2016 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

Literally the best possible defense of what NC did is "they didn't do it to suppress black voters, they did it to suppress Democrats" which, if you are actually going to roll with that, holy s*** you're a hack.

 

This is literally Texas' defense for some of their laws

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-voting-ri...-not-about-race

[brett05]

It's not particularly bold when they were so obvious about it, as the court observed.Read the court ruling in full, if you haven't yet.

I did. Of a completely liberal court. No surprises really.

[brett05]

Try it. Watch what happens. Let us know how it turns out.

Just because certain rules can be broken doesn't mean I want to. If you don't think anyone could just do this either the three polling places I've been a part of are an anomaly or you aren't too observant of polling places.

[brett05]

This is literally Texas' defense for some of their laws

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-voting-ri...-not-about-race

Literally the defense on why Chicago is democratic.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I did. Of a completely liberal court. No surprises really.

 

Were you expecting surprises? It was pretty obvious what the NC legislators were doing.

[StrangeSox]

I did. Of a completely liberal court. No surprises really.

 

You don't seem to have any sort of argument here other than calling anything you don't like liberal. Do you disagree with the bare facts that the court laid out? Why? What evidence do you have to the contrary? Why is it "bold" to call what the NC legislature did racially motivated/targeted?

 

Just because certain rules can be broken doesn't mean I want to. If you don't think anyone could just do this either the three polling places I've been a part of are an anomaly or you aren't too observant of polling places.

 

It can't happen and doesn't. You'd need to be registered at that particular place, you'd need to know their names, you'd need to not have already been there and be recognized by the election judges and poll watchers, and you'd need to match the signature on the voter registration roles.

 

There are other paths to voter fraud that are substantially easier than in-person individual voter fraud. Stuffing ballot boxes, exploiting absentee or mail-in voting, "losing" ballots from certain precincts, tampering with electronic voting machines, etc. Those are all also rare in this country, but they're much more practical avenues of voting fraud than a large-scale in-person fraud that would require a substantial number of people and coordination to be large enough to effect most races.

 

Literally the defense on why Chicago is democratic.

 

Not really? Chicago is democratic because a bunch of democrats live there, not because of voter ID laws or lack thereof.

Edited September 7, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I don't know how anyone could watch something like trump's performance tonight and think "yes, this man should be president of the United States."

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Reinces "you outta smile more honey" tweet about Clinton is pretty cringe worthy as well

[StrangeSox]

Oh and here's Colin Powell telling Clinton how to set up her own private server, just like he did.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/mviser/status/773671095014596608

 

Edit: both of them were wrong to do it to avoid foia stuff, but Powell was actually even more deceptive about it. Weird how he hasn't faced multiple Congressional investigations and an FBI investigation over it, though.

Edited September 8, 2016 by StrangeSox

[brett05]

You don't seem to have any sort of argument here other than calling anything you don't like liberal. Do you disagree with the bare facts that the court laid out? Why? What evidence do you have to the contrary? Why is it "bold" to call what the NC legislature did racially motivated/targeted?

You are interpeting the evidence to fit your narrative. I'm saying you don't have enough. Way to partisan things.

 

It can't happen and doesn't. You'd need to be registered at that particular place,

 

No you don't.

 

you'd need to know their names,

 

Yes you do need that.

 

you'd need to not have already been there and be recognized by the election judges and poll watchers

 

Easy enough to do. The first time thru is a lie and the second time thru if caught you produce an ID to prove who you are. A minimum of two votes right there.

 

and you'd need to match the signature on the voter registration roles.

 

Except I haven't been asked to verify a signature in over 20 years. On top of that, when I voted frmo one cycle to the next my signature was 100% different. You could easily see all 14 letters in my signature one year. The next year you could only make out 1. Not ever questioned either.

 

Not really? Chicago is democratic because a bunch of democrats live there, not because of voter ID laws or lack thereof.

Let me help you out.

https://www.google.com/#q=gerrymandering

 

 

[StrangeSox]

You are interpeting the evidence to fit your narrative. I'm saying you don't have enough. Way to partisan things.

 

I'm relying on a unanimous court panel interpreting things. And really, it's not even that much of an "interpretation" as it is just stating what the NC legislature explicitly did. You're not actually saying much of anything at all, which is sort of the point. You haven't presented an argument beyond "nuh uh!"

 

No you don't.

 

Yes you do need that.

 

Easy enough to do. The first time thru is a lie and the second time thru if caught you produce an ID to prove who you are. A minimum of two votes right there.

 

Except I haven't been asked to verify a signature in over 20 years. On top of that, when I voted frmo one cycle to the next my signature was 100% different. You could easily see all 14 letters in my signature one year. The next year you could only make out 1. Not ever questioned either.

 

Well, like lostfan said, try it and see how far you get. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Second time through you produce an ID? Great, you also get the police called and you get charged with voting fraud for doing it the first time through. And you still need to know who all of these extra people on the voting roles are and what precinct they're registered at.

 

This isn't something that actually happens in reality despite how easy you seem to think it is.

 

Let me help you out.

https://www.google.com/#q=gerrymandering

Illinois is gerrymandered by Democrats, yes. Chicago is Democratic because it's mostly democrats that live there and vote. Those are two separate things. Even if redistricting reform passes in this state and the boundaries are drawn by a nonpartisan commission like Iowa does, Chicago will still be democratic.

[bmags]

Oh and here's Colin Powell telling Clinton how to set up her own private server, just like he did.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/mviser/status/773671095014596608

 

Edit: both of them were wrong to do it to avoid foia stuff, but Powell was actually even more deceptive about it. Weird how he hasn't faced multiple Congressional investigations and an FBI investigation over it, though.

 

It's more helpful for context than anything else.

[brett05]

I'm relying on a unanimous court panel interpreting things. And really, it's not even that much of an "interpretation" as it is just stating what the NC legislature explicitly did. You're not actually saying much of anything at all, which is sort of the point. You haven't presented an argument beyond "nuh uh!"

You presented a leftist court ruling. My argument is that you can't say one way or the other and you and others have basically shown that with the links that you all provided.

 

Well, like lostfan said, try it and see how far you get.

 

Why would I want to try it? It's about the dumbest thing I've read in some time.

 

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Second time through you produce an ID? Great, you also get the police called and you get charged with voting fraud for doing it the first time through.

 

You are the one that are clueless here. The second time thru it goes like this...."Weren't you here earlier?" ..."No I was not." ..."Would you mind producing some ID for me?"...here I can whine about voter ID or to just keep up the voter fraud and prove that I have not voted yet as myself...."We apologize sir, we just want to make sure the voting process is fair." That's how that goes down. And that assumes they catch on the second time thru.

 

And you still need to know who all of these extra people on the voting roles are and what precinct they're registered at.

 

All I need is the name of someone in precinct. So easily gotten. Polling areas aren't that secretive either.

 

This isn't something that actually happens in reality despite how easy you seem to think it is.

 

That may or may not be true.

 

 

Illinois is gerrymandered by Democrats, yes. Chicago is Democratic because it's mostly democrats that live there and vote. Those are two separate things. Even if redistricting reform passes in this state and the boundaries are drawn by a nonpartisan commission like Iowa does, Chicago will still be democratic.

I disagree and we can agree to do just that.

[StrangeSox]

You presented a leftist court ruling. My argument is that you can't say one way or the other and you and others have basically shown that with the links that you all provided.

 

I provided a link to the court ruling. You're claiming it's "leftist" for reasons that are unexplained, but you haven't actually presented any sort of argument or rebuttal beyond "nuh uh!" You've continued to do that same thing here.

 

Why would I want to try it? It's about the dumbest thing I've read in some time.

 

I agree that trying to commit in-person voter fraud is about the dumbest thing ever, which is why it doesn't happen.

 

You are the one that are clueless here. The second time thru it goes like this...."Weren't you here earlier?" ..."No I was not." ..."Would you mind producing some ID for me?"...here I can whine about voter ID or to just keep up the voter fraud and prove that I have not voted yet as myself...."We apologize sir, we just want to make sure the voting process is fair." That's how that goes down. And that assumes they catch on the second time thru.

 

All I need is the name of someone in precinct. So easily gotten. Polling areas aren't that secretive either.

 

Nah, it doesn't go like that because there are partisan poll watchers who would throw a fit (justifiably so) if someone was blatantly trying to double-vote. You're seriously underestimating the complications you'd face for in-person fraud and, more importantly, how difficult it'd be to have any sort of coordinated in-person fraud such that it would actually impact the election.

 

That may or may not be true.

 

No, it's straight-up true. States trying to play the "voter fraud" gambit regularly admit there's no actual evidence of in-person voter fraud in court.

 

Just another reminder as well that the NC law in question was broader than just Voter ID.

 

I disagree and we can agree to do just that.

 

Nah, I cannot just agree to disagree over the reality that there are more Democrats in Chicago than Republicans. That's just basic facts unless you're coming from an alternate reality. 74% of people in Chicago are registered Democrats.

Edited September 8, 2016 by StrangeSox

[CrimsonWeltall]

You presented a leftist court ruling. My argument is that you can't say one way or the other and you and others have basically shown that with the links that you all provided.

 

I don't think you've even once addressed the fact that the legislators compiled race-based statistics on voting practices as they were writing the law, or the fact that the changes made by the law directly related to all the practices used disproportionately by black voters.

 

Sounds like nothing short of putting the N-word throughout the law would convince you.

[StrangeSox]

[StrangeSox]

Behind scenes, NBC execs concede Matt Lauer forum performance was "disaster"

[brett05]

I provided a link to the court ruling. You're claiming it's "leftist" for reasons that are unexplained, but you haven't actually presented any sort of argument or rebuttal beyond "nuh uh!" You've continued to do that same thing here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...65bc_story.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cour...a-idUSKCN1110BC

 

I agree that trying to commit in-person voter fraud is about the dumbest thing ever, which is why it doesn't happen.

 

You misread what I typed. Why would I go and break the law on voting? If you think in-person voter fraud is about the dumbest thing ever you either no little of the world or you're fabricating lies. Not sure any other possible options come to mind on that one.

 

Nah, it doesn't go like that because there are partisan poll watchers who would throw a fit (justifiably so) if someone was blatantly trying to double-vote. You're seriously underestimating the complications you'd face for in-person fraud and, more importantly, how difficult it'd be to have any sort of coordinated in-person fraud such that it would actually impact the election.

 

You are by miles giving way, way, way (how many do you think I should type?) credit on facial recognition on election judges. Heck, I make deliveries on a second job and people don't recognize me at times being the guy from the other day doing the same delivery.

 

No, it's straight-up true. States trying to play the "voter fraud" gambit regularly admit there's no actual evidence of in-person voter fraud in court.

 

Again, does not mean it isn't happening. Voter fraud happens more than we know.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/wiscon...ttes-gore-votes

Now is it just the Liberals that do this? That would be foolish to think that.

 

 

 

Nah, I cannot just agree to disagree over the reality that there are more Democrats in Chicago than Republicans. That's just basic facts unless you're coming from an alternate reality. 74% of people in Chicago are registered Democrats.

It matters not what one registers as. The redistricting that goes on ensures an unfair process. Deny it all you wish.

[bmags]

Lester Holt will be good and honestly Chris Wallace will be fine. Last night was a weird set-up, but in future debates Hillary can challenge and create the check. Honestly, I think media thinks regular folks are way stupider than they are. Nobody watched Trump say that s*** and think "wow that makes sense"

[DrunkBomber]

Meanwhile Jill Stein is in the slammer for vandalizing construction equipment with spray paint lol. I wish I could go 30 years in the future and see what the history books say about this election.

[StrangeSox]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...65bc_story.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cour...a-idUSKCN1110BC

 

I'm not sure what the first link is supposed to do. You still haven't responded to anything at all about the case in question and why it isn't as obviously racially motivated as it appears.

 

 

You misread what I typed. Why would I go and break the law on voting? If you think in-person voter fraud is about the dumbest thing ever you either no little of the world or you're fabricating lies. Not sure any other possible options come to mind on that one.

 

You are by miles giving way, way, way (how many do you think I should type?) credit on facial recognition on election judges. Heck, I make deliveries on a second job and people don't recognize me at times being the guy from the other day doing the same delivery.

 

Again, does not mean it isn't happening. Voter fraud happens more than we know.

 

 

In-person voter fraud is a dumb thing to try for the reasons I've already explained which you've just ignored. There are much more likely avenues for electoral fraud, and to pull off a coordinated effort of in-person voter fraud would be a massive undertaking. If you're going to try to attack something, you pick the easiest and most likely for success avenues, not the hardest and most complex.

 

Voter fraud is detectable through various means, and it's really not a problem within the US. To the extent that it does happen, in-person is the form that's least susceptible to fraud.

 

And you're still ignoring the rest of what the law did.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/wiscon...ttes-gore-votes

Now is it just the Liberals that do this? That would be foolish to think that.

 

That's not vote fraud. That's also an article about an election 16 years ago.

 

It matters not what one registers as. The redistricting that goes on ensures an unfair process. Deny it all you wish.

 

Gerrymandering ensures that they'll be more Democrats elected than Republicans which I said several posts back. Even if given full control of the process, Republicans couldn't gerrymander Chicago enough to get Republican majorities out of the city because they're simply too overwhelmed in numbers. You can't turn 24% of the vote into a majority of elected offices.

Edited September 8, 2016 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Lester Holt will be good and honestly Chris Wallace will be fine. Last night was a weird set-up, but in future debates Hillary can challenge and create the check. Honestly, I think media thinks regular folks are way stupider than they are. Nobody watched Trump say that s*** and think "wow that makes sense"

That happens in Republican primaries, but if he does that in the general election debate format people are going to see it.

[StrangeSox]

Agreed. At the same time, I don't know how anyone could watch Clinton's career (even moderately) and think "yes, this woman should be president of the United States."

 

She's had a long and fairly successful career in public office?

 

 

Neocons gonna neocon.

 

I don't see what neoconservatism has to do with that?

 

 

Matt Lauer should be removed from the debates.

 

If Gary Johnson doesn't get in the debates (not looking good for him at this point), the Presidential debates will have three people.

 

1.) Hillary Clinton - Head beneficiary of the Clinton foundation.

2.) Donald Trump - Multiple time donator of the Clinton foundation.

3.) Matt Lauer - Member of the Clinton foundation.

 

This is the only one he's involved in

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/business...is-wallace.html

Mr. Holt, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” will moderate the first debate on Sept. 26; Ms. Raddatz of ABC and Mr. Cooper of CNN will moderate the town hall debate on Oct. 9; and Mr. Wallace of Fox News will handle the final debate on Oct. 19. All are first-time presidential debate moderators.

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

LOL, never even heard this. What is going on in this country?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/warrant-out-fo...n-north-dakota/

 

Shes not really in the slammer but there is a warrant out from a couple days ago lol.

[StrangeSox]

Jill Stein is a self-aggrandizing idiot who'd rather pump up her own ego with vanity campaigns and stunts rather than actually build a grassroots political movement from the outside or work to influence the liberal-ish mainstream party from within.