I thought Republicans...

[Spartanmack]

...had a monopoly on election fraud (despite the evidence to the contrary). This group of Bernie supporters says otherwise...

https://www.facebook.com/WTFUmedia/videos/276540419382225/

of course they're Bernie Sanders supporters so I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of this. Maybe they had some smart people research it and put it together for them.

 

[Michchamp]

your posts are lame, and weak. a monkey could contribute more to this board than you do.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I've been thinking the same thing. The voter ID stuff is BS, sure, but if I had to make a wager, did Hillary rig the primaries or not? I think she did. And that's a really big deal.

 

[sggatecl]

There have been tons of videos released showing voter manipulation, ballot tampering, and other methods by the DNC just this election cycle. Just didn't make the 'news' (shocker).

Anyone who legitimately thought it was a GOP problem specifically has their head in the clouds (or up their ass, you never can tell).

 

[byco42]

Impossible. Hillary is a paragon of virtue. Both the theological and cardinal.

 

[Michchamp]

I guess I must've missed all those times people posted about how only Republicans commit voter fraud, or argued Hillary won it fair and square and didn't have the DNC in her pocket since the beginning.

 

[Spartanmack]

I guess I must've missed all those times people posted about how only Republicans commit voter fraud, or argued Hillary won it fair and square and didn't have the DNC in her pocket since the beginning.

how could you have missed them? you're the one who posted them. Also, being favored and helped by the DNC and actually committing voter fraud are two different charges.

by the way, a monkey would probably be smart enough to remember that they posted about something and then deny ever seeing posts about it anywhere on the forum. What does that say about you?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I guess I must've missed all those times people posted about how only Republicans commit voter fraud, or argued Hillary won it fair and square and didn't have the DNC in her pocket since the beginning.

What?

 

[sggatecl]

What?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Dude.

 

[Sbee]

...had a monopoly on election fraud (despite the evidence to the contrary). This group of Bernie supporters says otherwise...

https://www.facebook.com/WTFUmedia/videos/276540419382225/

of course they're Bernie Sanders supporters so I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of this. Maybe they had some smart people research it and put it together for them.

you know it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. You can be angry about GOP lawmakers doing all they can to deny people the right to vote and be angry about the DNC backing Hillary all the way and doing all they could to make her the candidate.

Also, just because you can cite some incidents of democrats behaving badly doesn't mean that there's an equivalency.

 

[Spartanmack]

you know it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. You can be angry about GOP lawmakers doing all they can to deny people the right to vote and be angry about the DNC backing Hillary all the way and doing all they could to make her the candidate.

Also, just because you can cite some incidents of democrats behaving badly doesn't mean that there's an equivalency.

you know it's also possible to be a complete hypocrite, which is what I saying about chump in the OP, with a heaping dose of sarcasm. You guys have had this circle jerk about Republicans and gerrymandering, voter ID laws, etc, etc during every election since I've been on DSF - all while saying there is no evidence to support the existence of voter fraud by Dems, without acknowledging that fraud is often next to impossible to prove so the absence of proof isn't proof that it doesn't exist. I think this argument is actually put forward to make that case that things like voter ID laws aren't necessary. It's nonsense.

You also know it's possible to be wrong and that things like voter ID laws aren't voter suppression just because you think they are. Virtually every country that holds elections has voter ID laws, yet in the most advanced country in the world, getting an ID is somehow too difficult for millions of voters? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Getting an ID isn't difficult - it's one of the easiest things to do, other than buying a gun of course, which I recently learned is easier than buying a book.

 

[Sbee]

you know it's also possible to be a complete hypocrite, which is what I saying about chump in the OP, with a heaping dose of sarcasm. You guys have had this circle jerk about Republicans and gerrymandering, voter ID laws, etc, etc during every election since I've been on DSF - all while saying there is no evidence to support the existence of voter fraud by Dems, without acknowledging that fraud is often next to impossible to prove so the absence of proof isn't proof that it doesn't exist. I think this argument is actually put forward to make that case that things like voter ID laws aren't necessary. It's nonsense.

You also know it's possible to be wrong and that things like voter ID laws aren't voter suppression just because you think they are. Virtually every country that holds elections has voter ID laws, yet in the most advanced country in the world, getting an ID is somehow too difficult for millions of voters? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Getting an ID isn't difficult - it's one of the easiest things to do, other than buying a gun of course, which I recently learned is easier than buying a book.

Republicans have admitted publicly that voter ID is a tool to make it harder for democrats to vote. Do you really think that in person voter fraud is a real problem? that there are a group of people going to vote over and over again in the same day?

Poor people in urban areas are less likely to have a state issued ID, those people are also more likely to vote for democrats. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that voter ID laws that are somehow aimed at stopping the non existent problem of in person voter fraud are a blatant attempt to prevent poor people in big cities from voting for democrats.

Also, it's not just voter ID, it's trying to limit early voting. Churches in poor areas bus people to vote after Sunday services, if that wasn't an option then maybe less poor people would vote for democrats.

It is possible to take a stand against practices that are simply wrong and not just spout your GOP talking points. Just because denying poor people the right to vote may cause candidates to get elected that will repeal the top level Bush tax cuts is good for you doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

 

[Spartanmack]

Republicans have admitted publicly that voter ID is a tool to make it harder for democrats to vote. Do you really think that in person voter fraud is a real problem? that there are a group of people going to vote over and over again in the same day?

Poor people in urban areas are less likely to have a state issued ID, those people are also more likely to vote for democrats. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that voter ID laws that are somehow aimed at stopping the non existent problem of in person voter fraud are a blatant attempt to prevent poor people in big cities from voting for democrats.

Also, it's not just voter ID, it's trying to limit early voting. Churches in poor areas bus people to vote after Sunday services, if that wasn't an option then maybe less poor people would vote for democrats.

It is possible to take a stand against practices that are simply wrong and not just spout your GOP talking points. Just because denying poor people the right to vote may cause candidates to get elected that will repeal the top level Bush tax cuts is good for you doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

they're being foolish if they said that, probably a dumb hot mic joke or something like that - requiring ID is not an impediment. I think it's possible that in person voter fraud is a problem and that voter ID laws would clearly minimize that risk.

How much less likely to have IDs are poor people in urban areas and how hard are they to get? Can you provide data? You yourself said that you don't understand why all those welfare recipients in the south vote Republican, against their own self interest when you were fooled by that stupid article a couple years back. Doesn't it stand to reason that it would be harder for them to get an ID - they could be miles from the nearest DMV with no access to public transportation. And, just like I don't think physicist Stephen Hawking is any more qualified to opine on Brexit, I wouldn't put more weight on the opinion of a rocket scientist when we are talking about the merits of voter ID laws.

Have you picked up by now that I'm not spouting GOP talking points - I'm disputing your nonsensical Dem talking points. Your last paragraph is nothing but stupid conjecture - it's not even worthy of a witty smack down.

 

[Gulo Blue]

they're being foolish if they said that, probably a dumb hot mic joke or something like that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a9hnOk9AG4&t=2m49s

 

[Spartanmack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a9hnOk9AG4&t=2m49s

not a hot mic and a dumb way to say what he said but Oliver is completely mischaracterizing his quote. He did not admit they did anything to intentionally disadvantage Dems. He said even if you believe that they did it - that's not an admission that they did. Again, a dumb way to say we didn't target minorities for disenfranchisement but he's a politician - they say lots of dumb things.

 

[Gulo Blue]

not a hot mic and a dumb way to say what he said but Oliver is completely mischaracterizing his quote. He did not admit they did anything to intentionally disadvantage Dems. He said even if you believe that they did it - that's not an admission that they did. Again, a dumb way to say we didn't target minorities for disenfranchisement but he's a politician - they say lots of dumb things.

I thought about editorializing.

It's not an admission, but I get why some people think it sounds like one and it's the closest thing I'm aware of to an admission.

All that being said, I don't believe for a second they don't know what they are doing.

 

[Spartanmack]

I thought about editorializing.

It's not an admission, but I get why some people think it sounds like one and it's the closest thing I'm aware of to an admission.

All that being said, I don't believe for a second they don't know what they are doing.

maybe so but that's in the context of all the changes - limiting early voting, etc. That doesn't mean the ID provision is an onerous impediment to voting. It's simply not. I have to think virtually everyone can get an ID with minimal effort.

 

[Spartanmack]

I thought about editorializing.

It's not an admission, but I get why some people think it sounds like one and it's the closest thing I'm aware of to an admission.

All that being said, I don't believe for a second they don't know what they are doing.

I think some R in Pennsylvania made some stupid joke about the motivation for making changes to voting laws in '08 or '12 or maybe one of the midterm elections.

 

[Gulo Blue]

maybe so but that's in the context of all the changes - limiting early voting, etc. That doesn't mean the ID provision is an onerous impediment to voting. It's simply not. I have to think virtually everyone can get an ID with minimal effort.

Effort isn't the point. You redesign a website, move some buttons around, change their sizes and colors, and even thought the text and options are the same, it changes participation rates. It's not about the effort, it's about knowing that a given change will have a partisan effect, and with big data, that tool is available. Pretty sure I read it played a big role in Obama's first Presidential race with respect to targets ads.