New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

This Weekend Was A Disaster For Senate Democrats

GreenBean

Council Member
It's unfortunate about the voter ID requirements, since it's such a transparent attempt to suppress voter turnout in order to benefit the Republicans. I initially had the opposite view on that one, until I looked into the numbers and realized that (1) the kind of voter fraud it's designed to prevent is so rare as to be wholly inconsequential from an election-outcome perspective, and (2) a whole lot more eligible voters than I realized lacked qualifying ID, making it much more likely that suppressing their vote could swing an election. Voter ID requirements will make election outcomes less reflective of the will of the citizenry, and that's something that, as a patriot, I just can't support.
a transparent attempt to suppress voter turnout in order to benefit the Republicans.
Yup - wouldn't want all those illegal aliens and dead people not to be able to vote Democratic.
 

Arkady

President
[quote="Arkady, post: 1180584, member: 9327"}. Voter ID requirements will make election outcomes less reflective of the will of the citizenry, and that's something that, as a patriot, I just can't support.
What you can't support is fair elections...but you're not alone...the highest levels of the Democrat party don't like them either.

Harry Reid goes into his last election a 4 point underdog against Sharon Angle and comes out a 5 point winner? Analyze that Mr. Math Wizard!

Aided and abetted by the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) that actually, for real, no shit, was contracted to maintain the voting machines in Clark County (Las Vegas), Harry won despite losing 14 of 17 Nevada counties by an average margin of 33 points.

Filth...all of you, pure filth.[/quote]
Why would it matter how each did in various counties? It's a popular vote on a state-wide basis. As for how Reid could have won despite trailing in the polls, I think part of it could simply be the margin of errors in polls (typically +/- 3 points), and part could be last-minute rethinking things. It's similar to the Scotland independence ballot, where polling showed a toss-up and yet the election came out pretty squarely against the measure. Probably people felt more brave about the prospect of setting out a new course when talking to pollsters than when they got into the booth and had to make the choice for real, at which point sticking with the status quo looked more appealing.
 

Arkady

President
Yup - wouldn't want all those illegal aliens and dead people not to be able to vote Democratic.
There's no sign that there's ever been any significant amount of in-person fraudulent voting of that sort. Every indication is that it just doesn't happen often enough to swing any election, nor any sign that it happens more frequently in one direction than the other, making it even less likely to influence results meaningfully. When someone wants to steal an election, he doesn't do it with a high-risk, low-reward method involving massive manpower, like individual fraudulent in-person voting. He does it through a method where fraudulent voting can be done in bulk, like ballot stuffing, absentee ballots, or getting the Supreme Court to override state election law to install their preferred candidate in office.
 

Arkady

President
Mr. Arkady,

Settle down, big fella. Just because I shot down your argument in just a few word, doesn't mean you have to lower yourself to wallow in the the mud.

It really is unbecoming of men of the genteel nature.
I'm just trying to be helpful. It has to be quite a burden to labor under the kind of mental handicap from which you're suffering, and I'd love to help you come out from under it, if that's possible.
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
I'm just trying to be helpful. It has to be quite a burden to labor under the kind of mental handicap from which you're suffering, and I'd love to help you come out from under it, if that's possible.
Mr. Arkady,

Again, why do you resort to ad hominem? Not an admirable trait in a lawyer.

And why won't you stay on subject? It is your thread, after all.

So again, the question is, why do you think that only democrats are to stupid, confused, or lazy to get a valid I.D. for voting? Because, except for those reasons, the only other reason that someone doesn't have an I.D. is because they are criminals or intent on criminal activity.
 

Arkady

President
Mr. Arkady,

Again, why do you resort to ad hominem? Not an admirable trait in a lawyer.

And why won't you stay on subject? It is your thread, after all.

So again, the question is, why do you think that only democrats are to stupid, confused, or lazy to get a valid I.D. for voting? Because, except for those reasons, the only other reason that someone doesn't have an I.D. is because they are criminals or intent on criminal activity.
You made a deeply stupid post, which demonstrated a fundamental inability to reason. I pointed out your errors in the hope that we can, in the future, have a meaningful discussion on the matter. But, until you step up your game, how is that possible?

So again, the question is, why do you think that only democrats are to stupid, confused, or lazy to get a valid I.D. for voting?
I don't think that. So, the question becomes, why are YOU too stupid, confused, or lazy to follow what I wrote well enough to avoid jumping to such absurd conclusions?
 

GreenBean

Council Member
Hehe. Prove that there's never been a sign that Leprechauns manipulate voting machines to steal elections.
A good trial lawyer does not make a statement, or ask a question that he does not already know the answer to. Obviously - if you are a lawyer , you're not a very good one.

So far as Leprechauns manipulating elections - yup - it happens . Except the Leprechauns wear sombreros and speak Spanish .
 

Arkady

President
A good trial lawyer does not make a statement, or ask a question that he does not already know the answer to. Obviously - if you are a lawyer , you're not a very good one.

So far as Leprechauns manipulating elections - yup - it happens . Except the Leprechauns wear sombreros and speak Spanish .
You completely missed the point. No matter, that was expected.
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
You made a deeply stupid post, which demonstrated a fundamental inability to reason. I pointed out your errors in the hope that we can, in the future, have a meaningful discussion on the matter. But, until you step up your game, how is that possible?



I don't think that. So, the question becomes, why are YOU too stupid, confused, or lazy to follow what I wrote well enough to avoid jumping to such absurd conclusions?
Mr. Arkady,

How is my post stupid? There are only two reasons, except in the extreme cases, for not having a valid I.D. The first, you are too incompetent to get one, and the second, because you are either a criminal or intend to perform criminal activities.

You did not point out any errors to this, insted to go off on five paragraphs without saying anything, except to say that I should add lazy to the list of reasons someone can't get an ID (remember, I agreed with you and thanked you for added that).

Then you made a rediculous statement that urban people don't need IDs. You need an ID to get welfare, drive a car, cash a check, use a credit card, fly on an airplane, to access most if not all government services, identify yourself to police, get a student loan, get into a university, get medical care, etc., etc., so it is rediculous to say that urban people do not need an ID, unless, of course, they are either criminals or occupying the fringes of society.

So basically, you made two minor points, then five paragraphs of ad hominem filled screed, yet still, you never adressed the first question I posed as to why democrats are more likely not to have an ID than Republicans.

So, again your diversions and insults, really, do reflect poorly on you. If you'd like to have a rational and concise discussion, I am ready. If you want to go on and on about nothing, I think there is a client you have that you can charge billable hours off his retainer to.

By the by, sorry about going on and on...;)
 

Arkady

President
Mr. Arkady,

How is my post stupid? There are only two reasons, except in the extreme cases, for not having a valid I.D. The first, you are too incompetent to get one, and the second, because you are either a criminal or intend to perform criminal activities.
No. Millions of Americans who are eligible to vote lack what would be regarded as qualifying ID. Most are competent to get ID, but haven't put in the effort. Not all of those are Democratic voters, but they disproportionately are, since the young, urban people, and poor people are less likely to have a need or desire for driver's licenses.

That's why Republicans support voter ID. They know that this will disproportionately impact Democratic voters.... that if millions of eligible voters lack qualifying ID, and if some meaningful proportion of them won't bother going through the effort of getting it (or will forget it on election day, etc.), then this represents a kind of "home-field advantage" for Republicans in elections, that can be expected to sway an occasional close contest. That's the whole reason for supporting these voter ID requirements. If it was about ensuring the integrity of elections, they'd start with a more plausible means of stealing elections, like the lack of audit-ability of voting machines, or the way people can vote by absentee ballot without any means of confirming their identities. Instead, they focus on a non-issue like a handful of examples of in-person voting fraud, because they know that provides a pretext for making it harder for the kinds of citizens to vote that they'd prefer not vote.

You did not point out any errors to this
I did, indeed. Go back and reread. Try harder.

You need an ID to get welfare
You don't need an ID that qualifies for voting to get welfare. What made you think that was needed? What makes you think you need qualifying ID to get into a university or get medical care? I've been to the doctor many times without showing anything that would qualify for voting. You don't even need one for cashing checks:

http://www.ehow.com/how_6663090_cash-check-id.html

http://www.speedycash.com/store-services/financial-services/check-cashing/

"Don't have your ID? No problem. Simply stop by any of our check cashing locations, provide us with some basic personal information, and we will cash your check today."

Or taking out a loan:

http://www.speedycash.com/faqs/payday-loans/what-do-you-need-to-get-a-payday-loan/

"If you don't have a driver's license or photo ID, you can visit one of our Speedy Cash locations, and a customer service representative will work with you to verify your identify and get you the cash you need."


Or flying:

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/flying-without-a-photo-id/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
http://www.tsa.gov/contact-us
http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/acceptable-ids

I would have been ineligible to vote, a few days ago, if my state had voter ID laws. My driver's license expired. The day before it did, I went in and renewed, and while that was in the mail, they gave me a temporary license, but it had no photo and was conspicuously marked with "not eligible as ID." It was only good for letting me drive. So, for the couple days between when my old one expired and my new one came in the mail, I couldn't have voted, if there'd been a rule requiring a current state-issued photo ID.

you never adressed the first question I posed as to why democrats are more likely not to have an ID than Republicans.
It's so adorable that you'd try to re-frame your point that way, at this stage, as if nobody would notice. Here's what you said:

"Interesting that you think only democrats are too confused or stupid to get the paperwork together to obtain a legal ID."

Do you see what you actually said, versus what you'd now like everyone to pretend you said?

If you'd like to avoid your earlier stupidity and move on to marginally more intelligent points, I'm happy to accommodate you. One reason Democrats are less likely to have qualifying ID than Republicans is that they are disproportionately among those who are less likely to have driver's licenses, because they're too poor to own cars, or live in cities where they don't need to drive. In suburban and rural areas, people generally have qualifying photo ID on them at all times, because they need it to get around legally. In urban areas, it's more common not to have photo ID, or not to carry it around all the time if you do have it, because it isn't needed.

If you'd like to have a rational and concise discussion, I am ready.
No. I think you really aren't. I honestly believe you lack the basic mental abilities for that.
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
No. Millions of Americans who are eligible to vote lack what would be regarded as qualifying ID. Most are competent to get ID, but haven't put in the effort. Not all of those are Democratic voters, but they disproportionately are, since the young, urban people, and poor people are less likely to have a need or desire for driver's licenses.

That's why Republicans support voter ID. They know that this will disproportionately impact Democratic voters.... that if millions of eligible voters lack qualifying ID, and if some meaningful proportion of them won't bother going through the effort of getting it (or will forget it on election day, etc.), then this represents a kind of "home-field advantage" for Republicans in elections, that can be expected to sway an occasional close contest. That's the whole reason for supporting these voter ID requirements. If it was about ensuring the integrity of elections, they'd start with a more plausible means of stealing elections, like the lack of audit-ability of voting machines, or the way people can vote by absentee ballot without any means of confirming their identities. Instead, they focus on a non-issue like a handful of examples of in-person voting fraud, because they know that provides a pretext for making it harder for the kinds of citizens to vote that they'd prefer not vote.



I did, indeed. Go back and reread. Try harder.



You don't need an ID that qualifies for voting to get welfare. What made you think that was needed? What makes you think you need qualifying ID to get into a university or get medical care? I've been to the doctor many times without showing anything that would qualify for voting. You don't even need one for cashing checks:

http://www.ehow.com/how_6663090_cash-check-id.html

http://www.speedycash.com/store-services/financial-services/check-cashing/

"Don't have your ID? No problem. Simply stop by any of our check cashing locations, provide us with some basic personal information, and we will cash your check today."

Or taking out a loan:

http://www.speedycash.com/faqs/payday-loans/what-do-you-need-to-get-a-payday-loan/
"If you don't have a driver's license or photo ID, you can visit one of our Speedy Cash locations, and a customer service representative will work with you to verify your identify and get you the cash you need."

Or flying:

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/flying-without-a-photo-id/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
http://www.tsa.gov/contact-us
http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/acceptable-ids

I would have been ineligible to vote, a few days ago, if my state had voter ID laws. My driver's license expired. The day before it did, I went in and renewed, and while that was in the mail, they gave me a temporary license, but it had no photo and was conspicuously marked with "not eligible as ID." It was only good for letting me drive. So, for the couple days between when my old one expired and my new one came in the mail, I couldn't have voted, if there'd been a rule requiring a current state-issued photo ID.



It's so adorable that you'd try to re-frame your point that way, at this stage, as if nobody would notice. Here's what you said:

"Interesting that you think only democrats are too confused or stupid to get the paperwork together to obtain a legal ID."

Do you see what you actually said, versus what you'd now like everyone to pretend you said?

If you'd like to avoid your earlier stupidity and move on to marginally more intelligent points, I'm happy to accommodate you. One reason Democrats are less likely to have qualifying ID than Republicans is that they are disproportionately among those who are less likely to have driver's licenses, because they're too poor to own cars, or live in cities where they don't need to drive. In suburban and rural areas, people generally have qualifying photo ID on them at all times, because they need it to get around legally. In urban areas, it's more common not to have photo ID, or not to carry it around all the time if you do have it, because it isn't needed.



No. I think you really aren't. I honestly believe you lack the basic mental abilities for that.
Mr. Arkady,

Why don't they put forth an effort to get something as easy to obtain as an ID? Again, I can only think they are either too dumb, to lazy, or involved in criminal activity and don't want to be identified, or they prefer to live on the fringe of society, but that is about it.

I cited so many reason why it is necessary to have an ID just to survive in this modern world. You can't get a job without one, you can't get government services without one, you can't drive without one, you can't get into a bar without one, you can't board a plane without one, you can't leave the country without one, you have to show one to identify yourself to a police officer if asked, you can't cash a check without one, you can't use a credit card without one, you can't get into many government buildings without one, etc., etc.

You cite fly by night check cashing places as a means of saying you don't need an ID cash a check, but you also have to pay extremely high rates to cover the deadbeats that cash bogus checks. I was talking about cashing checks at legitimate businesses, such as banks, stores, etc.

With regard to the loan, you should have read your own link, as it says you need an ID, or a valid checking account number, which you need an ID for.

With regard to flying, all that you cite are government issued ID, or require government issued IDs to acquire. If you go to all the trouble to have one of those IDs, why would someone have any trouble getting an ID they vote with.

Bottom line, you just throw out canards. There is no reason for someone not to have an ID, there is no reason that you should not have to show one to vote.

So what you must be saying that democrat voters are more likely to be involved in nafarious activities and requiring an ID would restrict they from voter fraud.
 

Arkady

President
Why don't they put forth an effort to get something as easy to obtain as an ID?
Many will. Others will not. That's what the GOP is counting on, or the whole thing would be a waste of political effort for them. This has nothing to do with fraud. It's all about trying to deter the "wrong kind" of citizens from voting by setting up obstacles. It's the same reason the GOP consistently fights against attempts to make voting easier, even unrelated to any supposed fraud-prevention (like in the 90s, when they fought the motor-voter effort, because they didn't like it being that easy to register to vote).

I don't mean to excuse the unwillingness of people to put in some extra effort to be able to vote. But the question is why should we erect that hurdle?

One exercise I've tried, to get right-wingers to see this with fresh eyes, is to get them to imagine other hypothetical voting "reforms" that would impact other people... people that right-wingers actually give a shit about. For example, picture that (nominally to prevent voting fraud) all votes would have to take place with special biometric measures to assure the person voting was really the eligible voter, and to allow computerized cross-referencing to eliminate duplicate voters. And picture that these systems were expensive enough that they'd only be set up in a few locations in the state -- just in the city halls of the biggest cities, but with extended voting that allowed those handful of facilities to accommodate everyone in the state who is willing to make the trek to vote.

In that hypothetical, every eligible person could vote, if he were willing to make the effort. But the amount of effort that would involve would vary based on whether the person lives in a big city or not. The expected outcome of this reform would be to drive down rural voting a lot more than urban voting. It might even increase urban voting, thanks to the convenience of those extended voting periods. Someone living in Miami, for example, would find it very easy to vote, while someone living out in a rural part of the Florida panhandle might have to invest several hours of drive time to do so. The expected impact of this would be to skew election results towards the Democrats, since they're disproportionately favored by urban voters, while hurting Republicans, who have strongholds in rural areas.

Now, imagine that hypothetical "reform" were really the one on the table. You might object to the plan because of the way it imposes that pointless inconvenience on many voters, and causes an unnecessary expense for the government. You might, sensibly, point out that this was a dumb plan that isn't really about addressing the non-existent problem it references, but rather is about gaming the system for the benefit of Democrats by trying to suppress rural voters. If you made that point, and I responded "why do you think Republicans are the only ones too stupid, confused, or lazy to travel to one of the voting centers," wouldn't you immediately see how imbecilic my rhetoric was? Wouldn't you laugh at my stupidity? Wouldn't you laugh even harder if I then started babbling about Republican voters objecting to it because they were involved in criminal activity and were afraid that if they traveled outside their rural precincts they'd be identified, or some such crazy-ass bullshit? Well, now you see why I laugh at dummies like you.

I cited so many reason why it is necessary to have an ID just to survive in this modern world.
And yet I pointed out how wrong you were. And study after study has shown how many voters don't have ID, yet are surviving in the modern world just fine. In Wisconsin, for example, 300,000 didn't have it. As of 2005, about half of all voting aged African Americans and Hispanics in that state lacked driver's licenses.

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/voting_rights/documents/files/Voter-ID-Talking-Points-for-web.pdf

Your conjecture about what's needed to survive in the modern world is simply contradicted by the data.

You can't get a job without one
Yes you can.

you can't get government services without one
Yes you can.

you can't drive without one
True. Lots of people don't drive, though. I know that's unthinkable for someone who lives outside a big city, but for urban Americans (and also, sometimes for students and the elderly), it's just not an issue.

you can't get into a bar without one
Sure you can. I go to bars all the time without showing any ID. It would have been more difficult when I was in my 20s, but no longer.
you can't board a plane without one
Sure you can. I linked you to both the TSA and the NYT, confirming that.

, you can't leave the country without one
True. But a large percentage of Americans don't travel internationally.
, you have to show one to identify yourself to a police officer if asked
No. If you don't have state-issued photo ID and a police officer asks to see it, just tell him you don't have it and offer to show him whatever you have in your wallet that might identify you (like a student ID, for example, or a Social Security card). There is no legal requirement that people have government issued photo ID.
you can't cash a check without one
Yes, you can. I linked you to evidence.

you can't use a credit card
What planet are you on? I use my credit card all the time with no photo ID.
without one, you can't get into many government buildings without one
Apparently, the millions of Americans who get by without government-issued photo ID just don't have to go to those particular government buildings.

You cite fly by night check cashing places as a means of saying you don't need an ID cash a check, but you also have to pay extremely high rates to cover the deadbeats that cash bogus checks. I was talking about cashing checks at legitimate businesses, such as banks, stores, etc.
I'm not advocating the use of payday loan centers and the like. But many do, in fact, use them. Your assertion was simply wrong. Again.

With regard to the loan, you should have read your own link, as it says you need an ID, or a valid checking account number, which you need an ID for.
I read my link. It said they'd work with those who don't have photo ID. And you don't need photo ID to open checking accounts:

http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/0,,20,00.html


Bottom line, you just throw out canards.
No. I offer verifiable facts, with links to back them up. You offer blind assertions, with no evidence backing them, then whimper and whine when your claims are disproved. Step up your game!

So what you must be saying that democrat voters are more likely to be involved in nafarious activities and requiring an ID would restrict they from voter fraud.
Nope. That's just your low IQ producing garbage summaries again. Try harder.
 
Last edited:

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
Many will. Others will not. That's what the GOP is counting on, or the whole thing would be a waste of political effort for them. This has nothing to do with fraud. It's all about trying to deter the "wrong kind" of citizens from voting by setting up obstacles. It's the same reason the GOP consistently fights against attempts to make voting easier, even unrelated to any supposed fraud-prevention (like in the 90s, when they fought the motor-voter effort, because they didn't like it being that easy to register to vote).

I don't mean to excuse the unwillingness of people to put in some extra effort to be able to vote. But the question is why should we erect that hurdle?

One exercise I've tried, to get right-wingers to see this with fresh eyes, is to get them to imagine other hypothetical voting "reforms" that would impact other people... people that right-wingers actually give a shit about. For example, picture that (nominally to prevent voting fraud) all votes would have to take place with special biometric measures to assure the person voting was really the eligible voter, and to allow computerized cross-referencing to eliminate duplicate voters. And picture that these systems were expensive enough that they'd only be set up in a few locations in the state -- just in the city halls of the biggest cities, but with extended voting that allowed those handful of facilities to accommodate everyone in the state who is willing to make the trek to vote.

In that hypothetical, every eligible person could vote, if he were willing to make the effort. But the amount of effort that would involve would vary based on whether the person lives in a big city or not. The expected outcome of this reform would be to drive down rural voting a lot more than urban voting. It might even increase urban voting, thanks to the convenience of those extended voting periods. Someone living in Miami, for example, would find it very easy to vote, while someone living out in a rural part of the Florida panhandle might have to invest several hours of drive time to do so. The expected impact of this would be to skew election results towards the Democrats, since they're disproportionately favored by urban voters, while hurting Republicans, who have strongholds in rural areas.

Now, imagine that hypothetical "reform" were really the one on the table. You might object to the plan because of the way it imposes that pointless inconvenience on many voters, and causes an unnecessary expense for the government. You might, sensibly, point out that this was a dumb plan that isn't really about addressing the non-existent problem it references, but rather is about gaming the system for the benefit of Democrats by trying to suppress rural voters. If you made that point, and I responded "why do you think Republicans are the only ones too stupid, confused, or lazy to travel to one of the voting centers," wouldn't you immediately see how imbecilic my rhetoric was? Wouldn't you laugh at my stupidity? Wouldn't you laugh even harder if I then started babbling about Republican voters objecting to it because they were involved in criminal activity and were afraid that if they traveled outside their rural precincts they'd be identified, or some such crazy-ass bullshit? Well, now you see why I laugh at dummies like you.



And yet I pointed out how wrong you were. And study after study has shown how many voters don't have ID, yet are surviving in the modern world just fine. In Wisconsin, for example, 300,000 didn't have it. As of 2005, about half of all voting aged African Americans and Hispanics in that state lacked driver's licenses.

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/voting_rights/documents/files/Voter-ID-Talking-Points-for-web.pdf

Your conjecture about what's needed to survive in the modern world is simply contradicted by the data.



Yes you can.



Yes you can.



True. Lots of people don't drive, though. I know that's unthinkable for someone who lives outside a big city, but for urban Americans (and also, sometimes for students and the elderly), it's just not an issue.



Sure you can. I go to bars all the time without showing any ID. It would have been more difficult when I was in my 20s, but no longer.


Sure you can. I linked you to both the TSA and the NYT, confirming that.



True. But a large percentage of Americans don't travel internationally.

, you have to show one to identify yourself to a police officer if asked

No. If you don't have state-issued photo ID and a police officer asks to see it, just tell him you don't have it and offer to show him whatever you have in your wallet that might identify you (like a student ID, for example, or a Social Security card). There is no legal requirement that people have government issued photo ID.


Yes, you can. I linked you to evidence.



What planet are you on? I use my credit card all the time with no photo ID.


Apparently, the millions of Americans who get by without government-issued photo ID just don't have to go to those particular government buildings.



I'm not advocating the use of payday loan centers and the like. But many do, in fact, use them. Your assertion was simply wrong. Again.



I read my link. It said they'd work with those who don't have photo ID. And you don't need photo ID to open checking accounts:

http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/0,,20,00.html




No. I offer verifiable facts, with links to back them up. You offer blind assertions, with no evidence backing them, then whimper and whine when your claims are disproved. Step up your game!



Nope. That's just your low IQ producing garbage summaries again. Try harder.
Mr. Arkady,

Holy crap, I wish I could grow my money like I grew this conversation. I type ten words, you come back with 50. I type 50, you come back with 200. Might I remind you I'm not one of your clients that you are tying to drain of their retainer by charging them by the word.

Bottom line, there is no bars nor restrictions for getting a government ID. You can go on and on, and in true lawyer fashion, you did, but the only reason someone has for not showing an ID before voting is because they wish to commit voter fraud.

You seem to imply that this will only affect democrats because generally, only democrats commit voter fraud?
 

Arkady

President
Mr. Arkady,

Holy crap, I wish I could grow my money like I grew this conversation. I type ten words, you come back with 50. I type 50, you come back with 200. Might I remind you I'm not one of your clients that you are tying to drain of their retainer by charging them by the word.

Bottom line, there is no bars nor restrictions for getting a government ID. You can go on and on, and in true lawyer fashion, you did, but the only reason someone has for not showing an ID before voting is because they wish to commit voter fraud.

You seem to imply that this will only affect democrats because generally, only democrats commit voter fraud?
I realize that I can't drive thought into your head by sheer number of words, but I can't resist trying. It's depressing when, after all that, you come back with some nonsense like "You seem to imply that this will only affect democrats because generally, only democrats commit voter fraud." Someone would need to be outright brain damaged to infer that from what I said.

Please try to think through the hypothetical I offered. I think if you make an honest effort to think that through, it will open your eyes. In case the length threw you, here's the super short form:

Imagine a voting "reform" that theoretically let any eligible person vote, but increased the difficulty more for rural voters than urban ones, on average. Don't you see how that would skew the vote for the advantage of Democrats?
 

GreenBean

Council Member
I realize that I can't drive thought into your head by sheer number of words, but I can't resist trying. It's depressing when, after all that, you come back with some nonsense like "You seem to imply that this will only affect democrats because generally, only democrats commit voter fraud." Someone would need to be outright brain damaged to infer that from what I said.

Please try to think through the hypothetical I offered. I think if you make an honest effort to think that through, it will open your eyes. In case the length threw you, here's the super short form:

Imagine a voting "reform" that theoretically let any eligible person vote, but increased the difficulty more for rural voters than urban ones, on average. Don't you see how that would skew the vote for the advantage of Democrats?

"You seem to imply that this will only affect democrats because generally, only democrats commit voter fraud."
Democratic voter fraud is disproportionately higher than Republican. Republican fraud is rare, Democratic Fraud is expected and their common practice.


That's why Republicans support voter ID. They know that this will disproportionately impact Democratic voters...Fraud. that if millions of eligible voters dead people and illegal aliens lack qualifying ID.

What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. .... which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you..

 

Arkady

President
Democratic voter fraud is disproportionately higher than Republican. Republican fraud is rare, Democratic Fraud is expected and their common practice.
What evidence do you see for that?

That's why Republicans support voter ID.
No. If this were about opposition to fraud, it would focus on ways that crooked people can more realistically steal elections -- such as by way of absentee ballots or ballot stuffing, or hacking voting machines. It would focus on ways just a few people could cause a swing of thousands of votes without the extremely high risk of detection that would come from trying to vote repeatedly in person. This isn't about opposing fraud. It's about trying to deter voting by classes of citizens assumed to be hostile to the GOP. It's the same reason the GOP opposes extended voting hours, election holidays, methods for making registration easier, lower voting ages, and anything else that might increase turnout among Democrat-favoring citizens.
 
Top