****OFFICIAL VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT FROM VOTER ID LAWS THREAD****

[Sho Nuff 719]

Well, or you could tell him that Wisconsin does not have a voter ID law because it got shot down.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Well, or you could tell him that Wisconsin does not have a voter ID law because it got shot down.

The guy fell for some slick youtube vids aimed at low IQ types. Why rub it in?

[rholio 339]

The guy fell for some slick youtube vids aimed at low IQ types. Why rub it in?

Like this one?

 

[rholio 339]

The guy fell for some slick youtube vids aimed at low IQ types. Why rub it in?

Actually, he went on YouTube and typed in Voter ID laws... don't let facts get in the way of your opinion, though.

[Sho Nuff 719]

He is saying you fell for the video? That means you have a low IQ?

After he claimed Wisconsin allows military ID...eventhough they don't even have a voter ID law?

Holy fock...

 

Look...its simple.

Have an ID is a decent way to try and show you are who you are. Its not perfect.

 

The right supports it...not to stop any fraud (because there is very little statistical evidence of a significant amount of fraud out there). They want it because they know who will be affected most by the law. People that statistically have been supporters of the democratic party.

 

The left doesn't support it...not because they feel that bad for people...or that they think people can't get IDs. But because they know that, statistically speaking, people who don't have IDs now are typically dem voters. and that people, are inherently lazy and don't want to do extra things to be able to vote.

 

When voter turnout is down...its typically good for Republicans. When its up, it has typically been good for democrats.

 

Its about the statistics and little more.

But some here will never admit that...despite it being focking obvious.

[HenryHill9323 65]

He is saying you fell for the video? That means you have a low IQ?

After he claimed Wisconsin allows military ID...eventhough they don't even have a voter ID law?

Holy fock...

 

Look...its simple.

Have an ID is a decent way to try and show you are who you are. Its not perfect.

 

The right supports it...not to stop any fraud (because there is very little statistical evidence of a significant amount of fraud out there). They want it because they know who will be affected most by the law. People that statistically have been supporters of the democratic party.

 

The left doesn't support it...not because they feel that bad for people...or that they think people can't get IDs. But because they know that, statistically speaking, people who don't have IDs now are typically dem voters. and that people, are inherently lazy and don't want to do extra things to be able to vote.

 

When voter turnout is down...its typically good for Republicans. When its up, it has typically been good for democrats.

 

Its about the statistics and little more.

But some here will never admit that...despite it being focking obvious.

1. Rholio brought a fake video of a guy saying he was told his military ID wasn't on the approved list of IDs to vote in Wisconsin. I said the law allowed military IDs to vote. It did, whether or not it was struck down or not. And you want to complain about my position in this situation? You are the definition of hack.

 

2. It is telling that you think Dem voters are lazy.

 

3. You say low turnout is good for Republicans, but you can't explain how ID laws cause low turnout. Turnout was low in all states, even those without ID laws.

 

Face it, voter ID laws didn't do what libs were crying about before the election.

[Sho Nuff 719]

1. Rholio brought a fake video of a guy saying he was told his military ID wasn't on the approved list of IDs to vote in Wisconsin. I said the law allowed military IDs to vote. It did, whether or not it was struck down or not. And you want to complain about my position in this situation? You are the definition of hack.

 

2. It is telling that you think Dem voters are lazy.

 

3. You say low turnout is good for Republicans, but you can't explain how ID laws cause low turnout. Turnout was low in all states, even those without ID laws.

 

Face it, voter ID laws didn't do what libs were crying about before the election.

 

Every now and then its fun to actually read something you wrote...and then completely destroy it....though, I likely won't read your response which will be full of crap and spin. Here I go anyway.

 

1. You made some assumption about his IQ for watching the video...yet, you bring up a point about military ID being allowed in a state whose Voter ID law was ruled unconstitutional. Your big IQ should have just told him there was no voter ID law there. But you likely had no focking clue it was shot down. Don't try making a point about someone else's intelligence or IQ or whatever, when you too are focking ignorant about what is going on. (ignorant as in its actual defintion of you not knowing what you are talking about...before someone cries that I was slinging an insult)

 

2. I said people are inherently lazy...not just dem voters...but all people. You really need to learn to read rather than trying to spin what people have said the way you always do.

 

3. I never claimed low turnout was caused by voter ID laws. I was making a point about things that are good and bad (historically) for each party. Again, quit trying to spin what people have said and actually read what they said.

 

Face it...you have no clue what the ID laws actually did...just because nobody is playing along with your constant pleas for attention and are mostly mocking your obsession in this thread, does not mean that the disenfranchisement is not possible through these laws.

Instead, realize that the party you so blindly support is for the laws because they know who it will affect and feel it will give them an advantage. Anyone not blinded by the GOP can see that.

 

Drops the mic...Im out...deuces.

[HenryHill9323 65]

So you are back to claiming this law will affecta certain people and give the Reps an advantage. Who are these certain people, and exactly where is your evidence they were affected?

 

What I can see is you still pushing a lie that none of those who have been pushing can back up.

 

This is where you pull your "I'm not going to respond because I ignore you" schtick to cover for the fact you can't back up your claim.

[Sho Nuff 719]

So you are back to claiming this law will affecta certain people and give the Reps an advantage. Who are these certain people, and exactly where is your evidence they were affected?

 

What I can see is you still pushing a lie that none of those who have been pushing can back up.

 

This is where you pull your "I'm not going to respond because I ignore you" schtick to cover for the fact you can't back up your claim.

No, I will reply. My claim is not a lie.

Statistics have long shown that those right now in this country who don't have a valid photo ID are older, poor, and minorities. Groups that have historically voted democrat.

 

You can try disputing this if you eant.

 

Im not back to this claim...it has always been my position on voterID and why the right supports it and the left opposes it.

 

I have never claimed they were affected...you are, once again, spinning what people have said in order to continue an argument. You should have quit and just stayed away...but you can't. You have to keep going. So spin away...im done.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Once again you have nothing but your opinion fed you by the libtard talking point machine.

 

Documentation Son, documentation.

[Sho Nuff 719]

[HenryHill9323 65]

You should have waved the surrender flag pages ago.