Iowa GOP spends 2 years and $250K to show there is no vote fraud. Now STFU about it.

[Michchamp]

Link.

"Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R), one of the nation?s most enthusiastic voter suppressors, released a report on Thursday outlining the results a two-year investigation into possible voter fraud, conducted by the Iowa Department of Public Safety?s Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) at his request. But while Schultz has frequently scared Iowa voters with allegations of thousands of possible non-citizens voting in the state and living people showing up at the polls to cast ballots in the name of dead voters, the investigation revealed found an infinitesimal number of illegal votes cast and zero cases of impersonation at the polls."​

 

[Monster]

the only real voter fraud that is happening are the ID laws. As the idiot from Pennsylvania said a few years ago, the ID laws are meant to help GOP win...He claimed the law would help romney win the state. Bravo.

 

[Sbee]

the guise of in person voter fraud is used to keep the black vote down. the mathematics of it don't make sense, one vote is useless anyway, one person doesn't decide an election, you vote to take part in the democratic process and feel like you're a good citizen. doing in person voter fraud doesn't make sense at all and the laws are all set up to prevent this thing that doesn't happen, or so they say.

In 2012, there were close to a million people in Pennsylvania that were eligible to vote but didn't have an ID. one of the state reps, can't remember his name, said that they would change the laws to help Mitt Romney win. it's not like all of those people would have turned out to vote but maybe a significant amount would have, maybe one out of ten, that could have made a difference. PA is a key swing state, James Carville said that you have Pittsburgh on one side, Philly on the other and Alabama in the middle.

the argument against in person voter fraud is just a ruse to suppress the poor black vote, plain and simple.

 

[KAWDUP]

You really needed another circle-jerk thread to say the same dumb things you said in the other one?

Funny how that isn't considered TSmith-like.

 

[Michchamp]

Why did I think KAWDUP might have something to add here, or even might admit "yeah, I guess there's really not a voter fraud problem. I learned something by posting on this board."???

I should've known better.

 

[Sbee]

You really needed another circle-jerk thread to say the same dumb things you said in the other one?

Funny how that isn't considered TSmith-like.

just admit that you want to cheat to win. would I be really upset if Austin Jackson used a corked bat in the world series and hit a game winning homer? fuck it, why not.

 

[Spartanmack]

You really needed another circle-jerk thread to say the same dumb things you said in the other one?

Funny how that isn't considered TSmith-like.

2 more reasons not to get involved in this thread:

1) the whole argument projects the results from a study done in Iowa, a state with 3mm people and projects it to the rest of the country

2) the first responder says things like voter ID laws are voter fraud - and of course the next one plays the race card.

 

[Sbee]

2 more reasons not to get involved in this thread:

1) the whole argument projects the results from a study done in Iowa, a state with 3mm people and projects it to the rest of the country

2) the first responder says things like voter ID laws are voter fraud - and of course the next one plays the race card.

when you don't agree with the statement, try to poke holes in the data and create a reasonable doubt. you should be a defense attorney.

 

[Spartanmack]

when you don't agree with the statement, try to poke holes in the data and create a reasonable doubt. you should be a defense attorney.

You've already tried this before - incorrectly then as well. I'm not poking holes in the data - i don't doubt for a minute they didn't find voter fraud in Iowa. The problem I have is with projecting those results onto the rest of the country - anyone who knows anything about stats would say that's invalid. Enjoy your group think circle jerk.

 

[Sbee]

You've already tried this before - incorrectly then as well. I'm not poking holes in the data - i don't doubt for a minute they didn't find voter fraud in Iowa. The problem I have is with projecting those results onto the rest of the country - anyone who knows anything about stats would say that's invalid. Enjoy your group think circle jerk.

are you arguing that voter fraud is rampant? if it is, i guess there is a case for ID laws.

 

[Monster]

2 more reasons not to get involved in this thread:

1) the whole argument projects the results from a study done in Iowa, a state with 3mm people and projects it to the rest of the country

2) the first responder says things like voter ID laws are voter fraud - and of course the next one plays the race card.

Am I wrong? GOP'ers have been saying for a few years now that these laws will help them win. I wonder how you'd react if Obama made it illegal for people over 65 to vote because their votes may be influenced by younger family members or uninformed because of their age. You'd lose almost every election. Rigging the system is fraud. gerrymandering is also fraud and should be eliminated.

You want ID laws? Give the IDs away for free and anyone who can't get transportation to get the ID, the gov't should come to them...for free. You do those things and you'd hear no complaints.

 

[Spartanmack]

are you arguing that voter fraud is rampant? if it is, i guess there is a case for ID laws.

Keep reaching - you might get there. You can refer to the previous thread for my positions on voter fraud and voter ID laws.

 

[Spartanmack]

Am I wrong? GOP'ers have been saying for a few years now that these laws will help them win. I wonder how you'd react if Obama made it illegal for people over 65 to vote because their votes may be influenced by younger family members or uninformed because of their age. You'd lose almost every election. Rigging the system is fraud. gerrymandering is also fraud and should be eliminated.

You want ID laws? Give the IDs away for free and anyone who can't get transportation to get the ID, the gov't should come to them...for free. You do those things and you'd hear no complaints.

Yeah, you're wrong. 1 guy in PA doesn't not equal "GOP'ers have been saying for a few years now that these laws will help them win". And the comment was about voter fraud not voter suppression. And you're also wrong about old people - from 1992 through 2009 senior citizens' party affiliation favored Democrats and the AARP which is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country also favors Dems.

 

[Thumb]

2 more reasons not to get involved in this thread:

So you say you should not get involved in the thread then are tied for the most posts in it. :hehe::lmao:

 

[tsmith7559]

You really needed another circle-jerk thread to say the same dumb things you said in the other one?

Funny how that isn't considered TSmith-like.

hey, hey

 

[Sbee]

Keep reaching - you might get there. You can refer to the previous thread for my positions on voter fraud and voter ID laws.

I'm not going to but I can imagine that you come up with some bullshit about how it's not a burden or hurdle. you might go as far as to say that some people shouldn't be able to vote, knowing your rhetoric.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not going to but I can imagine that you come up with some bullshit about how it's not a burden or hurdle. you might go as far as to say that some people shouldn't be able to vote, knowing your rhetoric.

Said the king of rhetorical nonsense. yes, i would say some people shouldn't be able to vote - those who are not legally eligible and those who have already voted and/or are not who they say they are in order to cast an illegal vote. That's what voter IDs laws are all about. But you're right - getting an ID is not a hurdle and to answer Monster - i've already said I support free IDs for the poor.

 

[Monster]

yes, i would say some people shouldn't be able to vote - those who are not legally eligible and those who have already voted and/or are not who they say they are in order to cast an illegal vote. That's what voter IDs laws are all about. But you're right - getting an ID is not a hurdle and to answer Monster - i've already said I support free IDs for the poor.

Then, when they are free and immobile people can get help to get them, I'd support the laws. Until then, it's voter suppression and fraud.

 

[Spartanmack]

Then, when they are free and immobile people can get help to get them, I'd support the laws. Until then, it's voter suppression and fraud.

If they're immobile, how are they going to vote?

 

[tinselwolverine]

yes, i would say some people shouldn't be able to vote - those who are not legally eligible and those who have already voted and/or are not who they say they are in order to cast an illegal vote. That's what voter IDs laws are all about. But you're right - getting an ID is not a hurdle and to answer Monster - i've already said I support free IDs for the poor.

You gotta be kidding...

How the fuck would they get shit done in Chicago if that was the case?