Recall Republican Wisconsin Governor Walker status update thread

[cybrsage]

The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of laws, not as to if they are good or bad policy. You would do well to understand the topic under discussion.

Again, evidence of significant in person voter fraud. Put up, or shut up.

No need to show something that is not needed to show. You are wasting your breath saying you want proof of need.

The law is not an undue burden, yet reduces the opportunity for voter fraud. These are facts. Whether there are people taking advantage of the current opportunity is irrelevant to its existance.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nope, guess you're not so smart huh.

Ouch! It must really sting to get so thoroughly thrashed by someone like me who's "not so smart", huh?

(Or should I take your approach and just sob about your personal attack? ROFL!)

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes dear, but as I already corrected you, the Supreme Court agreed it did disenfranchise some voters. It just ruled the impact was small enough that they couldn't justify overruling a state's right to manage its own election process. I assume you will ignore this inconvenient fact and keep parroting the same disinformation, true?

What SCOTUS did not address was whether the Indiana voter photo ID law -- which once again, as I pointed out and you ignored, required issuing free IDs and allowed people to sign an affidavit in lieu of showing ID -- was whether that law materially reduced the incidence of voter fraud. That was not the issue on the table before them, and they didn't address it. All the court ruled was that the state had the right to make the law, not that the law was effective or made sense.

/crickets?

 

[cybrsage]

Yes dear, but as I already corrected you, the Supreme Court agreed it did disenfranchise some voters. It just ruled the impact was small enough that they couldn't justify overruling a state's right to manage its own election process. I assume you will ignore this inconvenient fact and keep parroting the same disinformation, true?

This is what I said. It does not cause an undue burden. You pretending otherwise is silly.

All the court ruled was that the state had the right to make the law, not that the law was effective or made sense.

Yes, which means it is not a violation of the Constitution. Which means all the crying about evil republicans wanting to make it so democrats cannot vote is complete nonsense.

The law removes one way in which fraud can be committed. This is a good thing. Whether or not anyone was actually taking advantage of said method is irrelevant to its existence.

It appears you WANT the ability to commit voter fraud to remain an option. Why is that?

 

[cybrsage]

/crickets?

Chill, it takes time to read what you wrote, convert it to human, then reply to it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ouch! It must really sting to get so thoroughly thrashed by someone like me who's "not so smart", huh?

(Or should I take your approach and just sob about your personal attack? ROFL!)

There's absolutely nothing you can say that will hurt my feelings however, you sure seem to throw the insults around when you're losing. Maybe you put me on ignore like your loser friends McOwned and the crybaby airdata.

 

[fskimospy]

No need to show something that is not needed to show. You are wasting your breath saying you want proof of need.

The law is not an undue burden, yet reduces the opportunity for voter fraud. These are facts. Whether there are people taking advantage of the current opportunity is irrelevant to its existance.

It is not an unconstitutional burden, but it is a burden. This is a fact. You just stated you believe that the nonexistence of a situation that the law is burdening people to prevent has no bearing on whether or not the law should be there.

That has to be one of the most breathtakingly stupid things I've ever read on this board. Congratulations. At least you're admitting that you can't supply any evidence. In case you missed it though, that's the part where you're supposed to shut up.

 

[Ausm]

That money is being spent because your side forced the need for 'free' ids.


I agree, we should have ids, and not have to give them away. Win-Win.

P.S. Are you against the bike path?

Please post info about this which I wasn't aware of and I wasn't aware the Bike path was a hot button issue with the right.

 

[cybrsage]

It is not an unconstitutional burden, but it is a burden. This is a fact. You just stated you believe that the nonexistence of a situation that the law is burdening people to prevent has no bearing on whether or not the law should be there.

So is having to travel to a polling station. So is having to register to vote. Showing ID is not any harder than the items I just mentioned.

That has to be one of the most breathtakingly stupid things I've ever read on this board. Congratulations. At least you're admitting that you can't supply any evidence. In case you missed it though, that's the part where you're supposed to shut up.

Where is your evidence of how Mars formed? What, it is not relevent nor needed? Hmmm....

Yeah...there is no need to even attempt to provide any evidence. Might as well ask me to show the price of tea in China.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Yes, which means it is not a violation of the Constitution.

Yes, sort of.

Which means all the crying about evil republicans wanting to make it so democrats cannot vote is complete nonsense.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. That was outside the scope of what SCOTUS considered.

The law removes one way in which fraud can be committed. This is a good thing.

Really? Shall we extend that "logic" to other areas? Let's outlaw all guns. That will remove one way a crime can be committed. This is a good thing ... according to your "logic".

Let's eliminate all cars. That will remove a major source of traffic fatalities. This is a good thing ... according to your "logic".

Any reasonable adult knows one must evaluate both the good and the bad when analyzing something. Only a blind fool considers only the positives and ignores all the negatives.

Whether or not anyone was actually taking advantage of said method is irrelevant to its existence.

It is absolutely relevant. It has everything to do with whether the law does more bad than good.

It appears you WANT the ability to commit voter fraud to remain an option. Why is that?

Hmm. Boy, that's such a great question. I can't imagine why nobody in this thread has yet mentioned why voter photo ID laws are bad. Think, think, think. What could it possibly be?



Oh yes!



The problem with voter photo ID laws is they disenfranchise many legitimate voters who have difficulty obtaining photo IDs while having no material impact whatsoever on reducing real-world voter fraud.

Did you get it that time? It's as close as I can get to a crayon font.

 

[Bowfinger]

There's absolutely nothing you can say that will hurt my feelings however, you sure seem to throw the insults around when you're losing. Maybe you put me on ignore like your loser friends McOwned and the crybaby airdata.

Oh, so your absurd straw man tripe is WINNING!? :biggrin: OK, Charlie, whatever you say. I'm sure you have a big stack of green Participant ribbons to prove how "smart and capable" you are.

 

[davmat787]

As neither a Democrat or Republican, I find the highly partisan nature of the voter id issue to be highly suspicious. Whenever there is highly partisan debate, there is very high partisan bullshit and the truth lies elsewhere often.

Anyway, I admittedly haven't looked into this issue very deep at all. But I don't understand why it is ok to require id for:

- booze
- driving
- tobacco
- flying
- firearms

And the list goes on, and of course there are plenty of good reasons why id is required for those items. But requiring an id = disenfranchisement and oppression?

Carry on gentlemen, just needed to get that off my chest.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Oh, so your absurd straw man tripe is WINNING!? :biggrin: OK, Charlie, whatever you say. I'm sure you have a big stack of green Participant ribbons to prove how "smart and capable" you are.

Put down the Tiger Blood and step back from the keyboard Charlie.

 

[cybrsage]

Really? Shall we extend that "logic" to other areas? Let's outlaw all guns. That will remove one way a crime can be committed. This is a good thing ... according to your "logic".

You forgot all about the Constitution again.

Let's eliminate all cars. That will remove a major source of traffic fatalities. This is a good thing ... according to your "logic".

You are pretending that requiring ID means eliminating voting. That is a silly thing to pretend.

Any reasonable adult knows one must evaluate both the good and the bad when analyzing something. Only a blind fool considers only the positives and ignores all the negatives.

The positives are that people cannot use the currently available style of election fraud if we require photo ID. The negatives are that people cannot vote twice.

It is absolutely relevant. It has everything to do with whether the law does more bad than good.

Nope.

...things that did not actually answer the question posed...

I will restate it in one sentence. Why do you want to keep voter fraud a viable option?

 

[fskimospy]

So is having to travel to a polling station. So is having to register to vote. Showing ID is not any harder than the items I just mentioned.

First of all, you just made that up. You have no basis for saying that getting a picture ID from the state is less burdensome than going to a polling station or registering. (also, in my own personal experience that's laughably false)

Secondly, you are not required to travel to a polling station. That's what absentee ballots are for.

Third, vote registration serves a number of universally recognized purposes for the effective administration of elections, and no one argues that. Directly related to this point is...well... my entire point, that voter ID serves no identifiable purpose because the action it seeks to prevent doesn't occur.

Where is your evidence of how Mars formed? What, it is not relevent nor needed? Hmmm....

Yeah...there is no need to even attempt to provide any evidence. Might as well ask me to show the price of tea in China.

That's such a non sequitur it doesn't merit a response. Even for you that's pathetic.

 

[Bowfinger]

Put down the Tiger Blood and step back from the keyboard Charlie.

So now you've moved up to "I know you are but what am I?" What are you, seven? Good Lord, at least come up with your own smack instead of being such a whiny lamer.

 

[Ausm]

As neither a Democrat or Republican, I find the highly partisan nature of the voter id issue to be highly suspicious. Whenever there is highly partisan debate, there is very high partisan bullshit and the truth lies elsewhere often.

Anyway, I admittedly haven't looked into this issue very deep at all. But I don't understand why it is ok to require id for:

- booze
- driving
- tobacco
- flying
- firearms

And the list goes on, and of course there are plenty of good reasons why id is required for those items. But requiring an id = disenfranchisement and oppression?

Carry on gentlemen, just needed to get that off my chest.

Posted a link above a Wiki page that clearly lays it out you might be able to understand it if you're lucky.

 

[cybrsage]

First of all, you just made that up. You have no basis for saying that getting a picture ID from the state is less burdensome than going to a polling station or registering. (also, in my own personal experience that's laughably false)

Sure it is.

Secondly, you are not required to travel to a polling station. That's what absentee ballots are for.

You cannot use an absentee ballot if you are in the local area and not detained for some reason.

Third, vote registration serves a number of universally recognized purposes for the effective administration of elections, and no one argues that.

So you agree putting a burden on people is acceptable. That is good.

Directly related to this point is...well... my entire point, that voter ID serves no identifiable purpose because the action it seeks to prevent doesn't occur.

Irrelevant to the fact that the opportunity to perform the action exists and this would close that avenue.

That's such a non sequitur it doesn't merit a response. Even for you that's pathetic.

It is completely valid. You are demanding proof that is not needed. WHy not also demand to know tomorrow's forcast?

 

[Ausm]

So now you've moved up to "I know you are but what am I?" What are you, seven? Good Lord, at least come up with your own smack instead of being such a whiny lamer.

Isn't it amazing how this issue makes Right Trolls swoop down like a buzzard on a dead carcass. 😉

 

[Bowfinger]

You forgot all about the Constitution again.


You are pretending that requiring ID means eliminating voting. That is a silly thing to pretend.


The positives are that people cannot use the currently available style of election fraud if we require photo ID. The negatives are that people cannot vote twice.


Nope.


I will restate it in one sentence. Why do you want to keep voter fraud a viable option?

Still more outright lying from cybrsage. Sorry honey but you're getting really boring. Every point you've raised has been rebutted over and over. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge and address those rebuttals. instead parroting the same noise over and over. I don't think you're actually that stupid, so I'm going to assume you're just trolling. Therefore, here's your /cookie. Why don't you go play with Londo. He seems to be about your age and he obviously needs someone to make him feel special.

 

[Bowfinger]

Isn't it amazing how this issue makes Right Trolls swoop down like a buzzard on a dead carcass. 😉

That's for sure. Wow!

 

[davmat787]

Posted a link above a Wiki page that clearly lays it out you might be able to understand it if you're lucky.

But why do *YOU* feel voter id will lead to disenfranchisement? In WI, is an ID or Social Security caed required to apply for welfare? I just don't understand why we can vote on many of our rights, but then an id is required to then enjoy them. I also don't understand that if voting is held on a single day, but you can get an id almost any other business day of the year, that will lead to disenfranchisement.

I am honestly trying to understand anyone's though process on this issue, regardless of which side they are on.

 

[fskimospy]

Irrelevant to the fact that the opportunity to perform the action exists and this would close that avenue.

No.

It's not irrelevant, it's the basis for almost all US law. You weigh the costs of compliance vs. the benefits of what you get out of it. All objective evidence points to exactly zero benefit from this law as in person voter fraud effectively does not exist, therefore you absorb costs and get nothing for it. This might be civics 102, but even so this is still junior college government stuff. How sad that you don't know it.

It is completely valid. You are demanding proof that is not needed. WHy not also demand to know tomorrow's forcast?

It was an incoherent non sequitur. Stop embarrassing yourself. You seriously just keep repeating the same crazy arguments over and over again. Is this some rope-a-dope strategy where you just argue people into exhaustion? You realize that you don't win just because people give up in frustration with your stupidity, right?

 

[cybrsage]

Still more outright lying from cybrsage. Sorry honey but you're getting really boring. Every point you've raised has been rebutted over and over.

You saying "nuh-uh" is not a rebuttle. You saying "I don't care what the Surpreme Court says about this" is not a successful rebuttle.

You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge and address those rebuttals. instead parroting the same noise over and over. I don't think you're actually that stupid, so I'm going to assume you're just trolling. Therefore, here's your /cookie. Why don't you go play with Londo. He seems to be about your age and he obviously needs someone to make him feel special.

Just because you keep wanting to bring up irrelevant points does not mean I am going to play along and pretend they are suddenly relevant.

You claim undue burden, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. You then changed it to simple burden. There already are burdens placed upon people if they want to vote...and none of them are considered undue burdens.

You call me a troll because I will not let you get away with what you are used to getting away with. You have to up your game past the "nuh-uh" level to succeed now. You still will not answre a basic question:

Why do you want to allow an avenue of voter fraud to remain open?

 

[cybrsage]

No.

It's not irrelevant, it's the basis for almost all US law. You weigh the costs of compliance vs. the benefits of what you get out of it. All objective evidence points to exactly zero benefit from this law as in person voter fraud effectively does not exist, therefore you absorb costs and get nothing for it. This might be civics 102, but even so this is still junior college government stuff. How sad that you don't know it.

Nope. There are many laws where the cost outweighs the benefit, but we have them anyway.

Why do you want to allow an avenue of voter fraud to remain open?

It was an incoherent non sequitur. Stop embarrassing yourself. You seriously just keep repeating the same crazy arguments over and over again. Is this some rope-a-dope strategy where you just argue people into exhaustion? You realize that you don't win just because people give up in frustration with your stupidity, right?

Nope. You bring up irrelevant items and then are mad when called on it. You also need to improve your game, you have been shut down.