck, give them some kind of free Federal ID to vote for all o care. Oh, wait, theyd have to prove their identity to get a free ID as well so theyd probably be 'suppressed' because its just too damn burdensome to actually prove you are who you say you..... like everyone has to do every single day.
What a fucking joke this is. You cant prove you indentiry and eligibility to vote, you dont get to vote. Thats all therebshould be too it.
-
It's just a veiled excuse to commit fraud. It's so ridiculously easy.
Especially with groups like the Greater Wisconsin Committee, (a lefty group sending out these letters with your neighbor's names and addresses telling you whether they've voted or not).
Trust me, there are going to be people armed with these little computer printouts at 6-8 o'clock with the names of people who have not yet voted. If people someone from out of state, one of these union guys, etc. walk in to one of your polling places and says,"I'm so and so," there's nothing that stops that person from voting. Nothing.
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gop_voter_id_law_gets_crushed_why_judge_richard_posners_ruling_is_so_amazing/
you should check the opinion of the conservative icon Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana’s) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner’s ruling was affirmed.
This opinion, written on behalf of five judges on the 7th Circuit, thoroughly disabuses such notions such as: these laws are meant to deal with a phantom voter fraud concern (“Out of 146 million registered voters, this is a ratio of one case of voter fraud for every 14.6 million eligible voters”); that evidence shows them to be little more than baldly partisan attempts to keep Democratic voters from voting (“conservative states try to make it difficult for people who are outside the mainstream…to vote”); that rightwing partisan outfits like True the Vote, which support such laws, present “evidence” of impersonation fraud that is “downright goofy, if not paranoid”; and the notion that even though there is virtually zero fraud that could even possibly be deterred by Photo ID restrictions, the fact that the public thinks there is, is a lousy reason to disenfranchise voters since there is no evidence that such laws actually increase public confidence in elections and, as new studies now reveal, such laws have indeed served to suppress turnout in states where they have been enacted.
There is far too much in it to appropriately encapsulate here for now. You just really need to take some time to read it in full. But it was written, largely, in response to the Appellate Court ruling last week by rightwing Judge Frank Easterbrook which contained one embarrassing falsehood and error after another, including the canards about Photo ID being required to board airplanes, open bank accounts, buy beer and guns, etc. We took apart just that one paragraph of Easterbrook’s ruling last week here, but Posner takes apart his colleague’s entire, error-riddled mess of a ruling in this response.
Amongst my favorite passages (and there are so many), this one [emphasis added]…
The panel is not troubled by the absence of evidence. It deems the supposed beneficial effect of photo ID requirements on public confidence in the electoral system “‘a legislative fact’-a proposition about the state of the world,” and asserts that “on matters of legislative fact, courts accept the findings of legislatures and judges of the lower courts must accept findings by the Supreme Court.” In so saying, the panel conjures up a fact-free cocoon in which to lodge the federal judiciary. As there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials? If the Supreme Court once thought that requiring photo identification increases public confidence in elections, and experience and academic study since shows that the Court was mistaken, do we do a favor to the Court-do we increase public confidence in elections-by making the mistake a premise of our decision? Pressed to its logical extreme the panel’s interpretation of and deference to legislative facts would require upholding a photo ID voter law even if it were uncontested that the law eliminated no fraud but did depress turnout significantly.
And this one…
There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.
And remember, once again, this is written by Richard Posner, the conservative Republican icon of a federal appellate court judge — the judge who wrote the opinion on behalf of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals approving of the first such Photo ID law in the country in 2008, the very case that rightwingers from Texas to Wisconsin now cite over and over (almost always incorrectly) in support of similar such laws — now, clearly admitting that he got the entire thing wrong.
-
All the fraudsters must be out of Wisconsin then. ::)
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/shorewood-man-charged-with-13-counts-of-voter-fraud-b99297733z1-264322221.html
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/24/prosecutors-in-wisconsin-charge-10-people-with-voter-fraud-57397
-
All the fraudsters must be out of Wisconsin then. ::)
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/shorewood-man-charged-with-13-counts-of-voter-fraud-b99297733z1-264322221.html
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/24/prosecutors-in-wisconsin-charge-10-people-with-voter-fraud-57397
I'm glad you brought this up
the guy in the first link is Robert D Monroe and his fraudulent voting was on behalf of a Republican Scott Walker
Note how the ability to show an ID did not PREVENT fraud. Note also that he did not even need an ID to vote absentee
so here's the bottom line - having an ID didn't prevent an isolated case of fraud but not having an ID has discouraged/disenfranchised 100k + of eligible voters
Both of these points were address by Judge Posner in the link that I gave you (and multiple links within)
these two examples also show not only how isolated voter fraud it but also how relatively easy it is to catch
-
Why do I need an ID to obtain a firearm?
I'm glad you brought this up
the guy in the first link is Robert D Monroe and his fraudulent voting was on behalf of a Republican Scott Walker
Note how the ability to show an ID did not PREVENT fraud. Note also that he did not even need an ID to vote absentee
so here's the bottom line - having an ID didn't prevent an isolated case of fraud but not having an ID has discouraged/disenfranchised 100k + of eligible voters
Both of these points were address by Judge Posner in the link that I gave you (and multiple links within)
these two examples also show not only how isolated voter fraud it but also how relatively easy it is to catch
-
Why do I need an ID to obtain a firearm?
you don't in the vast majority of the country but since you brought up guns why don't we have a registry of guns and gun owners like we do for voters?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/29/2550851/guns/
-
you don't in the vast majority of the country but since you brought up guns why don't we have a registry of guns and gun owners like we do for voters?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/29/2550851/guns/
That list is utter nonsense. Ever hear of the NICS system moron?
-
That list is utter nonsense. Ever hear of the NICS system moron?
you're not really a lawyer are you?
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/clintons_line_was_true_the_sad_facts_about_assault_weapons_and_voting/
As for guns, under federal law, you can buy a gun through a private seller without even showing an ID. And assault weapons have been fair game since the ban on them expired in 2004. Here’s a Department of Justice report (emphasis added):
Individuals who buy guns from an unlicensed private seller in a “secondary market venue” (such as gun shows, flea markets, and Internet sites) are exempt from the requirements of federal law to show identification, complete the Form 4473, and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check.
-
you're not really a lawyer are you?
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/clintons_line_was_true_the_sad_facts_about_assault_weapons_and_voting/
and the problem is? There is no problem statistically w "assault weapons" - so according to your logic - we should there be a regististry or id requirement?
-
and the problem is? There is no problem statistically w "assault weapons" - so according to your logic - we should there be a regististry or id requirement?
so you admit you're wrong about needing an ID to buy a gun
so how about a registry for gun owners just like voters
-
so you admit you're wrong about needing an ID to buy a gun
so how about a registry for gun owners just like voters
What is the point of a gun registry?
-
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gop_voter_id_law_gets_crushed_why_judge_richard_posners_ruling_is_so_amazing/
you should check the opinion of the conservative icon Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana’s) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner’s ruling was affirmed.
yes, one judges opinion totally invalidates everones opinions.
FYI personally know of an entire family of illegal mexicans that all voted between 4 and 6 times a piece, each with separate fraudulent SS cards that they forged... this family forges these cards, and they sell them to the inbound illegal families, as they alll have full disability and welfare.
Voter fraud is very real.
-
What is the point of a gun registry?
so you admit you were completely wrong about needing an ID to buy a gun
right?
since you're the one that brought up guns why don't you start a thread about it
this thread it about Voter ID laws
-
yes, one judges opinion totally invalidates everones opinions.
FYI personally know of an entire family of illegal mexicans that all voted between 4 and 6 times a piece, each with separate fraudulent SS cards that they forged... this family forges these cards, and they sell them to the inbound illegal families, as they alll have full disability and welfare.
Voter fraud is very real.
that particular judges opinion is particularly salient
and you're totally correct
voter fraud is very real and very very very very rare and very easy to catch
again, having an ID doesn't even prevent the very very very rare case of fraud but it's very very very effective at disenfranchising 100k + voters
-
yes, one judges opinion totally invalidates everones opinions.
FYI personally know of an entire family of illegal mexicans that all voted between 4 and 6 times a piece, each with separate fraudulent SS cards that they forged... this family forges these cards, and they sell them to the inbound illegal families, as they alll have full disability and welfare.
Voter fraud is very real.
I was a poll watcher in 2000 and 2004 - I saw a lot of shady shit going on in the polling places in mostly minority areas. Funny how when those fools have to stand in line to vote for more free stuff - they are quiet. Yet when they are in line at the check out at the supermarket - they act like its feeding time at the zoo.
-
that particular judges opinion is particularly salient
and you're totally correct
voter fraud is very real and very very very very rare and very easy to catch
again, having an ID doesn't even prevent the very very very rate case of fraud but it's very very very effective at disenfranchising 100k + voters
your confirmation bias is hilarious.
-
your confirmation bias is hilarious.
yep, the conservative judge who approved the first voter ID law now does a complete 180 and lays out the facts of his error and I choose to look at it and you choose to completely ignore every fact that he has presented
hilarious
-
It's just a veiled excuse to commit fraud. It's so ridiculously easy.
Especially with groups like the Greater Wisconsin Committee, (a lefty group sending out these letters with your neighbor's names and addresses telling you whether they've voted or not).
Trust me, there are going to be people armed with these little computer printouts at 6-8 o'clock with the names of people who have not yet voted. If people someone from out of state, one of these union guys, etc. walk in to one of your polling places and says,"I'm so and so," there's nothing that stops that person from voting. Nothing.
So the entire opposition to this is BS? Not surprised.
I don't see why voting should be any different than registering your car or any of the host of things that require an ID.
-
yep, the conservative judge who approved the first voter ID law now does a complete 180 and lays out the facts of his error and I choose to look at it and you choose to completely ignore every fact that he has presented
hilarious
yes, thats totally what happened. Because 1 conservative judge and a couple shitbag republicans have an opiniom i should just totally flip my opinion because some shitheads whine about having to show ID to fucking vote.
Wah. Your argument has next to no logical backing, its basically
'eligable voters wont vote if they have to show ID and a conservative judge think its unfair, so you should too
Oh, and a couple republicans hope that it DOES suppress votes so therefore is merits invalidated."
It makes no logical sense. If those people are too fckn lazy to get an ID or proof of identity then IMO they dont deserve to vote.
I couldnt care less if they were republicans refusing to vote if they hd to show ID, if you cant prove your identity you dont fucking vote. There is no logical argument against that. Ever other argument ive seen is just grasping at straws to justify why people shouldnt have to orove who they are to vote.
-
Dems want illegals to vote. That's why Dems offer illegals amnesty right before elections.
-
yes, thats totally what happened. Because 1 conservative judge and a couple shitbag republicans have an opiniom i should just totally flip my opinion because some shitheads whine about having to show ID to fucking vote.
Wah. Your argument has next to no logical backing, its basically
'eligable voters wont vote if they have to show ID and a conservative judge think its unfair, so you should too
Oh, and a couple republicans hope that it DOES suppress votes so therefore is merits invalidated."
It makes no logical sense. If those people are too fckn lazy to get an ID or proof of identity then IMO they dont deserve to vote.
I couldnt care less if they were republicans refusing to vote if they hd to show ID, if you cant prove your identity you dont fucking vote. There is no logical argument against that. Ever other argument ive seen is just grasping at straws to justify why people shouldnt have to orove who they are to vote.
why don't you put your emotions aside and read the actual facts as cited by the judge
or you can just ignore the fact and not let them get in the way of your opinions which is what I suspect you will do
-
why don't you put your emotions aside and read the actual facts as cited by the judge
or you can just ignore the fact and not let them get in the way of your opinions which is what I suspect you will do
ironic because that's literallt what youve single handedly done for the entire thread.
You chose 2 arguments and discard everything else. I examined your argument, and you facts, and decided that its not in any way a logical justification for not having to prove who you are to vote in national elections.
-
ironic because that's literallt what youve single handedly done for the entire thread.
You chose 2 arguments and discard everything else. I examined your argument, and you facts, and decided that its not in any way a logical justification for not having to prove who you are to vote in national elections.
how about we try to agree on some facts
1. voter fraud does occur ......yes or no
can we both agree this is a yes?
2. voter fraud appears to be very rare (i.e. we have only isolated cases)
yes or no
if you say no then please provide your evidence
we can go on from there to more facts that we can try to agree on
-
how about we try to agree on some facts
1. voter fraud does occur ......yes or no
can we both agree this is a yes?
2. voter fraud appears to be very rare (i.e. we have only isolated cases)
yes or no
if you say no then please provide your evidence
we can go on from there to more facts that we can try to agree on
yes
And
No, in the sense that voter fraud is very difficult to identify, so we really dont know the extent or how widespread it is, because theres next to no checks or balances on the system. Youre going strictly on the stats, which doesnt tell the whole story as it IS extremely easy to commit voter fraud as has been shown multiple times, but its very rarely pursued or caught so theres not a good true stat for how widespread it is.
-
yes
And
No, in the sense that voter fraud is very difficult to identify, so we really dont know the extent or how widespread it is, because theres next to no checks or balances on the system. Youre going strictly on the stats, which doesnt tell the whole story as it IS extremely easy to commit voter fraud as has been shown multiple times, but its very rarely pursued or caught so theres not a good true stat for how widespread it is.
so you're saying that voter fraud is not very rare but you actually have zero proof to support that belief ?