And Then The Democrats Wonder Why Republicans Want Voter ID Laws...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

If I was president I would issue an executive order saying who could and could not vote.

If you were President you'd have hell seeing one Executive order from another!

[mastermind238]

Originally Posted by WTF

You are a God Damn Liar.

If what I said about your position on voter fraud makes me a God Damned Liar, sir, then by that standard every word you write - including Knat - proves that you are a FUCKING IDIOT.

Originally Posted by WTF

Should we pass a law where you need to show an ID to buy food?

When choosing the person who nominates Supreme Court Justices becomes a matter of who buys food and what food they buy, then perhaps we SHOULD require ID to purchase food. If you think buying food carries the came weight as deciding who's on the Supreme Court, then you really must have shit for brains.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

If I was president I would issue an executive order saying who could and could not vote.

No one on welfare should be allowed to vote. The whole reason social welfare states go bankrupt is because once the people are allowed to determine how much money they get from the government with their vote, it's all over.

There's an old saying that beggars can't be choosers. Well they can in America, and it's bankrupting us.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

If what I said about your position on voter fraud makes me a God Damned Liar, sir, then by that standard every word you write - including Knat - proves that you are a FUCKING IDIOT.




.

I never said there wasn't any voter fraud you lying sack of shit.

Just quit lying about wtf I said. Show me where I said there was no, none, notta voter fraud.

Originally Posted by WTF

If you really checked, you would find that there is very little voter fraud.

Originally Posted by mastermind238

When choosing the person who nominates Supreme Court Justices becomes a matter of who buys food and what food they buy, then perhaps we SHOULD require ID to purchase food. If you think buying food carries the came weight as deciding who's on the Supreme Court, then you really must have shit for brains.

It is same not came. So by your own standards misspelling a word makes you an idiot, then join the crowd.

I think that evey person that is of age should be able to vote. I lean on making it easier , not harder to do so. I am not for Jim Crow like laws. I would be for Purple thumbs dips if it got more people to the polls. The system is way more corrupt at the stage where money is spent after they are elected, not in the voter ID stage.

[mastermind238]

A typo is understandable. Thanks for catching mine. Yours, however, isn't a typo. You misspelled gnat the same way more than once. Not a typo. Ignorance.


Now ... since the issue of Disenfranchisement vs Fraud keeps coming up, let me make a few observations.

First, one form of "disenfranchisement" comes about by removing eligible voters from rolls by mistake. Where this has happened in recent years, the mistakes are easily found and corrected - usually with gobs of press coverage. If these mistakes are not discovered and corrected before an election, every state that I'm aware of allows "provisional" voting, whereby someone who election officials claim is ineligible to vote may cast a ballot and then clear up any confusion later by producing necessary documentation.

The second form of disenfranchisement is easy to charge, but very difficult to prove. Vote suppression. And the charge is that requiring a photo ID selectively "disenfranchises" minorities and the "poor." It's hard to make this charge in a way that isn't patronizing and downright offensive. Every good liberal "knows" that blacks and Hispanics, as a voting block, are too stupid, too poor, too lazy, to acquire the necessary ID that one would need to write a check to PURCHASE FOOD in a supermarket. So of COURSE they're going to stay home instead of showing up at a polling place only to be humiliated by their lack of a photo ID.

The trouble with this form of disenfranchisement is that it also has a simple remedy, provided for in every voter ID statute that's been challenged - and upheld - in court. And that is that ID will be provided at little or no cost by the state. And if that remedy is not sought before an election, because someone wishing to vote is so ignorant of the requirements, he/she may still vote provisionally. See two paragraphs above.

Now how about fraud? The ways in which vote fraud may be perpetrated are too numerous to list. But they all have one thing in common: the perpetrator is NOT going to stand up and shout "Look at me! I'm committing voter fraud!! Come arrest me and throw me in jail!!!"

Thus the difference. Disenfranchisement is easily detected and corrected. Voter fraud is not easily detected, and (at least in the case of close elections) cannot be corrected short of re-doing an election.

All of these arguments pitting disenfranchisement against vote integrity have had a thorough hearing in the courts, and most notably the US Supreme Court case regarding the Indiana statute. The result is that reasonable measures to ensure the integrity of elections - including photo ID - are allowable. Deal with it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

A typo is understandable. Thanks for catching mine. Yours, however, isn't a type. You misspelled gnat the same way more than once. Not a typo. Ignorance.


Now ... since the issue of Disenfranchisement vs Fraud keeps coming up, let me make a few observations.

First, one form of "disenfranchisement" comes about by removing eligible voters from rolls by mistake. Where this has happened in recent years, the mistakes are easily found and corrected - usually with gobs of press coverage. If these mistakes are not discovered and corrected before an election, every state that I'm aware of allows "provisional" voting, whereby someone who election officials claim is ineligible to vote may cast a ballot and then clear up any confusion later by producing necessary documentation.

The second form of disenfranchisement is easy to charge, but very difficult to prove. Vote suppression. And the charge is that requiring a photo ID selectively "disenfranchises" minorities and the "poor." It's hard to make this charge in a way that isn't patronizing and downright offensive. Every good liberal "knows" that blacks and Hispanics, as a voting block, are too stupid, too poor, too lazy, to acquire the necessary ID that one would need to write a check to PURCHASE FOOD in a supermarket. So of COURSE they're going to stay home instead of showing up at a polling place only to be humiliated by their lack of a photo ID.

The trouble with this form of disenfranchisement is that it also has a simple remedy, provided for in every voter ID statute that's been challenged - and upheld - in court. And that is that ID will be provided at little or no cost by the state. And if that remedy is not sought before an election, because someone wishing to vote is so ignorant of the requirements, he/she may still vote provisionally. See the paragraph above.

Now how about fraud? The ways in which vote fraud may be perpetrated are too numerous to list. But they all have one thing in common: the perpetrator is NOT going to stand up and shout "Look at me! I'm committing voter fraud!! Come arrest me and throw me in jail!!!"

Thus the difference. Disenfranchisement is easily detected and corrected. Voter fraud is not easily detected, and (at least in the case of close elections) cannot be corrected short of re-doing an election.

All of these arguments pitting disenfranchisement against vote integrity have had a thorough hearing in the courts, and most notably the US Supreme case regarding the Indiana statute. The result is that reasonable measures to ensure the integrity of elections - including photo ID - are allowable.

+1

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

If what I said about your position on voter fraud makes me a God Damned Liar, sir, then by that standard every word you write - including Knat - proves that you are a FUCKING IDIOT.




When choosing the person who nominates Supreme Court Justices becomes a matter of who buys food and what food they buy, then perhaps we SHOULD require ID to purchase food. If you think buying food carries the came weight as deciding who's on the Supreme Court, then you really must have shit for brains.

Trying to draw an analogy between requiring a photo ID to vote, and requiring a photo ID to buy food, as if one might lead to the other, is a non sequitur. Liberal positions are usually riddled with non sequiturs; they are a symptom of a muddled thought process. The same muddled thinking that interferes with clear writing, also makes liberals vulnerable to the demagogic nonsense being peddled by the socialist/Democrats.

It's like when Biden said that we need to spend more to keep from going bankrupt and the audience applauded.