• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

As a Republican how do you defend voter suppression?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
These guys should get a medal for being such obvious lying hacks. Cybr and Mono are the best propagandists for the left we have in here. Not even Spidey with his blunt racism and threats of violence really makes conservatism look as out of touch and creepy/slimey/narcissistic.

Well done comrades.

You literally embody why people despise the right wing.


You can do better though, you are are still very transparent and lack trolling style.
 
Jhhnn said:
You're transparently dishonest. You've been challenged repeatedly to offer up the Cybr solution to the "voter suppression" you claim exists in the registration process..
Click to expand...

My views on voter registration are irrelevant to your hypocrisy. Why would my views change the hypocrisy you display? My views would change nothing about your blatant hypocrisy.

Do you think voter registration is wrong and are willing to put the same amount of energy into stopping it as you have done for voter ID?
 
cybrsage said:
My views on voter registration are irrelevant to your hypocrisy. Why would my views change the hypocrisy you display? My views would change nothing about your blatant hypocrisy.

Do you think voter registration is wrong and are willing to put the same amount of energy into stopping it as you have done for voter ID?
Click to expand...

How many are disenfranchised by voter registration?
 
cybrsage said:
Every single person who does not register in time. But you knew that already, didn't you? You just have no problem with voter suppression via voter registration, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Lol, I asked for simple information and you give me more shit from your gut. Persuade me, a person who makes decisions based on facts, that your point of view is correct.

I'll ask again: how many people are disenfranchised by voter registration? I'll take studies, rulings from judges and surveys as evidence.
 
ivwshane said:
Lol, I asked for simple information and you give me more shit from your gut. Persuade me, a person who makes decisions based on facts, that your point of view is correct.

I'll ask again: how many people are disenfranchised by voter registration? I'll take studies, rulings from judges and surveys as evidence.
Click to expand...

How many people who don't register in time get to vote?
 
cybrsage said:
My views on voter registration are irrelevant to your hypocrisy. Why would my views change the hypocrisy you display? My views would change nothing about your blatant hypocrisy.

Do you think voter registration is wrong and are willing to put the same amount of energy into stopping it as you have done for voter ID?
Click to expand...

Asked & answered repeatedly. My views & what I want in that regard simply disenfranchise nobody. Register in advance to enable constructive allocation of voting resources, register when you show up to vote if you haven't. Just meet HAVA requirements in either event.
 
Showing a current photo ID is such a minor requirement and useful for security reasons that even President Obama doesn't complain, he just whips it out and shows it to election personnel. It's no big deal. All you lefties are just blowing it out of proportion.
 
monovillage said:
No, I don't. It's been 4 years since the Supreme Court decision. Should does not mean must, the States should have made them free by now, why haven't they in the last 4 years?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

Lol you say you don't see the point and then ask why the states haven't made ID's free. So obviously based on your previous post, states haven't met their obligation to provide free and easy access to ID's.

What the link has to do with Amy of this I don't know, do I need to post judges that have thrown out voter ID laws?
 
ivwshane said:
Lol you say you don't see the point and then ask why the states haven't made ID's free. So obviously based on your previous post, states haven't met their obligation to provide free and easy access to ID's.

What the link has to do with Amy of this I don't know, do I need to post judges that have thrown out voter ID laws?
Click to expand...

What obligation by the States? The States have no obligation to provide free IDs. It's why I said should doesn't equal must. It's the United States Supreme Court decision that this whole thread and the 8 or 15 other threads in this forum have centered on.

If the fucking leftie Democrats had spent 1/10th of the money that they spent on this faux outrage suppression bullshit they could have paid for IDs for everyone and hired buses to take them to the polls. Instead they use the poor bastards as political pawns and accomplish nothing for their aid.
 
monovillage said:
What obligation by the States? The States have no obligation to provide free IDs. It's why I said should doesn't equal must. It's the United States Supreme Court decision that this whole thread and the 8 or 15 other threads in this forum have centered on.

If the fucking leftie Democrats had spent 1/10th of the money that they spent on this faux outrage suppression bullshit they could have paid for IDs for everyone and hired buses to take them to the polls. Instead they use the poor bastards as political pawns and accomplish nothing for their aid.
Click to expand...

So states can pass these laws but they don't have any responsibility to the people to make sure the people can follow the law?

That sounds brilliant!!



So let me see if I get this straight:
You want voter ID laws to fix a problem that is virtually non existent because you want to make sure voting is protected.
You don't think the states have to provide those ID's for free even though it would legitimately disenfranchise a good chunk of voters.
And you believe that it's the democrats who are at fault for not providing the free ID's despite the fact that these laws were passed in republican held state legislatures.

It makes complete sense. You are a fucking moron and a hack with no moral principles.


Faux outrage? Go fuck yourself you unamerican piece of shit! You've got no argument and that just makes you a sad piece of trash.
 
ivwshane said:
Answering questions with questions, that's usually indicative of someone who wants an honest debate/s
Click to expand...

Or who wants to point out a flaw in reasoning.

You might argue that no one who wants to vote cannot possibly miss the deadline. If thats the case we can dismiss "honest debate" on your part. Otherwise this is a case of legality disenfranchising citizens. They cannot vote.

Is that true or false? Can they vote or not?

BTW, I'm not arguing for or against ids, but am being critical on how this is being played.
 
As a friendly neighbour from north of the border, I've got to say this:

a) your Electoral College system is the most confusing and indirect method of voting I've ever heard of. Look. And Look Honestly, I have never had to re-watch an explanation as many times as that. Also, the explanation of the 22% popular vote is a terrifying concept. Unequal voting weight is an undemocratic system. I don't care which side you're voting for (Californians and Texans are equally poorly off) - that's just stupid.

b) Implementing a system to prevent illegal voters from voting is one thing. Implementing a system that has the side effect of denying eligible voters (or making it more difficult to cast that vote) is simply a bad idea. Would you give up your legitimate vote to ensure that an illegal vote gets stopped? Honestly - imagine walking up to your polling station and being told "You can't vote." Anyone who has a legitimate right to vote and says "yes" to this needs to look up the definition of "democracy".
 
ivwshane said:
So states can pass these laws but they don't have any responsibility to the people to make sure the people can follow the law?

That sounds brilliant!!



So let me see if I get this straight:
You want voter ID laws to fix a problem that is virtually non existent because you want to make sure voting is protected.
You don't think the states have to provide those ID's for free even though it would legitimately disenfranchise a good chunk of voters.
And you believe that it's the democrats who are at fault for not providing the free ID's despite the fact that these laws were passed in republican held state legislatures.

It makes complete sense. You are a fucking moron and a hack with no moral principles.


Faux outrage? Go fuck yourself you unamerican piece of shit! You've got no argument and that just makes you a sad piece of trash.
Click to expand...

1. I don't agree they're virtually non-existent.

2.I don't agree that it does or will disenfranchise voters.

3.I don't agree that States must supply IDs for free.

4.I think Democrats are stupid for not making a path that people can get free IDs.

5. You are an ignorant and biased twerp.

6. Your faux outrage is delicious.
 
ivwshane said:
Lol, I asked for simple information and you give me more shit from your gut. Persuade me, a person who makes decisions based on facts, that your point of view is correct.

I'll ask again: how many people are disenfranchised by voter registration? I'll take studies, rulings from judges and surveys as evidence.
Click to expand...

I answered it, but since you are allergic to truth you cried about it like a little boy who slips off the bicycle seat and hits his nuts on the bar.

Same answer still applies, all of them. No one who is not registered to vote is allowed to vote. 100% of them have their votes suppressed. You support voter suppression via voter registration. You are a hypocrite.
 
Zxian said:
As a friendly neighbour from north of the border, I've got to say this:

a) your Electoral College system is the most confusing and indirect method of voting I've ever heard of. Look. And Look Honestly, I have never had to re-watch an explanation as many times as that. Also, the explanation of the 22% popular vote is a terrifying concept. Unequal voting weight is an undemocratic system. I don't care which side you're voting for (Californians and Texans are equally poorly off) - that's just stupid.

b) Implementing a system to prevent illegal voters from voting is one thing. Implementing a system that has the side effect of denying eligible voters (or making it more difficult to cast that vote) is simply a bad idea. Would you give up your legitimate vote to ensure that an illegal vote gets stopped? Honestly - imagine walking up to your polling station and being told "You can't vote." Anyone who has a legitimate right to vote and says "yes" to this needs to look up the definition of "democracy".
Click to expand...

Due to us being able to directly vote for our leader (as opposed to having the leader chosen for us by the party with the most MPs), we needed to come up with a system that allowed the states with small populations to still matter some in the elections. The Electoral College ensures that no state gets less than 4 EC votes. This mirrors what we did in the Senate, were every state gets 2 Senators regardless of how few people are in the state.

I like our system better than yours. If you hate the MP in the party in your area but want their PM to get in control, you have no choice but to vote for the guy you hate.

Also, there are no true democracies in the world - a democracy becomes very unwieldy after the population grows large. Heck, the only reason it worked in Athens was because so few were allowed to vote - kept the number down to a reasonable level. Your derision of others for not understanding government when you do not understand it yourself makes you look very foolish.
 
cybrsage said:
I answered it, but since you are allergic to truth you cried about it like a little boy who slips off the bicycle seat and hits his nuts on the bar.

Same answer still applies, all of them. No one who is not registered to vote is allowed to vote. 100% of them have their votes suppressed. You support voter suppression via voter registration. You are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

That's not true, and you know it. 8 states have election day registration, a number that I want to encompass all 50 states, so your 100% is bullshit.

It's also remarkable that what you advocate, strict voter ID, disenfranchises people who *are* registered-

Lawyers who challenged the case cited the experience of one would-be Indiana voter, Valerie Williams, who was turned away from the polling place in November 2006 by officials who told her that a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address and an expired driver’s license were no longer sufficient.

“Of course, I threw a fit,” she said in a January interview with The New York Times, recalling how she cast a provisional ballot which was never counted. Ms. Williams, in her early 60’s, is black — and is a Republican.
Click to expand...

from monovillage's link, above...

Oh, wait, you don't actually read links, do you?
 
Jhhnn said:
That's not true, and you know it. 8 states have election day registration, a number that I want to encompass all 50 states, so your 100% is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Do you think voter registration is wrong and are willing to put the same amount of energy into stopping it as you have done for voter ID?

It is obvious the answer to the bolded portion is no, you hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top