Not even Spicer will defend this claim....

OUBubba said:
They've ginned up the rubes with crap like "3-5 million illegals voted" and in doing so have created a false narrative. Turns out voter fraud is less likely than being struck by lightning. If their motives were true and honest we wouldn't see these quasi-absurd voter ID laws that are written. The NC law was blatantly biased and overturned by the courts. The Texas one was OK EXCEPT they passed the ID law and, in the process, didn't accept the amendments to make it more accommodating to actual get a state issued ID. Hypocrisy. They deny things like early voting that are aimed at getting more people to vote. Why is that? Because, in the recent past this has been a voting method of which Democratic populations have taken advantage. The logic against early voting should mirror that of absentee but it doesn't to its critics. Sad,
Click to expand...
In Texas, only the extreme rural voters can credibly claim any inconvenience at getting an ID. These rural voters are not the ones suing because they won't be voting for Democrats anyway. The overturning of the Texas ID law was ridiculous and took several unsuccessful tries - mostly because they had such trouble finding a credible plaintiff. But never fear, one was manufactured as they always are.
 
Fake News! https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...isenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

"Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends."

In my lily white Republican Sunday school class we determined that we had 2-3 family members who either didn't have a current ID or would have difficulty getting it. Elders, yo!
 
The counties in TX which don't have DL offices are extremely rural. I grew up in one of them - Palo Pinto County. Guess what? Virtually all of the legal residents of the county would drive into Eastland County to get a DL. None of us were reimbursed for our trips nor should we be. Maybe you have to invest a small amount of time and money to obtain driving and voting privileges. I have no problem with that.

If your Republican Sunday school class has 2-3 family members who don't have current ID, it is because they are homebound or in a rest home. If you were a good son, you would take your mom to the DPS to get an ID. Shame on you!
 
4th_floor said:
The counties in TX which don't have DL offices are extremely rural. I grew up in one of them - Palo Pinto County. Guess what? Virtually all of the legal residents of the county would drive into Eastland County to get a DL. None of us were reimbursed for our trips nor should we be. Maybe you have to invest a small amount of time and money to obtain driving and voting privileges. I have no problem with that.

If your Republican Sunday school class has 2-3 family members who don't have current ID, it is because they are homebound or in a rest home. If you were a good son, you would take your mom to the DPS to get an ID. Shame on you!
Click to expand...
I would shoot down the travel reimbursement. That's unreasonable. The lack of extended hours is what I was referencing. My mommy is fine, thank you very much...

There was also a SIGNIFICANT racial difference.
 
If you were right then these videos wouldn't be out there.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. You're saying that for me to be right, there have to be 0 videos of biased people out there - and again, the bias goes both ways.

If I had no idea which political viewpoints, parties, etc, were favored by what policies, in a vacuum I and many other would be saying "Of course you should have to show ID to vote, that's common sense."
 
OUBubba said:
Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends."
Click to expand...

Two points on this. First, if these amendments had been adopted, it wouldn't have attracted a single Democratic vote. The issue has become a massive partisan tool for race-baiting, so any Democrat who votes for any voter ID bill will almost surely get primaried. Since no Democrats are going to vote for it anyway, why agree to any compromise amendments?

Second, reimbursing for travel expenses or keeping DPS offices open would significantly boost the fiscal note on the bill. Texas has a balanced budget constitutional requirement. That means that to adopt such amendments, the Legislature would have to go find the money for it somewhere. Why would Republicans raise taxes or cut other budget priorities when they know Democrats will still oppose the bill and still whine their vitriolic hyperbole as though we were resegregating school's or legalizing lynching?

And seriously, reimbursing travel expenses? Can you imagine how much fraud that would invite? You'd have to hire an army of claims handlers and investigators. Realistically, it would probably cost tens of millions of dollars per year to do something like that. Totally absurd.
 
OUBubba said:
Fake News! https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...isenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

"Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends."

In my lily white Republican Sunday school class we determined that we had 2-3 family members who either didn't have a current ID or would have difficulty getting it. Elders, yo!
Click to expand...

So the 2-3 (I realize that distinguishing between 2 or 3 may be difficult for an OU grad)church members could make it to church, but they can't make it to a TXDOT office to get a driver's license or ID?
 
iatrogenic said:
So the 2-3 (I realize that distinguishing between 2 or 3 may be difficult for an OU grad)church members could make it to church, but they can't make it to a TXDOT office to get a driver's license or ID?
Click to expand...
It was well over a year ago. I really don't remember. Should I have said "a few" to be more vague? They were talking about various relatives that no longer had valid ID. They were republicans as well. :)
 
OUBubba said:
It was well over a year ago. I really don't remember. Should I have said "a few" to be more vague? They were talking about various relatives that no longer had valid ID. They were republicans as well. :)
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter if the were Republicans, Communists, or Socialists. The point is, if they can make it to church, they can make it to TXDOT's local office.
 
In the 21st Century, there's no logical reason to oppose validating one's ID in order to cast a vote.

The right to vote is clearly stated in the US Constitution. Provision to do so without some degree of valid ID is NOT.

When those who oppose a state-govt issued ID requirement to vote also use the same "purist" view of the 2A ... then we can talk like reasonable folks.

The Voter ID (in Texas) is REASONABLE, and is even supported by the State taxpayer with the mobile ID units whose schedule is available. The ability to go vote at a specific location in a specific 3 week period seems like a greater restriction than the requirement to meet this mobile ID unit at some point during the other 11 months of the year; compliments of the Texas Taxpayer.
 
No longer have ID? so they did have one and didn 't renew OR change it over to just an ID
which can be done online or even stzrt the process by phone IIRC
 
ShAArk92 said:
In the 21st Century, there's no logical reason to oppose validating one's ID in order to cast a vote.

The right to vote is clearly stated in the US Constitution. Provision to do so without some degree of valid ID is NOT.

When those who oppose a state-govt issued ID requirement to vote also use the same "purist" view of the 2A ... then we can talk like reasonable folks.

The Voter ID (in Texas) is REASONABLE, and is even supported by the State taxpayer with the mobile ID units whose schedule is available. The ability to go vote at a specific location in a specific 3 week period seems like a greater restriction than the requirement to meet this mobile ID unit at some point during the other 11 months of the year; compliments of the Texas Taxpayer.
Click to expand...

I always thought that a mobile unit was the answer. I'm glad to hear that there is already that accommodation. totally agree that obtaining a license is an incredibly low bar. Once obtained it is good for 6 years, with a grace of 2 years before it becomes null. You can renew it online for goodness sakes. So really this boils down to ONE TIME IN YOUR LIFE, you have to go to a DPS office to validate who you are. And since there are mobile units, you may not even have to go to them, they'll come to you. It's utter nonsense that people can't get this done.
 
The Supreme Court decline to hear the appeal by North Carolina that their voter ID effectively killing the legislation.

The law required voters to present an approved form of photo identification before casting a valid ballot; reduced the early voting period from 17 to 10 days; eliminated out-of-precinct voting; eliminated same-day registration and voting; and eliminated preregistration by 16-year-olds.

In a statement, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court’s refusal to hear the case isn’t a judgment on its merits.

“Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that ‘the denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case,’ ” he said.
Click to expand...

It sounds like they refused to hear it on the grounds of "standing" which to me seems like a cowards way out of the controversy.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The Supreme Court decline to hear the appeal by North Carolina that their voter ID effectively killing the legislation.



It sounds like they refused to hear it on the grounds of "standing" which to me seems like a cowards way out of the controversy.
Click to expand...

It may sound like it, but standing is a constitutional prerequisite to hearing a case. It's pretty important. Nevertheless, they didn't make a ruling on standing. They denied certiorari, so as you specified, they're not hearing the case or making a ruling one way or the other on standing or on the merits.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It may sound like it, but standing is a constitutional prerequisite to hearing a case. It's pretty important. Nevertheless, they didn't make a ruling on standing. They denied certiorari, so as you specified, they're not hearing the case or making a ruling one way or the other on standing or on the merits.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. The novice in me assumed certiorari was "standing". That's what I get for assuming. So, does certiorari basically mean we decline to hear the case, nothing more? If so, I reiterate the coward accusation. :)
 
Seattle Husker said:
So, does certiorari basically mean we decline to hear the case, nothing more?
Click to expand...

Yes. When a court grants a writ of certiorari, it's agreeing to hear a case. When it denies a writ of certiorari, it's declining to hear a case. In the federal system, that means the lower court decision stands, but it's not an endorsement of that decision. Accordingly, it only stands in that circuit, and other circuits can reach the opposite conclusion.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Yes. When a court grants a writ of certiorari, it's agreeing to hear a case. When it denies a writ of certiorari, it's declining to hear a case. In the federal system, that means the lower court decision stands, but it's not an endorsement of that decision. Accordingly, it only stands in that circuit, and other circuits can reach the opposite conclusion.
Click to expand...

By not taking it they are allowing the lower court decision to stand. That's like a politician skipping the vote on key legislation so they aren't on record.
 
Seattle Husker said:
By not taking it they are allowing the lower court decision to stand. That's like a politician skipping the vote on key legislation so they aren't on record.
Click to expand...

Not really. They have nothing to fear as life-tenured officials, and they freely wade into the most controversial issues of our time. If you don't fear abortion, school prayer, segregation, gay marriage, Obamacare, etc., there's no reason why you'd fear voter ID. My understanding is that there was a dispute over who properly represented the State of North Carolina, and if they had granted cert, they would have had to deal with that issue, which might have kept them from reaching the merits. There are more appeals going on with voter id, and I'll bet they'll grant cert on a case that's cleaner on the procedural matters.
 
No they're not. The Governor has fought removing illegals every step of the way. They do say, however, that they will remove those that "self identify" as fraudulent voters. Isn't that nice. It's similar to a police department stating they will only arrest those that come forward and confess their crimes, but the other criminals are allowed to keep committing crimes without fear of retribution.
 
Obama won the 2008 electoral vote 365-173 (~ +9M in the popular vote)
The close states (with margins) Obama won were --
North Carolina 0.33%
Indiana 1.03%
Nebraska's 2nd congressional district 1.21%
Florida 2.82%
Ohio 4.59%
Virginia 6.30%
Colorado 8.95%
Iowa 9.53%

Not much could have saved McCain in 2008. But it's easy to see how selectively placed blocks of illegal voters could make the difference in a close electoral vote

 
Last edited:
Trump has questioned certain states not giving requested info to his voting commission
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.e61ba277221b


DDpum2iXsAEikl6.jpg
 
OUBubba said:
What a f'n con man.
Click to expand...

Of course. We're well aware Libs want no part of real stats on voter fraud submitted by the states themselves to retain authenticity.

The results will show national voter ID laws are heavily warranted and are as in-line with common sense as it gets.

But you guys think verifying identification to vote like citizens do everyday for the most basic services in life is absurd and discriminatory. :rolleyes1:

24 things that require a photo ID...but no, to decide who's going to run our gov and make decisions that strongly influence our lives...no need to prove your vote is legit. :smh:
 
Last edited:
Brad Austin said:
Of course. We're well aware Libs want no part of real stats on voter fraud submitted by the states themselves to retain authenticity.

The results will show national voter ID laws are heavily warranted and are as in-line with common sense as it gets.

But you guys think verifying identification to vote like citizens do everyday for the most basic services in life is absurd and discriminatory. :rolleyes1:

24 things that require a photo ID...but no, to decide who's going to run our gov and make decisions that strongly influence our lives...no need to prove your vote is legit. :smh:
Click to expand...
I wish you guys were as focused on protecting people from Americans who aren't mentally stable enough to own firearms as you are from little old ladies who don't have a valid ID anymore from voting.

The next voter ID movement that tries to manage absentee voting in a better way will be he first one I've seen. The right never cares about the method that is likely the easiest to use to beat the system because a majority of absentee voters are right wing voters. Hypocrits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top