Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin's voter ID law

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[loco]

I like how no one yet has actually responded to the facts of the GAO report

Did the court read the GAO report?

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw Man]

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/

[loco]

try reading my post next time

So no?

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw Man]

So no?

or yes

apparently you are unfamiliar with the word "maybe"

I honestly did not know you there that stupid

[loco]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[loco]

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.

[Shockwave]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[loco]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

If MSNBC is against it - so is Straw - is that easy to grasp. 

[Tedim]

if voter id laws existed, these poor folks wouldn't be able to vote.

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

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/

[loco]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[loco]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[Shockwave]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?