DOJ asked to investigate ID voter laws

[Truthmatters]

But the studies I shpowed you did right.

Why are you pretending they dont exsist.


This ID crap is just more of the long pattern of republicans working to keep legal American voters from being able to vote.


You really dont care they do this huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

How can I be "partisan" when I don't belong to one? I don't even belong to the Libertarian party because while I usually agree with them I don't like parties?

Please, buy a dictionary.

Then why are you defending them in the face of cold hard court documented facts?


Because you just like to lie?

I lie, you're a bitch, let's accept who we are and focus on the discussion.

So let's get this straight. If I support ID's and Republicans support ID's I'm partisan even if I don't support Republicans. I'm arguing something that Republicans do which is verboten.

Out of curiosity, if I argued against IDs and said I wasn't a Democrat, would that mean I'm a partisan Democrat or would it actually be OK in that case?

So tell me how you reacted to all the court documented evidence of the republicans cheating in elections for decades?

 

[kaz]

Im sure you will think of yet more names to call me to defend your support of completely unAmerican ativities by your party.

I don't care if you call me a Republican. I like how Democrats call me a Republican and themselves intelligent while Republicans have no trouble at all grasping that I'm not one of them and I'm not a liberal. Sounds like the claim of liberal intelligence may be overstated. But if it makes you feel better to call me a Republican so you don't get distressed by a complex world with more then two parties that's fine with me.

I also like your endless insults while you whine about insults. Sure, I do insult you, but I'm not a hypocrite about it.

 

[Truthmatters]

You are here defending republican policy in the face of cold hard court documented facts.

I have no proof of your party affiliation and you keep lying here anyway so I think you may be a liar

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A spot on my list indeed. And well earned I might add.

 

[kaz]

Then why are you defending them in the face of cold hard court documented facts?


Because you just like to lie?

I lie, you're a bitch, let's accept who we are and focus on the discussion.

So let's get this straight. If I support ID's and Republicans support ID's I'm partisan even if I don't support Republicans. I'm arguing something that Republicans do which is verboten.

Out of curiosity, if I argued against IDs and said I wasn't a Democrat, would that mean I'm a partisan Democrat or would it actually be OK in that case?

So tell me how you reacted to all the court documented evidence of the republicans cheating in elections for decades?

Well, this comes to the conflict that you don't grasp not liberal does not mean Republican. I'm arguing for ID, none of those documents show that requesting ID is a bad thing, so I still support requesting ID.

I'm also actually not a Republican, which means I have an issue with Republicans. I stated I won't join the Libertarian party because I have a problem with parties in general. Once people join parties, they start to stop thinking for themselves, that's my issue with them. So if Republicans cheated, they should be stopped. If Democrats cheat, they should be stopped. That Republicans cheat actually doesn't make sense as an argument that Democrats can cheat to somehow balance it out. I want actually both of you to lose and I'm sick of a system that makes sure one of you will win, which is what you and they are both advocating.

 

[Truthmatters]

I have shown you studies that found voters who were kept from voting.

You jsut ignored them

 

[kaz]

You are here defending republican policy in the face of cold hard court documented facts.

All I've advocated is checking ID's. On what planet does checking ID's equal Republican.

I have no proof of your party affiliation and you keep lying here anyway so I think you may be a liar

We've already covered this, I'm a liar, you're a bitch. As for party affiliation, I already told you if you want to call me a Republican I'm OK with that. But since you keep going back to it, have I said anything in support of Republicans or are you just going with criticizing liberals could only be done by a Republican? Your universe is that small? Only Republicans and Democrats can fit, there is no other option of which you can conceive?

 

[kaz]

I have shown you studies that found voters who were kept from voting.

You jsut ignored them

Actually I said:

1) I support checking ID and none of those studies contradicted that

2) I support stopping any fraud by either party.

If you have a proposal to stop Republican fraud based on what you read, what is it exactly?

 

[Truthmatters]

Research and Publications on Voter ID | Brennan Center for Justice



when the laws dont match what the facts on the ground say.


read this list of studies which conclude that these laws serve no real purpose but to disenfranchise voters.


Republicans LOVE to keep people from voting

 

[Conservative]

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
Court Cases

– Ongoing

In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.

The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. Most recently, in late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the Republican National Committee had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. A hearing on that motion is currently scheduled for May 5, 2009.

1990 North Carolina link:
The Democratic National Committee, following expidited discovery ordered by this court, has failed to establish that the Republican National Committee conducted, participated in or assisted ballot security activities in North Carolina as alledged in the Democratic Nationl Committee's motion to reopen... this matter is now closed.

2002 NJ link:
Plantiff's (DNC) motion to reopen the above captioned matter is granted to the end that the court will be available on election day November 5th, 2002 to hear and resolve any charges that the November 1, 1982 consent order as modified by the 1987 settlement and order of dismissal ammending the consent order is being violated. In all other respects, plantiff's motion is denied.

2004 Ohio link:
Complaint brought by one voter, in an effort to prevent 'possible' violation of the afore mentioned consent decree. Complaint was dismissed.

2008 (several states) link:
A DNC complaint with various documents, and no court decision.

2009 (pending motion to vacate consent decree) link:
Denied. Consent decree in force until 2017 unless violated before then.

Your entire position that the Republicans as a whole have for decades engaged in systematic attemps to prevent legal voters from voting is base on those documents? The majority of which disprove your position?

That's your argument?

I may be new here, but I can already see you're not very good at this.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Since it was ignored earlier I will post it one more time

This is what real voter intimidation looks like.
And if you listen closely you can hear the guy that's holding the club actually ask for "ID" lol
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&feature=youtube_gdata_player]YouTube - ‪"Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly‬‏[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

Go get one voter who did not vote because two skinny black guys were there

 

[kaz]

Research and Publications on Voter ID | Brennan Center for Justice



when the laws dont match what the facts on the ground say.


read this list of studies which conclude that these laws serve no real purpose but to disenfranchise voters.


Republicans LOVE to keep people from voting

To be valid a study needs to draw it's conclusion from the data and not before the date is collected. Any eligible voter can get an ID with no more effort then they can vote and no "study" can prove that wrong no matter how badly they want dead people to vote for Democrats.

 

[Truthmatters]

Judge Denies Republicans’ Effort To End Voter Intimidation Consent*Decree | Personal Liberty Digest




Judge Denies Republicans’ Effort To End Voter Intimidation Consent Decree


December 9, 2009 by Personal Liberty News Desk

Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey rejected an attempt by the Republican National Committee (RNC) to dissolve a 27-year-old court order that is intended to prevent the intimidation of minority voters.

Stemming from a lawsuit brought forth by the Democratic National Committee in 1982, a consent decree was agreed upon which forced the RNC to gain court approval to use certain election tactics, including the creation of voter challenge lists, photographing voters at the polls and posting off-duty police at voting locations in minority neighborhoods, according to The New York Times.

read what the judge said about there past activities

 

[kaz]

Go get one voter who did not vote because two skinny black guys were there

Get one eligible voter who didn't vote because they couldn't get an ID

 

[Truthmatters]

Research and Publications on Voter ID | Brennan Center for Justice



when the laws dont match what the facts on the ground say.


read this list of studies which conclude that these laws serve no real purpose but to disenfranchise voters.


Republicans LOVE to keep people from voting

To be valid a study needs to draw it's conclusion from the data and not before the date is collected. Any eligible voter can get an ID with no more effort then they can vote and no "study" can prove that wrong no matter how badly they want dead people to vote for Democrats.

Right out of your ass and NO fact finding instrument to back your claim up.

You didnt read any of the studies did you?

 

[kaz]

Judge Denies Republicans’ Effort To End Voter Intimidation Consent*Decree | Personal Liberty Digest




Judge Denies Republicans’ Effort To End Voter Intimidation Consent Decree


December 9, 2009 by Personal Liberty News Desk

Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey rejected an attempt by the Republican National Committee (RNC) to dissolve a 27-year-old court order that is intended to prevent the intimidation of minority voters.

Stemming from a lawsuit brought forth by the Democratic National Committee in 1982, a consent decree was agreed upon which forced the RNC to gain court approval to use certain election tactics, including the creation of voter challenge lists, photographing voters at the polls and posting off-duty police at voting locations in minority neighborhoods, according to The New York Times.

read what the judge said about there past activities

Again, what relevance is there to anything I argued?

Where does it say that an eligible voter couldn't reasonably get an ID? I don't see that in there. It is where?

 

[Conservative]

Judge Denies Republicans’ Effort To End Voter Intimidation Consent*Decree | Personal Liberty Digest


Judge Denies Republicans’ Effort To End Voter Intimidation Consent Decree


December 9, 2009 by Personal Liberty News Desk

Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey rejected an attempt by the Republican National Committee (RNC) to dissolve a 27-year-old court order that is intended to prevent the intimidation of minority voters.

Stemming from a lawsuit brought forth by the Democratic National Committee in 1982, a consent decree was agreed upon which forced the RNC to gain court approval to use certain election tactics, including the creation of voter challenge lists, photographing voters at the polls and posting off-duty police at voting locations in minority neighborhoods, according to The New York Times.

read what the judge said about there past activities

first, it's 'their' past activities... not 'there'.

second, I've already showed you that most of your argument is based on materials that do not support your position... All stemming from a single case in NJ 27 years ago.

you need new sources.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-bl...w_suppress_voter_turnout/Ansolabehere2009.pdf




Effects of Identification
Requirements on Voting:
Evidence from the Experiences
of Voters on Election Day


It was just the second study on that long list of studies.