(04-09-2016 10:41 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is so stupid.

Its not that hard to get an ID. It's harder to live without one than it is to get one.

If you have issues...call your local Democratic Party...they'll assist you in getting an ID. It may even be yours.

Do not tell me that voter fraud does not exist. We recently had a Democratic candidate and State Rep. convicted of it here. How many occur that are not detected?

Get an ID. It ain't hard.

There are few incidents when someone impersonates someone else to vote in their place on Election Day. It is neither logical or effective.

There are legitimate roadblocks for obtaining ID though most should be able to do so with few problems. Slight differences between birth certificates and other ID can cause DMV to refuse to issue ID for instance. Some older citizens were born at home and don't even have a birth certificate. There are other problems as well. Transportation to courthouses and DMV is an issue, especially when they are turned away several times and told to come back with additional documentation. It wears on people and discourages them from continuing to pursue the needed ID. Anyone that has ever been given the run around knows what I am talking about.

Remember the goal is to eat away around the edges, a few votes not cast in every precinct can make a real difference. Also bear in mind that voter ID laws include much more than just showing an ID at the polls.

(04-09-2016 01:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:41 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is so stupid.

Its not that hard to get an ID. It's harder to live without one than it is to get one.

If you have issues...call your local Democratic Party...they'll assist you in getting an ID. It may even be yours.

Do not tell me that voter fraud does not exist. We recently had a Democratic candidate and State Rep. convicted of it here. How many occur that are not detected?

Get an ID. It ain't hard.

There are few incidents when someone impersonates someone else to vote in their place on Election Day. It is neither logical or effective.

There are legitimate roadblocks for obtaining ID though most should be able to do so with few problems. Slight differences between birth certificates and other ID can cause DMV to refuse to issue ID for instance. Some older citizens were born at home and don't even have a birth certificate. There are other problems as well. Transportation to courthouses and DMV is an issue, especially when they are turned away several times and told to come back with additional documentation. It wears on people and discourages them from continuing to pursue the needed ID. Anyone that has ever been given the run around knows what I am talking about.

Remember the goal is to eat away around the edges, a few votes not cast in every precinct can make a real difference. Also bear in mind that voter ID laws include much more than just showing an ID at the polls.

As long as voter fraud is only a tiny % and not rampant, I oppose Voter ID - dawgitall

(04-09-2016 01:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:41 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is so stupid.

Its not that hard to get an ID. It's harder to live without one than it is to get one.

If you have issues...call your local Democratic Party...they'll assist you in getting an ID. It may even be yours.

Do not tell me that voter fraud does not exist. We recently had a Democratic candidate and State Rep. convicted of it here. How many occur that are not detected?

Get an ID. It ain't hard.

There are few incidents when someone impersonates someone else to vote in their place on Election Day. It is neither logical or effective.

There are legitimate roadblocks for obtaining ID though most should be able to do so with few problems. Slight differences between birth certificates and other ID can cause DMV to refuse to issue ID for instance. Some older citizens were born at home and don't even have a birth certificate. There are other problems as well. Transportation to courthouses and DMV is an issue, especially when they are turned away several times and told to come back with additional documentation. It wears on people and discourages them from continuing to pursue the needed ID. Anyone that has ever been given the run around knows what I am talking about.

Remember the goal is to eat away around the edges, a few votes not cast in every precinct can make a real difference. Also bear in mind that voter ID laws include much more than just showing an ID at the polls.

No, its stupid. My mother is 90 years old, walks with a walker, and does not drive, and still had no issues getting an ID. The whole argument that it is hard to do is ridiculous.

We are talking about the integrity of our voting system. Elections we monitor overseas against fraud require ID's and inked thumbs or other forms of verification to insure the integrity of elections but its some major human rights violation here. I don't think so.

You can get an ID. It is not hard. People will help you if you can't figure it out.

(04-08-2016 10:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  "I've been a Republican for a long time. It was at that moment, in that room in the senate Republican caucus when I heard people, a Party I had fought for for over 30 years of my life, actually giddy and happy and talking about how we can take people's Constitutional rights away, or at least impede them, in order to hang onto power.


“It left a pit in my stomach to think that a party that I had worked for for years and years and years was literally talking and plotting to deny someone, a fellow citizen, their constitutional right,” Allbaugh said.

Allbaugh told TPM he was stirred to write the initial Facebook post after one of his young employees, who had moved from California to Wisconsin, was unable to vote Tuesday. Albaugh said that because the employee's California ID did not meet the state’s requirements to vote, he was told he needed to show his California birth certificate, which the employee was not going to be able to produce in time.

“When you see the real world ramification, it just sickens you,” Allbaugh said. “I have to tell people what’s going on.”

Link

This is from 2014, so not exactly the best example of a "conservative". Looks like he was not even a RINO...

Quote:Outgoing GOP state Sen. Dale Schultz was not known for his ardent support of conservative issues, and often broke with his own caucus in the Wisconsin state Senate. But while Schultz has formally announced his retirement, his outgoing chief of staff finished out the election cycle openly advocating for electing Democrats.

Todd Allbaugh, a longtime Republican staffer, is out of a job in just under two months due to Schultz’s retirement. Rather than angle for a job in another Republican office, Allbaugh put all his eggs in the Democratic basket. According to a tweet from Allbaugh on Election Day, Allbaugh joined his boss in becoming a full liberal convert.

(04-09-2016 02:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 01:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:41 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is so stupid.

Its not that hard to get an ID. It's harder to live without one than it is to get one.

If you have issues...call your local Democratic Party...they'll assist you in getting an ID. It may even be yours.

Do not tell me that voter fraud does not exist. We recently had a Democratic candidate and State Rep. convicted of it here. How many occur that are not detected?

Get an ID. It ain't hard.

There are few incidents when someone impersonates someone else to vote in their place on Election Day. It is neither logical or effective.

There are legitimate roadblocks for obtaining ID though most should be able to do so with few problems. Slight differences between birth certificates and other ID can cause DMV to refuse to issue ID for instance. Some older citizens were born at home and don't even have a birth certificate. There are other problems as well. Transportation to courthouses and DMV is an issue, especially when they are turned away several times and told to come back with additional documentation. It wears on people and discourages them from continuing to pursue the needed ID. Anyone that has ever been given the run around knows what I am talking about.

Remember the goal is to eat away around the edges, a few votes not cast in every precinct can make a real difference. Also bear in mind that voter ID laws include much more than just showing an ID at the polls.

As long as voter fraud is only a tiny % and not rampant, I oppose Voter ID - dawgitall

The small percentage of people whose votes are nullified by no verification of voters is unimportant...the small percentage of people who can't figure out how to get an easily obtained ID.....massively important.

(04-09-2016 02:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 02:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 01:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:41 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is so stupid.

Its not that hard to get an ID. It's harder to live without one than it is to get one.

If you have issues...call your local Democratic Party...they'll assist you in getting an ID. It may even be yours.

Do not tell me that voter fraud does not exist. We recently had a Democratic candidate and State Rep. convicted of it here. How many occur that are not detected?

Get an ID. It ain't hard.

There are few incidents when someone impersonates someone else to vote in their place on Election Day. It is neither logical or effective.

There are legitimate roadblocks for obtaining ID though most should be able to do so with few problems. Slight differences between birth certificates and other ID can cause DMV to refuse to issue ID for instance. Some older citizens were born at home and don't even have a birth certificate. There are other problems as well. Transportation to courthouses and DMV is an issue, especially when they are turned away several times and told to come back with additional documentation. It wears on people and discourages them from continuing to pursue the needed ID. Anyone that has ever been given the run around knows what I am talking about.

Remember the goal is to eat away around the edges, a few votes not cast in every precinct can make a real difference. Also bear in mind that voter ID laws include much more than just showing an ID at the polls.

As long as voter fraud is only a tiny % and not rampant, I oppose Voter ID - dawgitall

The small percentage of people whose votes are nullified by no verification of voters is unimportant...the small percentage of people who can't figure out how to get an easily obtained ID.....massively important.

Voter fraud is real, and people like dawgitall give zero f**ks about it. All they care about is their feels and perceived racism. Also, dawg has a script he sticks to, facts be damned.

(04-08-2016 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 01:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Care to comment on what the man said?

Yes. He said nothing of substance. No factual information. No quotes, no indication of what was actually said, or of who said it. Lots of innuendo, nothing more. "Details purpose of Voter ID Laws" is a grossly inaccurate and misleading description of what was actually said.
And as a "ex-GOP" staffer, how much would be rationally attributed to some element of bitterness? What were the circumstances of his departure?

Jon Stewert & John Oliver on their shows have found about a dozen on the record GOPers who hold some type of position/office saying this was to suppress the liberal vote.

Since the dead tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat, it could certainly have that result.

But I've not seen anyone say directly that suppressing the vote was the primary objective. If you have, please provide a link. And for the record, I'm not talking about innuendo, I'm talking about a direct statement that can be attributed to a specific real person.

Does someone actually have to say it before you will believe it?

(04-09-2016 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 01:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Care to comment on what the man said?

Yes. He said nothing of substance. No factual information. No quotes, no indication of what was actually said, or of who said it. Lots of innuendo, nothing more. "Details purpose of Voter ID Laws" is a grossly inaccurate and misleading description of what was actually said.
And as a "ex-GOP" staffer, how much would be rationally attributed to some element of bitterness? What were the circumstances of his departure?

Jon Stewert & John Oliver on their shows have found about a dozen on the record GOPers who hold some type of position/office saying this was to suppress the liberal vote.

Since the dead tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat, it could certainly have that result.

But I've not seen anyone say directly that suppressing the vote was the primary objective. If you have, please provide a link. And for the record, I'm not talking about innuendo, I'm talking about a direct statement that can be attributed to a specific real person.

Does someone actually have to say it before you will believe it?

You can CHOOSE to 'believe' anything you want, but that doesn't make it a fact, and you certainly can't claim that something about someone else is true, just because you believe it.

The claim of the OP was that implied they actually said it. They didn't.

And I've already logically deduced (and nobody has in any way refuted it) that the people most impacted by this would likely lean right (seperatists) and not the poor, who a) don't all lean left, especially urban democrat poor as opposed to rural republican poor and b) need ID for so many other things.... especially (once again) urban democrat poor as opposed to rural republican poor.

(04-09-2016 02:56 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 02:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 02:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 01:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:41 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is so stupid.

Its not that hard to get an ID. It's harder to live without one than it is to get one.

If you have issues...call your local Democratic Party...they'll assist you in getting an ID. It may even be yours.

Do not tell me that voter fraud does not exist. We recently had a Democratic candidate and State Rep. convicted of it here. How many occur that are not detected?

Get an ID. It ain't hard.

There are few incidents when someone impersonates someone else to vote in their place on Election Day. It is neither logical or effective.

There are legitimate roadblocks for obtaining ID though most should be able to do so with few problems. Slight differences between birth certificates and other ID can cause DMV to refuse to issue ID for instance. Some older citizens were born at home and don't even have a birth certificate. There are other problems as well. Transportation to courthouses and DMV is an issue, especially when they are turned away several times and told to come back with additional documentation. It wears on people and discourages them from continuing to pursue the needed ID. Anyone that has ever been given the run around knows what I am talking about.

Remember the goal is to eat away around the edges, a few votes not cast in every precinct can make a real difference. Also bear in mind that voter ID laws include much more than just showing an ID at the polls.

As long as voter fraud is only a tiny % and not rampant, I oppose Voter ID - dawgitall

The small percentage of people whose votes are nullified by no verification of voters is unimportant...the small percentage of people who can't figure out how to get an easily obtained ID.....massively important.

Voter fraud is real, and people like dawgitall give zero f**ks about it. All they care about is their feels and perceived racism. Also, dawg has a script he sticks to, facts be damned.

If you want to cheat the system impersonating a registered voter isn't the way to do it. Also there were already laws in place that address this if someone does. Again I will point out that the devil is in the details. These new voter ID laws are full of provisions that are intended to surprises the vote of the party out of power.

(04-09-2016 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Does someone actually have to say it before you will believe it?

Someone actually has to say it before I will believe that someone actually said it, which was the specific assertion that I was questioning.

(04-09-2016 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 01:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Care to comment on what the man said?

Yes. He said nothing of substance. No factual information. No quotes, no indication of what was actually said, or of who said it. Lots of innuendo, nothing more. "Details purpose of Voter ID Laws" is a grossly inaccurate and misleading description of what was actually said.
And as a "ex-GOP" staffer, how much would be rationally attributed to some element of bitterness? What were the circumstances of his departure?

Jon Stewert & John Oliver on their shows have found about a dozen on the record GOPers who hold some type of position/office saying this was to suppress the liberal vote.

Since the dead tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat, it could certainly have that result.

But I've not seen anyone say directly that suppressing the vote was the primary objective. If you have, please provide a link. And for the record, I'm not talking about innuendo, I'm talking about a direct statement that can be attributed to a specific real person.

Does someone actually have to say it before you will believe it?

From the man who confronts every accusation against BLM with "who was the leader there".....

(04-09-2016 10:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 01:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes. He said nothing of substance. No factual information. No quotes, no indication of what was actually said, or of who said it. Lots of innuendo, nothing more. "Details purpose of Voter ID Laws" is a grossly inaccurate and misleading description of what was actually said.
And as a "ex-GOP" staffer, how much would be rationally attributed to some element of bitterness? What were the circumstances of his departure?

Jon Stewert & John Oliver on their shows have found about a dozen on the record GOPers who hold some type of position/office saying this was to suppress the liberal vote.

Since the dead tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat, it could certainly have that result.

But I've not seen anyone say directly that suppressing the vote was the primary objective. If you have, please provide a link. And for the record, I'm not talking about innuendo, I'm talking about a direct statement that can be attributed to a specific real person.

Does someone actually have to say it before you will believe it?

From the man who confronts every accusation against BLM with "who was the leader there".....

Am actually being consistent here because I give very little weight to what people say and much more weight on what actually happens.

With BLM, what they say is irrelevant with what actually happens.
With Voter ID what is said is irrelevant to what is actually happening.

(04-09-2016 05:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 01:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes. He said nothing of substance. No factual information. No quotes, no indication of what was actually said, or of who said it. Lots of innuendo, nothing more. "Details purpose of Voter ID Laws" is a grossly inaccurate and misleading description of what was actually said.
And as a "ex-GOP" staffer, how much would be rationally attributed to some element of bitterness? What were the circumstances of his departure?

Jon Stewert & John Oliver on their shows have found about a dozen on the record GOPers who hold some type of position/office saying this was to suppress the liberal vote.

Since the dead tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat, it could certainly have that result.

But I've not seen anyone say directly that suppressing the vote was the primary objective. If you have, please provide a link. And for the record, I'm not talking about innuendo, I'm talking about a direct statement that can be attributed to a specific real person.

Does someone actually have to say it before you will believe it?

You can CHOOSE to 'believe' anything you want, but that doesn't make it a fact, and you certainly can't claim that something about someone else is true, just because you believe it.

The claim of the OP was that implied they actually said it. They didn't.

And I've already logically deduced (and nobody has in any way refuted it) that the people most impacted by this would likely lean right (seperatists) and not the poor, who a) don't all lean left, especially urban democrat poor as opposed to rural republican poor and b) need ID for so many other things.... especially (once again) urban democrat poor as opposed to rural republican poor.

Whether or not it was intentional is debatable. At least you acknowledge that it's is in fact suppressing voting. For that alone you should oppose it.

I like how Fit thinks there's zero voter fraud happening despite reams of articles out there reporting on the voter fraud Fit insists doesn't exist.

(04-10-2016 10:46 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I like how Fit thinks there's zero voter fraud happening despite reams of articles out there reporting on the voter fraud Fit insists doesn't exist.

When did I ever say that there was zero voter fraud?

(04-10-2016 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 01:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Jon Stewert & John Oliver on their shows have found about a dozen on the record GOPers who hold some type of position/office saying this was to suppress the liberal vote.

Since the dead tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat, it could certainly have that result.

But I've not seen anyone say directly that suppressing the vote was the primary objective. If you have, please provide a link. And for the record, I'm not talking about innuendo, I'm talking about a direct statement that can be attributed to a specific real person.

Does someone actually have to say it before you will believe it?

You can CHOOSE to 'believe' anything you want, but that doesn't make it a fact, and you certainly can't claim that something about someone else is true, just because you believe it.

The claim of the OP was that implied they actually said it. They didn't.

And I've already logically deduced (and nobody has in any way refuted it) that the people most impacted by this would likely lean right (seperatists) and not the poor, who a) don't all lean left, especially urban democrat poor as opposed to rural republican poor and b) need ID for so many other things.... especially (once again) urban democrat poor as opposed to rural republican poor.

Whether or not it was intentional is debatable. At least you acknowledge that it's is in fact suppressing voting. For that alone you should oppose it.

If you don't care enough to get an ID, you probably don't care enough to be an informed voter. Its not hard. Forcing uninformed people to vote is not a good thing, except for corrupt Democrats who rule in nearly every big city.

(04-10-2016 10:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 01:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Jon Stewert & John Oliver on their shows have found about a dozen on the record GOPers who hold some type of position/office saying this was to suppress the liberal vote.

Since the dead tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat, it could certainly have that result.

But I've not seen anyone say directly that suppressing the vote was the primary objective. If you have, please provide a link. And for the record, I'm not talking about innuendo, I'm talking about a direct statement that can be attributed to a specific real person.

Does someone actually have to say it before you will believe it?

From the man who confronts every accusation against BLM with "who was the leader there".....

Am actually being consistent here because I give very little weight to what people say and much more weight on what actually happens.

Nope... Folks chant "Pigs in a blanket fry em up" and you go looking for proof positive that the leadership supported it... Your double standard is obvious.

(04-10-2016 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Whether or not it was intentional is debatable. At least you acknowledge that it's is in fact suppressing voting. For that alone you should oppose it.

Logic fail.

My argument was a 'statistical' analysis which only negates the FAKE statistical analysis presented by the left. I have repeatedly insisted that nobody has EVERY (to my knowledge) presented such a person who has actually lost their right to vote because of this requirement.

Your comment that it actually does something is not supported by facts. The argument that 'if it does' it harms democrats is merely a logical fail. IF it does, it harms Republicans. I don't believe it does. You do.... but you can't produce such a person.

(04-10-2016 10:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  With Voter ID what is said is irrelevant to what is actually happening.

If that is actually your concen, there should be such a 'plaintiff' in a lawsuit.

Can you demonstrate one?

(04-10-2016 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Whether or not it was intentional is debatable. At least you acknowledge that it's is in fact suppressing voting. For that alone you should oppose it.

Didn't Wisonson just have their most voted on Primary since the early 70's.. #NoSupression