I said anyone wanting to commit fraud would make a fake utility bill. No one wants to commit fraud.
Michael Cohen guilty of campaign finance violations, implicates Trump. Also hints at flipping.
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
obviously not. he doesnt believe in property rights and is all about open borders.
Right, so illegal immigrants don't want to commit a crime? Clear as mud
Republicans want new voter ID laws because it would lead to fewer minority voters voting. Democrats don’t want new voter ID laws because it would lead to fewer minority voters voting. Not too difficult to understand.
Democrats are racists POS who assume that minorities can not obtain one single valid ID.
Democrats also think that Russia is hacking our election yet refuse to demand a valid ID to assure voting is secured.
Democrats would be all for Voter ID’s if there was an actual big issue with voter fraud and/or if the two parties would be affected equally by new Voter ID laws. Fact is, anyone with a brain knows that wouldn’t be the case.
That's incorrect, and will be wrong until you provide facts. Unfortunately for you, I have a bunch of them:
5 Statistics That Show Voter ID Is Not Racist
1. Black turnout was higher than white turnout in 2012 — including in states that had implemented voter ID laws. This is according to U.S. Census Bureau data, and even the leftist PolitiFact had to admit this is true. IJ Review has more on this here.
2. A recent study of the the 2010 and 2012 primaries and general elections shows that voter ID laws did not disproportionately decrease minority turnout. The study, conducted by University of California San Diego political scientist Lindsay Nielson in data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, found the following: (emphasis bolded)
In primaries, she reports, whites and minorities vote at approximately similar rates; turnout declines for people of all races from 43 to 31 percent, as ID requirements become stricter. Turnout among voters over age 65 declines from 57 to 48 percent in primary elections; among those ages 35 to 64, it drops from 42 to 34 percent; the young vote decreases from 30 to 22 percent. Income makes no difference; turnout declines about 10 percent both for people who make more than $40,000 per year and those who make less. She found similar results when the income cutoff was set at $20,000 per year.
That may only be in primaries, but her conclusions suggest that while voter turnout did decline, it was among all races equally, not disproportionately among minorities, as leftists would like you to believe.
In general elections, Nielson concluded that "there is little evidence that racial minorities are less likely than whites to vote when states institute voter identification requirements" and "that the evidence that voter identification laws demobilize potential voters is not as strong as opponents of the laws might wish and that the controversy over these laws may be exaggerated."
Nielson's study is further evidence that voter ID laws do not disproportionately suppress minority voter turnout.
3. Despite what leftists argue, voter fraud does exist. In 2012, the Pew Research Center found the following:
- There were almost "24 million active voter registrations in the U.S. either invalid or inaccurate."
- Almost two million dead Americans were still on the active voting lists.
- 12 million voter records were riddled with "incorrect addresses or other errors."
- Almost 2.75 million voters were registered in over one state.
According to von Spakovsky, there were ballots with "the names of 5,412 registered voters after people with matching names had died" in the 2000 election in Fulton County, GA. He has also cited the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which concluded "that 6.4% of all noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2% voted in the 2010 midterms."
Leftists will probably scream that this is an insignificant amount, which ignores the following fact...
4. In a close election, voter fraud could play a significant role. Von Spakovsky writes the following in regard to the aforementioned data:
Since 80% of noncitizens vote Democratic, according to the survey, the authors concluded that these illegal votes were “large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.” Those that might have been skewed by noncitizen votes included Al Franken’s 312-vote win in the Minnesota race for the U.S. Senate. As a senator, Mr. Franken would cast the 60th vote needed to make ObamaCare law.
Indeed, there is evidence that Franken did in fact win his election due to voter fraud, as demonstrated here and here. Von Spakovsky also notes, "In 2014, 16 local races in Ohio were decided by one vote or through breaking a tie. In 2013, 35 local races in Ohio were that close."
Ohio is a key swing state in presidential elections, so those close local races may indicate that voter fraud could influence the state outcome in the upcoming general election.
It's not racist to protect the right to vote with voter ID to prevent a law-abiding citizen's vote from being canceled out by a fraudulent vote.
5. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans support voter ID laws, including Democrats and blacks. Poll after poll confirms this. For example:
- A 2012 Washington Post poll found that 65 percent of blacks support voter ID laws.
- A 2014 Fox News poll found that 55 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of blacks support voter ID laws.
- A 2015 Rasmussen poll found that 58 percent of Democrats support voter ID laws.
How about instead of being a racist and assuming you know what's best for minorities, you actually listen to what they have to say? Your soft bigotry of low expectations is disgusting.
Wrong
Baldwin says: "Voter turnout in 2016 was reduced by approx. 200,000 votes because of WI’s photo ID laws."
On the other hand, the 2016 turnout was higher than when Obama was first elected in 2008 and, again, there was no voter ID law.
A report she cites from a Democratic candidate-supporting group says a decline in voter turnout between the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in Wisconsin was entirely due to the state’s new photo identification requirement for voting.
But experts say that while photo ID requirements reduces turnout to some extent, they question the methodology of the report and say there is no way to put a number on how many people in Wisconsin didn’t vote because of the ID requirement.
We rate Baldwin’s statement Mostly False.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...id-law-caused-200000-drop-wisconsin-voter-tu/
Go again
You realize the reason they say it’s “mostly false” is because they say can’t verify the exact number of 200,000 voters and say that some of them may have not voted due to apathy, correct? However, they fully acknowledge that were was a tremendous decrease in the number of Democratic voters...and a disproportionate decrease in Democratic voters...immediately after the new Voter ID laws were implemented.
I’m talking about the overwhelming evidence that having strict ID laws leads to fewer people voting...and those people are more likely to be young, poor, and/or minorities.
Wrong again, you made me waste a collective 13 minutes on 2 community college pseudo intellectuals jerking each other off about the big, bad conservatives, then Cenk Uygur (who is like the lefts version of Alex Jones, minus the occasionally being right and plus the Armenian genocide denying).
You have yet to provide to any evidence,you invented your own interpretation of the nuances "mostly false" and I'm pretty positive you didn't read the sourced studies I gave you. You're ignoring the fact that blacks themselves are tired of being assumed to be so irresponsible by you white knight leftists, and being told what's best for them. Lastly, there aren't even 200,000 registered to vote blacks in Wisconsin.
Your party lost the election because even democrats weren't willing to vote for Hillary, and especially not in Wisconsin where she declined to even visit. You ever think that maybe Hillary referring to blacks as "super predators" played into them not voting for her?
You have yet to provide to any evidence,you invented your own interpretation of the nuances "mostly false" and I'm pretty positive you didn't read the sourced studies I gave you. You're ignoring the fact that blacks themselves are tired of being assumed to be so irresponsible by you white knight leftists, and being told what's best for them. Lastly, there aren't even 200,000 registered to vote blacks in Wisconsin.
Your party lost the election because even democrats weren't willing to vote for Hillary, and especially not in Wisconsin where she declined to even visit. You ever think that maybe Hillary referring to blacks as "super predators" played into them not voting for her?
A Mississippi NAACP executive is in jail after being convicted of voter fraud for
fraudulently casting absentee ballots,
including for four dead people
Lessadolla Sowers, who is a member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee, was convicted and sentenced in April for what a judge said were crimes that cut “against the fabric of our free society.”
Consequences of the 65 Voting Act.
including for four dead people
Lessadolla Sowers, who is a member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee, was convicted and sentenced in April for what a judge said were crimes that cut “against the fabric of our free society.”
Consequences of the 65 Voting Act.
A Mississippi NAACP executive is in jail after being convicted of voter fraud forfraudulently casting absentee ballots,
including for four dead people
Lessadolla Sowers, who is a member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee, was convicted and sentenced in April for what a judge said were crimes that cut “against the fabric of our free society.”
Consequences of the 65 Voting Act.
Good Lord, did you really just provide a link to an old woman who was caught casting some fraudulent ballots in a primary race 11 years ago?
Heupel, you don’t even know what you’re arguing. You just enjoy listening to yourself talk out of your ass. Let me break it down for your simple mind:
1) Republicans want stricter Voter ID laws.
2) A higher percentage of Democrats don’t have valid ID’s (largely due to economic or logistical reasons...a higher percentage live in Urban areas and they’re less likely to have a driver’s license, for example).
3) Thus, more Democrats than Republicans would be more affected by new Voter ID laws.
It’s not difficult at all to understand. Hope this helps.
1) Republicans want stricter Voter ID laws.
2) A higher percentage of Democrats don’t have valid ID’s (largely due to economic or logistical reasons...a higher percentage live in Urban areas and they’re less likely to have a driver’s license, for example).
3) Thus, more Democrats than Republicans would be more affected by new Voter ID laws.
It’s not difficult at all to understand. Hope this helps.
Lmao those are your opinions, buddy.
I'm about to link to you a collection of studies that I know you won't read, but I'm going to be nice enough to copy paste the concrete conclusions their data brought them to. Try not to hurt your brain looking at this many words and numbers.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/17/voter-id-suppression-fail (<--- click)
1) "Our primary explanatory variables, photo ID and nonphoto ID laws, have no statistically discernible relationship with the probability that whites, blacks, and Latinos voted in the general elections between 1980 and 2010 except that the nonphoto ID law has a positive and significant relationship with Latino turnout," they find. "In short, more stringent ID requirements for voting have no deterring effect on individual turnout across different racial and ethnic groups."
so there goes race
2) "Nielson finds that stricter voter ID laws do change the probability that someone will vote in primary elections, but not in general elections. In primaries, she reports, whites and minorities vote at approximately similar rates; turnout declines for people of all races from 43 to 31 percent, as ID requirements become stricter. Turnout among voters over age 65 declines from 57 to 48 percent in primary elections; among those ages 35 to 64, it drops from 42 to 34 percent; the young vote decreases from 30 to 22 percent. Income makes no difference; turnout declines about 10 percent both for people who make more than $40,000 per year and those who make less. She found similar results when the income cutoff was set at $20,000 per year."
and there goes "economic or logistical reasons"
3) thus, time to take the L and move on buddy.
I would reciprocate the condescending quip "it's not difficult to understand" but your personal opinions have been wronger than 2 little boys fukkin, so I'm not sure it rings true for yourself.
I'm about to link to you a collection of studies that I know you won't read, but I'm going to be nice enough to copy paste the concrete conclusions their data brought them to. Try not to hurt your brain looking at this many words and numbers.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/17/voter-id-suppression-fail (<--- click)
1) "Our primary explanatory variables, photo ID and nonphoto ID laws, have no statistically discernible relationship with the probability that whites, blacks, and Latinos voted in the general elections between 1980 and 2010 except that the nonphoto ID law has a positive and significant relationship with Latino turnout," they find. "In short, more stringent ID requirements for voting have no deterring effect on individual turnout across different racial and ethnic groups."
so there goes race
2) "Nielson finds that stricter voter ID laws do change the probability that someone will vote in primary elections, but not in general elections. In primaries, she reports, whites and minorities vote at approximately similar rates; turnout declines for people of all races from 43 to 31 percent, as ID requirements become stricter. Turnout among voters over age 65 declines from 57 to 48 percent in primary elections; among those ages 35 to 64, it drops from 42 to 34 percent; the young vote decreases from 30 to 22 percent. Income makes no difference; turnout declines about 10 percent both for people who make more than $40,000 per year and those who make less. She found similar results when the income cutoff was set at $20,000 per year."
and there goes "economic or logistical reasons"
3) thus, time to take the L and move on buddy.
I would reciprocate the condescending quip "it's not difficult to understand" but your personal opinions have been wronger than 2 little boys fukkin, so I'm not sure it rings true for yourself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esearch/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.677a4f0c12ee
"In our new study we are able to offer a more definitive assessment for several reasons.
First and most important, we have data from the nation’s most recent elections (2006-2014) and can single out and test the effect of the strict voter ID laws in multiple elections and multiple states. (We define states with “strict voter ID laws” as states where residents cannot vote without presenting valid identification during or after the voting process.)
Second, we have validated voting data so we know whether each of our respondents actually voted. Third, we have a huge sample — over a third of a million Americans from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — which means that we can analyze the participation of racial and ethnic minorities in all states both before and after strict ID laws are implemented.
When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.
Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.
These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID."
"In our new study we are able to offer a more definitive assessment for several reasons.
First and most important, we have data from the nation’s most recent elections (2006-2014) and can single out and test the effect of the strict voter ID laws in multiple elections and multiple states. (We define states with “strict voter ID laws” as states where residents cannot vote without presenting valid identification during or after the voting process.)
Second, we have validated voting data so we know whether each of our respondents actually voted. Third, we have a huge sample — over a third of a million Americans from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — which means that we can analyze the participation of racial and ethnic minorities in all states both before and after strict ID laws are implemented.
When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.
Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.
These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID."
Oh buddy, I really hate to do this to ya. Watch how when you click on the WashingtonPost link it takes you to the source you used:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-voter-id-racism
It was supposed to be the study that proved voter ID laws are not just discriminatory but can also have a big impact on elections. And it was picked up widely, with outlets including ThinkProgress and the Washington Post reporting that the study found voter ID laws hurt Hispanic voters in particular and skewed elections to the right.
But a follow-up study suggests the findings in the original were bunk. According to researchers at Stanford, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania, the original study was based on surveys of voters that are extremely unreliable — skewing the results. On top of that, several calculation errors led to even more problems. When the errors are corrected, the follow-up researchers found, there’s no evidence in the analyzed data that voter ID laws have a statistically significant impact on voter turnout.
This is for you:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-voter-id-racism
It was supposed to be the study that proved voter ID laws are not just discriminatory but can also have a big impact on elections. And it was picked up widely, with outlets including ThinkProgress and the Washington Post reporting that the study found voter ID laws hurt Hispanic voters in particular and skewed elections to the right.
But a follow-up study suggests the findings in the original were bunk. According to researchers at Stanford, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania, the original study was based on surveys of voters that are extremely unreliable — skewing the results. On top of that, several calculation errors led to even more problems. When the errors are corrected, the follow-up researchers found, there’s no evidence in the analyzed data that voter ID laws have a statistically significant impact on voter turnout.
This is for you:
Good Lord, you just linked to a site that argues that the Voter ID laws still affect poor and minority groups more...just maybe not as much as the previous study claimed. It goes on to say,
“Still, the laws have very clearly racist intents. None of this research should let the people passing voting restrictions off the hook.”
“Over the past few years, it has become almost a cliché for Republicans to slip up and admit that voter ID laws and other voting restrictions aren’t really about combating voter fraud (an extremely rare phenomenon), but rather about making it harder for Democratic constituencies — mainly, black and brown voters — to vote.”
Take a lap, you’re done.
“Still, the laws have very clearly racist intents. None of this research should let the people passing voting restrictions off the hook.”
“Over the past few years, it has become almost a cliché for Republicans to slip up and admit that voter ID laws and other voting restrictions aren’t really about combating voter fraud (an extremely rare phenomenon), but rather about making it harder for Democratic constituencies — mainly, black and brown voters — to vote.”
Take a lap, you’re done.
Why don’t these Very Concerned liberals get off their ass and do something if there are supposedly tons and tons of poor black people who can’t obtajn a single form of ID?
Forget voting- it would seem pretty damn hard to get by and move up in life if you have not a single ID to your name. And it’s pretty damn easy to help someone get an ID.
Since there are soooooo many people who simply can’t obtian an ID no matter how hard they try, it seems like a slam dunk charity chase for liberals to engage in.
If liberals ever engaged in charity, that is.....
Forget voting- it would seem pretty damn hard to get by and move up in life if you have not a single ID to your name. And it’s pretty damn easy to help someone get an ID.
Since there are soooooo many people who simply can’t obtian an ID no matter how hard they try, it seems like a slam dunk charity chase for liberals to engage in.
If liberals ever engaged in charity, that is.....
bluechip is HTC's bitch and it isn't even close.
Lanny Davis, Cohen's lawyer was the source for the Cohen story, He has recanted his statement. 2 major papers have walked the story back, Cnn is standing by it.
we all know bluechip is not the brightest but damn htc is really making him look foolish. bluechips soft bigotry is really showing.
exactly life would be extremely hard without an id. perhaps the left should get off their butts and help these people out. even though i dont know a single person without one.
Here's Politico absolutely trashing FC's favorite source for Fake News.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...mous-sources-michael-cohen-white-house-803920
And despite all of this, CNN won't retract their 100% Fake News story that Lanny Davis helped create with his lies.
And they wonder with people don't trust their channel.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...mous-sources-michael-cohen-white-house-803920
And despite all of this, CNN won't retract their 100% Fake News story that Lanny Davis helped create with his lies.
And they wonder with people don't trust their channel.
Amendment XV
This is what, your 4th time being horribly wrong in the past 48 hours? It's like you're just pulling stuff from your ass and hoping that we don't do a 2 second Google search to prove you wrong.
No wonder your political views are so ass backwards. They're formed by your own Fake News in your head.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...stitution-not-explicit-right-vote-wisconsin-/
Amendment XIX
Amendment XXIV
Amendment XXVI
Wrong again. Those only deal with restrictions the government can impose on people who are eligible to vote; it does not state the right to vote itself. The fact check article I linked explains this exactly if you'd actually read it.
He has to wait for his mom to come home and read it to him
I said that voting was named as a right in the constitution and you disagreed.
I validated it by providing several examples where the phrase "right to vote" appears.
You then when into some constitutional interpretation and claimed I was wrong but you've changed the argument.
Voting is still named as a right in the constitution several times.
It's not named as a right in the constitution. SMH. That's what the Fact Check article, which you refuse to read, explicitly says.
It's a named right for those protected classes which is what the discussion was on.
We get it. You want to gerrymander districts to disenfranchise minority voters. You want to go out of your way to pass new Voter ID laws to “solve” a nonexistent problem to make voting more difficult for minority voters. You want to use Cambridge Analytica to figure out ways to suppress the black vote (as Christopher Wylie testified before Congress). Just be honest with your intentions. You don’t want black and brown people to vote because you know they skew Democrat.
who wants gerrymandered districts? i think we can all agree those are bad.
voter id laws would hurt both republican and democrats, but it would make the voting process more secure at the same time. dont both parties want that? i mean its been 2 years of the democrats saying the election was hacked. shouldnt they want a more secure election?
voter id laws would hurt both republican and democrats, but it would make the voting process more secure at the same time. dont both parties want that? i mean its been 2 years of the democrats saying the election was hacked. shouldnt they want a more secure election?
