Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MCWAY on November 04, 2014, 09:31:07 AM
-
I just heard this crap from Newsone (courtesy of Limbaugh's program). Apparently, Michelle Obama has ordered that all black people vote Democrat, no matter who or what.
And, if the Dems somehow are victorious, the ol' missus is go'n allow all us nigras to eat us some FRIED CHICKEN!!!!
I kid you not!!
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/michelle-obamas-closing-argument-to-black-voters-dont-think-vote-for-democrats/
Soul Crusher.....the floor is YOURS!!
-
BS - she wants all the chickens beef dogs burgers cakes chooms pot beers etc all fo herself
-
BS - she wants all the chickens beef dogs burgers cakes chooms pot beers etc all fo herself
You forgot about the barbecue ribs.
-
LOL @ "ordered"
dude - just sit back and relax and enjoy the results of your parties voter suppression efforts
-
LOL @ "ordered"
dude - just sit back and relax and enjoy the results of your parties voter suppression efforts
Our party only suppresses the votes of those who are DEAD, ILLEGAL ALIENS, and people trying to vote multiple times.
When you show the legions of Republicans with guns and dogs, keeping black people, Latinos (the legal ones, at least), and others from voting, you can continue talking without sounding utterly silly.
-
LOL @ "ordered"
dude - just sit back and relax and enjoy the results of your parties voter suppression efforts
::)
-
LOL @ "ordered"
dude - just sit back and relax and enjoy the results of your parties voter suppression efforts
bahahahahahaha
-
Our party only suppresses the votes of those who are DEAD, ILLEGAL ALIENS, and people trying to vote multiple times.
When you show the legions of Republicans with guns and dogs, keeping black people, Latinos (the legal ones, at least), and others from voting, you can continue talking without sounding utterly silly.
and students, and old people and the very poor
-
and students, and old people and the very poor
All of whom can afford IDs (or can get them for free, depending on where they live). I don't recall anyone suppressing my vote or that of anyone else when I was in school. And, I went to an HBCU; there should have been white Republicans in armored tanks keeping us from the polls.
Poor people can afford cigarettes yet somehow a $20 ID (with at least 2 years to get it) is beyond their means? PLEASE!!
Save that crap for somebody else.
-
and dead students, and illegal old people and the very poor felony convicts
fixed
-
sorry, I forgot this board was a fact free zone
-
sorry, I forgot this board was a fact free zone
That would be the space between your ears.
-
sorry, I forgot this board was a facts only zone
fixed
-
fixed
don't read this: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf
-
Maybe I should ask my buddies from FAMU how many white Republicans hog-tied them to poles and held them up with shotguns to keep them from voting.
-
Voter ID Laws Suppress White, Latino, and Black Voting About the Same Amount
.turnout was reduced among African-American registrants by 3.7 percentage points more than among Whites in Kansas and 1.5 percentage points more than among Whites in Tennessee. However, we did not find reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants, as compared with White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects on these registrants.
However, in summarizing the general research on voter ID requirements, the GAO found:
Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant.
The study cited by the GAO that showed minority group vote suppression and most other prior research compared voting changes between states that had adopted voter ID requirements and those that had not. The researchers in the study Political Research Quarterly parse time series data noting changes in voting participation before and after voter ID requirements were adopted in individual states. Contrary to the earlier state-to-state comparisons, the new study using time-series data extending over the past 30 years finds:
Our primary explanatory variables, photo ID and nonphoto ID laws, have no statistically discernible relationship with the probability that whites, blacks, and Latinos voted in the general elections between 1980 and 2010 except that the nonphoto ID law has a positive and significant relationship with Latino turnout. In short, more stringent ID requirements for voting have no deterring effect on individual turnout across different racial and ethnic groups.
The GAO report also found that data on voter fraud is not centralized and scanty in any case, but did note that ...
...there were no apparent cases of in-person voter impersonation charged by DOJ’s [Department of Justice] Criminal Division or by U.S. Attorney’s offices anywhere in the United States, from 2004 through July 3, 2014.
Frankly, whatever the intentions of Republican lawmakers with regard to imposing more stringent voter ID requirements - prevent fraud or suppress votes - the data suggest that the requirements are a big waste of time and
-
Voter ID Laws Suppress White, Latino, and Black Voting About the Same Amount
.turnout was reduced among African-American registrants by 3.7 percentage points more than among Whites in Kansas and 1.5 percentage points more than among Whites in Tennessee. However, we did not find reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants, as compared with White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects on these registrants.
However, in summarizing the general research on voter ID requirements, the GAO found:
Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant.
The study cited by the GAO that showed minority group vote suppression and most other prior research compared voting changes between states that had adopted voter ID requirements and those that had not. The researchers in the study Political Research Quarterly parse time series data noting changes in voting participation before and after voter ID requirements were adopted in individual states. Contrary to the earlier state-to-state comparisons, the new study using time-series data extending over the past 30 years finds:
Our primary explanatory variables, photo ID and nonphoto ID laws, have no statistically discernible relationship with the probability that whites, blacks, and Latinos voted in the general elections between 1980 and 2010 except that the nonphoto ID law has a positive and significant relationship with Latino turnout. In short, more stringent ID requirements for voting have no deterring effect on individual turnout across different racial and ethnic groups.
The GAO report also found that data on voter fraud is not centralized and scanty in any case, but did note that ...
...there were no apparent cases of in-person voter impersonation charged by DOJ’s [Department of Justice] Criminal Division or by U.S. Attorney’s offices anywhere in the United States, from 2004 through July 3, 2014.
Frankly, whatever the intentions of Republican lawmakers with regard to imposing more stringent voter ID requirements - prevent fraud or suppress votes - the data suggest that the requirements are a big waste of time and
so the conclusion was that voter ID laws DO suppress voter turnout and that there is basically no "in-person voter impersonation"
-
so the conclusion was that voter ID laws DO suppress voter turnout and that there is basically no "in-person voter impersonation"
Suppression is your word. Seems whatever effect it had on turnout was insignificant. There appears to be a lot of conflicting mixed results. Hispanics and Aisans don't appear to be effected at all. If there is any effect on turnout, and there are conflicting reports, it only appears to apply to dumb blacks and dumb whites.
".turnout was reduced among African-American registrants by 3.7 percentage points more than among Whites in Kansas and 1.5 percentage points more than among Whites in Tennessee. However, we did not find reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants, as compared with White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects on these registrants.
However, in summarizing the general research on voter ID requirements, the GAO found:
Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant."
-
I personally feel the Voter ID laws are complete bullshit and useless given the data and statistics of voter fraud. Not only will it not prevent it to any degree really, there never was a considerable amount to be concerned with anyways. In the long run, its just going to cost states more money and it will dissuade others to not vote. I see no good in it.
-
Suppression is your word. Seems whatever effect it had on turnout was insignificant. There appears to be a lot of conflicting mixed results. Hispanics and Aisans don't appear to be effected at all. If there is any effect on turnout, and there are conflicting reports, it only appears to apply to dumb blacks and dumb whites.
".turnout was reduced among African-American registrants by 3.7 percentage points more than among Whites in Kansas and 1.5 percentage points more than among Whites in Tennessee. However, we did not find reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants, as compared with White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects on these registrants.
However, in summarizing the general research on voter ID requirements, the GAO found:
Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant."
the word is in the very text that you posted
the people who wrote these laws are very happy to have 3.7% of a certain group not voting who would have otherwise voted
that's a nice fat margin for them
-
I can't believe this person is our First Lady. Unreal.
-
the word is in the very text that you posted
the people who wrote these laws are very happy to have 3.7% of a certain group not voting who would have otherwise voted
that's a nice fat margin for them
read the rest of the text. A lot of conflicting data. You see suppression I see dumb whites and blacks and smart hispanics and asians.
-
There is no sane or rational argument to be made against voter ID laws.
-
There is no sane or rational argument to be made against voter ID laws.
You're racist
-
Voter ID laws are a non-issue. In the long run they might be a good thing. A photo ID is needed for almost everything and the law may prompt individuals who don't have an ID to get one. Democrats should look at photo IDs the same way they look at phones. As they argue you need a phone to get a job and do all sorts of things. In turn you need a photo ID.
"But some implied that Democratic-leaning voting groups, especially African-Americans and Hispanics, were more likely to be affected. Others found that educational attainment was the key variable in predicting whom these laws might disenfranchise, with race being of secondary importance. If that’s true, some white voters without college degrees could also be affected, and they tend to vote Republican."
"On the surface, these studies seem to disagree with one another about whether or not there is any effect on turnout from harsher voter identification laws. But if you read them in more detail, you’ll find that much of the disagreement is semantic rather than substantive.
There is something of a consensus in the literature, in fact, about the rough magnitude of the effects. The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population.
Whether this effect is deemed to be “statistically significant” or not varies from study to study. It depends on what particular type of statistical test the researcher has applied, and how much data he or she is looking at.
Statistical significance, however, is a funny concept. It has mostly to do with the volume of data that you have, and the sampling error that this introduces. Effects that may be of little practical significance can be statistically significant if you have tons and tons of data. Conversely, findings that have some substantive, real-world impact may not be deemed statistically significant, if the data is sparse or noisy."
“Many people who do not have identification are not registered to vote – or if they are registered, they are unlikely to turn out.”
"One last thing to consider: although I do think these laws will have some detrimental effect on Democratic turnout, it is unlikely to be as large as some Democrats fear or as some news media reports imply — and they can also serve as a rallying point for the party bases. So although the direct effects of these laws are likely negative for Democrats, it wouldn’t take that much in terms of increased base voter engagement — and increased voter conscientiousness about their registration status — to mitigate them."
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_r=0
-
Voter ID laws are a non-issue. In the long run they might be a good thing. A photo ID is needed for almost everything and the law may prompt individuals who don't have an ID to get one. Democrats should look at photo IDs the same way they look at phones. As they argue you need a phone to get a job and do all sorts of things. In turn you need a photo ID.
"But some implied that Democratic-leaning voting groups, especially African-Americans and Hispanics, were more likely to be affected. Others found that educational attainment was the key variable in predicting whom these laws might disenfranchise, with race being of secondary importance. If that’s true, some white voters without college degrees could also be affected, and they tend to vote Republican."
"On the surface, these studies seem to disagree with one another about whether or not there is any effect on turnout from harsher voter identification laws. But if you read them in more detail, you’ll find that much of the disagreement is semantic rather than substantive.
There is something of a consensus in the literature, in fact, about the rough magnitude of the effects. The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population.
Whether this effect is deemed to be “statistically significant” or not varies from study to study. It depends on what particular type of statistical test the researcher has applied, and how much data he or she is looking at.
Statistical significance, however, is a funny concept. It has mostly to do with the volume of data that you have, and the sampling error that this introduces. Effects that may be of little practical significance can be statistically significant if you have tons and tons of data. Conversely, findings that have some substantive, real-world impact may not be deemed statistically significant, if the data is sparse or noisy."
“Many people who do not have identification are not registered to vote – or if they are registered, they are unlikely to turn out.”
"One last thing to consider: although I do think these laws will have some detrimental effect on Democratic turnout, it is unlikely to be as large as some Democrats fear or as some news media reports imply — and they can also serve as a rallying point for the party bases. So although the direct effects of these laws are likely negative for Democrats, it wouldn’t take that much in terms of increased base voter engagement — and increased voter conscientiousness about their registration status — to mitigate them."
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_r=0
Why give the government another tool to monitor you with, especially when it won`t make any difference. Someone has to pay for it. The cost of ID`s, the cost of paying workers to enter the information, the cost of maintaining the database, the cost of hiring election workers to check ID`s, the cost of just a little more privacy being eroded away and for what?
Its a useless measure and should be scrapped.
-
We have voter ID here in Michigan...the little old lady that used to have to dig through a big ass book of names, find mine and then watch me sign the book, swiped my license through a reader and looked at my photo. Cut the time needed to verify that I'm a registered voter by a good minute or two. In an election with millions of votes cast that's a shit ton of time and effort saved.
-
Why give the government another tool to monitor you with, especially when it won`t make any difference. Someone has to pay for it. The cost of ID`s, the cost of paying workers to enter the information, the cost of maintaining the database, the cost of hiring election workers to check ID`s, the cost of just a little more privacy being eroded away and for what?
Its a useless measure and should be scrapped.
I don't think its to much to ask of a person to be able to prove they are who they say they are. You need an ID for everything. You don't need the immense bureaucracy. All voting centers have a list of voters who can vote at a particular precinct. You just show you ID and they check with the list and you're done.
We have voter ID here in Michigan...the little old lady that used to have to dig through a big ass book of names, find mine and then watch me sign the book, swiped my license through a reader and looked at my photo. Cut the time needed to verify that I'm a registered voter by a good minute or two. In an election with millions of votes cast that's a shit ton of time and effort saved.
I'm in Michigan as well, Flip!
-
BS - she wants all the chickens beef dogs burgers cakes chooms pot beers etc all fo herself
haha you forgot to add the pic where she is eating like its her last meal
-
haha you forgot to add the pic where she is eating like its her last meal
Ha ha ha she is such a Cafone!
But I get it - she is the man in the relationship
-
Ha ha ha she is such a Cafone!
But I get it - she is the man in the relationship
haha :D
great pic...and that one from a basketball game when someone holds up a banana infront of obama is epic to