IGX

The guy in Wisconsin should have been allowed to vote, is suing and will likely and justifiably win. However, emotional exceptions aren't enough to convince me that the following statement doesn't cover a heck of a lot more instances.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Certainly dirt poor people face tougher hurdles for everything but holy shit, this is simple stuff. How you plan on getting a job without ID? You think someone incapable of basic adult responsibilities deserves the ability to vote? Hell Fuckin No.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Turdacious wrote: And what impact would that have on Dem primaries in NC?

Primaries are over. Maybe you hadn't heard.

Convenient timing.

Yeah, who knew. All the libs had to do was kill Scalia, have the GOP stonewall his replacement, and give lower courts the courage to overturn these racist voting restrictions without concern of the Supreme Court reversing them. All the while rigging the election timeline to have the GE follow the primaries!

Well done Turd. Please clap.

You're missing my point-- these 'disenfranchising' laws had a greater impact in Dem primaries than in general elections. This dilutes your vote far more than it does mine. Besides, voter suppression isn't really a Republican thing-- Dems have far more history with it, and have shown far more skill at it. Take a look at the racial demographic of both major parties, and the percentage of general election candidates by race-- paints a far different picture than you think it will.

The democrats pretty much invented, and perfected, minority voter suppression. Luckily, republican legislation put an end to most of it in the 20th century.

Turdacious wrote:You're missing my point-- these 'disenfranchising' laws had a greater impact in Dem primaries than in general elections. .

Wrong.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Turdacious wrote:You're missing my point-- these 'disenfranchising' laws had a greater impact in Dem primaries than in general elections. .

Wrong.

Expand. Not disputing, curious and too lazy to look it up.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Turdacious wrote:You're missing my point-- these 'disenfranchising' laws had a greater impact in Dem primaries than in general elections. .

Wrong.

Expand. Not disputing, curious and too lazy to look it up.

I slightly misspoke-- the laws have a greater potential to impact the Dem primaries than general elections.

I base it on the assumption that most of the 'disenfranchised' are likely to vote and register Democrat than Republican; that individual votes have greater impact in primaries than in general elections; that in reliably Dem districts, that the real election is generally the primary election; that campaign contributions are likely to go much farther in a primary than in general elections; and that fraud and borderline fraudulent 'get out the vote' drives have a long and successful history in the Democrat playbook (not that Republicans are less corrupt, they're just not very good at it during elections-- a good example is the 1960 election, JFK's dirty tricks against Humphrey had greater impact than his dirty tricks against Nixon.).

The other reality is that, if you run a racial breakdown of Democrat general election candidates against a racial breakdown of the Democrat electorate, the contrast is pretty stark. More minorities eligible to vote could change this-- they might want to sit at the front of the Democrat bus. Another example of this is poll lines in reliably Democratic states. In MD, lines in the HoCo are far shorter than in Baltimore. The real threat to lily white Dems is not that Republicans will get elected (it happens, but it's rare); but that 'one of them' will get elected.

Report out today on voter fraud in the UK:

Election fraud: Politically correct sentiment a problem, report says

TL/DR: it's just the Moslems who're doing it, and for the benefit of the left-wing Labour party.

Liberals and Moslems, hand-in-hand.....

Turdacious wrote:I base it on the assumption...that individual votes have greater impact in primaries than in general elections

Wrong again. In fact, so wrong I suspect you're trolling me.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I base it on the assumption...that individual votes have greater impact in primaries than in general elections

Wrong again. In fact, so wrong I suspect you're trolling me.

You might want to revisit some elementary school math or provide some evidence.

Interesting that your side wants to give votes to the (as Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it) "populations we don't want to many of."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magaz ... .html?_r=0

FWIW, when she says 'we' she ain't talking about conservatives.

Here's why democrats don't want strict voting rules. LOL at these scumbags
Bussing people around to vote multiple times
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0[/youtube]
Ripping up ballots is fine
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NTq1tlBwqI[/youtube]

(((Alan Schulkin)))

Turdacious wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I base it on the assumption...that individual votes have greater impact in primaries than in general elections

Wrong again. In fact, so wrong I suspect you're trolling me.

You might want to revisit some elementary school math or provide some evidence.

Interesting that your side wants to give votes to the (as Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it) "populations we don't want to many of."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magaz ... .html?_r=0

FWIW, when she says 'we' she ain't talking about conservatives.

What is my side again? I'm sure we MUST have discussed that int he past, no?

Herv100 wrote:Here's why democrats don't want strict voting rules. LOL at these scumbags
Bussing people around to vote multiple times
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0[/youtube]
Ripping up ballots is fine
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NTq1tlBwqI[/youtube]

Those are fake/edited Herv and you are a fucking idiot. James O'Keefe only has 1,000,000 lawsuits vs. him for this shit. I feel bad telling you this, as surely you'd be curious enough to Google these "hidden cam" videos for yourself....

Somebody's hitting the bath salts again.

For fuck's sake, in both Michigan and Texas you HAVE TO VOTE IN A SPECIFIC POLLING LOCATION or vote by proxy via mail. Is it so different everywhere else that people can just drive around fucking voting?

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:For fuck's sake, in both Michigan and Texas you HAVE TO VOTE IN A SPECIFIC POLLING LOCATION or vote by proxy via mail. Is it so different everywhere else that people can just drive around fucking voting?