Originally Posted by Jim in CT
You attempted to prove that id's are racist, by quoting the judge that wrote the opinion. In other words, according to you, if the judge says it's racist, that means you think it's racist. No, my point was that judge said if he know how the law would be used, he wouldn't have voted the way he did. Well, I can find a judge's opinion that upholds slavery. My point is that just because a judge says something, that doesn't make it so.
"yet the voter fraud is minute"
You are probably correct. But we can reduce it a lot further by requiring proof of identity. So many, many thousands don't get to vote so we can reduce the 31 cases of voter fraud to zero?
In an Aug. 16, 2014, article for the Washington Post, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, currently on leave to work with the Department of Justice overseeing voting, wrote that he has been tracking allegations of voter fraud for years, including any “credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.”
“So far,” he wrote, “I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. … To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.”
so instead of like 50 votes nationwide over Amazing to me that liberals go berserk at the notion that if someone shows up to vote, we might require that they prove their identity. Again, it shows the differences between the two parties. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for some proof of identity in order to vote. If I got to the poll and was told that someone already voted who said they were me, I would be none too happy. Amazing to me that liberals find that controversial.And it is amazing to me that conservatives can go beserk by incorrectly saying that there are massive amounts of voter fraud when infact there isn't.
"I responded to you to show you both parties have kooks and do things neither of us may agree with"
I never claimed that the lunatic fringe of the democratic party, speaks for all democrats. Again, for what the 5th time? What is the title of this thread? Is Obama the lunatic fringe? Is the DNC the lunatic fringe? Is the Congressional Black Caucus the lunatic fringe?
Paul, I voted for Trump. I don't feel responsible for the way he talks about women. But you can feel free to claim that I support the vast majority of his policy decisions.Did I ever do that? Pls. point it out. The only thing I have done is when you apply to all Dems. what some Dem. has done, that you don't like I have done the same to the Rep. (poorly worded sentence). I don't know if I have ever commented on his policies? Certainly about his honesty. Using that logic, if Obama kisses up to Al Sharpton, I feel it's valid to say that Democrats are comfortable cozying up to racist hatemongers who don't pay their taxes.Do Steve Bannon's views represent all Rep?
"you continue to label a whole party with something 1 person or a minority of people in that party do "
That's not how I see it. I feel you continue to deny that liberals believe in the core beliefs of liberalism - abortion, open borders, large federal government, high taxes and spending. I would never claim that one obscure lunatic speaks for all democrats. [COLOR="Red"Again, for what the 6th time? What is the title of this thread?][/COLOR] But you seem intent to deny that there are any common themes that apply, in general, to democrats.
|