DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on May 20, 2016, 08:52:50 AM
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/al_jazeera_america_s_reveals_massive_gop_voter_suppression_effort_millions.html
The poorer a voter is, the more likely he is a renter, and will vote for Democrats.
The more likely he is a renter, the more likely he will change his address often.
Poor people cannot take time off to register their changes of address.
All this is well known. Voter impersonation and double voting is NOT a serious problem.
In 2008, Gov. Scott deliberately limited early voting, and I had to wait FIVE HOURS to vote in North Miami.
A lot of people had to get back to work or lose money or perhaps even their jobs.
Rick Scott is am evil sumbitch. But a typical Republican't,
-
My mother couldn't have been any poorer, trying to raise 3 children on her own. Somehow she managed to vote every fricken election cycle. And nearly always it was for the republican
There is no plot. There's merely the need for voting as one person, one time, and with elections as important as they are, and absolute necessity that the person voting is the person they say they are.
-
Your mother was atypical.
The Republican plan is to use statistical data to reduce the number of Democratic votes. They have publically announced this as their intent. Roger Ailes has spoken of this many times. So has Grover Norquist.
-
My mother blows away the nonsense of some subversive plot targeting Democrats. Nice to know though how its apparent that Democrat policies are to keep as many people as poor as possible, for the largest number of apparent votes.
Not to mention how one can also claim is for Democrats to use whatever means, both legal & illegal to generate the most number of supposed votes for them....including trying to give felons the right to vote, and to maximize the amount of mentally disabled or even dead to vote.
-
Not felons, EX felons.
If they have paid their debt to society, why not let them vote?
Why should they be disqualified? \\
Your story about your mother blows. It is statistically meaningless. Anecdotes are immaterial to actual useful statistics.
-
Felons are felons are felons. There is really no such thing as an "ex-felon". There are felons who who are no longer in prison, but they've still committed a felony, that follows them for the rest of their life. When you break the law, especially one of a felony level, you have certain rights you lose as a result of that action, including the right to a firearm...and a right to vote. They should be disqualifed as a price of their actions. Apparently you believe that they should have their right to a firearm restored...I mean they've "payed their debt to society", right? ::) The notion of Democrats trying to buy a felons' vote by promising to allow them the right to vote is precisely the point being made
Motor-votor is another well used and abused attempt at gaining more votes
What my mother demonstrates is that you can be poor, have to move frequently, and STILL be able to vote, with the appropriate ID
-
Your mother is an exception statistically.
There is no reason to deny the vote to ex felons.
You call yourself a Christian and yet do not believe in repentance.
Jesus forgave Dimas. And he became Sam Dimas. Not just forgiven but a saint.
-
No, my mother is an exception to the premise. She was poor, we had to move quite a bit. She still managed to vote every election cycle, including President
Or are you going on record as proclaiming that Democrat voters are just too dumb and lazy to figure out how to obtain a photo ID and vote??
And there is every reason to deny a felon the right to vote. It's called CONSEQUENCES. You can forgive anyone you want. I forgive you on a daily basis. That doesn't mean they get the right to vote again....nor have their right to a firearm returned. But hey, if you're advocating sainthood for Charles Manson.....that's your call
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Liddy.jpg/220px-Liddy.jpg)
Liddy in 2004
Presumably some felons are not poor and might vote for Republicans.
G. Gordon Liddy has also been heard to say that although he has lost most of his second amendment rights, his wife has not.
-
Statistically, poor people more often vote foe Democrats. Statistically, they have jobs which prevent them of taklng a day off to stand in line and re register for driver's licenses and voting. The data of who votes and who mkoves and such is well documented in databases in every state. Republicans do all they can to keep Democrats from voting. This is not even a secret.
-
It is not even true.
Is Georgia richer than New York?
In New York Democrats get elected a lot more, the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is much more Rural vs Urban than rich vs poor.
Did you note that in the states where ID laws got stronger , Minority participation rose , but the Democrat vote shrank.
Do this math some other way if you can, but what it indicates to me is that the big cheats were mostly White Democrats.
-
Rural people have more difficulty getting registered because transportation is a problem.
New York is more Democratic because the people are better educated and there is less Bible-thumping.
There are various reasons why people vote one way or another. Poverty is one reason, but not the only reason.
What Roger Ailes has done is use statistics to diminish the voter turnout for people who vote for Democrats. It is planned, deliberate and intentional.
-
Sniffing more glue I see. So, in other words, you are claiming that Democrat voters are that much more stupid and/or lazy, when it comes to elections. wow
-
Rural people have more difficulty getting registered because transportation is a problem.
New York is more Democratic because the people are better educated and there is less Bible-thumping.
There are various reasons why people vote one way or another. Poverty is one reason, but not the only reason.
What Roger Ailes has done is use statistics to diminish the voter turnout for people who vote for Democrats. It is planned, deliberate and intentional.
Rural people vote Republican mostly , this plan makes no sense if it is intended to skew twards Republicans.
If we want to talk about unfairness, why is it made so difficult for the military to register and vote?
I was voting from an out of state location in 2000 and there was enough SNAFU going on that I never got assurance that my vote was counted.
I am quite sure that Al Gore won his court case that got a ton of Florida absentee votes rejected because they were from FPO and APO and arrived too late.
Since it is supposed to be a statistical effect, why ignore the finding that in most of the states where IDs have been required , minority participation is UP.
If the real goal is minority enfranchisement the Democrats should be for it, but since it fouls up the Democrat double voting program, they will never be for it.
-
^There is no double voting program. If there were the statistics you quote would not exist.
Preventing Democrats from voting twice (assuming they do) would have to result in more Democrats voting.
I have never known anyone who voted twice. I have never known anyone who ever knew anyone who voted twice.
Again Roger Ailes did all the math on this, and the goal is to prevent Democrats from voting. If it did not work, they would not waste any more time insisting on it.
-
So you condemn me for pulling out the anecdotal card, but use it here, as if since you personally don't know of anyone voting twice, that it doesn't happen, or "isn't a problem"?
No, the goal is for Democrats to maximize their votes, by getting any and every constituency, living or dead, felon or not, to vote, however many times they can get away with it. And at the same time inhibit if not suppress any potential Republican vote, whether it be to put a massive amount of logistical hurdles for the military's vote to count, or to sick the IRS on Conservative PAC's, to scare them off
-
...........................
Again Roger Ailes did all the math on this, ...........................
Rodger Ailes math fails the test of reality, in no respect can it be shown that the results in reality correspond with the computations of Rodger Ailes.
Rodger Ailes may not know where his error is , but there surely is an error if the real world is not described by his cyphering.
According to Huffington post , there is less Democratic voting in states that require ID.
According to the secretaries of state in these states there has been an increase in minority participation in all recent elections.
This looks like a strong indication that there were a lot of white Democrats impeded from voting a second or third time by the voter ID law, which is , of course, exactly the stated intention and desired effect.
I want to point to an alternative course of action .
The Democratic party is spending billions to elect Hillary Clinton, if they consider it important to enfranchise the minority population, can't they spend a million to distribute genuine IDs to the disenfranchised?
All it takes is a ride to the courthouse earlier than registration, for most there would be no fee, where there was a fee pay it for them.
After a few drives and a few fees paid there would be genuine IDs for everyone that even wants one, this would be a smaller project than electing a congressman.
Unfortunately getting the genuine voter his ID is contrary to the point, enabling the cheating is the real point , so the Democrats will continue to push Rodger Ailes disproved math, and do nothing to enfranchise the un-ID'd citizen.
The Democrats want to defend the right of the fictional citizen, one of their strongest voting blocks.
-
Well summarized, Plane 8)
-
Total nonsense!
-
Makss plane's commentary even more spot on. Thanks for the validation xo
-
Total nonsense!
Can you explain the Republican satisfaction with these programs , while there is no diminishment of minority voting at all resulting from them?
-
They think they have won elections because of this.
-
Who's "they"? Names and quotes, if you don't mind. Your say so carries nothing
-
They think they have won elections because of this.
This implies either a significant amount of cheating or a significant number of disenfranchised.
You know which one I think more likely already.
But is there an objective indicator of which is more accurate?
-
How many people have been found guilty of voter impersonation or voting twice or more?
Very few.
-
How many people have been found guilty of voter impersonation or voting twice or more?
Very few.
In states where no ID is required , how would you even catch one?
-
Precisely!
-
(http://cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/Doonesbury.jpg)
http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/doonesbury/
This is an example of the thinking.
I should say alleged "thinking".
If fifty years pass and you catch only two committing this crime , you have to wonder what those two did to get caught?
There is no quality in this proof.
Much better indication is that in states where voter ID is required , thousands are turned away but fewer than dozens come back with complaint .
The Voter ID laws are mostly a success, the problem it causes is that Democrats have to work harder for votes.
If there are people who have had difficulty getting proper ID the right solution is to carry them to where IDs are issued and pay whatever fee might be required.
This is the very reason that there are no Republicans running around without ID.
-
Just heard bere in CA, the sports fella on the radio program I listen too, had registered as some "independent" party, assuming he'd be able to vote for Bernie in the CA primary. Then he learned he couldn't, when he received his mail in ballot. He called the complaint in, and after re-registering, was sent a Democrat ballot that did have Bernie as an option. The question the host asked.."well, what if he sends in both ballots?" The only answer was along the lines that "hopefully", the registrar will pay enough attention to disqualify the 1st one......."hopefully"
-
I heard about this on NPR a couple of days ago.
There is a party with "independent " in its title and there are thousands of Californians who do not know they are registered into it.
This is a sort of Democratic scheme to reduce the independent influence by suppressing their vote.
-
Just heard today of an investigation into CA voter rolls, to find that hundreds upon hundreds of people voted (their ballots turned in, with votes cast), year after year after year after year.....despite the fact they had been dead, for all those years. And guess where the vast majority of those votes went?.........surprise.......Democrats
-
http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/191796-wis-clerk-objects-to-weekend-voting-gives-urban-areas-too-much/
-
Gives urban areas too much......what?
-
Read it and find out, dummy.
-
Apparently nothing much if you can't be bothered to answer the question. Moving on