|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 5, 2016 19:29:20 GMT
It was OK because everyone was doing it? What do you mean those lawsuits never amounted to crap, he settled, didn't he? If he didn't do it, why would he settle? No, he certainly was accused of being a racist before running for President, see the HuPo article. And it's not the issue of Trump supporting Duke, no one has said that, but Duke supporting Trump. Duke supports Trump and that's a black white mark on Trump? Odd because Dumpster already has white support. I'm going to go ahead and like this. It's very good.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 5, 2016 19:39:01 GMT
My friend, it's not a secret. In PA they flat out openly said that this was a law that would decrease the number of minorities to vote, thus making a Romney victory easier. They didn't try to hide it. With the repeal of the voting rights act, Texas instantly started switching around how they set up the voting booths, so that lines in areas that are more minority filled were ten times as long. They aren't even hiding it, voter id laws have one purpose, preventing minorities voting. Cmon, you realize this. The GOP has flat out said it Where did the GOP say that? Hilarious for you to ask that question above, having also said that left leaning voters are gullable and sheep. Please continue to make an absolute fool of yourself on this thread. It is awesome watching you try to spin garbage.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Sept 5, 2016 20:00:58 GMT
Where did the GOP say that? Hilarious for you to ask that question above, having also said that left leaning voters are gullable and sheep. Please continue to make an absolute fool of yourself on this thread. It is awesome watching you try to spin garbage. I didn't hear any mention of minority vote in either clip.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 5, 2016 20:23:01 GMT
Spin it and deny. Voter ID laws never happened until certain states became purple.
Now suddenly you have to have an ID in states where conservatives control state legislature.
Lies just keep mounting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 21:15:34 GMT
Hilarious for you to ask that question above, having also said that left leaning voters are gullable and sheep. Please continue to make an absolute fool of yourself on this thread. It is awesome watching you try to spin garbage. I didn't hear any mention of minority vote in either clip. Too logical...this guy has a video. Better than a meme, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Sept 5, 2016 22:10:52 GMT
My friend, it's not a secret. In PA they flat out openly said that this was a law that would decrease the number of minorities to vote, thus making a Romney victory easier. They didn't try to hide it. With the repeal of the voting rights act, Texas instantly started switching around how they set up the voting booths, so that lines in areas that are more minority filled were ten times as long. They aren't even hiding it, voter id laws have one purpose, preventing minorities voting. Cmon, you realize this. The GOP has flat out said it Where did the GOP say that? There are just as many cases on the other side, like the number of precincts (57, I believe) in Philadelphia that recorded ZERO votes for Romney in 2012. There's nothing racist about the NC voting ID law. 1. A judge said it wasn't discrimination already, meaning the law is being interpreted on an appeal vs a simple violation of civil rights. The ruling is being appealed a third time and will probably go to the Supreme Court. 2. The argument is over whether or not food stamp cards should be admissable as ID which is pretty hilarious if not sad. Everybody knows Democrats try to buy votes with welfare benefits, but I don't think a line that straight has been drawn between argument and actuality. I mean, someone in line voting for their benefits with an EBT card as their only ID? Give me a break. 3. Voters in NC can get voter IDs--for free--at the DMV. I'll track down some video, but I think it was a governor that said something like, we pushed this law through to help Romney win this state. It was incredibly blunt. Voter id is a solution without a problem. Well, that's not true, it's the solution to the gops problem that minorities don't vote for them. Is it that much of a shocker that poor black neighborhoods didn't vote for Romney?
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Sept 5, 2016 22:13:17 GMT
Hilarious for you to ask that question above, having also said that left leaning voters are gullable and sheep. Please continue to make an absolute fool of yourself on this thread. It is awesome watching you try to spin garbage. I didn't hear any mention of minority vote in either clip. Come on....I don't knock the hustle, I want my party to do everything they can to win, but these laws specifically request types of id that white people will have, and minorities are less likely to have. The GOP has to either start doing something to try to get these minority votes, or start appealing to educated white people, two groups that just aren't voting republican right now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 22:18:33 GMT
I didn't hear any mention of minority vote in either clip. Come on....I don't knock the hustle, I want my party to do everything they can to win, but these laws specifically request types of id that white people will have, and minorities are less likely to have. The GOP has to either start doing something to try to get these minority votes, or start appealing to educated white people, two groups that just aren't voting republican right now So it's okay for people to walk into a precinct without any ID and then vote? Why do Democrats assume minorities can't get photo IDs?
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Sept 5, 2016 23:03:56 GMT
Come on....I don't knock the hustle, I want my party to do everything they can to win, but these laws specifically request types of id that white people will have, and minorities are less likely to have. The GOP has to either start doing something to try to get these minority votes, or start appealing to educated white people, two groups that just aren't voting republican right now So it's okay for people to walk into a precinct without any ID and then vote? Why do Democrats assume minorities can't get photo IDs? There have never been a problem with in person voter fraud.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Sept 5, 2016 23:07:39 GMT
I didn't hear any mention of minority vote in either clip. Come on....I don't knock the hustle, I want my party to do everything they can to win, but these laws specifically request types of id that white people will have, and minorities are less likely to have. The GOP has to either start doing something to try to get these minority votes, or start appealing to educated white people, two groups that just aren't voting republican right now I don't think someone should be able to vote without an ID.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 23:09:54 GMT
So it's okay for people to walk into a precinct without any ID and then vote? Why do Democrats assume minorities can't get photo IDs? There have never been a problem with in person voter fraud. So you're fine with someone walking up to the ballot box, saying "I'm Fred Smith" and getting a ballot? Because that's law now in NC. I don't see any issue with phtoo ID, especially considering voter ID is free in many states. I'd be interested in hearing from the Canadians on here what the Canadian precincts are like. I guess in America we aren't allowed to enforce voting or immigration laws. And to speak out or try to reform those laws is racist.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Sept 5, 2016 23:11:09 GMT
Come on....I don't knock the hustle, I want my party to do everything they can to win, but these laws specifically request types of id that white people will have, and minorities are less likely to have. The GOP has to either start doing something to try to get these minority votes, or start appealing to educated white people, two groups that just aren't voting republican right now I don't think someone should be able to vote without an ID. Okay then totally change the system. Have a voter id and everyone has to go get one. Personally, I've never been asked for an id to vote. Do you understand how much work it would take to swing an election through in person voter fraud? Name and address has worked fine all these years, it's never been a problem.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 23:14:44 GMT
Come on....I don't knock the hustle, I want my party to do everything they can to win, but these laws specifically request types of id that white people will have, and minorities are less likely to have. The GOP has to either start doing something to try to get these minority votes, or start appealing to educated white people, two groups that just aren't voting republican right now I don't think someone should be able to vote without an ID. No fucking shit. You can't get a job without an ID, you can't buy liquor without ID, you can't drive or rent a motel or apartment without ID, but you can vote?
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Sept 5, 2016 23:15:14 GMT
There have never been a problem with in person voter fraud. So you're fine with someone walking up to the ballot box, saying "I'm Fred Smith" and getting a ballot? Because that's law now in NC. I don't see any issue with phtoo ID, especially considering voter ID is free in many states. I'd be interested in hearing from the Canadians on here what the Canadian precincts are like. I guess in America we aren't allowed to enforce voting or immigration laws. And to speak out or try to reform those laws is racist. I have no issue with "I'm Fred smith and I live at this address." Someone has to know my name, and my address before getting my ballot, and then they have to get there before me. If they do that, and I show up to vote and they tell me I've already voted.....that's when an ID becomes necessary. I can't fathom a scenario where in person voter fraud makes a difference in an election. It's quite literally not possible
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Sept 5, 2016 23:42:22 GMT
So you're fine with someone walking up to the ballot box, saying "I'm Fred Smith" and getting a ballot? Because that's law now in NC. I don't see any issue with phtoo ID, especially considering voter ID is free in many states. I'd be interested in hearing from the Canadians on here what the Canadian precincts are like. I guess in America we aren't allowed to enforce voting or immigration laws. And to speak out or try to reform those laws is racist. I have no issue with "I'm Fred smith and I live at this address." Someone has to know my name, and my address before getting my ballot, and then they have to get there before me. If they do that, and I show up to vote and they tell me I've already voted.....that's when an ID becomes necessary. I can't fathom a scenario where in person voter fraud makes a difference in an election. It's quite literally not possible You need some help with the word "literally".
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Sept 5, 2016 23:49:09 GMT
I have no issue with "I'm Fred smith and I live at this address." Someone has to know my name, and my address before getting my ballot, and then they have to get there before me. If they do that, and I show up to vote and they tell me I've already voted.....that's when an ID becomes necessary. I can't fathom a scenario where in person voter fraud makes a difference in an election. It's quite literally not possible You need some help with the word "literally". Outline a scenario where in person voter fraud can change anything. I don't think it's psosible, and I can't even get started on idea that would make it possible. Maybe get about 1,000 people together, go through the phone book, find everyone's address, then, poison the water so everyone stays home instead of voting. Then, you hire someone to be working the voting booths, so Alice who lives down the street from Fred smith doesn't call bull shit when you ask for the ballot. Maybe that could work?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 0:19:51 GMT
You need some help with the word "literally". Outline a scenario where in person voter fraud can change anything. I don't think it's psosible, and I can't even get started on idea that would make it possible. Maybe get about 1,000 people together, go through the phone book, find everyone's address, then, poison the water so everyone stays home instead of voting. Then, you hire someone to be working the voting booths, so Alice who lives down the street from Fred smith doesn't call bull shit when you ask for the ballot. Maybe that could work? I agree with you there. A Washington Post writer that tracks these things found 31 reported instances of fraud out of a billions votes cast. That being said, in person voter fraud is almost impossible to track, and eliminating any fraud benefits all parties, right? Why is that seemingly every Republican reform these days is labeled racist, homophobic, or benefitting billionaires? Why can't the Democrats debate policy based on results? www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443864204577621732936167586www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Sept 6, 2016 0:42:39 GMT
Outline a scenario where in person voter fraud can change anything. I don't think it's psosible, and I can't even get started on idea that would make it possible. Maybe get about 1,000 people together, go through the phone book, find everyone's address, then, poison the water so everyone stays home instead of voting. Then, you hire someone to be working the voting booths, so Alice who lives down the street from Fred smith doesn't call bull shit when you ask for the ballot. Maybe that could work? I agree with you there. A Washington Post writer that tracks these things found 31 reported instances of fraud out of a billions votes cast. That being said, in person voter fraud is almost impossible to track, and eliminating any fraud benefits all parties, right? Why is that seemingly every Republican reform these days is labeled racist, homophobic, or benefitting billionaires? Why can't the Democrats debate policy based on results? www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443864204577621732936167586www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/Ya I understand that, but here's my issue, they're doing it really quick. If they passed some legislation saying that from now on every American born child gets a voter ID card with a number unique to them (like a social) and they will be required to present that number before voting, and that by 2020 everyone will have to have some form of ID that they can get for free, then I say sure. In the long run I think it just costs the tax payers a bunch of money and doesn't really do anything, but whatever. I guess I don't think it's racist in that the GOP is trying to pass this legislation because they hate minorities, I think they're just trying to pass it because these people won't vote for them. It's nothing for me to have to make a trip to the dmv to get an ID, but for a single mother in a poor neighborhood that works three jobs and doesn't have a car, well that person isn't going to vote.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 6, 2016 13:50:15 GMT
Come on....I don't knock the hustle, I want my party to do everything they can to win, but these laws specifically request types of id that white people will have, and minorities are less likely to have. The GOP has to either start doing something to try to get these minority votes, or start appealing to educated white people, two groups that just aren't voting republican right now I don't think someone should be able to vote without an ID. But it was ok before until the GOP started losing certain states in the general election. The courts disagree with this sudden coincidence. Guess the courts are wrong then.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 6, 2016 16:23:29 GMT
I don't think someone should be able to vote without an ID. But it was ok before until the GOP started losing certain states in the general election. The courts disagree with this sudden coincidence. Guess the courts are wrong then. Maybe, maybe not. Courts make political decisions all the time. SCOTUS legislates from the bench every June. Some sort ID requirement is reasonable and fair but a democrat judge will not agree because of his political views, not the law. A conservative judge would require 3 forms of ID (2 with photos) and a certified birth certificate.
The motivation of the GOP and the Dems are the same...winning. So sure, there is a battle over voting standards. No surprise there and both sides are equally guilty of trying to raise or lower the standard to their benefit. It should be about doing what's right and finding a way to make sure the standard is reasonable and ensure voter's rights. But why would these assholes start putting the interest of the country ahead of their own party and their own re-election?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 17:12:31 GMT
But it was ok before until the GOP started losing certain states in the general election. The courts disagree with this sudden coincidence. Guess the courts are wrong then. Maybe, maybe not. Courts make political decisions all the time. SCOTUS legislates from the bench every June. Some sort ID requirement is reasonable and fair but a democrat judge will not agree because of his political views, not the law. A conservative judge would require 3 forms of ID (2 with photos) and a certified birth certificate.
The motivation of the GOP and the Dems are the same...winning. So sure, there is a battle over voting standards. No surprise there and both sides are equally guilty of trying to raise or lower the standard to their benefit. It should be about doing what's right and finding a way to make sure the standard is reasonable and ensure voter's rights. But why would these assholes start putting the interest of the country ahead of their own party and their own re-election?
Not to mention the court upheld the law once already in North Carolina...
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 6, 2016 19:46:48 GMT
But it was ok before until the GOP started losing certain states in the general election. The courts disagree with this sudden coincidence. Guess the courts are wrong then. Maybe, maybe not. Courts make political decisions all the time. SCOTUS legislates from the bench every June. Some sort ID requirement is reasonable and fair but a democrat judge will not agree because of his political views, not the law. A conservative judge would require 3 forms of ID (2 with photos) and a certified birth certificate.
The motivation of the GOP and the Dems are the same...winning. So sure, there is a battle over voting standards. No surprise there and both sides are equally guilty of trying to raise or lower the standard to their benefit. It should be about doing what's right and finding a way to make sure the standard is reasonable and ensure voter's rights. But why would these assholes start putting the interest of the country ahead of their own party and their own re-election?
Give me an example, that the demorcrats did, of something simular, as trying to something close, to changing voter ID laws in purple states ? Something equally guilty like changing laws to affect voter turnout numbers.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Sept 6, 2016 20:30:10 GMT
Maybe, maybe not. Courts make political decisions all the time. SCOTUS legislates from the bench every June. Some sort ID requirement is reasonable and fair but a democrat judge will not agree because of his political views, not the law. A conservative judge would require 3 forms of ID (2 with photos) and a certified birth certificate.
The motivation of the GOP and the Dems are the same...winning. So sure, there is a battle over voting standards. No surprise there and both sides are equally guilty of trying to raise or lower the standard to their benefit. It should be about doing what's right and finding a way to make sure the standard is reasonable and ensure voter's rights. But why would these assholes start putting the interest of the country ahead of their own party and their own re-election?
Give me an example, that the demorcrats did, of something simular, as trying to something close, to changing voter ID laws in purple states ? Something equally guilty like changing laws to affect voter turnout numbers. Does this year's DNC actions count?
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 6, 2016 20:34:05 GMT
Maybe, maybe not. Courts make political decisions all the time. SCOTUS legislates from the bench every June. Some sort ID requirement is reasonable and fair but a democrat judge will not agree because of his political views, not the law. A conservative judge would require 3 forms of ID (2 with photos) and a certified birth certificate.
The motivation of the GOP and the Dems are the same...winning. So sure, there is a battle over voting standards. No surprise there and both sides are equally guilty of trying to raise or lower the standard to their benefit. It should be about doing what's right and finding a way to make sure the standard is reasonable and ensure voter's rights. But why would these assholes start putting the interest of the country ahead of their own party and their own re-election?
Give me an example, that the demorcrats did, of something simular, as trying to something close, to changing voter ID laws in purple states ? Something equally guilty like changing laws to affect voter turnout numbers. In this case it's more that they want to maintain the status quo and when the bar has been raised they throw everything they can at the efforts to try to lower the bard again. Prior to somewhere around the early 1950's you could show up to vote with no identification at all. No questions asked, just tell the nice lady who you are, get your ballot and vote. Then states slowly started to require something. An electric bill with your name on it would do. Eventually some states required more formal ID while many still just need any old document that identified you. If you don't think there was real voter fraud back in the first half of the 20th century you're bonkers. There was a legitimate reason to assure that elections were clean, partially by minimizing voter fraud (particularly in the south) and a reasonable ID requirement was a solution in many people's minds. Even a few Dems. But once the Dems owned the deadbeat vote the motive changed. So this battle has been going on for decades and has ratcheted up in recent years. The Republican want the standard to vote to be tougher and the Dems want you to be able to show up with no ID and be able to vote. Nothing to do with voter fraud anymore...just politics at its lowest.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 6, 2016 20:41:42 GMT
Give me an example, that the demorcrats did, of something simular, as trying to something close, to changing voter ID laws in purple states ? Something equally guilty like changing laws to affect voter turnout numbers. Does this year's DNC actions count ? Against their own party members and Bernie Sanders supporters ? Yes Did DWS keep voters from being able to even vote ? No
|
|