Rand Paul: Texas Could Go Blue If GOP Doesn't Change

[RRKore]

Thanks for the link.  It doesn't support your contention that voter ID laws are intended to suppress poor people's votes.  

No, I have not read the kinds of stories you just posted, and I'm glad I haven't.  Did you actually read it?  

This whole notion that requiring an ID is a form of voter suppression is just downright silly.  

I think it's kinda silly, too, actually.  (Silly as in ineffective, not silly as in "No way would repubs think this".)

And I just scanned this particular article but have read many like it since months ago.

With today's fantastically skewed wealth inequality, many of the numerically small rich on the right plainly feel the need to resort to trickery to maintain power in a one man/one vote country.

[Dos Equis]

I think it's kinda silly, too, actually.  (Silly as in ineffective, not silly as in "No way would repubs think this".)

And I just scanned this particular article but have read many like it since months ago.

With today's fantastically skewed wealth inequality, many of the numerically small rich on the right plainly feel the need to resort to trickery to maintain power in a one man/one vote country.

If you read many articles like the one you posted, then I understand why your viewpoint on this is unsupportable.  All the guy did was pull quotes from two people saying early voting favors Democrats and then made the leap that this proves voter ID laws are designed to suppress the votes of poor people.  Absurd. 

Voter ID laws are not about trickery.  I really don't see what the big deal is with someone having to prove their identity, especially people on public assistance.  I'm not even sure how they qualify for and obtain benefits without proving their identity. 

I saw a guy on a show the other day repeatedly saying voter ID laws suppress minority votes.  No proof either.  Just keep saying it louder and louder, as if that somehow made it true. 

[blacken700]

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 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.”

[RRKore]

If you read many articles like the one you posted, then I understand why your viewpoint on this is unsupportable.  All the guy did was pull quotes from two people saying early voting favors Democrats and then made the leap that this proves voter ID laws are designed to suppress the votes of poor people.  Absurd. 

Voter ID laws are not about trickery.  I really don't see what the big deal is with someone having to prove their identity, especially people on public assistance.  I'm not even sure how they qualify for and obtain benefits without proving their identity. 

I saw a guy on a show the other day repeatedly saying voter ID laws suppress minority votes.  No proof either.  Just keep saying it louder and louder, as if that somehow made it true. 

Hey, whether the tactic works or not, the point is that some repubs think it does and that's why they're for these laws.

It's not just me saying this:  It's clear that in the minds of some republicans, Voter ID laws do benefit republicans by suppressing dem voting to some degree. 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/

http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html

If you really think the idea is absurd, maybe you could explain why?  (BTW, repubs have a lot of absurd ideas so absurdity by itself doesn't mean jack, lol.)

[Dos Equis]

Hey, whether the tactic works or not, the point is that some repubs think it does and that's why they're for these laws.

It's not just me saying this:  It's clear that in the minds of some republicans, Voter ID laws do benefit republicans by suppressing dem voting to some degree. 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/

http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html

If you really think the idea is absurd, maybe you could explain why?  (BTW, repubs have a lot of absurd ideas so absurdity by itself doesn't mean jack, lol.)

Those two links say the same thing as the first link you provided:  they quote a handful of people who say early voting favors Democrats and that the people who will be too lazy to get an ID are likely to be Democrat voters.  So what? 

I think that--like the people who wrote the articles you posted--you're misusing the phrase "voter suppression."  Requiring someone to prove their identity isn't discouraging or preventing people from voting.  Poll taxes and literacy tests are historical examples of voter suppression.  Showing an ID is not, particularly when someone has months and years to get an ID before an election. 

[StreetSoldier4U]

Hey, whether the tactic works or not, the point is that some repubs think it does and that's why they're for these laws.

It's not just me saying this:  It's clear that in the minds of some republicans, Voter ID laws do benefit republicans by suppressing dem voting to some degree. 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/

http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html

If you really think the idea is absurd, maybe you could explain why?  (BTW, repubs have a lot of absurd ideas so absurdity by itself doesn't mean jack, lol.)

It doesn't suppress the vote because no one is stopping them from getting identification.    It's their own fault they don't have ID.

[tonymctones]

Those two links say the same thing as the first link you provided:  they quote a handful of people who say early voting favors Democrats and that the people who will be too lazy to get an ID are likely to be Democrat voters.  So what? 

I think that--like the people who wrote the articles you posted--you're misusing the phrase "voter suppression."  Requiring someone to prove their identity isn't discouraging or preventing people from voting.  Poll taxes and literacy tests are historical examples of voter suppression.  Showing an ID is not, particularly when someone has months and years to get an ID before an election. 

if you dont quit fucking making sense he cant just repeat stupidity and expect to get anywhere with you beach

[Dos Equis]

if you dont quit fucking making sense he cant just repeat stupidity and expect to get anywhere with you beach

I don't think he has really stepped back and throught this whole thing through.  But he's not much different than the talking heads I've ben hearing repeat the same lines.  Unfortunately, a lot of people just eat that stuff up. 

[tonymctones]

I don't think he has really stepped back and throught this whole thing through.  But he's not much different than the talking heads I've ben hearing repeat the same lines.  Unfortunately, a lot of people just eat that stuff up. 

he hasnt, he has bought into the liberal talking points hook line and sinker

[tonymctones]

that is all he has done, look at the "job lock" comments...LMFAO he was completely silent until the libtards came out with their talking points and then couldnt answer any questions on it...I guess he is waiting for their response before commenting...

[RRKore]

Those two links say the same thing as the first link you provided:  they quote a handful of people who say early voting favors Democrats and that the people who will be too lazy to get an ID are likely to be Democrat voters.  So what? 

I think that--like the people who wrote the articles you posted--you're misusing the phrase "voter suppression."  Requiring someone to prove their identity isn't discouraging or preventing people from voting.  Poll taxes and literacy tests are historical examples of voter suppression.  Showing an ID is not, particularly when someone has months and years to get an ID before an election. 

Handful of "people"?  Why you dishonest so-and-so, lol.  A handful of REPUBLICANS.  (If it was only "people" I was citing, I could probably find links to a hundred prominent lefties saying the same thing.)

Not all folks have a gov't-issued photo ID.  And some are is such desperate situations that to get one is a hardship.  Not sure if you've heard this, but some folks don't even have a permanent place to live.  Sad but true.

[RRKore]

that is all he has done, look at the "job lock" comments...LMFAO he was completely silent until the libtards came out with their talking points and then couldnt answer any questions on it...I guess he is waiting for their response before commenting...

This is rich.  So you're in favor of being a low-information commenter?  Is that the secret to how your opinions are formed?

Would you say you're a thoughtful person, Tony?  You don't strike me as one.  (I know, you don't care what a anonymous blah blah blah)  It seems like you're very quick to come to opinions about things and, what's worse, very reluctant to change your opinion even when confronted with inconsistencies.  (You'd rather dodge questions, lol.)

[tonymctones]

This is rich.  So you're in favor of being a low-information commenter?  Is that the secret to how your opinions are formed?

Would you say you're a thoughtful person, Tony?  You don't strike me as one.  (I know, you don't care what a anonymous blah blah blah)  It seems like you're very quick to come to opinions about things and, what's worse, very reluctant to change your opinion even when confronted with inconsistencies.  (You'd rather dodge questions, lol.)

first point out the inconsistencies...

second yes my thought process is proprietary I dont wait for talking points and then run away after parroting the party line like you do.

Forming your own opinion doesnt mean youre a low information commenter LMFAO it means you take in relevant info and make up your own mind, you should try it sometime...

you have an answer for how reps were going to relieve ppl of job lock yet? or you just gonna stay with the parrot the party line and run away tactic?

[RRKore]

first point out the inconsistencies...

second yes my thought process is proprietary I dont wait for talking points and then run away after parroting the party line like you do.

Forming your own opinion doesnt mean youre a low information commenter LMFAO it means you take in relevant info and make up your own mind, you should try it sometime...

you have an answer for how reps were going to relieve ppl of job lock yet? or you just gonna stay with the parrot the party line and run away tactic?

"Proprietary"?  In what sense?  (You don't know wtf you're talking about, do you?)

Run away? Like how you do about the subject of your 2 claimed mythical Judo National championships that you can provide almost no details at all about?  (How is that not inconsistent?).  Or about how you repeatedly dodged the question about whether you think that the degree of racism is higher, and that there's more of it, on the political right as opposed to on the political left?

What am I supposedly running away from now?  Something to do with how I need to know how "reps" (republicans?) were going to alleviate job lock?  Why would I need to know that?;  If you'll remember, I pointed out that Paul Ryan seemed to think that "job lock" was an issue in 2009 (or so) but that republicans now are trying to act like it's of no concern.  What is confusing about this?  And why is it some sort of issue for you if I don't have the foggiest about how Ryan hoped address "job lock"?  

Here's what happened:  After learning that "job lock" was a reason that folks being able to work less or even quit their otherwise unsatisfactory jobs if healthcare wasn't tied to their continued employment, I googled the term ("job lock") and came across a youtube vid of Paul Ryan talking about how onerous he thought job lock was.  I thought it was funny how repubs (or at least Ryan, who is a prominent republican) seem to have switched stances in a relatively short period of time. I did not watch enough of the video to find out what he was proposing that could help with job-lock in 2009, though.  (Why would I?)  End of story.

So, tell me, low-info dude, what did I do wrong according to your kindergarten-level code of political thinking?  Did I not use my "gut" enough?

By the way, what I think you do is take in far too little "relevant info" about most subjects.  That, coupled with your emotional development that seems to be stuck at "angry 10-year old" (witness your propensity for insults when others don't agree with you) makes you a typical closed-minded right-tard who really should grow the fuck up.  (But you won't -- you'll just be another non-BB on BB forum so those of us who are competitive BB'ers are stuck with ya.)

[tonymctones]

"Proprietary"?  In what sense?  (You don't know wtf you're talking about, do you?)

Run away? Like how you do about the subject of your 2 claimed mythical Judo National championships that you can provide almost no details at all about?  (How is that not inconsistent?).  Or about how you repeatedly dodged the question about whether you think that the degree of racism is higher, and that there's more of it, on the political right as opposed to on the political left?

let me address this wall o text deflection in sections...

proprietary in the sense that is it my own process and not anyone elses, would you like me to post a link to the definition of proprietary?

yours is not proprietary b/c you dont form your own opinions you simply parrot libtard talking points...

hahah I knew you would find your way back to the butt hurt judo issue. First telling you I am a 2 time national champ and then not providing proof is not inconsistent. Inconsistent would be me telling you I am and then telling you I am not...do you need me to provide you a link to the definition of inconsistent?

I have addressed your stupidity on racism in both parties plenty of times. Both parties have racists, one party doesnt have a lock on racism.

[tonymctones]

What am I supposedly running away from now?  Something to do with how I need to know how "reps" (republicans?) were going to alleviate job lock?  Why would I need to know that?;  If you'll remember, I pointed out that Paul Ryan seemed to think that "job lock" was an issue in 2009 (or so) but that republicans now are trying to act like it's of no concern.  What is confusing about this?  And why is it some sort of issue for you if I don't have the foggiest about how Ryan hoped address "job lock"? 

Here's what happened:  After learning that "job lock" was a reason that folks being able to work less or even quit their otherwise unsatisfactory jobs if healthcare wasn't tied to their continued employment, I googled the term ("job lock") and came across a youtube vid of Paul Ryan talking about how onerous he thought job lock was.  I thought it was funny how repubs (or at least Ryan, who is a prominent republican) seem to have switched stances in a relatively short period of time. I did not watch enough of the video to find out what he was proposing that could help with job-lock in 2009, though.  (Why would I?)  End of story.

So, tell me, low-info dude, what did I do wrong according to your kindergarten-level code of political thinking?  Did I not use my "gut" enough?

It is relevant b/c if they are alleviating ppl of "job lock" by making things cheaper that isnt the same as alleviating people of "job lock" by taking money from others to support their life style.

You do understand that the govt giving money to someone is a result of them taking it from someone else, RIGHT?

you dont seem to understand the difference between giving people more choices by taking from others to support them and allowing people more choices through making things cheaper in the market place.

Its not switching stances in this case dumb ass, they are two different scenarios and its fucking telling your ignorant ass doesnt understand it.

[RRKore]

let me address this wall o text deflection in sections...

proprietary in the sense that is it my own process and not anyone elses, would you like me to post a link to the definition of proprietary?

yours is not proprietary b/c you dont form your own opinions you simply parrot libtard talking points...

hahah I knew you would find your way back to the butt hurt judo issue. First telling you I am a 2 time national champ and then not providing proof is not inconsistent. Inconsistent would be me telling you I am and then telling you I am not...do you need me to provide you a link to the definition of inconsistent?

I have addressed your stupidity on racism in both parties plenty of times. Both parties have racists, one party doesnt have a lock on racism.

No, I think I get it now, you use your own home-grown method for looking at the world and for some reason think it's superior to the more analytical approaches of others.  Drive on with that, lol -- World gonna smack ya in the mouth for that idiocy one way or another.

Naw, post a definition of "deflection". 

You could use your last sentence to show how you avoid any statement whatsoever about which party has more (and worse) racism by saying, "One party doesn't have a lock on racism". 

(Props to you, I guess, for NOT saying that it's equal on both sides or that the left is more racist, though.) 

Clearly you are bending over backwards to avoid saying what we all know to be true:  There is more and worse racism on the right.  (Not sure what the big deal is with saying it, though  --- Doesn't mean that YOU are racist.)

[RRKore]

l...

hahah I knew you would find your way back to the butt hurt judo issue.

...

You should know this.  It speaks to your lack of credibility. 

So anytime the question of "Is Tony a lyin' sack o shit?" then your mysterious judo claims need to be brought up.  Sorry, mang.

[StreetSoldier4U]

You should know this.  It speaks to your lack of credibility. 

So anytime the question of "Is Tony a lyin' sack o shit?" then your mysterious judo claims need to be brought up.  Sorry, mang.

Tonys argument is sound.  Instead of attacking his character debate his premise.  This behavior smacks of desperation.

[RRKore]

It is relevant b/c if they are alleviating ppl of "job lock" by making things cheaper that isnt the same as alleviating people of "job lock" by taking money from others to support their life style.

You do understand that the govt giving money to someone is a result of them taking it from someone else, RIGHT?

you dont seem to understand the difference between giving people more choices by taking from others to support them and allowing people more choices through making things cheaper in the market place.

Its not switching stances in this case dumb ass, they are two different scenarios and its fucking telling your ignorant ass doesnt understand it.

"If they they are making things cheaper..."  Is this your way of saying that this is what Ryan was talking about?  If so, then acting butt-hurt because I didn't know what Ryan was talking about seems like a silly way to make your point. 

And your point isn't so clear anyway  -- You do understand that I can point out the hypocrisy of Ryan a few years ago bemoaning "job lock" while now thinking it's not a big deal without endorsing Ryan's solution for the issue, right?

I do understand about the gov't redistributing income.  And I accept it as the price we pay for living in the society we do.  I think you lack empathy for your fellow man.  I can understand it since you apparently grew up as an Asian in Texas where not all folks are as accepting of folks that look different as they are in other places.  Sorry for ya.

Lastly, sticking to your guns about how negative it is re: the CBO's sky-is-falling report about it's forecast that "2.5 million jobs will be lost" is a losing battle for you, if you go by what the mainstream (non-Fox) news org's are saying now.  I guess when the CBO came out and gave it's explanation about why it wasn't such a bad thing, that convinced some folks that don't share that "proprietary" thinking system you've got going there, ya asian redneck.  (Asian redneck -- No wonder you're so confused, lol.)

[RRKore]

Tonys argument is sound.  Instead of attacking his character debate his premise.  This behavior smacks of desperation.

Describe Tony's argument, SS4U.  State his premise.  I'll wait and respond, promise.

[StreetSoldier4U]

Describe Tony's argument, SS4U.  State his premise.  I'll wait and respond, promise.

Are you admitting you need someone to explain it to you?

[RRKore]

Are you admitting you need someone to explain it to you?

Not at all.  I think I understand it just fine. 

I'm trying to make sure you're not trolling.  (Remember when you said something to the effect of trying to make me upset was your goal?)

So getting a guy who spent some time at Michigan State to restate Tony's poorly-worded point about Ryan shouldn't be hard if you're really paying attention here.  Sorry for any inconvenience.

[StreetSoldier4U]

Not at all.  I think I understand it just fine. 

I'm trying to make sure you're not trolling.  (Remember when you said something to the effect of trying to make me upset was your goal?)

So getting a guy who spent some time at Michigan State to restate Tony's poorly-worded point about Ryan shouldn't be hard if you're really paying attention here.  Sorry for any inconvenience.

You need to step back and think about this issue rationally instead of being so emotional.

[RRKore]

You need to step back and think about this issue rationally instead of being so emotional.

That's what I thought. 

Bye Mr. Troll.