(10-21-2014 11:08 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:33 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:20 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 09:57 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I want to thank the right-wingers here for demonstrating that their insistence on voter IDs have nothing to do with preventing fraud. I offered a very effective and rational way to make sure more Americans vote and all those voters have ID, yet that has been soundly rejected by the right. Their agenda is to deny the vote to minorities, students, and the elderly. They can't win elections when more Americans vote, so they want to disenfranchise citizens. Right-wingers hate democracy.

No you haven't. If people don't have the proper documentation how does a person showing up at their door to issue an ID help them?

Then they have a government representative at their door to help them get the documents they need so they can have a voter ID and vote. It's not rocket science.

Just so I'm clear, your idea is to have a government representative show up at everyone's door, find out what documentation they need to qualify for a voter ID, help them apply for that documentation, then show back up when the person receives the necessary documentation so they can apply for a voter ID. Gee, I can't see why anyone would think that's not a realistic option.

There are many organizations (particularly legal aid societies) that will help people get state ID cards. I've seen one in action. It's a little more involved than just a quick conversation of the doorstep.

It would take a while to get everyone an ID, but it's not impossible at all. Right-wingers just don't want it to happen because they don't want more people voting.

(10-21-2014 10:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:52 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 07:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 06:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  except for...you know...the csnbbs thread I made linking a study that said otherwise.

You mean the one were they made up a standard for what constituted a competitive elections, failed to properly apply that standard to one of the two states they were studying, improperly characterized the combination of states they were studying, and used that characterization to select the comparison states?
Like I said, no evidence.
*** Here's the link to the thread, if anyone is curious. http://csnbbs.com/thread-707339.html ***

republicans will disclaim just about anything if it doesn't agree with there talking points. Yes we will need multiple elections to truly understand the trends. but the fact that some states did see a decline in turnout is quite alarming.

Why? Turnout changes every election. Understanding this should be a prerequisite for participating in any discussion about voting, a "You Must be This Tall to Ride" requirement. Sadly, john01992, you aren't quite tall enough yet.
And even according to the (incredibly flawed) study you are citing for support, turnout also decreased in the four comparison states. Those are the states specifically chosen because they didn't have voter ID laws (well that, and the fact that the authors can't understand their own criteria). So tell me again how the fact that turnout was down in two states with voter ID laws is so alarming.

The Obviously Flawed Study that john01992 is Relying on Even Though It Doesn't Support His Position Wrote:GAO’s evaluation of voter turnout suggests that turnout decreased in two selected states—Kansas and Tennessee—from the 2008 to the 2012 general elections (the two most recent general elections) to a greater extent than turnout decreased in the selected comparison states—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine.

Plus, the Kansas voter ID law had broad bipartisan support (as did the one in Maryland), so, again, it's not just the Republicans.

like I said republicans will ignore just about anything to make there case. republican politicians in response to that study cited 2000 voter turnout rates as the benchmark to show that the voter turnout wasn't that bad.

I'm not the one with my head in the sand (and it's their case). You haven't addressed the fact that turnout also decreased in the four states that were (improperly) chosen as a comparison group. If a decrease in turnout is concerning in states that passed voter ID laws, why isn't it concerning when the same thing happens in those that didn't?

And exactly why isn't the 2000 voter turnout rate relevant? It's certainly not the appropriate baseline, but neither is the 2008 election.

Quote:and don't even attempt to give me this "these laws are not partisan" crap talking point...it's total BS and you know it.

No, pretending that these laws are solely the result of Republicans is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. I'll let you choose which one you are. And because I know nuance is difficult for you, I point out that I have never suggested that Republicans weren't the driving force behind most of the laws.

(10-21-2014 11:20 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:52 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 07:04 PM)jh Wrote:  You mean the one were they made up a standard for what constituted a competitive elections, failed to properly apply that standard to one of the two states they were studying, improperly characterized the combination of states they were studying, and used that characterization to select the comparison states?
Like I said, no evidence.
*** Here's the link to the thread, if anyone is curious. http://csnbbs.com/thread-707339.html ***

republicans will disclaim just about anything if it doesn't agree with there talking points. Yes we will need multiple elections to truly understand the trends. but the fact that some states did see a decline in turnout is quite alarming.

Why? Turnout changes every election. Understanding this should be a prerequisite for participating in any discussion about voting, a "You Must be This Tall to Ride" requirement. Sadly, john01992, you aren't quite tall enough yet.
And even according to the (incredibly flawed) study you are citing for support, turnout also decreased in the four comparison states. Those are the states specifically chosen because they didn't have voter ID laws (well that, and the fact that the authors can't understand their own criteria). So tell me again how the fact that turnout was down in two states with voter ID laws is so alarming.

The Obviously Flawed Study that john01992 is Relying on Even Though It Doesn't Support His Position Wrote:GAO’s evaluation of voter turnout suggests that turnout decreased in two selected states—Kansas and Tennessee—from the 2008 to the 2012 general elections (the two most recent general elections) to a greater extent than turnout decreased in the selected comparison states—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine.

Plus, the Kansas voter ID law had broad bipartisan support (as did the one in Maryland), so, again, it's not just the Republicans.

like I said republicans will ignore just about anything to make there case. republican politicians in response to that study cited 2000 voter turnout rates as the benchmark to show that the voter turnout wasn't that bad.

I'm not the one with my head in the sand (and it's their case). You haven't addressed the fact that turnout also decreased in the four states that were (improperly) chosen as a comparison group. If a decrease in turnout is concerning in states that passed voter ID laws, why isn't it concerning when the same thing happens in those that didn't?

And exactly why isn't the 2000 voter turnout rate relevant? It's certainly not the appropriate baseline, but neither is the 2008 election.

Quote:and don't even attempt to give me this "these laws are not partisan" crap talking point...it's total BS and you know it.

No, pretending that these laws are solely the result of Republicans is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. I'll let you choose which one you are. And because I know nuance is difficult for you, I point out that I have never suggested that Republicans weren't the driving force behind most of the laws.

if you have to spend half your post pointing out there vs their then I think thats a pretty telling sign about the direction of this argument.

2000 was a major turning point in election turnout rates. it was the lowest turnout since the 1920s and due in large part to the florida fiasco turnout saw massive increases in the next 3 elections.

so anyone who puts forth the argument that "well our turnout rates look better when compared to 2000" is intentionally trying to use a BS talking point in an attempt to mislead.

by your own admission just one democratic controlled state has passed one of these laws. republicans support for it is greater than dems by nearly a 40 point margin, trying to say that this isn't partisan is the highest level of BS that one can achieve.

(10-21-2014 11:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if you have to spend half your post pointing out there vs their then I think thats a pretty telling sign about the direction of this argument.

Wow. I didn't realize you were that bad at math too. Because I'm a nice guy, I spent four words trying to help you avoid further embarrassing yourself with a common grammatical mistake. There were 137 words in my response. One half is 50% (1/2*100). Now let's see what percent of my post I actually spent on my selfless attempt to help a young poster improve the quality of his posts.

Actual Percent = 4/137*100 = 3% (I even rounded up to help you out)

Wait a minute, 3% isn't 50%, it's not even in the same ballpark. Heck, it's probably not the same sport. I think we all understand why you have such problems with issues that require a basic understanding of math.

It's too much, john01992. I can't be expected to teach you grammar, math, and how to think all while we attempt to have a discussion you are clearly not capable of participating in. You are just too short for this ride. Feel free to try again when you get a little taller.

(10-21-2014 08:35 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We can find common ground here folks. We should brainstorm and find all the ways we can to ensure everyone has the opportunity to vote and for that vote to be legal and true. We all benefit when the winner is seen as the rightful and legitimate placeholder.

So after calling people who want voter ID racist, you claim you want to work together on the issue.

Seems legit.

(10-21-2014 09:07 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  The solution for people regarding voterid....GET AN ID. They are free in most places, if you cannot afford one. If liberals can bus these people that are unable to get ids to the polls, then why not bus them to get an id? The minorities that the Dems say are too stupid to get an id (but can get a cell phone, cable, clothes, food, etc) support the voterid too.

Every way you can examine this issue, their excuses are the most laughable of all time.

I've been saying for several years that this is the most embarrassingly stupid position I have ever seen the libs take.

(10-21-2014 11:45 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 11:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if you have to spend half your post pointing out there vs their then I think thats a pretty telling sign about the direction of this argument.

Wow. I didn't realize you were that bad at math too. Because I'm a nice guy, I spent four words trying to help you avoid further embarrassing yourself with a common grammatical mistake. There were 137 words in my response. One half is 50% (1/2*100). Now let's see what percent of my post I actually spent on my selfless attempt to help a young poster improve the quality of his posts.

Actual Percent = 4/137*100 = 3% (I even rounded up to help you out)

Wait a minute, 3% isn't 50%, it's not even in the same ballpark. Heck, it's probably not the same sport. I think we all understand why you have such problems with issues that require a basic understanding of math.

It's too much, john01992. I can't be expected to teach you grammar, math, and how to think all while we attempt to have a discussion you are clearly not capable of participating in. You are just too short for this ride. Feel free to try again when you get a little taller.

lol. I think it's pretty obvious that you have lost this argument if you resort to this sort of pesky bulls***

care to...you know...debate actual voter ID related aspects of this issue or are you gonna continue to focus on trivial elementary school babble to further deflect from the obvious truth that you have no argument here?

(10-21-2014 10:33 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:20 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 09:57 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I want to thank the right-wingers here for demonstrating that their insistence on voter IDs have nothing to do with preventing fraud. I offered a very effective and rational way to make sure more Americans vote and all those voters have ID, yet that has been soundly rejected by the right. Their agenda is to deny the vote to minorities, students, and the elderly. They can't win elections when more Americans vote, so they want to disenfranchise citizens. Right-wingers hate democracy.

No you haven't. If people don't have the proper documentation how does a person showing up at their door to issue an ID help them?

Then they have a government representative at their door to help them get the documents they need so they can have a voter ID and vote. It's not rocket science.

Right-wingers want fewer people to vote. That's not rocket science either.

The answer to every fcking thing....government representitatives at our doors.

(10-21-2014 09:57 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I want to thank the right-wingers here for demonstrating that their insistence on voter IDs have nothing to do with preventing fraud. I offered a very effective and rational way to make sure more Americans vote and all those voters have ID, yet that has been soundly rejected by the right. Their agenda is to deny the vote to minorities, students, and the elderly. They can't win elections when more Americans vote, so they want to disenfranchise citizens. Right-wingers hate democracy.

You are out of your mind.

Quote:So after calling people who want voter ID racist, you claim you want to work together on the issue.

Seems legit.

Some people just want to see the world burn.

I despise even acknowledging your presence but in this case it's important.



I don't see racism being the motivation. They could be targeting poor whites too or poor Indians or Japanese. It's more socio economic and voting trends. It's about bringing down the tally of your opponent. It's about ripping out a major page in your opponents playbook. Why else would you care if they registered and voted on the same day????? Hell don't even take my word for it. Watch the youtube video I posted. I do think both sides have good people who would really just like to ensure fair elections. I want my side to be able to have their vote cast and counted. Most on the right want to make sure it's not fraudulent. Sure in the HELL seems like we can find common ground there???? If your motives are pure.

Mach - your valid concerns of long lines to vote have nothing to do with the requirement of a valid ID - they are two separate issues. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that the voting places that have issues with long lines are almost always in urban areas, of which, are almost always controlled by Democrats. Not having enough voting places has nothing to do with having a valid ID to vote.

UMGrad is just here spewing his normal, over the top, lying bullsh!t. Nothing new here. My concern with the voting process is way more with illegals voting than black folks. We don't have millions of non-citizen black people in this country, but we do have millions of non-citizens from south of the border living here and they are not eligible to vote.

Hell, we can't even find the illegals that are here with outstanding warrants against them, let alone assure they don't vote in our elections. A valid ID would help assure the election process is done by citizens of this country.

(10-21-2014 06:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fit bud posted about this a couple of weeks ago and I want to make sure it sinks in.

Do you think this crackdown will cost more legitimate votes or reduce fraudulent ones. Also are any of my Reoublican friends at all queasy about the ulterior motives?

I don't see it costing legitimate votes since getting an ID is so easy. Hopefully it will reduce fraudulent votes, at least until the cheats figure out another way, which will probably be electronic.

"long lines to vote have nothing to do with the requirement of a valid ID"

to me they go hand in hand. I could care less about having a valid id honestly. I see the problem but I'll be damned if I can get someone from the right to admit the long lines are a problem. I think these long lines have cost Democrats countless of votes every year. That's the reason they wanted to have longer voting periods. The GOP leaders know how high of a hurdle they have to jump to cover the advantages of the D ground game in early voting. Require an id and open up same day registration and voting. We shouldn't be in the business of making it harder to vote. That's all I am saying. I'm right with you on the id stuff. I can't imagine living in today's society without one. Now let's make it easier to vote.... Sounds like we can find common ground.

(10-22-2014 09:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "long lines to vote have nothing to do with the requirement of a valid ID"

to me they go hand in hand. I could care less about having a valid id honestly. I see the problem but I'll be damned if I can get someone from the right to admit the long lines are a problem. I think these long lines have cost Democrats countless of votes every year. That's the reason they wanted to have longer voting periods. The GOP leaders know how high of a hurdle they have to jump to cover the advantages of the D ground game in early voting. Require an id and open up same day registration and voting. We shouldn't be in the business of making it harder to vote. That's all I am saying. I'm right with you on the id stuff. I can't imagine living in today's society without one. Now let's make it easier to vote.... Sounds like we can find common ground.

I've voted in many elections and never had an issue with long lines. Maybe it's a geographic thing.

I have never spent more than 3 minutes to vote but I live in an affluent area. It makes me sick to think people have to wait 8 hours to vote in Columbus Ohio. In 2004 we had some real shady crap happening in Columbus urban area precincts. That should never happen but it did. St. Louis is always horrible too. If I were a cynic I would notice that these shananigans happen in bell weather states in urban areas. It's almost like it's intentional. You wouldn't think they would jack around with precincts would you? You wouldn't think that these areas have unequal voting booths to registered voters now would you? That couldn't happen now could it?

In the 2004 election I had to wait in a very long line, and I was in one of the most affluent areas of the state of Ohio. Were the Democrats suppressing the vote then, Mach?

(10-22-2014 09:59 AM)mlb Wrote:  In the 2004 election I had to wait in a very long line, and I was in one of the most affluent areas of the state of Ohio. Were the Democrats suppressing the vote then, Mach?

Just curious, as this is all subjective, but what was the wait time? Are we talking an hour or hours? I've waited 30-45 minutes but didn't consider that too terrible of a wait to vote.

(10-22-2014 10:01 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 09:59 AM)mlb Wrote:  In the 2004 election I had to wait in a very long line, and I was in one of the most affluent areas of the state of Ohio. Were the Democrats suppressing the vote then, Mach?

Just curious, as this is all subjective, but what was the wait time? Are we talking an hour or hours? I've waited 30-45 minutes but didn't consider that too terrible of a wait to vote.

About 2.5 hours. I had to call into work and tell them I'd be late due to it. Luckily I worked for a company that would allow me to come in late.

I arrived at 7AM, waited until 9:30 to vote. I can only imagine how bad it was at noon.

(10-22-2014 12:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 11:45 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 11:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if you have to spend half your post pointing out there vs their then I think thats a pretty telling sign about the direction of this argument.

Wow. I didn't realize you were that bad at math too. Because I'm a nice guy, I spent four words trying to help you avoid further embarrassing yourself with a common grammatical mistake. There were 137 words in my response. One half is 50% (1/2*100). Now let's see what percent of my post I actually spent on my selfless attempt to help a young poster improve the quality of his posts.
Actual Percent = 4/137*100 = 3% (I even rounded up to help you out)
Wait a minute, 3% isn't 50%, it's not even in the same ballpark. Heck, it's probably not the same sport. I think we all understand why you have such problems with issues that require a basic understanding of math.
It's too much, john01992. I can't be expected to teach you grammar, math, and how to think all while we attempt to have a discussion you are clearly not capable of participating in. You are just too short for this ride. Feel free to try again when you get a little taller.

lol. I think it's pretty obvious that you have lost this argument if you resort to this sort of pesky bulls***

Wait, I'm resorting to pesky BS? You ignored 46% of my post because you couldn't answer it and it contained four words intended to improve your grammar and pretended that those four words were half the post, and I'm resorting to pesky BS for pointing that out? Do I need to teach you how to use a dictionary too?

Quote:care to...you know...debate actual voter ID related aspects of this issue or are you gonna continue to focus on trivial elementary school babble to further deflect from the obvious truth that you have no argument here?

When you begin to demonstrate the intellectual honesty and maturity necessary to engage in a productive debate, I will be happy to discuss any topic with you. But we're going to have to wait until you get a little taller, okay, a lot taller, because you are nowhere near there right now.



*** Edited for formating

Do you think you should have had to wait for 2 1/2 hours? That's insane. Why are any barriers put up to vote? That's just more of a reason to increase voting days.