Jews and Democrats….Oil and Water

[PoliticalChic]

Remaining Silent in the Face of Hate

He is the most pro-Israel President ever. That speaks for itself. So take your self-righteousness and shove it!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What is it that makes him the "most pro-Israel president ever"?

Can make the willful blind see, so I won’t try


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Easily shown that you really have no evidence to back up your assertion. Thank you.

More easily shown is that you are a lying low-life.


Democrats came into prominence, and substituted corruption for honesty.

Here is testimony:

The real poverty-engine in California is also the engine for delivering votes: illegal aliens.

Palmieri admitted the need.
"Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats And Illegal Immigration

To the surprise of absolutely no one, a leaked document from the Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund shows what most of us have always known, but what Democrats like to pretend isn’t their reality.
Namely, the memo, in great detail, maps out how Democrats are relying on illegal immigration to prop up their political future."
Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats and Illegal Immigration

 

[Redfish]

you have it backwards. Its the dem party that assumes that black voters are too stupid to have a valid ID and too stupid to carry it to the polling place.

No- you have it backwards- which me saying is kind of redundant.

The vast majority of minorities vote Democratic. Just as the majority of Jewish Americans vote Democratic.

You and your fellow travellors regularly tell them that they are all too stupid to know that they should be voting Republican- like PC does in this thread.

Me? I think that every American votes for what he or she perceives to be the party and candidates that best represents his or her interests.

I don't think you are stupid because you vote Conservative- I figure you think that Conservatives will help you the most. Just like most minorities think that Democrats will help them the most.

But democrats DO NOT help minorities,.

You keep saying that. Yet minorities clearly believe that Democrats better represent their interests than Republicans do.

Why do you keep insisting that minorities are so much more stupid than you are?

they may believe that, but its simply not true. .

You keep saying that. Yet minorities clearly believe that Democrats better represent their interests than Republicans do.

Why do you keep insisting that minorities are so much more stupid than you are?

how many times need I answer the same question. you may not like the truth, but it is still the truth. Dems use minorities and then dump on them and treat them like second class humans I.e. slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

"It was wrong, its been corrected in the USA ...."

Absolutely.


And...I like this, too:

"At least 620,000 combatants died during the four-year struggle; recent estimates put the total closer to 750,000, or more than 2 percent of the nation’s population at that time. More soldiers died in prison camps alone than America lost during the entire Vietnam War. Perhaps more to the point, some 350,000 Union soldiers died during the conflict, abolitionists in effect if not always in intent. Adjusted for population, that would amount to almost 5 million service deaths today, amounting to a blood sacrifice more than sufficient to redeem whatever moral or intellectual inconsistencies there are to be found in America’s founding documents.

And if that’s not sufficient? Well, then, nothing will be. But for most Americans—and for much of the rest of the world—it is more than enough. "
Blood Redemption

Still no reason to have to have an ID to vote, you already have to show ID when you register...

then what is wrong with showing the same one at the polling place to prove that you are who you claim to be?

Point of information.....no proof of any kind is required upon registering to vote in most states.

...illegals are encouraged to vote by the Democrats, and they have become bolder and bolder in their efforts.

Tucker Carlson showed
a. illegals do not need proof of citizenship to register to vote in Illinois...
b. Now the Democrats who run Chicago are authorizing pretend proof of citizenship to illegals.


The first 5-10 minutes of the show is enlightening....



At 03:55
"there are only four states where you are required to provide proof of citizenship when you register to vote:
Kansas, Arizona, Alabama and Georgia......and only Kansas and Arizona have fully implemented the law."

"In the other 46 states, you don't need to provide proof of citizenship....all you need do is check a box.""

"....a Democrat electoral strategy..."

Isn't it odd that for most of our history our Democracy and our electoral system worked fine without Americans being forced to show their identity papers when voting.

But now Republicans insist that we all must present our papers in order to vote- because of all the 'voter fraud' and the 5 million 'illegals voting'- none of which they have been able to prove.

What Republicans do know is that the American citizens least likely to have identity papers are minorities- and know that requiring Americans to show their identity cards to vote will result in fewer legal Americans voting- and fewer legal American minorities voting.

"Isn't it odd that for most of our history our Democracy and our electoral system worked fine without Americans being forced to show their identity papers when voting."

Then Democrats came into prominence, and substituted corruption for honesty.

Democrats is the oldest political party in the United States dating back to 1828 or earlier. Republicans of course started in the 1850's.

But when did the Republicans suddenly decide that Americans should have to present their papers when going to vote?

About 1999.

Why did the Republicans suddenly decide that Americans should have to present their papers when going to vote?

To discourage Democratic voters of course- since Democratic voters were more likely to be poor and minorities.

 

[Syriusly]

Remaining Silent in the Face of Hate

He is the most pro-Israel President ever. That speaks for itself. So take your self-righteousness and shove it!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What is it that makes him the "most pro-Israel president ever"?

Can make the willful blind see, so I won’t try


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Easily shown that you really have no evidence to back up your assertion. Thank you.

More easily shown is that you are a lying low-life.

Don't get jealous just because you think someone is copying your modus operandi.

 

[Syriusly]

No- you have it backwards- which me saying is kind of redundant.

The vast majority of minorities vote Democratic. Just as the majority of Jewish Americans vote Democratic.

You and your fellow travellors regularly tell them that they are all too stupid to know that they should be voting Republican- like PC does in this thread.

Me? I think that every American votes for what he or she perceives to be the party and candidates that best represents his or her interests.

I don't think you are stupid because you vote Conservative- I figure you think that Conservatives will help you the most. Just like most minorities think that Democrats will help them the most.

But democrats DO NOT help minorities,.

You keep saying that. Yet minorities clearly believe that Democrats better represent their interests than Republicans do.

Why do you keep insisting that minorities are so much more stupid than you are?

they may believe that, but its simply not true. .

You keep saying that. Yet minorities clearly believe that Democrats better represent their interests than Republicans do.

Why do you keep insisting that minorities are so much more stupid than you are?

how many times need I answer the same question. you may not like the truth, but it is still the truth. Dems use minorities and then dump on them and treat them like second class humans I.e. slaves.

How many times need point out the obvious. You may not like the truth but it is still the truth.

Republicans like yourself think that minorities are stupid....and that you are smarter than they are....which is why you treat minorities with such contempt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Still no reason to have to have an ID to vote, you already have to show ID when you register...

then what is wrong with showing the same one at the polling place to prove that you are who you claim to be?

Point of information.....no proof of any kind is required upon registering to vote in most states.

...illegals are encouraged to vote by the Democrats, and they have become bolder and bolder in their efforts.

Tucker Carlson showed
a. illegals do not need proof of citizenship to register to vote in Illinois...
b. Now the Democrats who run Chicago are authorizing pretend proof of citizenship to illegals.


The first 5-10 minutes of the show is enlightening....



At 03:55
"there are only four states where you are required to provide proof of citizenship when you register to vote:
Kansas, Arizona, Alabama and Georgia......and only Kansas and Arizona have fully implemented the law."

"In the other 46 states, you don't need to provide proof of citizenship....all you need do is check a box.""

"....a Democrat electoral strategy..."

Isn't it odd that for most of our history our Democracy and our electoral system worked fine without Americans being forced to show their identity papers when voting.

But now Republicans insist that we all must present our papers in order to vote- because of all the 'voter fraud' and the 5 million 'illegals voting'- none of which they have been able to prove.

What Republicans do know is that the American citizens least likely to have identity papers are minorities- and know that requiring Americans to show their identity cards to vote will result in fewer legal Americans voting- and fewer legal American minorities voting.

"Isn't it odd that for most of our history our Democracy and our electoral system worked fine without Americans being forced to show their identity papers when voting."

Then Democrats came into prominence, and substituted corruption for honesty.

Democrats is the oldest political party in the United States dating back to 1828 or earlier. Republicans of course started in the 1850's.

But when did the Republicans suddenly decide that Americans should have to present their papers when going to vote?

About 1999.

Why did the Republicans suddenly decide that Americans should have to present their papers when going to vote?

To discourage Democratic voters of course- since Democratic voters were more likely to be poor and minorities.

"Democrats is (sic) the oldest political party in the United States...."

In 1933, the Democrat President and his party aligned himself and themselves with the Bolsheviks of Russia....

.....hence, Democrat political history begins thence.

Their racism, of course, begins far earlier.




Have you ever read a book?

 

[PoliticalChic]

He is the most pro-Israel President ever. That speaks for itself. So take your self-righteousness and shove it!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What is it that makes him the "most pro-Israel president ever"?

Can make the willful blind see, so I won’t try


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Easily shown that you really have no evidence to back up your assertion. Thank you.

More easily shown is that you are a lying low-life.

Don't get jealous just because you think someone is copying your modus operandi.

....and, as usual, a lying low-life Liberal proving the axiom: To know what the Left is doing, simply note what they blame on the other side.

 

[dudmuck]

Point of information.....no proof of any kind is required upon registering to vote in most states.

...illegals are encouraged to vote by the Democrats, and they have become bolder and bolder in their efforts.

Tucker Carlson showed
a. illegals do not need proof of citizenship to register to vote in Illinois...
b. Now the Democrats who run Chicago are authorizing pretend proof of citizenship to illegals.


The first 5-10 minutes of the show is enlightening....



At 03:55
"there are only four states where you are required to provide proof of citizenship when you register to vote:
Kansas, Arizona, Alabama and Georgia......and only Kansas and Arizona have fully implemented the law."

"In the other 46 states, you don't need to provide proof of citizenship....all you need do is check a box.""

"....a Democrat electoral strategy..."

Isn't it odd that for most of our history our Democracy and our electoral system worked fine without Americans being forced to show their identity papers when voting.

But now Republicans insist that we all must present our papers in order to vote- because of all the 'voter fraud' and the 5 million 'illegals voting'- none of which they have been able to prove.

What Republicans do know is that the American citizens least likely to have identity papers are minorities- and know that requiring Americans to show their identity cards to vote will result in fewer legal Americans voting- and fewer legal American minorities voting.

you have to show an ID to get food stamps, to collect welfare, to get on a train or plane, to buy booze or smokes. So please tell us who is discriminated against by having to show that same ID at the polling place. Who?????

Photo ID is not required for food stamps, but it makes it easier. There are many ways to ID a person.
The point though is not so much the photo ID, but also closing DMV offices to make it harder to get ID, and shutting polling places, or reducing hours. Also purging voter rolls.

Add the GOP gerrymandering and it almost seems like there is a pattern to deny Americans their votes.

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

 

[GHook93]

Remaining Silent in the Face of Hate

He is the most pro-Israel President ever. That speaks for itself. So take your self-righteousness and shove it!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What is it that makes him the "most pro-Israel president ever"?

Can make the willful blind see, so I won’t try


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Easily shown that you really have no evidence to back up your assertion. Thank you.

Moving the embassy. Sticking it to Iran. Not placating the Arabs or Palestinians. Shows Bibi respect. Does undermine Israel. Doesn’t hire a handful of antiesemites to his cabinet like Obama did!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't it odd that for most of our history our Democracy and our electoral system worked fine without Americans being forced to show their identity papers when voting.

But now Republicans insist that we all must present our papers in order to vote- because of all the 'voter fraud' and the 5 million 'illegals voting'- none of which they have been able to prove.

What Republicans do know is that the American citizens least likely to have identity papers are minorities- and know that requiring Americans to show their identity cards to vote will result in fewer legal Americans voting- and fewer legal American minorities voting.

you have to show an ID to get food stamps, to collect welfare, to get on a train or plane, to buy booze or smokes. So please tell us who is discriminated against by having to show that same ID at the polling place. Who?????

Photo ID is not required for food stamps, but it makes it easier. There are many ways to ID a person.
The point though is not so much the photo ID, but also closing DMV offices to make it harder to get ID, and shutting polling places, or reducing hours. Also purging voter rolls.

Add the GOP gerrymandering and it almost seems like there is a pattern to deny Americans their votes.

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turnout, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:

http://www.heritage.org/research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

 

[Seawytch]

you have to show an ID to get food stamps, to collect welfare, to get on a train or plane, to buy booze or smokes. So please tell us who is discriminated against by having to show that same ID at the polling place. Who?????

Photo ID is not required for food stamps, but it makes it easier. There are many ways to ID a person.
The point though is not so much the photo ID, but also closing DMV offices to make it harder to get ID, and shutting polling places, or reducing hours. Also purging voter rolls.

Add the GOP gerrymandering and it almost seems like there is a pattern to deny Americans their votes.

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turnout, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:

http://www.heritage.org/research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Non photo. It is the narrow and restrictive forms of ID that are objected to, not identification altogether.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Photo ID is not required for food stamps, but it makes it easier. There are many ways to ID a person.
The point though is not so much the photo ID, but also closing DMV offices to make it harder to get ID, and shutting polling places, or reducing hours. Also purging voter rolls.

Add the GOP gerrymandering and it almost seems like there is a pattern to deny Americans their votes.

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turnout, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:

http://www.heritage.org/research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Non photo. It is the narrow and restrictive forms of ID that are objected to, not identification altogether.

I was HOPING some dunce would ask that, so I could post this:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

You may find information about the Eagleton Institution here:
Eagleton Institute of Politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I love workin' wit ya'.....

 

[irosie91]

Add the GOP gerrymandering and it almost seems like there is a pattern to deny Americans their votes.

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turnout, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:

http://www.heritage.org/research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Non photo. It is the narrow and restrictive forms of ID that are objected to, not identification altogether.

I was HOPING some dunce would ask that, so I could post this:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

You may find information about the Eagleton Institution here:
Eagleton Institute of Politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I love workin' wit ya'.....

the need for photo ID s is prevalent for all kinds of reasons---
------everyone seems to have them now------even me. 60
years ago-----it would have been a problem

 

[PoliticalChic]

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turnout, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:

http://www.heritage.org/research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Non photo. It is the narrow and restrictive forms of ID that are objected to, not identification altogether.

I was HOPING some dunce would ask that, so I could post this:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

You may find information about the Eagleton Institution here:
Eagleton Institute of Politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I love workin' wit ya'.....

the need for photo ID s is prevalent for all kinds of reasons---
------everyone seems to have them now------even me. 60
years ago-----it would have been a problem

I listen to WBLS....107.5 in NYC....Black Liberation Station....and every time they have a dance party they remind all to bring their ID.


But to prevent illegal aliens from voting????
"We don' need no stinkin' IDs"



They're running a promotion for a party featuring Doug E. Fresh....

And this is what the promo states:

"NO CREDENTIALS, NO ENTRY"



Seems that they insist on ID, huh?

 

[Syriusly]

you have to show an ID to get food stamps, to collect welfare, to get on a train or plane, to buy booze or smokes. So please tell us who is discriminated against by having to show that same ID at the polling place. Who?????

Photo ID is not required for food stamps, but it makes it easier. There are many ways to ID a person.
The point though is not so much the photo ID, but also closing DMV offices to make it harder to get ID, and shutting polling places, or reducing hours. Also purging voter rolls.

Add the GOP gerrymandering and it almost seems like there is a pattern to deny Americans their votes.

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turnout, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:

http://www.heritage.org/research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

Wow- hard to believe that Heritage would come to that conclusion:

Heritage Foundation
A research and educational institution whose mission is to build and promote conservative public policies,

Meanwhile- the GOP is succeeding in turning away American voters from their legal right to vote- like this guy

HOUSTON — In his wallet, Anthony Settles carries an expired Texas identification card, his Social Security card and an old student ID from the University of Houston, where he studied math and physics decades ago. What he does not have is the one thing that he needs to vote this presidential election: a current Texas photo ID.


For Settles to get one of those, his name has to match his birth certificate — and it doesn’t. In 1964, when he was 14, his mother married and changed his last name. After Texas passed a new voter-ID law, officials told Settles he had to show them his name-change certificate from 1964 to qualify for a new identification card to vote.


So with the help of several lawyers, Settles tried to find it, searching records in courthouses in the D.C. area, where he grew up. But they could not find it. To obtain a new document changing his name to the one he has used for 51 years, Settles has to go to court, a process that would cost him more than $250 — more than he is willing to pay.

 

[Syriusly]

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turnout, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:

http://www.heritage.org/research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Non photo. It is the narrow and restrictive forms of ID that are objected to, not identification altogether.

I was HOPING some dunce would ask that, so I could post this:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

You may find information about the Eagleton Institution here:
Eagleton Institute of Politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I love workin' wit ya'.....

the need for photo ID s is prevalent for all kinds of reasons---
------everyone seems to have them now------even me. 60
years ago-----it would have been a problem

So what are the reasons for a 'photo ID' now- and not before- to vote?

Since the GOP and Trump still can't find any evidence of widespread voter fraud.

 

[Syriusly]

What is it that makes him the "most pro-Israel president ever"?

Can make the willful blind see, so I won’t try


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Easily shown that you really have no evidence to back up your assertion. Thank you.

More easily shown is that you are a lying low-life.

Don't get jealous just because you think someone is copying your modus operandi.

....and, as usual, a lying low-life.

Don't get jealous just because you think someone is copying your modus operandi of lying to further your political agenda.

Want to tell us again how FDR started the Great Depression?

 

[Syriusly]

then what is wrong with showing the same one at the polling place to prove that you are who you claim to be?

Point of information.....no proof of any kind is required upon registering to vote in most states.

...illegals are encouraged to vote by the Democrats, and they have become bolder and bolder in their efforts.

Tucker Carlson showed
a. illegals do not need proof of citizenship to register to vote in Illinois...
b. Now the Democrats who run Chicago are authorizing pretend proof of citizenship to illegals.


The first 5-10 minutes of the show is enlightening....



At 03:55
"there are only four states where you are required to provide proof of citizenship when you register to vote:
Kansas, Arizona, Alabama and Georgia......and only Kansas and Arizona have fully implemented the law."

"In the other 46 states, you don't need to provide proof of citizenship....all you need do is check a box.""

"....a Democrat electoral strategy..."

Isn't it odd that for most of our history our Democracy and our electoral system worked fine without Americans being forced to show their identity papers when voting.

But now Republicans insist that we all must present our papers in order to vote- because of all the 'voter fraud' and the 5 million 'illegals voting'- none of which they have been able to prove.

What Republicans do know is that the American citizens least likely to have identity papers are minorities- and know that requiring Americans to show their identity cards to vote will result in fewer legal Americans voting- and fewer legal American minorities voting.

"Isn't it odd that for most of our history our Democracy and our electoral system worked fine without Americans being forced to show their identity papers when voting."

Then Democrats came into prominence, and substituted corruption for honesty.

The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States dating back to 1828 or earlier. Republicans of course started in the 1850's.

But when did the Republicans suddenly decide that Americans should have to present their papers when going to vote?

About 1999.

Why did the Republicans suddenly decide that Americans should have to present their papers when going to vote?

To discourage Democratic voters of course- since Democratic voters were more likely to be poor and minorities.

"Democrats is (sic) the oldest political party in the United States...."

Indeed the Democrats are the oldest political party in the United States.

The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States dating back to 1828 or earlier. Republicans of course started in the 1850's.

But when did the Republicans suddenly decide that Americans should have to present their papers when going to vote?

About 1999.

Why did the Republicans suddenly decide that Americans should have to present their papers when going to vote?

To discourage Democratic voters of course- since Democratic voters were more likely to be poor and minorities.

 

[dudmuck]

Add the GOP gerrymandering and it almost seems like there is a pattern to deny Americans their votes.

total bullshit, most gerrymandering occurs in dem districts in big cities. No one wants to deny any legal American the right to vote, but only one vote per person, and only in one precinct in one state.

No legal person is disenfranchised by having to show an ID at the polling place.

In Milwaukee, voter turnout decreased 13 percent after voter ID.
Also, not allowed to vote because of unpaid fines.
And 4.4 million were disenfranchised.

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turnout, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:

http://www.heritage.org/research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Non photo. It is the narrow and restrictive forms of ID that are objected to, not identification altogether.

I was HOPING some dunce would ask that, so I could post this:


“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”

For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

You may find information about the Eagleton Institution here:
Eagleton Institute of Politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I love workin' wit ya'.....

Its a bunch of BS because of these kinds of things:
Montana GOP chair says high voter turnout favors democrats.
North carolina republicans bragged that black voter turnout was down.
Voter turnout down by a fifth in Wisconsin.

 

[bodecea]

Can make the willful blind see, so I won’t try


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Easily shown that you really have no evidence to back up your assertion. Thank you.

More easily shown is that you are a lying low-life.

Don't get jealous just because you think someone is copying your modus operandi.

....and, as usual, a lying low-life.

Don't get jealous just because you think someone is copying your modus operandi of lying to further your political agenda.

Want to tell us again how FDR started the Great Depression?

Really? She made that claim? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!