Have liberals ever taken a Civil class?

[domer76]

Yawn! Come on loinfo. You can do better. You have a number of elections where it was shown VOTER ID laws did not effect voter turnout in numerous states. I have evidence that shows the contrary. All you can do is repeat the same tired talking point. The fact of the matter is when ANYBODY wants to vote they seem to be able to find a way to cast their vote. Additionally, you make this a race issue. Well guess what skippy. This affects white people as well. Poor whites living in appalachia or the south have the same issues as minorities. States are bending over backwards to ensure that people can vote. Some areas have mobile vans for free IDs. Simple fact of the matter is it is becoming really difficult to function in this country without a photo ID. And you loons know it.

I hate to assume but since you are trying have this discussion with me I am sure you are aware that there are various ways one can vote without an ID. You can show up at the polls, get a provisional ballot, cast your vote and then you have time before the vote count is official to prove who you are using various methods. You can also vote absentee. That's is just two.

I am also sure you are aware that there must be a method to receive a free ID so cost is not a factor. But you know that. You also know that many of the court cases you guys blindly cite were struck down not because of the ID provision but because of other factors like early voting, or how long you have after the election to prove who you are.

You know this because you are oh so smart. So please, show us something.

Here you go, tardboy. Excerpts from your own citations. Just EXACTLY what I claimed:

“Baldwin’s staff says the findings in the Priorities USA report are consistent with the findings of a 2014 Government Accountability Office report that analyzed various data sets to find out the impact of voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee in 2012. The report found that a decline of 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points in Kansas and a decline of 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points in Tennessee that were attributable to changes in voter requirements.”

“So even with the voter ID laws, black voter turnout was higher than white voter turnout nationally and in the states with the strictest voting laws. But experts say that doesn’t necessarily mean that voter ID laws don’t suppress -- or, at the very least, attempt to suppress -- the minority vote.”

And the increased black voter rates in 2012 could also be interpreted as an unintended consequence or a "backlash effect," according to Erin O’Brien. a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Boston. The stricter voter ID laws may have actually motivated the minorities the laws were trying to suppress. That motivation, unlike its effects, is backed by pretty strong evidence.”

Hoisted on your own petard, moron.

 

[CFM]

Here you go, tardboy. Excerpts from your own citations. Just EXACTLY what I claimed:

“Baldwin’s staff says the findings in the Priorities USA report are consistent with the findings of a 2014 Government Accountability Office report that analyzed various data sets to find out the impact of voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee in 2012. The report found that a decline of 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points in Kansas and a decline of 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points in Tennessee that were attributable to changes in voter requirements.”

“So even with the voter ID laws, black voter turnout was higher than white voter turnout nationally and in the states with the strictest voting laws. But experts say that doesn’t necessarily mean that voter ID laws don’t suppress -- or, at the very least, attempt to suppress -- the minority vote.”

And the increased black voter rates in 2012 could also be interpreted as an unintended consequence or a "backlash effect," according to Erin O’Brien. a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Boston. The stricter voter ID laws may have actually motivated the minorities the laws were trying to suppress. That motivation, unlike its effects, is backed by pretty strong evidence.”

Hoisted on your own petard, moron.

Why aren't blacks capable of getting a voter ID like white people can do without someone having to help them along?

 

[Huey]

Here you go, tardboy. Excerpts from your own citations. Just EXACTLY what I claimed:

“Baldwin’s staff says the findings in the Priorities USA report are consistent with the findings of a 2014 Government Accountability Office report that analyzed various data sets to find out the impact of voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee in 2012. The report found that a decline of 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points in Kansas and a decline of 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points in Tennessee that were attributable to changes in voter requirements.”

“So even with the voter ID laws, black voter turnout was higher than white voter turnout nationally and in the states with the strictest voting laws. But experts say that doesn’t necessarily mean that voter ID laws don’t suppress -- or, at the very least, attempt to suppress -- the minority vote.”

And the increased black voter rates in 2012 could also be interpreted as an unintended consequence or a "backlash effect," according to Erin O’Brien. a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Boston. The stricter voter ID laws may have actually motivated the minorities the laws were trying to suppress. That motivation, unlike its effects, is backed by pretty strong evidence.”

Hoisted on your own petard, moron.

You sure? You certainly are lazy. I told you what to do but apparently google is too tough for you. Take GA. Remember, this substantiates my contention that those who want to vote find a way to vote:



Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.

It was expected that African American turnout would spike in 2008, when Barack Obama became the first person of color to win the presidency. And it did rise to historic highs in Georgia.

http://www.ajc.com/news/despite-voter-law-minority-turnout-georgia/3wOfD2SkXmTgRwbySd2ZiK/

Indiana:

“Previous studies have examined the effects of voter ID laws more generally, but none of these separately analyzes the effects of so called ‘mandatory photo ID’ on turnout in Indiana,” Milyo said. “I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php

There is two examples. I got more. So tell me, how can that be? If these voter ID laws were supposed to suppress the vote, particularly in certain demos, why in fact did it increase? This is some sort of failure.

Again, those who want to vote were not suppressed. If people did not vote because of the law it is because they did not do what the rest of have do to exercise our rights.

 

[domer76]

You sure? You certainly are lazy. I told you what to do but apparently google is too tough for you. Take GA. Remember, this substantiates my contention that those who want to vote find a way to vote:



Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.

It was expected that African American turnout would spike in 2008, when Barack Obama became the first person of color to win the presidency. And it did rise to historic highs in Georgia.

http://www.ajc.com/news/despite-voter-law-minority-turnout-georgia/3wOfD2SkXmTgRwbySd2ZiK/

Indiana:

“Previous studies have examined the effects of voter ID laws more generally, but none of these separately analyzes the effects of so called ‘mandatory photo ID’ on turnout in Indiana,” Milyo said. “I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php

There is two examples. I got more. So tell me, how can that be? If these voter ID laws were supposed to suppress the vote, particularly in certain demos, why in fact did it increase? This is some sort of failure.

Again, those who want to vote were not suppressed. If people did not vote because of the law it is because they did not do what the rest of have do to exercise our rights.

Nice little job at cherry-picking tardboy. I see you still cling to the logical fallacy of:
A happened, then B happened, so A caused B. That’s all you’ve provided, boytard.

I also notice that you’ve avoided the INTENT of these (mostly) unconstitutional ID laws. To suppress the votes of those who would normally vote Democratic. Pure and simple.

Try this GAO study, pally boy.

“Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant.”

GAO also estimated changes in turnout among subpopulations of registrants in Kansas and Tennessee according to their age, length of voter registration, and race or ethnicity. In both Kansas and Tennessee, compared with the four comparison states, GAO found that turnout was reduced by larger amounts:

among registrants, as of 2008, between the ages of 18 and 23 than among registrants between the ages of 44 and 53;

among registrants who had been registered less than 1 year than among registrants who had been registered 20 years or more; and

among African-American registrants than among White, Asian-American, and Hispanic registrants. GAO did not find consistent reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants compared to White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects among these subgroups.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf

 

[Huey]

Nice little job at cherry-picking tardboy. I see you still cling to the logical fallacy of:
A happened, then B happened, so A caused B. That’s all you’ve provided, boytard.

I also notice that you’ve avoided the INTENT of these (mostly) unconstitutional ID laws. To suppress the votes of those who would normally vote Democratic. Pure and simple.

Try this GAO study, pally boy.

“Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically significant.”

GAO also estimated changes in turnout among subpopulations of registrants in Kansas and Tennessee according to their age, length of voter registration, and race or ethnicity. In both Kansas and Tennessee, compared with the four comparison states, GAO found that turnout was reduced by larger amounts:

among registrants, as of 2008, between the ages of 18 and 23 than among registrants between the ages of 44 and 53;

among registrants who had been registered less than 1 year than among registrants who had been registered 20 years or more; and

among African-American registrants than among White, Asian-American, and Hispanic registrants. GAO did not find consistent reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants compared to White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects among these subgroups.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf

hey tough guy, your done. My point stands. When people want to vote voter ID is an issue. When a key dem demographic doesn’t vote they find excuses.

 

[domer76]

hey tough guy, your done. My point stands. When people want to vote voter ID is an issue. When a key dem demographic doesn’t vote they find excuses.

Your point stands. It’s just bullshit, that’s all.

Still avoiding the INTENT of the laws, I see. A little uncomfortable, pally boy?

 

[Huey]

Your point stands. It’s just bullshit, that’s all.

Still avoiding the INTENT of the laws, I see. A little uncomfortable, pally boy?

the Internet Tough realizes I’m right so now he goes with the reframe. The intent? Oh, you mean the intent that some loinfo site tells you about.

got it.

But tough guy, I am no uncomfortable. If that was really the intent it certainly failed.

just how did all those people vote? Explain that tough guy.

 

[domer76]

the Internet Tough realizes I’m right so now he goes with the reframe. The intent? Oh, you mean the intent that some loinfo site tells you about.

got it.

But tough guy, I am no uncomfortable. If that was really the intent it certainly failed.

just how did all those people vote? Explain that tough guy.

lol

“If” that was the intent? Live in a cave, tardboy?

Ever figure out, boytard, that the black cat really DIDN’T cause you to stub your little toe?

Did you even read your own citations, tardboy, that say you are full of shit?

Ever figure out, boytard, why the courts find so many laws unconstitutional?

Dismissed, sonny. You failed.

 

[Huey]

lol

“If” that was the intent? Live in a cave, tardboy?

Ever figure out, boytard, that the black cat really DIDN’T cause you to stub your little toe?

Did you even read your own citations, tardboy, that say you are full of shit?

Ever figure out, boytard, why the courts find so many laws unconstitutional?

Dismissed, sonny. You failed.

lmao! I failed? Notice which of us trying to act like an Internet loinfo bully because their argument failed?

i already addressed the court findings, Júnior.

In my almost 20 years of posting to these forums the names of loinfos May change but their talking points don’t.

see ya next time billy badass wannabe.

 

[Truth Detector]

I keep seeing liberals claiming Hillary won because she got 3 million more votes! Don't they understand we elect the president by the candidate who get's the most Electoral College Votes?

It doesn't matter to them; they hate the Constitution and all that it stands for and Fascistically believe their candidates should just be divined into office because they stupidly believe they are smarter than everyone else.

 

[Truth Detector]

You mean civics?

Of course - obviously, Trump is President. But Hillary did win the popular, by 3 million +. That really says something.

Wrong; it says and means absolutely NOTHING other than give brain dead clueless liberals a warm feeling as they LOSE elections. Dunce.

 

[Truth Detector]

and the russians messed in our elections

and the republican party gerrymanders the states

and the republican party keeps CERTAIN voters from voting wit ID laws

our courts agree

republicans CHEAT

links to the proof of this shit heap of yours

 

[Truth Detector]

I always find that argument to be pretty lame. I have actually heard righties say "take away CA and NY, and the coasts, and Hillary wouldn't have even come close!"

Yep; liberals always find FACTS lame. Dunce.

Having a popular vote winner wouldn't change things that much; just where the candidates campaign.

Another incredibly stupid and false claim. You're proof of what a failure our liberally controlled educational establishment is.

There is still House & Senate representation, as well as all of the local & state gov't influence. It's not like middle America would be forgotten.

People vote; dirt doesn't.

We are not a people nation; we are a Republic of states. You should have picked that up by fifth grade. Dunce.

 

[domer76]

lmao! I failed? Notice which of us trying to act like an Internet loinfo bully because their argument failed?

i already addressed the court findings, Júnior.

In my almost 20 years of posting to these forums the names of loinfos May change but their talking points don’t.

see ya next time billy badass wannabe.

You didn't address shit, sonny. You merely provided an opinion piece or so from a RW hack as yourself that made the ASSUMPTION that "A caused B", when you have no proof of it at all. My posts demonstrated that. Actually, yours demonstrated the same thing, but you're too fucking lazy and stupid to read your own citations.

You didn't address the court issue at all, loser. Nor acknowledge the true intent of this kind of legislation.

Pull your head out of your ass, Jethro. See what reality actually looks like.

 

[Huey]

You didn't address shit, sonny. You merely provided an opinion piece or so from a RW hack as yourself that made the ASSUMPTION that "A caused B", when you have no proof of it at all. My posts demonstrated that. Actually, yours demonstrated the same thing, but you're too fucking lazy and stupid to read your own citations.

You didn't address the court issue at all, loser. Nor acknowledge the true intent of this kind of legislation.

Pull your head out of your ass, Jethro. See what reality actually looks like.

yawn.

you are done, junior.

 

[domer76]

yawn.

you are done, junior.

Run away, punk. Watch out for those black cats.

When you wish to discuss the true intent of those laws, Nancy, get back to me.

 

[Huey]

Run away, punk. Watch out for those black cats.

When you wish to discuss the true intent of those laws, Nancy, get back to me.

Lmao!

you go ahead and have the last word.

 

[domer76]

Lmao!

you go ahead and have the last word.

Still not prepared? No surprises. Typical RW tard. All hat, no cowboy.