I thought Republicans...

[Spartanmack]

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.

ok, but do we know how many people don't have ID and how many people without ID vote? how much behavior is that going to change? you don't think people who already have ID aren't going to vote simply because they now have to show it, do you? I mean maybe a few social justice warrior idiots will boycott the vote in solidarity with the tiniest fraction of people actually affected by it, but I'm actually ok with that - suppress the SJW vote!!!!!!

 

[Gulo Blue]

ok, but do we know how many people don't have ID and how many people without ID vote? how much behavior is that going to change? you don't think people who already have ID aren't going to vote simply because they now have to show it? I mean maybe a few social justice warrior idiots will boycott the vote in solidarity with the tiniest fraction of people actually affected by it, but I'm actually ok with that - suppress the SJW vote!!!!!!

I think they do have some idea of exactly that. If you require this form of ID, you'll get this many fewer republican and democrat votes in these districts. It doesn't have to be precise. as long as there's a partisan imbalance.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think they do have some idea of exactly that. If you require this form of ID, you'll get this many fewer republican and democrat votes in these districts. It doesn't have to be precise. as long as there's a partisan imbalance.

I suppose it's possible but i'd be surprised if that was the case - first of all, the Republican's weren't nearly as sophisticated when it came to data collection and analysis - my understanding is the Dems weren't that either until Obama in '08 and that is one of the things most often cited about his victory - their use of data and technology.

 

[Michchamp]

the court that struck down the NC voter ID law noted in their opinion that the state legislature requested data on voting patterns and behaviors, and then drafted and passed a law using that same data that would exclude the maximum number of African American votes. based on that, the court found obvious legislative intent to discriminate here.

I think the only real difference between NC and some states where the law was upheld is that NC state Republicans were too stupid to cover their tracks with a semi- plausible cover story.

 

[Sbee]

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.

How about making it so virtually everyone can vote with minimal effort?

 

[Sbee]

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.

The southerners are more likely to vote republican for religious reasons and good old fashioned racism. You're more likely to need a car in rural areas so you're more likely to have an ID.

The straw man here is the argument that in person voter fraud is a real problem, as if someone is going to go around to different precincts to vote 7 or 8 times while presidential elections are decided by millions of votes. Just because you say that we can't prove it's not a problem doesn't mean that it is. I just wonder why the GOP is the ones pushing for legislation? Of course it's being done to rig elections and make it harder for their opposition to vote. Can we just call this what it is?

 

[Spartanmack]

How about making it so virtually everyone can vote with minimal effort?

Because everyone is not eligible to vote. I don't think it should be so easy that people who can't vote do vote or so that people vote under someone else's name. How about we make it secure and fair - how about that?

 

[Spartanmack]

The southerners are more likely to vote republican for religious reasons and good old fashioned racism. You're more likely to need a car in rural areas so you're more likely to have an ID.

The straw man here is the argument that in person voter fraud is a real problem, as if someone is going to go around to different precincts to vote 7 or 8 times while presidential elections are decided by millions of votes. Just because you say that we can't prove it's not a problem doesn't mean that it is. I just wonder why the GOP is the ones pushing for legislation? Of course it's being done to rig elections and make it harder for their opposition to vote. Can we just call this what it is?

this is michturd stupid. good old fashioned racism. you do realize this has been widely debunked, right?

the straw man here is that in person voter fraud isn't a problem. we don't know it's not - we do know it happens though so to say it doesn't happen on a material level is nonsense. This line may be my personal favorite:

Just because you say that we can't prove it's not a problem doesn't mean that it is.

That you can say this with a straight face and then say conclusively that in person voter fraud is not a problem is beyond stupid.

 

[Sbee]

this is michturd stupid. good old fashioned racism. you do realize this has been widely debunked, right?

the straw man here is that in person voter fraud isn't a problem. we don't know it's not - we do know it happens though so to say it doesn't happen on a material level is nonsense. This line may be my personal favorite: That you can say this with a straight face and then say conclusively that in person voter fraud is not a problem is beyond stupid.

Can you say with a straight face that limiting early voting and voter ID laws aren't intended to stop poor minorities from voting for democrats?

 

[Spartanmack]

Can you say with a straight face that limiting early voting and voter ID laws aren't intended to stop poor minorities from voting for democrats?

I don't know about early voting but i can certainly say it about voter ID laws - the supreme court says so. In 2008 the Supreme Court, in a 6?3 decision that was written by liberal favorite John Paul Stevens,declared that voter-ID laws don?t constitute an undue burden on people attempting to vote.

Plenty of countries with much, much higher voter turnout than the US have voter ID laws. Is it your assertion that in the US, the most technologically advanced country in the world, it's so much harder to get an ID than anywhere that it becomes an onerous burden on voters?

 

[Sbee]

I don't know about early voting but i can certainly say it about voter ID laws - the supreme court says so. In 2008 the Supreme Court, in a 6?3 decision that was written by liberal favorite John Paul Stevens,declared that voter-ID laws don?t constitute an undue burden on people attempting to vote.

Plenty of countries with much, much higher voter turnout than the US have voter ID laws. Is it your assertion that in the US, the most technologically advanced country in the world, it's so much harder to get an ID than anywhere that it becomes an onerous burden on voters?

My question was do you think that GOP lawmakers are pushing for these laws are intended to stop poor minorities from voting from Democrats?

 

[Spartanmack]

My question was do you think that GOP lawmakers are pushing for these laws are intended to stop poor minorities from voting from Democrats?

no, that wasn't your question. and you don't get to reframe the argument to include measures other than voter ID, then cite one anecdote and paint me with some broad brush as a supporter of voter suppression. Voter ID isn't racist and the supreme court says it doesn't place an undue burden in a decision that wasn't an up and down party vote with a very liberal justice writing the opinion. Voter ID laws protect the integrity of elections and they don't place an undue burden on any voters and they are not a racist voter suppression tactic. Accept it and move on.

 

[Sbee]

no, that wasn't your question. and you don't get to reframe the argument to include measures other than voter ID, then cite one anecdote and paint me with some broad brush as a supporter of voter suppression. Voter ID isn't racist and the supreme court says it doesn't place an undue burden in a decision that wasn't an up and down party vote with a very liberal justice writing the opinion. Voter ID laws protect the integrity of elections and they don't place an undue burden on any voters and they are not a racist voter suppression tactic. Accept it and move on.

The question was asked in post # 29

I can ask whatever question I want, you can try to bob and weave and not give me a yes or no answer.

Can you say with a straight face that limiting early voting and voter ID laws aren't intended to stop poor minorities from voting for democrats?

 

[Spartanmack]

The question was asked in post # 29

I can ask whatever question I want, you can try to bob and weave and not give me a yes or no answer.

Can you say with a straight face that limiting early voting and voter ID laws aren't intended to stop poor minorities from voting for democrats?

have I tried to say that? I read the question and I answered it in post #30. look at my posts in this thread, I haven't defended anything other than voter ID laws. I haven't said Rs haven't done shady things. I'm not bobbing and weaving, I'm staying on subject - something you seem to have a problem doing.

 

[Sbee]

have I tried to say that? look at my posts in this thread, I haven't defended anything other than voter ID laws. I haven't said Rs haven't done shady things. I'm not bobbing and weaving, I'm staying on subject - something you seem to have a problem doing.

Can you say with a straight face that limiting early voting and voter ID laws aren't intended to stop poor minorities from voting for democrats?

yes or no question, not that difficult

 

[Spartanmack]

Can you say with a straight face that limiting early voting and voter ID laws aren't intended to stop poor minorities from voting for democrats?

yes or no question, not that difficult

allow me to rephrase my answer from post 30 since you seem to have a problem understanding.

voter ID laws - definitely not.

limiting early voting - I don't know, I'm only familiar with this one instance. Some judge seems to think it was but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree with the decision. And I don't care either because I'm not an advocate for limiting early voting. I'm an advocate for voter ID laws.

 

[Sbee]

allow me to rephrase my answer from post 30 since you seem to have a problem understanding.

voter ID laws - definitely not.

limiting early voting - I don't know, I'm only familiar with this one instance. Some judge seems to think it was but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree with the decision. And I don't care either because I'm not an advocate for limiting early voting. I'm an advocate for voter ID laws.

So republicans are pushing for voter ID laws base on the altruistic belief that in person voter fraud is a real problem? if you actually believe that there's pretty much no point in continuing this discussion.

That makes about as much sense as thinking that requiring abortion clinics to meet surgical center requirements and have hospital admitting privileges are really about protecting womens health, right?

 

[Spartanmack]

So republicans are pushing for voter ID laws base on the altruistic belief that in person voter fraud is a real problem? if you actually believe that there's pretty much no point in continuing this discussion.

That makes about as much sense as thinking that requiring abortion clinics to meet surgical center requirements and have hospital admitting privileges are really about protecting womens health, right?

I'm pushing for voter ID laws for that reason. It makes a lot of sense but I don't think it makes as much sense as taking precautions to protect the lives of women undergoing barbaric and risky medical procedures. That said, allowing those barbaric and risky medical procedures without significant restrictions makes no sense at all in the first place.

 

[Sbee]

I'm pushing for voter ID laws for that reason. It makes a lot of sense but I don't think it makes as much sense as taking precautions to protect the lives of women undergoing barbaric and risky medical procedures. That said, allowing those barbaric and risky medical procedures without significant restrictions makes no sense at all in the first place.

Ok, if that's why you're pushing for voter ID, that's great, more power to you. Maybe I person fraud is such a rampant problem that it swings elections, I really fucking doubt it but keep on your crusade for justice.

The reasoning behind Republicans pushing for these laws is obvious. You're just too busy saying you're not a typical Republican who spouts Fox news talking points while spouting Fox news talking points.

Of course the Texas case was about limiting access to safe and legal abortions while masquerading to be about womens health. The restrictions didn't show any significant health benefit and placed undue burden for women to exercise their constitutional right to end a pregnancy. The voter ID push is another masquerade.

 

[Spartanmack]

Ok, if that's why you're pushing for voter ID, that's great, more power to you. Maybe I person fraud is such a rampant problem that it swings elections, I really fucking doubt it but keep on your crusade for justice.

The reasoning behind Republicans pushing for these laws is obvious. You're just too busy saying you're not a typical Republican who spouts Fox news talking points while spouting Fox news talking points.

Of course the Texas case was about limiting access to safe and legal abortions while masquerading to be about womens health. The restrictions didn't show any significant health benefit and placed undue burden for women to exercise their constitutional right to end a pregnancy. The voter ID push is another masquerade.

How can it be so obvious with respect to voter ID laws when the Supreme Court has ruled that they don't pose an undue burden? How can something that doesn't pose a burden pose an undue burden just on minorities? Maybe you're just another hoodwinked sheep who believes all the leftist talking points about how everything conservatives do is racist.

The Texas case was clearly about women's health and Roe v Wade was wrong because the fools that decided it ignored the constitutional rights of other human beings - the unborn, who are humans and have constitutional rights. The court didn't decide they weren't human, certain justices just ignored them.