Score two for democracy

[SUXBNME 1,516]

no

Meh...All I know is that my 200+ MTG cards are worth more than yours.

 

Suck it.

[drobeski 3,061]

Meh...All I know is that my 200+ MTG cards are worth more than yours.

 

Suck it.

I don't know what MTG cards are ? Are those like discount cards the boss gives you for wearing a clean uniform ?

[RLLD 4,254]

Curious that proving your identity is such a hotly debated topic.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Curious that proving your identity is such a hotly debated topic.

Apparently one side does not want confirmation that a person voting is who they claim to be.

 

I have no idea how anonymity is so appealing to them.

[rholio 339]

Curious that proving your identity is such a hotly debated topic.

Apparently one side wants to change the rules to try to gain an advantage in the elections.

They'll blame the other side for wanting to cheat while trying to change the rules.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Apparently one side wants to change the rules to try to gain an advantage in the elections.

They'll blame the other side for wanting to cheat while trying to change the rules.

What would that advantage be?

[rholio 339]

What would that advantage be?

See 6 focking pages of this thread.

[HenryHill9323 65]

See 6 focking pages of this thread.

You mean the 6 pages where there is no evidence of voter disenfranchisement? Those?

 

Still leaves my question unanswered.

[rholio 339]

You mean the 6 pages where there is no evidence of voter disenfranchisement? Those?

 

Still leaves my question unanswered.

The only reason your 'question is unanswered' is that the answer doesn't fit your agenda, so you ignore it. It's been posted here repeatedly, yet you pretend otherwise.

 

The Republicans want the rule changes as a way to discourage those most likely to not have an ID from voting. The Democrats don't want the rules changed because those least likely to have an ID are more likely to vote Democrat. It's politics, plain and simple.

 

"Voter Fraud" is the red herring being used to try to change the rules to gain an advantage.

[HenryHill9323 65]

The only reason your 'question is unanswered' is that the answer doesn't fit your agenda, so you ignore it. It's been posted here repeatedly, yet you pretend otherwise.

 

The Republicans want the rule changes as a way to discourage those most likely to not have an ID from voting. The Democrats don't want the rules changed because those least likely to have an ID are more likely to vote Democrat. It's politics, plain and simple.

 

"Voter Fraud" is the red herring being used to try to change the rules to gain an advantage.

Minority voter turnout went up in both Texas and Georgia after voter ID laws were enacted.

 

The only red herring is the disenfranchisement lie.

[Sho Nuff 720]

The only reason your 'question is unanswered' is that the answer doesn't fit your agenda, so you ignore it. It's been posted here repeatedly, yet you pretend otherwise.

 

The Republicans want the rule changes as a way to discourage those most likely to not have an ID from voting. The Democrats don't want the rules changed because those least likely to have an ID are more likely to vote Democrat. It's politics, plain and simple.

 

"Voter Fraud" is the red herring being used to try to change the rules to gain an advantage.

 

You are arguing with a brick wall.

Any sane and rational person knows what you are saying is true.

But the hacks of this board are not rational and won't ever admit it.

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

You are arguing with a brick wall.

Any sane and rational person knows what you are saying is true.

But the hacks of this board are not rational and won't ever admit it.

Disenfranchisement??????????????????

 

 

Beuhler????????????

[Reality 3,121]

Poll after poll shows the American people overwhelmingly support voter ID laws. Hopefully, common sense will eventually prevail on a issue that should have never become political.

 

Several states already require photo ID to vote, I live in one, and to the best of my knowledge these states haven't burst into flames.

 

Just seems like a silly issue to get all hot and bothered over.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Poll after poll shows the American people overwhelmingly support voter ID laws. Hopefully, common sense will eventually prevail on a issue that should have never become political.

 

Several states already require photo ID to vote, I live in one, and to the best of my knowledge these states haven't burst into flames.

 

Just seems like a silly issue to get all hot and bothered over.

 

And Bush and Obama both won reelection after terrible first terms.

 

The issue has always been political though.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

Minority voter turnout went up in both Texas and Georgia after voter ID laws were enacted.

 

The only red herring is the disenfranchisement lie.

 

Yeah, there was nothing special about 2008/2012 elections that drove up minority turn-out up at all, other wise known as causation does not imply correlation, sport.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Poll after poll shows the American people overwhelmingly support voter ID laws. Hopefully, common sense will eventually prevail on a issue that should have never become political.

 

Several states already require photo ID to vote, I live in one, and to the best of my knowledge these states haven't burst into flames.

 

Just seems like a silly issue to get all hot and bothered over.

If you agree that it's a minor issue, then why the need to hinder people's fundamental right to vote over it?

 

I mean, you don't seem to understand who bears the onus here. You are your kind have to show that there's a compelling need for these laws. THEN we can talk about whether that need overrides a person's right to choose their elected representatives.

[drobeski 3,061]

See ...cheaters just gotta cheat

[Sho Nuff 720]

See ...cheaters just gotta cheat

 

You love regurgitating that hack line over and over don't you?

[drobeski 3,061]

 

You love regurgitating that hack line over and over don't you?

gets you to cry easily, but then again, what doesn't ?

[drobeski 3,061]

Why do racists like mike and worms think minortoties are too stupid or incompetent to get an ID ?

[Sho Nuff 720]

gets you to cry easily, but then again, what doesn't ?

Asking you if you are going to keep up with that line is crying now?

You hacks have a real problem understanding the word cry and whine (other than constantly crying and whining about what Democrats do)

[Sho Nuff 720]

Why do racists like mike and worms think minortoties are too stupid or incompetent to get an ID ?

 

They think that?

Or do they just understand that those groups are statistically less likely to have an ID?

[drobeski 3,061]

 

They think that?

Or do they just understand that those groups are statistically less likely to have an ID?

then how did they even register to vote ? And yes they think that, no doubt in my mind..

[HenryHill9323 65]

Yeah, there was nothing special about 2008/2012 elections that drove up minority turn-out up at all, other wise known as causation does not imply correlation, sport.

 

Still can't find all that disenfranchisement the your overlords have you all worked up over, huh?

[HenryHill9323 65]

If you agree that it's a minor issue, then why the need to hinder people's fundamental right to vote over it?

I mean, you don't seem to understand who bears the onus here. You are your kind have to show that there's a compelling need for these laws. THEN we can talk about whether that need overrides a person's right to choose their elected representatives.

Who had their right to vote hindered?

 

Got their names?

[jerryskids 6,829]

If we don't have a mechanism to identify the fraud, how exactly would one know how much fraud is occurring?

I don't think this was ever answered so I'll bump it.

[HenryHill9323 65]

I don't think this was ever answered so I'll bump it.

They will answer that right after they locate all the poor minorities that are getting disenfranchised.

 

In other words.......you won't get an answer.

[Sho Nuff 720]

then how did they even register to vote ? And yes they think that, no doubt in my mind..

 

As I said earlier in this thread...does not take a photo ID to register in many states.

So...no, you just have no clue yet again.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I don't think this was ever answered so I'll bump it.

 

IDs would not be a mechanism to detect fraud.

 

A mechanism to attempt to prevent it...yes. But not detection.

[Reality 3,121]

You are your kind have to show that there's a compelling need for these laws.

Sorry but, you and your kind are the overwhelming minority on this issue. The opinion of people like you who are so far on the fringe left should simply be ignored.

 

Common sense will win the day at some point. Too many situations in every day life require a photo ID, voting should simply be added. Give it 2 or 4 years to kick in. Doesn't matter to me.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Sorry but, you and your kind are the overwhelming minority on this issue. The opinion of people like you who are so far on the fringe left should simply be ignored.

Actually that's the focking LAW, dumbass. Jesus you really need to reexamine your definition of "fringe"

[Reality 3,121]

Actually that's the focking LAW, dumbass. Jesus you really need to reexamine your definition of "fringe"

 

This is such an idiotic response that it doesn't even deserve a response. Carry on.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yet, you responded.

[jerryskids 6,829]

 

IDs would not be a mechanism to detect fraud.

 

A mechanism to attempt to prevent it...yes. But not detection.

I don't disagree. My point is that it is difficult to claim with confidence that there is little to no fraud when we can't easily detect it. And that alleged lack of fraud is an important justification for not needing ID.

[drobeski 3,061]

Cheaters gotta defend cheating

[IGotWorms 4,058]

 

This is such an idiotic response that it doesn't even deserve a response. Carry on.

It's clear that you have no idea how to respond to the merits of my post. Carry on in your blissful ignorance I suppose; at least I can be comforted that the adults in the court system are able to understand that one ought to have a pretty good reason for throwing roadblocks in the way of exercising a fundamental democratic right.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Cheaters gotta defend cheating

Now here's a fella who is even less able to articulate a coherent response

 

Let me ask you again, doctor: who is "cheating"?

 

Because to me it sounds like you're referring to the republicans who are trying to win elections by supporting voter turnout among certain blocs of voters, but I know that can't be what you are referring to.

[HenryHill9323 65]

It's clear that you have no idea how to respond to the merits of my post. Carry on in your blissful ignorance I suppose; at least I can be comforted that the adults in the court system are able to understand that one ought to have a pretty good reason for throwing roadblocks in the way of exercising a fundamental democratic right.

Who has a "roadblock" in the way of exercising their right to vote?

 

Why do you keep avoiding this question?

[jerryskids 6,829]

No I didn't. The laws have the effect of resulting in fewer democrats, which the GOP likes. But the underlying reason is that lazy, unmotivated people won't do what they need to do.

 

Look, I'm not in favor of stuff like passing a law weeks before an election requiring ID, nor is it fair to have an ID location open 4 days per year. ID access should be reasonably available.

 

Let me ask: if there were an ID supply on every streetcorner, and they were open 24/7, and they were free, would you support it? If so, we are fundamentally aligned, and just differ on the minimum level of effort.

I also didn't get a response to this, except Worms' nonresponsive reply, so I'll bump it as well. The question is basically: if all restrictions for obtaining an ID were removed, would it be acceptable to require ID? It is of course hypothetical because such a scenario would never exist, but I'm trying to isolate the objection to requiring ID from the level of effort required to do so.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I also didn't get a response to this, except Worms' nonresponsive reply, so I'll bump it as well. The question is basically: if all restrictions for obtaining an ID were removed, would it be acceptable to require ID? It is of course hypothetical because such a scenario would never exist, but I'm trying to isolate the objection to requiring ID from the level of effort required to do so.

I wrote up a whole g0ddamn serious response and then hit the focking "use full version" button on accident and lost it

 

I'll try again tomorrow when I may be sober