Do Not Extend Voter Registration in Florida

[ClydeR]

TALLAHASSEE — Florida Gov. Rick Scott, the chairman of the super PAC backing Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, has refused to extend the Tuesday deadline for voter registration as requested by Hillary Clinton’s campaign due to Hurricane Matthew.

“Everybody has had a lot of time to register,” Scott said during a storm update Thursday night in the state’s Emergency Operations Center. “On top of that, we’ve got lots of opportunities to vote: Early voting, absentee voting and Election Day. So, I don’t intend to make any changes.”

More... (http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/10/scott-wont-extend-voter-registration-deadline-as-hurricane-matthew-approaches-106172)

As Gov. Scott explains, there is no need to extend the time to register to vote since Florida has absentee and early voting. That makes perfect sense.

[time4fun]

As Gov. Scott explains, there is no need to extend the time to register to vote since Florida has absentee and early voting. That makes perfect sense.

Oh voter suppression. It just wouldn't be America without you

[drauz]

Oh voter suppression. It just wouldn't be America without you

How is that voter suppression? Maybe procrastination suppression.

[kutter]

The simple fact of the matter is that if someone wants to vote, they will find a way to do it. Adding all theses additional days just makes it easier for groups that round up people and coerce them to the polls. Not surprisingly these groups tend to support more liberal candidates so of course you will scream voter suppression. We managed to get by for half a century without them yet y'all scream every time someone wants to take away a single day. It cost money you know, local, state, and federal to run early election voting places.

[time4fun]

Hey folks, voting is sort of the most important right we have. Limiting time to register in the face of a dangerous hurricane that is displacing millions is deeply offensive to democracy. And the fact that it's coming from a party that has made restricting the right to vote a priority gives the substantial appearance of corruption.

[drauz]

Its so important to people that they wait till the very last minute? They've had literally years to do it.

[time4fun]

Its so important to people that they wait till the very last minute? They've had literally years to do it.

Yes? Are you serious? This is the right to vote- you don't get to restrict it because you think people should have registered a week prior to the deadline.

And legally, a decision that restricts a constitutionally guaranteed right needs a compelling state interest and proof that the chosen plan is the least restrictive plan that could have been taken to serve that compelling state interest.

In absence of an articulation of how this decision meets those criteria, the reasonable perception here is that the decision is based on the fact that the group of people who register this close tends to be heavily democratic and consequently poses a threat to Rick Scott's party as well as the nominee that the PAC he chairs supports.

You may recognize that as the legal definition of corruption.

[Whirlin]

Its so important to people that they wait till the very last minute? They've had literally years to do it.
So people that are just moving to an area, need to change some documentation, or are otherwise lazier or busier should not have the right to vote?

[drauz]

Yes? Are you serious? This is the right to vote- you don't get to restrict it because you think people should have registered a week prior to the deadline.

And legally, a decision that restricts a constitutionally guaranteed right needs a compelling state interest and proof that the chosen plan is the least restrictive plan that could have been taken to serve that compelling state interest.

In absence of an articulation of how this decision meets those criteria, the reasonable perception here is that the decision is based on the fact that the group of people who register this close tends to be heavily democratic and consequently poses a threat to Rick Scott's party as well as the nominee that the PAC he chairs supports.

You may recognize that as the legal definition of corruption.

Look, I don't support actual voter suppression. Voter ID laws and the such, this isn't that. It doesn't "restrict" their right to vote. If it did then ANY deadline would fit your definition or restriction.


Scott’s decision could end up in court, but it’s not clear if a plaintiff could prevail because Florida law doesn’t explicitly grant the governor the power to move voter-registration deadlines.

[drauz]

So people that are just moving to an area, need to change some documentation, or are otherwise lazier or busier should not have the right to vote?

Its a deadline, it would be still happen to someone that moved there if there was a storm or not. To the rest of it, yes. Maybe next election they will register before the last 30 days. Procrastination can bite you in the ass sometimes, this is one of those times.

[Methais]

So people that are just moving to an area, need to change some documentation, or are otherwise lazier or busier should not have the right to vote?

What, all 6 of the people in that situation if even anyone at all?

Don't worry I'm sure dems will make up for this "suppression" with the bus loads of people they cart around to vote multiple times and then brag about it on YouTube after.

[Androidpk]

Oh voter suppression. It just wouldn't be America without you


*Facepalm*
You will literally believe anything that isn't true.

:lol:

[Fallen]

What, all 6 of the people in that situation if even anyone at all?

Don't worry I'm sure dems will make up for this "suppression" with the bus loads of people they cart around to vote multiple times and then brag about it on YouTube after.

I imagine none of these busloads of people were ever prosecuted, or even had charges brought against them despite supposedly admitting to the crime.

[drauz]

I imagine none of these busloads of people were ever prosecuted, or even had charges brought against them despite supposedly admitting to the crime.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6E2Ucv7S8

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/03/21/democrats-convicted-poll-worker-hero/6712981/

5 years jail time, but got it reduced to probation.

[Fallen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6E2Ucv7S8

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/03/21/democrats-convicted-poll-worker-hero/6712981/

5 years jail time, but got it reduced to probation.

Does this woman now count as a bus, or was she the one on these YouTube videos?

[drauz]

Does this woman now count as a bus, or was she the one on these YouTube videos?

I only showed her because she got prosecuted. She did vote for like 5 people, so maybe a van?

Oh and she was a poll worker.

[Fallen]

I only showed her because she got prosecuted. She did vote for like 5 people, so maybe a van?

Was this a random person who was prosecuted for voter fraud, or was it in relation to Methais's comment? In a country of 318 million people, I imagine it is possible to find some instances of voter fraud.

[drauz]

Was this a random person who was prosecuted for voter fraud, or was it in relation to Methais's comment? In a country of 318 million people, I imagine it is possible to find some instances of voter fraud.

No relation, I had just watched that video a week ago so it was fresh in my mind.

[Kembal]

I only showed her because she got prosecuted. She did vote for like 5 people, so maybe a van?

Oh and she was a poll worker.

You realize you just invalidated your entire argument by pointing out she was a poll worker.

Poll workers have special access - that's the risk for election day fraud. Voter ID will not stop that.

Not random person trying to impersonate someone else and voting.

[drauz]

You realize you just invalidated your entire argument by pointing out she was a poll worker.

Poll workers have special access - that's the risk for election day fraud. Voter ID will not stop that.

Not random person trying to impersonate someone else and voting.

Are you reading what you wanted to hear??? Cause that is literally the opposite of what I said. Also how would her being a poll worker have made it easier? She mailed in the fraudulent votes, anyone could have done that. Being a poll worker didn't help her with that.


Look, I don't support actual voter suppression. Voter ID laws and the such, this isn't that. It doesn't "restrict" their right to vote. If it did then ANY deadline would fit your definition or restriction.

[Fallen]

No relation, I had just watched that video a week ago so it was fresh in my mind.

I hear you. My point is it would be like me being able to support evidence for widespread voter disenfranchisement by providing an account of a single individual. I could do it, but it certainly wouldn't prove anything.

[drauz]

I hear you. My point is it would be like me being able to support evidence for widespread voter disenfranchisement by providing an account of a single individual. I could do it, but it certainly wouldn't prove anything.

Again, I don't agree with Voter ID laws. People waiting until the last minute and being told the deadline won't be extended isn't voter disenfranchisement. That was all I was trying to say.

Also that she had the balls to admit it on the news not just facebook or youtube.

[Fallen]

Again, I don't agree with Voter ID laws. People waiting until the last minute and being told the deadline won't be extended isn't voter disenfranchisement. That was all I was trying to say.

Also that she had the balls to admit it on the news not just facebook or youtube.

My comment was only in relation to Methais's comment. Perhaps that's where the confusion arose.

[time4fun]

Again, I don't agree with Voter ID laws. People waiting until the last minute and being told the deadline won't be extended isn't voter disenfranchisement. That was all I was trying to say.

Also that she had the balls to admit it on the news not just facebook or youtube.

So yeah, just to make sure this doesn't get sidetracked into another BS voter fraud thread. Here's (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inquiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/) an article that aggregates several academic papers, inquiry findings, etc. that make it clear that widespread voter fraud is a political myth.

And so we don't get sidetracked on another irrelevant issue- the deadline for registration is Tuesday. People were guaranteed X number of days to get registered to vote. And if a literal act of god shows up- then yes, that would be a good reason to give people a few days to pick up their tattered lives after they spent a week packing and getting provisions to try to outrun a storm that is displacing 2 million people.

And please don't treat the foundation of democracy like it's someone's math homework. It's the single most important right someone has, and it has to be protected at all costs.

And Drauz- though you don't believe in ID laws (good), you can't ignore the fact that these "Voter ID laws" are actually "Voter ID Provisions" in larger voting rights bills. The provisions almost always exist side-by-side with other methods of restricting early voting and registration closer to election day specifically because the populations who get hit the hardest tend to be democratically leaning. So Voter ID provisions and restrictions on registration that target the final weeks and days of election cycle aren't the result of different motivations- they're two aligned pieces in a larger strategy.

Finally, corruption is defined by both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption. Given how aligned this decision is with larger voting restrictions that Scott and other GOP Governors and legislators have been enacting the last decade or so, it's impossible to pretend like this doesn't appear to be a part of the larger strategy.

[drauz]

So yeah, just to make sure this doesn't get sidetracked into another BS voter fraud thread. Here's (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inquiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/) an article that aggregates several academic papers, inquiry findings, etc. that make it clear that widespread voter fraud is a political myth.

And so we don't get sidetracked on another irrelevant issue- the deadline for registration is Tuesday. People were guaranteed X number of days to get registered to vote. And if a literal act of god shows up- then yes, that would be a good reason to give people a few days to pick up their tattered lives after they spent a week packing and getting provisions to try to outrun a storm that is displacing 2 million people.

And please don't treat the foundation of democracy like it's someone's math homework. It's the single most important right someone has, and it has to be protected at all costs.

And Drauz- though you don't believe in ID laws (good), you can't ignore the fact that these "Voter ID laws" are actually "Voter ID Provisions" in larger voting rights bills. The provisions almost always exist side-by-side with other methods of restricting early voting and registration closer to election day specifically because the populations who get hit the hardest tend to be democratically leaning. So Voter ID provisions and restrictions on registration that target the final weeks and days of election cycle aren't the result of different motivations- they're two aligned pieces in a larger strategy.

Finally, corruption is defined by both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption. Given how aligned this decision is with larger voting restrictions that Scott and other GOP Governors and legislators have been enacting the last decade or so, it's impossible to pretend like this doesn't appear to be a part of the larger strategy.

Perhaps you missed the one line they put in the article about how the Governor doesn't have the power to extend the deadline?

I actually don't know anything about other ways voter rights are restricted from registering in the weeks or months prior to the registration deadline. I register years in advance.

[Parkbandit]

Hey folks, voting is sort of the most important right we have. Limiting time to register in the face of a dangerous hurricane that is displacing millions is deeply offensive to democracy. And the fact that it's coming from a party that has made restricting the right to vote a priority gives the substantial appearance of corruption.

Does your stupidity honestly have a limit?

I hope not.

[ClydeR]

Does your stupidity honestly have a limit?

I hope not.

You're in favor of infinite stupidity?

[Androidpk]

Finally, corruption is defined by both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption.

Unless your last name is Clinton then you get a free pass on everything, right?

[time4fun]

Perhaps you missed the one line they put in the article about how the Governor doesn't have the power to extend the deadline?

I actually don't know anything about other ways voter rights are restricted from registering in the weeks or months prior to the registration deadline. I register years in advance.

Yeah Scott DOES have that authority. For one, rules on elections are handled by the Florida State Department (Scott is literally their boss), and Florida Law 101.733 specifically has a provision in it which grants the Florida Governor the right to make changes to the election (including qualifying dates) after an executive order announcing a state of emergency.

8 Days before the deadline 4 years ago in FL, almost 90,000 people registered. And- SHOCK- only about 20% were Republican. 40% were Democrats, and the rest were high proportions of younger voters and people of color. So yeah- there's a strategy here. He's got an opportunity and what he perceives as a viable excuse to exclude tens of thousands of predominantly Clinton voters in a state that has her up by less than 1%. (And, again, let me remind everyone here that Scott Chairs a Trump Super PAC)

[time4fun]

Unless your last name is Clinton then you get a free pass on everything, right?

You are confusing the accusation of corruption with the appearance of corruption. It's a fun PR trick, but it's not the same thing.

Legal definitions of "the appearance of corruption" are based on what a reasonable person would interpret the actual facts to mean. It's not based on whether or not people fell for politically motivated "Inquiries"- particularly given those inquiries have all ended up with the same conclusion: No wrongdoing.

[time4fun]

You're in favor of infinite stupidity?

The historical evidence would suggest yes.

[Androidpk]

You are confusing the accusation of corruption with the appearance of corruption. It's a fun PR trick, but it's not the same thing.

Legal definitions of "the appearance of corruption" are based on what a reasonable person would interpret the actual facts to mean. It's not based on whether or not people fell for politically motivated "Inquiries"- particularly given those inquiries have all ended up with the same conclusion: No wrongdoing.

You're saying the request by the intelligence community to investigate the gross mishandling of highly classified material was politically motivated? Kind of sad how far you are willing to go to defend these crooks.

[time4fun]

You're saying the request by the intelligence community to investigate the gross mishandling of highly classified material was politically motivated? Kind of sad how far you are willing to go to defend these crooks.

You're like a slightly more literate version of Tgo.

[Methais]

Does this woman now count as a bus, or was she the one on these YouTube videos?

It's hard to tell because I can't tell how much she weighs from this clip.

[Tisket]

Hey folks, voting is sort of the most important right we have.

You should reacquaint yourself with the Bill of Rights. In order of importance, voting doesn't even crack the top five.

[Methais]

You're in favor of infinite stupidity?

Popcorn doesn't eat itself you know.


I'm like a slightly more literate version of Backlash.

Fixed.

[Archigeek]

A lot of states allow you to register at the same time you vote. I think that's a pretty clear indicator that deadlines prior to voting are not necessary.

The biggest risk of voter fraud is in absentee voting. By far. It's much easier to mail in a fraudulent ballot than it is to impersonate someone.

[Tisket]

You're like a slightly more literate version of Tgo.

Says the caricature.

[Taernath]

You should reacquaint yourself with the Bill of Rights. In order of importance, voting doesn't even crack the top five.

It's not written in order of importance. I'd put speedy trial/jury of peers above quartering of government troops, for example, and 'right to vote' above all of those.

[Tisket]

It's not written in order of importance. I'd put speedy trial/jury of peers above quartering of government troops, for example, and 'right to vote' above all of those.

I wasn't talking about actual order.

So you'd put freedom from cruel and unusual punishment below voting?

[Tgo01]

Limiting time to register in the face of a dangerous hurricane that is displacing millions is deeply offensive to democracy.

Wait what? Did Scott scale back the deadline to register, or is he just not extending it? You might want to learn how to English.


And the fact that it's coming from a party that has made restricting the right to vote a priority gives the substantial appearance of corruption.

Right, I forgot, voter ID laws are racist. Canadians are the biggest bunch of disgusting racists on this planet. Wait, we don't want to be like Canada now, Democrats?

[Taernath]

I wasn't talking about actual order.

So you'd put freedom from cruel and unusual punishment below voting?

How else do you impose change if you can't vote?

[Tisket]

How else do you impose change if you can't vote?

You are preaching to the choir. I've voted in every election I've been eligible to vote in.

I don't agree it's the most important however.

Besides, if it's the most important right of them all why did it take so fucking long to give it to most of the citizens? Blacks have only been able to vote since 1965.

[Tisket]

Why do we also assume the people who don't vote will vote the way we want them to. Because most of us feel that way. "Get out the vote!" isn't guaranteed to get our candidates elected, lol.

[time4fun]

You are preaching to the choir. I've voted in every election I've been eligible to vote in.

I don't agree it's the most important however.

Besides, if it's the most important right of them all why did it take so fucking long to give it to most of the citizens? Blacks have only been able to vote since 1965.

You literally cited the single best piece of evidence for why the right to vote is the most important right people have. (PLEASE TELL ME YOU WERE BEING SARCASTIC)

And a right isn't a responsibility (sadly). People should vote more, but the mere fact that people CAN vote alone provides enormous preventative protection.

[Taernath]

Besides, if it's the most important right of them all why did it take so fucking long to give it to most of the citizens? Blacks have only been able to vote since 1965.

Because blacks were mostly considered property until the first civil rights acts were passed.

[Methais]

Right, I forgot, voter ID laws are racist. Canadians are the biggest bunch of disgusting racists on this planet. Wait, we don't want to be like Canada now, Democrats?

http://i.imgur.com/fZGzUZq.jpg

[Taernath]

Right, I forgot, voter ID laws are racist. Canadians are the biggest bunch of disgusting racists on this planet. Wait, we don't want to be like Canada now, Democrats?

Voter ID laws don't really do anything about whatever voter fraud we pretend to be concerned about. Even Fox thinks so. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud.html)

And Canadia has a pretty bad track record when it comes to their treatment of indigenous people (just like us!).

[Tgo01]

Voter ID laws don't really do anything about whatever voter fraud we pretend to be concerned about. Even Fox thinks so. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud.html)

And Canadia has a pretty bad track record when it comes to their treatment of indigenous people (just like us!).

Since when does anyone care about how indigenous people are treated? It's all about blacks and Muslims these days.

[time4fun]

So let's compare:

Canada's list of acceptable IDs:

Driver's License
Province ID
health card
Canadian passport
birth certificate
certificate of Canadian citizenship
citizenship card
social insurance number card
Indian status card
band membership card
Métis card
card issued by an Inuit local authority
Canadian Forces identity card
Veterans Affairs health card
old age security card
hospital card
medical clinic card
label on a prescription container
identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility
blood donor card
CNIB card
credit card
debit card
employee card
student identity card
public transportation card
library card
liquor identity card
parolee card
firearms licence
licence or card issued for fishing, trapping or hunting
utility bill (e.g. electricity; water; telecommunications services including telephone, cable or satellite)
bank statement
credit union statement
credit card statement
personal cheque
government statement of benefits
government cheque or cheque stub
pension plan statement
residential lease or sub-lease
mortgage contract or statement
income tax assessment
property tax assessment or evaluation
vehicle ownership
insurance certificate, policy or statement
correspondence issued by a school, college or university
letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
targeted revision form from Elections Canada to residents of long-term care facilities
letter of confirmation of residence from a First Nations band or reserve or an Inuit local authority
letter of confirmation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or statement of benefits from one of the following designated establishments:
student residence
seniors' residence
long-term care facility
shelter
soup kitchen
We accept e-statements and e-invoices. Print them or show them on a mobile device.

You just need at least one thing with your address. Except, no wait, if you can't find something with your address you can get another voter to vouch for you!


Here's what North Carolina's 2013 Law Allowed:
A valid in-state DMV-issued driver's license or non-driver's ID card
a US Military ID card
a veteran's ID card
a US passport

Notice how student IDs aren't there? And out of state Driver's Licenses aren't there? But Military and Veteran IDs are? Hey- do you think there are any noticeable differences between how, say, out of state University students might vote and military/veterans might vote?


And let's just agree to stop calling these "Voter ID Laws". They're not voter ID laws. They're voter suppression laws.

The ID provision was just a tiny part of the NC law. It also:

-Cut early voting by a week
-Eliminated out of precinct voting
-Ended a VERY successful early registration program for 16 and 17 year-olds
-Eliminated same day voting
-Ended straight ticket voting

So enough with pretending like these laws are something they can't.

[time4fun]

Since when does anyone care about how indigenous people are treated? It's all about blacks and Muslims these days.

We call them people now.

It's this whole new thing.

[Methais]

Voter ID laws don't really do anything about whatever voter fraud we pretend to be concerned about. Even Fox thinks so. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud.html)

So what you're saying is that Fox News is Fox News and not LOLFAUXNEWS but only when they say something you agree with?

[Methais]

We call them people now.

It's this whole new thing.

Are you implying that all lives matter?

Racist.

[Taernath]

So what you're saying is that Fox News is Fox News and not LOLFAUXNEWS but only when they say something you agree with?

No, I used that source because if I used any of the dozens of others I saw saying the same thing you'd say it was biased.

Here's one from Salon (http://www.salon.com/2016/08/23/republicans-voter-fraud-false-flag-voter-id-laws-offer-imaginary-solutions-to-imaginary-problems/) that I'm sure you'll read and accept (with bonus Poe's Law in the first sentence).

[Tisket]

The PC fact checkers are on holiday today?

I posted something blatantly false and nobody caught it.

I think your voter registrations should be revoked.

[Androidpk]

The PC fact checkers are on holiday today?

I posted something blatantly false and nobody caught it.

I think your voter registrations should be revoked.

You were only off by about 100 years. Close enough for us!

[Tisket]

You were only off by about 100 years. Close enough for us!

I was in a hurry to walk the dogs!

[Taernath]

The PC fact checkers are on holiday today?

I posted something blatantly false and nobody caught it.

I think your voter registrations should be revoked.

I figured you meant 1865, which is why I said the 'first civil rights acts'.

[Tisket]

You literally cited the single best piece of evidence for why the right to vote is the most important right people have.

And I suppose you'd be delighted to have unregistered voters who lean conservative suddenly go register to vote?

Maybe it's not such a terrible thing that the uninformed adults eligible to vote remain unregistered.

I'd rather a smaller pool of informed voters than droves of voters who don't know the issues.

[Tisket]

I figured you meant 1865, which is why I said the 'first civil rights acts'.

Aww you were giving me the benefit of the doubt.

I heart you.

[Methais]

And I suppose you'd be delighted to have unregistered voters who lean conservative suddenly go register to vote?

Maybe it's not such a terrible thing that the uninformed adults eligible to vote remain unregistered.

I'd rather a smaller pool of informed voters than droves of voters who don't know the issues.

But uninformed retards are who democrats depend on. They wouldn't be able to win elections without the retard vote.

[time4fun]

And I suppose you'd be delighted to have unregistered voters who lean conservative suddenly go register to vote?

Maybe it's not such a terrible thing that the uninformed adults eligible to vote remain unregistered.

I'd rather a smaller pool of informed voters than droves of voters who don't know the issues.

Are you kidding me?

The right to vote is not something you manipulate in order to consolidate political power.

I would take automatic, mandatory voter registration mandatory voting required unless you file an opt out. More people voting is supposed to be the goal of democracy.

You have to be a really ugly person to be okay with voter suppression because it's politically convenient.

[Tgo01]

So let's compare:

Canada's list of acceptable IDs:

Driver's License
Province ID
health card
Canadian passport
birth certificate
certificate of Canadian citizenship
citizenship card
social insurance number card
Indian status card
band membership card
Métis card
card issued by an Inuit local authority
Canadian Forces identity card
Veterans Affairs health card
old age security card
hospital card
medical clinic card
label on a prescription container
identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility
blood donor card
CNIB card
credit card
debit card
employee card
student identity card
public transportation card
library card
liquor identity card
parolee card
firearms licence
licence or card issued for fishing, trapping or hunting
utility bill (e.g. electricity; water; telecommunications services including telephone, cable or satellite)
bank statement
credit union statement
credit card statement
personal cheque
government statement of benefits
government cheque or cheque stub
pension plan statement
residential lease or sub-lease
mortgage contract or statement
income tax assessment
property tax assessment or evaluation
vehicle ownership
insurance certificate, policy or statement
correspondence issued by a school, college or university
letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
targeted revision form from Elections Canada to residents of long-term care facilities
letter of confirmation of residence from a First Nations band or reserve or an Inuit local authority
letter of confirmation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or statement of benefits from one of the following designated establishments:
student residence
seniors' residence
long-term care facility
shelter
soup kitchen
We accept e-statements and e-invoices. Print them or show them on a mobile device.

You just need at least one thing with your address. Except, no wait, if you can't find something with your address you can get another voter to vouch for you!


Here's what North Carolina's 2013 Law Allowed:
A valid in-state DMV-issued driver's license or non-driver's ID card
a US Military ID card
a veteran's ID card
a US passport

So...the more forms of ID they accept...the less racist it is?

This is so mind bogglingly stupid even for you.


And let's just agree to stop calling these "Voter ID Laws". They're not voter ID laws. They're voter suppression laws.

LOL


-Cut early voting by a week

A WHOLE WEEK?!


-Ended a VERY successful early registration program for 16 and 17 year-olds

Why are 16 year olds even registering in the first place? I can kind of see 17 year olds assuming they'll be 18 by voting day, but anything other than that is just stupid anyways.


-Eliminated same day voting

This is my absolute favorite argument from Democrats. Whenever it comes to voter ID laws one of their first points of argument is fraud isn't something we have to worry about to begin with and they cite the fact that we have such strong voter registration in the first place that it cuts down on voter fraud, then they turn around and say "But yeah, they should be able to do both on the same day" Or better yet when they say we should just get rid of voter registration altogether! Have it both ways!


-Ended straight ticket voting

Someone needs to explain to me how straight ticket voting is a good thing in the first place, and how not allowing it is somehow racist like people have told me before.

Not only that but straight ticket voting is only allowed in like 10 states to begin with, most of which are red states.

But RACISM!

[Tgo01]

We call them people now.

It's this whole new thing.

Wait wait wait, a Democrat insisting on referring to people as people, and not separating them by race, religion, or sexual orientation and rating them based on their victim status?

Now I've seen it all.

[Tgo01]

I would take automatic, mandatory voter registration mandatory voting required unless you file an opt out. More people voting is supposed to be the goal of democracy.

You have to be a really ugly person to be okay with voter suppression because it's politically convenient.

Who the hell says more people voting is the "goal" of Democracy?

And I love how Democrats bitch about "voter suppression" but they are all in favor of mandatory voting. It's unbelievable the amount of bullshit they can spew out of both sides of their mouth.

[Wrathbringer]

Who the hell says more people voting is the "goal" of Democracy?

And I love how Democrats bitch about "voter suppression" but they are all in favor of mandatory voting. It's unbelievable the amount of bullshit they can spew out of both sides of their mouth.

Mandatory voting is fascism. Just like mandatory healthcare.

[Tisket]

Are you kidding me?

The right to vote is not something you manipulate in order to consolidate political power.

I would take automatic, mandatory voter registration mandatory voting required unless you file an opt out. More people voting is supposed to be the goal of democracy.

You have to be a really ugly person to be okay with voter suppression because it's politically convenient.

Don't be ridiculous. Not encouraging people to register is not the same as discouraging them. Being content with a smaller voting pool is only voter suppression in your fevered imagination.

Personally I don't see any benefit to putting more power in the hands of the stupid.

I can understand why you'd feel differently though.

[Ashliana]

But uninformed retards are who democrats depend on. They wouldn't be able to win elections without the retard vote.

Because Republicans are all about those well-informed policy positions, right? Like pretending global warming is a hoax and asking the Pentagon and CIA to stop telling them about the impending dangers (https://news.vice.com/article/stop-talking-about-climate-change-house-republicans-tell-the-pentagon-and-cia) it presents or deliberately trying to obstruct the DOD's plans to prepare (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149)?

Or insisting for decades that trickle down economics work and that tax cuts "pay for themselves" not only without evidence, in spite of the evidence?

Or insisting for decades that the best way to lower the teen pregnancy rate is "abstinence only" education not only without evidence, in spite of the evidence?

Or insisting for decades that big banks will "regulate themselves" because self-interest meant no bank would ever endanger their own existence, a position which Alan Greenspan was forced to revise (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html)?

The GOP has a longstanding history of delusional and fantastical thinking -- from Ronald Reagan's nonexistent "Welfare Queens" to George W. Bush's "We'll be welcomed as liberators!," but since Obama was first elected, they've been in scorched-earth, "pretend up is down, left is purple, 2+2=Pi" mode. They created a nomination process that incentivizes and rewards candidates willing to tell the base what they wanted to hear, not what was actually called for--that's how you ended up with Donald Trump as your nominee.


But uninformed retards are who democrats depend on.

Tell me again -- which states are the poorest and which tend to be the richest? Is it Republican states, with their "brilliant" economic policy? Oh. Which states tend to disproportionately rely on the federal government for their economy? Oh.

The only "retard" here is you, Methais. Either retarded or an ideologue -- take your pick.

[Wrathbringer]

Because Republicans are all about those well-informed policy positions, right? Like pretending global warming is a hoax and asking the Pentagon and CIA to stop telling them about the impending dangers (https://news.vice.com/article/stop-talking-about-climate-change-house-republicans-tell-the-pentagon-and-cia) it presents or deliberately trying to obstruct the DOD's plans to prepare (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149)?

Or insisting for decades that trickle down economics work and that tax cuts "pay for themselves" not only without evidence, in spite of the evidence?

Or insisting for decades that the best way to lower the teen pregnancy rate is "abstinence only" education not only without evidence, in spite of the evidence?

Or insisting for decades that big banks will "regulate themselves" because self-interest meant no bank would ever endanger their own existence, a position which Alan Greenspan was forced to revise (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html)?

The GOP has a longstanding history of delusional and fantastical thinking -- from Ronald Reagan's nonexistent "Welfare Queens" to George W. Bush's "We'll be welcomed as liberators!," but since Obama was first elected, they've been in scorched-earth, "pretend up is down, left is purple, 2+2=Pi" mode. They created a nomination process that incentivizes and rewards candidates willing to tell the base what they wanted to hear, not what was actually called for--that's how you ended up with Donald Trump as your nominee.



Tell me again -- which states are the poorest and which tend to be the richest? Is it Republican states, with their "brilliant" economic policy? Oh. Which states tend to disproportionately rely on the federal government for their economy? Oh.

The only "retard" here is you, Methais. Either retarded or an ideologue -- take your pick.

You're retarded.

[Tgo01]

Which states tend to disproportionately rely on the federal government for their economy? Oh.

We need to help the poor! The 1% don't pay enough! The 99% are suffering! They need our help and shouldn't be called free loaders!

Red states are filled with poor people and thus are free loaders!


It's unbelievable the amount of bullshit they can spew out of both sides of their mouth.

[Ashliana]

You're retarded.

Right back at atcha. That fact that this was the only response you were capable of producing says everything about you.


We need to help the poor! The 1% don't pay enough! The 99% are suffering! They need our help and shouldn't be called free loaders!

Red states are filled with poor people and thus are free loaders!

"We need to make 'America great again!'"

Do you mean, "great" as in the period where Americans with the highest income had a far higher maximum tax burden? Oh. And what's that? The prosperity from the era you claim was great was spurred on by massive government expansion and investment in public infrastructure? Oh. Better give the hyper-wealthy some tax breaks.

[Candor]

Why are 16 year olds even registering in the first place? I can kind of see 17 year olds assuming they'll be 18 by voting day, but anything other than that is just stupid anyways.

I am not certain, but I believe in a few states emancipated minors can vote at age 17 in state and local elections.

[Parkbandit]

You're in favor of infinite stupidity?

In some cases; yes. If time4fun suddenly became less stupid, it would be far less entertaining for me.

[Thondalar]

We call them people now.

It's this whole new thing.

Haha. If only equality was actually the goal.

[Parkbandit]

So let's compare:

Canada's list of acceptable IDs:

Driver's License
Province ID
health card
Canadian passport
birth certificate
certificate of Canadian citizenship
citizenship card
social insurance number card
Indian status card
band membership card
Métis card
card issued by an Inuit local authority
Canadian Forces identity card
Veterans Affairs health card
old age security card
hospital card
medical clinic card
label on a prescription container
identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility
blood donor card
CNIB card
credit card
debit card
employee card
student identity card
public transportation card
library card
liquor identity card
parolee card
firearms licence
licence or card issued for fishing, trapping or hunting
utility bill (e.g. electricity; water; telecommunications services including telephone, cable or satellite)
bank statement
credit union statement
credit card statement
personal cheque
government statement of benefits
government cheque or cheque stub
pension plan statement
residential lease or sub-lease
mortgage contract or statement
income tax assessment
property tax assessment or evaluation
vehicle ownership
insurance certificate, policy or statement
correspondence issued by a school, college or university
letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
targeted revision form from Elections Canada to residents of long-term care facilities
letter of confirmation of residence from a First Nations band or reserve or an Inuit local authority
letter of confirmation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or statement of benefits from one of the following designated establishments:
student residence
seniors' residence
long-term care facility
shelter
soup kitchen
We accept e-statements and e-invoices. Print them or show them on a mobile device.

You just need at least one thing with your address. Except, no wait, if you can't find something with your address you can get another voter to vouch for you!


Here's what North Carolina's 2013 Law Allowed:
A valid in-state DMV-issued driver's license or non-driver's ID card
a US Military ID card
a veteran's ID card
a US passport

Notice how student IDs aren't there? And out of state Driver's Licenses aren't there? But Military and Veteran IDs are? Hey- do you think there are any noticeable differences between how, say, out of state University students might vote and military/veterans might vote?


And let's just agree to stop calling these "Voter ID Laws". They're not voter ID laws. They're voter suppression laws.

The ID provision was just a tiny part of the NC law. It also:

-Cut early voting by a week
-Eliminated out of precinct voting
-Ended a VERY successful early registration program for 16 and 17 year-olds
-Eliminated same day voting
-Ended straight ticket voting

So enough with pretending like these laws are something they can't.

https://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tings-that-require-id.jpg

[time4fun]

You know what's not a constitutionally protected right? Everything on that list. There's this whole strict scrutiny thing. You should try learning about it.

You know what totally ignored everything in my post? Your post.

[Tgo01]

"We need to make 'America great again!'"

Do you mean, "great" as in the period where Americans with the highest income had a far higher maximum tax burden? Oh. And what's that? The prosperity from the era you claim was great was spurred on by massive government expansion and investment in public infrastructure? Oh. Better give the hyper-wealthy some tax breaks.

Just gonna gloss right over what a hypocritical ass you are huh? "BUT TRUMP!"

Besides, who says we wanna go back to the 60's? And who says things were "great" back then BECAUSE of high taxes? Maybe things were great back then in spite of high taxes. And I can't help but notice we landed on the moon 6 years after we did away with 91% tax rates. So if we go by your theory, lowering taxes helped us land on the moon. I mean shit, what more proof do you need that lowering taxes actually helps us advance forward as a species?

Oh.

[Tgo01]

You know what's not a constitutionally protected right? Everything on that list.

Buying a gun isn't a constitutionally protected right?

Know how I know you're stupid as fuck?

[time4fun]

Just gonna gloss right over what a hypocritical ass you are huh? "BUT TRUMP!"

Besides, who says we wanna go back to the 60's? And who says things were "great" back then BECAUSE of high taxes? Maybe things were great back then in spite of high taxes. And I can't help but notice we landed on the moon 6 years after we did away with 91% tax rates. So if we go by your theory, lowering taxes helped us land on the moon. I mean shit, what more proof do you need that lowering taxes actually helps us advance forward as a species?

Oh.

It's just a privilege to see your mind at work.

I assume.

[Tgo01]

It's just a privilege to see your mind at work.

I assume.

What? The argument put forth was higher taxes = greater prosperity, right?

Yet we landed on the moon 6 years after we did away with 91% tax rates. How much more prosperous does a species get than landing on the freaking moon for the first time?

I get it, it sucks when someone totally drills holes into your own argument to make you look like a complete moron, but don't shoot the messenger.

[Candor]

What? The argument put forth was higher taxes = greater prosperity, right?

Don't point out how higher taxes sometimes results in less revenue. Liberals can go into fits when presented with such facts.

[Ashliana]

Just gonna gloss right over what a hypocritical ass you are huh? "BUT TRUMP!"

... What?


Besides, who says we wanna go back to the 60's? And who says things were "great" back then BECAUSE of high taxes? Maybe things were great back then in spite of high taxes. And I can't help but notice we landed on the moon 6 years after we did away with 91% tax rates. So if we go by your theory, lowering taxes helped us land on the moon. I mean shit, what more proof do you need that lowering taxes actually helps us advance forward as a species?

Oh.

You brought up the 1960's. The maximum tax bracket was above 60% from the 1930's until 1980. It was above 90% from the 40's until 1960, when it dropped back down to 70%. Either way, those levels are stratospheric compared to today's maximum of 39.6%. Republicans generally don't pick a specific date; they just make wishy-washy, weasel word references to the past. And FYI, Democrats held power in both the House and Senate throughout the entire duration of the Apollo program, and presidency for most of it. Nixon ended it -- and he wanted to end it two missions earlier than it actually did. But by all means, have fun with the historical revisionism the GOP is so well known for.

[Thondalar]

Because Republicans are all about those well-informed policy positions, right? Like pretending global warming is a hoax and asking the Pentagon and CIA to stop telling them about the impending dangers (https://news.vice.com/article/stop-talking-about-climate-change-house-republicans-tell-the-pentagon-and-cia) it presents or deliberately trying to obstruct the DOD's plans to prepare (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149)?

Yay for not being a Republican! I'll give you this one. Although it isn't nearly as simple an issue as the left seems to want it to be, a lot on the right are being exceedingly stupid about it.



Or insisting for decades that trickle down economics work and that tax cuts "pay for themselves" not only without evidence, in spite of the evidence?

According to World Bank statistics, which I think you'd prefer over our own US stats (which are even worse for your position), the US's GDP growth rate was over 3% in 15 out of the 20 years between 1980 and 2000. Since then it has been over 3% only twice, '04 and '05.


Or insisting for decades that the best way to lower the teen pregnancy rate is "abstinence only" education not only without evidence, in spite of the evidence?

Hey look! Something else we agree on.


Or insisting for decades that big banks will "regulate themselves" because self-interest meant no bank would ever endanger their own existence, a position which Alan Greenspan was forced to revise (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html)?

To be fair, they did mostly regulate themselves for decades. What happened in 2008 was a new kind of beast...a sort of economic Super Storm caused by many different things all happening at once. If you'd like to understand it better, there's a great article about it that Greenspan actually wrote himself, as opposed to a New York Times article about it with a few cherry-picked Greenspan quotes.


The GOP has a longstanding history of delusional and fantastical thinking -- from Ronald Reagan's nonexistent "Welfare Queens"

Going completely in either direction is dangerous. Anyone who has run a business (as I do) has seen people schedule interviews just to keep collecting unemployment. Anyone who has worked in a grocery store (as I have) has seen food stamps/EBT abuse. Anyone who works with the homeless (as I do) has seen taxpayer money go to drugs and alcohol. A healthy amount of skepticism is required in any pecuniary endeavor. We do ourselves a great disservice by bogging these issues down in rhetoric.


to George W. Bush's "We'll be welcomed as liberators!,"

For an actually smart guy, he really did say a lot of dumb shit.


but since Obama was first elected, they've been in scorched-earth, "pretend up is down, left is purple, 2+2=Pi" mode.

I dunno...seems to me, as the years go by, the only thing either side is working harder to accomplish is being crazier than the other.



They created a nomination process that incentivizes and rewards candidates willing to tell the base what they wanted to hear, not what was actually called for--that's how you ended up with Donald Trump as your nominee.

They ended up with Trump as their nominee because he's NOT like the rest of the candidates. For better or worse, it's a change at least.


Tell me again -- which states are the poorest and which tend to be the richest? Is it Republican states, with their "brilliant" economic policy? Oh. Which states tend to disproportionately rely on the federal government for their economy? Oh.

This is some of that talking-point half-truth stuff both sides like to use. The South and Middle of our country has always been primarily agricultural in industry, and most industries in the South in general were devastated after the Civil War. Agriculture gets a lot of government subsidies.

The richest States are either centers of Commerce and Finance (New York, for example), extremely rich in natural resources (Colorado, Alaska, North Dakota), or the original Colonial States (or current States in the original colonial areas...Mass, NJ, NH, CT, MD, VA). In the poorest States, you really don't have much of anything economic going on because there's nothing there. Florida ranks 31st, based almost entirely on tourism...the bottom 19 states after Florida have no real industry or history to boost economic returns, other than massive coal mines in a few, and that's not exactly a money maker anymore.




The only "retard" here is you, Methais.

I don't know about that. I think PC is home to more than one.

[Ashliana]

Reasonable response

You're making it harder to shitpost. I'm fairly certain this forum is only for A) circlejerking, B) slinging insults at those with whom you disagree.

[Tgo01]

... What?

Like I said.


You brought up the 1960's.

Well I just assumed you were referring to when we had the highest tax brackets. So you apparently don't even know what you want, right? 91% tax rate was "too high"? So there IS such a thing as "too high" of a tax rate? What?


And FYI, Democrats held power in both the House and Senate throughout the entire duration of the Apollo program, and presidency for most of it. Nixon ended it -- and he wanted to end it two missions earlier than it actually did. But by all means, have fun with the historical revisionism the GOP is so well known for.

What the fuck are you going on about now? Is this the game Democrats play where they bring up irrelevant facts and think being "right" about these irrelevant facts means they are right about the argument at hand?

Who gives a shit who was in control of Congress at the time? Except for the obvious glaring fact; Democrats started the trend of lowering the highest tax bracket. Talk about historical revisionism.

[Wesley]

I'm not saying that extending voter registration is a good idea, and I'm not saying extending voter registration is a bad idea. All I'm saying is that Florida as a state has always shown the utmost integrity with its choices in voting rules, regulation, and execution. I can't think of a single time that Florida has shown any irresponsibility or lack of preparedness for voting. It is above reproach.

P.S. - You're welcome for the round of negreps you're all about to get from PB so he can give me his weekly negrep early.

[Ashliana]

Your logic is so badly flawed, it's hard to know where to start.


Like I said.

You didn't actually establish any hypocrisy. Restating yourself doesn't change reality.



Well I just assumed you were referring to when we had the highest tax brackets. So you apparently don't even know what you want, right? 91% tax rate was "too high"? So there IS such a thing as "too high" of a tax rate? What?

None of this addresses my criticism of what has been a go-to GOP strategy: Making reference to making America "great again," alluding to some previous time that they don't actually specify, and when examined, that era exemplifies things they currently oppose (like much higher taxes on the wealthy and much more equal wealth distribution).


What the fuck are you going on about now? Is this the game Democrats play where they bring up irrelevant facts and think being "right" about these irrelevant facts means they are right about the argument at hand?

Who gives a shit who was in control of Congress at the time? Except for the obvious glaring fact; Democrats started the trend of lowering the highest tax bracket. Talk about historical revisionism.

You are the one who brought up the space program, clearly implying it as a "good thing" of the time period, though you nonsensically linked it to lowering taxes. Guess who was responsible for that public good? (Spoiler Alert: It wasn't the GOP).

[Tgo01]

Which states tend to disproportionately rely on the federal government for their economy? Oh.

This is such a bullshit argument as well. Notice how Democrats think they're being "clever" with this data by looking at what percent of the state's total budget comes from federal money? Or they'll do the stupid shit of "Well this state received 2.50 federal dollars for every 1 federal dollar in taxes they paid!"

Yeah, it's fucking bullshit. Surprise! The most populous states tend to receive the most federal dollars, you know states like California, New York, Texas, two of which I just named happen to be the most blue states on the entire planet.

But since those states are so much larger, and thus have larger budgets, no fucking shit the percent of their budget coming from federal dollars is lower. That's how percentages work!

And the bullshit argument of "Well Mississippi is so poor it gets back 2.50 for every 1 federal dollar it gives!"

Again, no fucking shit. California has 13 times as many people as Mississippi, that's 13 times as many people paying federal taxes and 13 times as many people to help "even out" the money California receives to make it look like Mississippi receives more money.

It's all a bullshit gimmick concocted by Democrats and spread by dumber Democrats when they want to sound smart in an argument, when it reality it just shows your lack of understanding of how numbers and logic works.

[Tgo01]

You didn't actually establish any hypocrisy.

Actually I did. You bemoan when Republicans refer to people on welfare and food stamps as "free loaders" but when people receive these benefits in red states you imply the red states are free loaders. Or do you also call people on welfare and food stamps free loaders? Hey man, just come right out and say it if that's how you feel! You're either an asshole or a hypocrite, I can't wait to find out which one!


None of this addresses my criticism of what has been a go-to GOP strategy: Making reference to making America "great again," alluding to some previous time that they don't actually specify

Why does it have to be an actual time period? Can't it just be a concept? This is by far one the dumbest things I have seen Democrats come up with.

"Republicans want to make America great again! What, like in the 60's when women had no rights? Blacks had no rights? And taxes were sky high? LOL! That's what Republicans said! LOL!"

No. Shut the fuck up. It's a concept. Stop being a little pussy like Obama wants us to be. That would "make America great again" without going back to the 60's. But I have a feeling deep down inside you understand this, but you watch so much damn MSNBC that you willingly go along with their bullshit.


You are the one who brought up the space program, clearly implying it as a "good thing" of the time period, though you nonsensically linked it to lowering taxes. Guess who was responsible for that public good? (Spoiler Alert: It wasn't the GOP).

Yes, I do think the space program was a good thing, who the fuck doesn't? My point had no bearing on who was in power at the time, and was only in reference to your absurd notion that higher taxes = more prosperity, because apparently in the middle of the Apollo space program Congress (DEMOCRATS!) felt taxes were too high so they lowered the top tax bracket and a few years later we landed on the moon. That was all thanks to lower taxes, right? I mean right? Isn't that what you're saying? Things were "good" in the 50's because we had high taxes, yet when we lowered taxes things got better, therefore lower taxes = good, right?

You can't have it both ways. Choose an argument and stick to it.

[Parkbandit]

You know what's not a constitutionally protected right? Everything on that list. There's this whole strict scrutiny thing. You should try learning about it.

PLEASE tell me you are just trolling at this point.

In before you claim you didn't mean the actual US Constitution.. you were speaking in... generalizations.. off the cuff... about Jamaica...


You know what totally ignored everything in my post? Your post.

Didn't ignore anything in your post. It specifically addressed your stupidity.

If you aren't able to identify yourself to vote.. you can't at a MINIMUM do anything on that list.

So you aren't participating in this country anyway.. but hey, you really want to vote though!

Once biometrics become the standard for all identification.. would you have a problem with that being used to verify identity to vote?

[Parkbandit]

I'm not saying that extending voter registration is a good idea, and I'm not saying extending voter registration is a bad idea. All I'm saying is that Florida as a state has always shown the utmost integrity with its choices in voting rules, regulation, and execution. I can't think of a single time that Florida has shown any irresponsibility or lack of preparedness for voting. It is above reproach.

P.S. - You're welcome for the round of negreps you're all about to get from PB so he can give me his weekly negrep early.

For someone who is so sensitive that he hates all the political meanies... that he made his own forums to make sure everyone is nice to each other.. you sure do pop your fool head in here and throw your hypocritical shit around.

What's the matter Wesley, you tired of posting to yourself only to have yourself read your posts? You should be used to being by yourself at this point.

Seriously, you've never added any intelligent thought here.. go back to your pussy ass forums and talk about rainbows and kittens.

[Wesley]

For someone who is so sensitive that he hates all the political meanies... that he made his own forums to make sure everyone is nice to each other.. you sure do pop your fool head in here and throw your hypocritical shit around.

What's the matter Wesley, you tired of posting to yourself only to have yourself read your posts? You should be used to being by yourself at this point.

Seriously, you've never added any intelligent thought here.. go back to your pussy ass forums and talk about rainbows and kittens.

I'm sorry. You're far too mean for me to respond too. I'd cry too hard on my keyboard and short it out.

Edit - Wait, wait!



Seriously, you've never added any intelligent thought here..

That makes two of us! The difference is, I do it purposefully.

http://cdn.myhealthtips.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Easy-Home-Remedies-For-Minor-Burns.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry. You're far too mean for me to respond too. I'd cry too hard on my keyboard and short it out.



Do the Internet a favor and do exactly that. No one would miss you.. except all those throngs of followers on your GS forum.

:clap::clap::clap:

[Wesley]

Do the Internet a favor and do exactly that. No one would miss you.. except all those throngs of followers on your GS forum.

:clap::clap::clap:

GRRRR. I'm so angry at you now! Do you even LIFT, bro? That's how this is supposed to work, right? Am I doing it right? Wait...YOU HOMOPHOBIC SLUR! There. That's closer. I'm doing better now, right? Am I being productive in the eyes of the forum now? ACCEPT ME!

[Ashliana]

This is such a bullshit argument as well. Notice how Democrats think they're being "clever" with this data by looking at what percent of the state's total budget comes from federal money? Or they'll do the stupid shit of "Well this state received 2.50 federal dollars for every 1 federal dollar in taxes they paid!"

Yeah, it's fucking bullshit. Surprise! The most populous states tend to receive the most federal dollars, you know states like California, New York, Texas, two of which I just named happen to be the most blue states on the entire planet.

But since those states are so much larger, and thus have larger budgets, no fucking shit the percent of their budget coming from federal dollars is lower. That's how percentages work!

And the bullshit argument of "Well Mississippi is so poor it gets back 2.50 for every 1 federal dollar it gives!"

Again, no fucking shit. California has 13 times as many people as Mississippi, that's 13 times as many people paying federal taxes and 13 times as many people to help "even out" the money California receives to make it look like Mississippi receives more money.

It's all a bullshit gimmick concocted by Democrats and spread by dumber Democrats when they want to sound smart in an argument, when it reality it just shows your lack of understanding of how numbers and logic works.

Your horseshit apologetics earn 0/10 points.

Your "b-b-b-b-b-but those states have low populations!" doesn't hand-wave the reality (or its meaningfulness) away. Population would only matter if people were exclusively talking about the absolute number of dollars and not the proportion they receive compared with how many they send to Washington. Delaware is ranked 45/50 for population, and is simultaneously the least dependent on the federal government. Mississippi has 350% of the population that Delaware has (32/50 overall), but is by far the most reliant on the federal government. Connecticut is 29/50 for population, the second least dependent. California is one of the least dependent states on the federal government (46/50), as is New York (41/50).

Population might be able to explain some, but not all, of the proportion. Texas' population is significantly higher than New York's (27.5 mil vs. 20mil) but Texas is more dependent on the federal government than New York (TX's 29 vs. NY's 41).

How convenient that it's a "bullshit gimmick" because it reflects poorly upon conservative ideology.


Actually I did. You bemoan when Republicans refer to people on welfare and food stamps as "free loaders" but when people receive these benefits in red states you imply the red states are free loaders. Or do you also call people on welfare and food stamps free loaders? Hey man, just come right out and say it if that's how you feel! You're either an asshole or a hypocrite, I can't wait to find out which one!

"Actually," you didn't. My criticism is reserved for the lawmakers of red states that simultaneously criticize the federal government while eagerly benefiting from federal programs, not the citizenry who benefit from them. There's a reason the GOP, when it's in power, has never slashed federal spending like they always claim they want to do -- they'd be committing political suicide. You're an idiot.


Why does it have to be an actual time period? Can't it just be a concept? This is by far one the dumbest things I have seen Democrats come up with."Republicans want to make America great again! What, like in the 60's when women had no rights? Blacks had no rights? And taxes were sky high? LOL! That's what Republicans said! LOL!"

Translation: "How dare you point out that "making America great again" doesn't actually make sense." FYI, yes, that's one of the reasons people accuse Trump (and other Republicans who make the same arguments) of being racist, anti-women, anti-gay, etc. When you and your party's stances are: "We're going to nominate Supreme Court justices who will make abortion illegal, make same-sex marriage illegal, STOP COMPLAINING about being brutalized, black people" followed by wishy-washy, weasel word statements like "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN," that's what remains inescapable.


but you watch so much damn MSNBC

This is how I know you're old. Sorry, buddy. I don't get my news off TV, like most people under 70.


Yes, I do think the space program was a good thing, who the fuck doesn't? My point had no bearing on who was in power at the time, and was only in reference to your absurd notion that higher taxes = more prosperity, because apparently in the middle of the Apollo space program Congress (DEMOCRATS!) felt taxes were too high so they lowered the top tax bracket and a few years later we landed on the moon. That was all thanks to lower taxes, right? I mean right? Isn't that what you're saying? Things were "good" in the 50's because we had high taxes, yet when we lowered taxes things got better, therefore lower taxes = good, right?


Oh, goodie. You're back to historical revisionism. The space program wasn't uncontroversial when it was ongoing-- politics, in general, weren't as contentious then as they are now, but you had the same type of conservatives claiming we didn't have the money, that we shouldn't focus on space until we "fix things on Earth," and so on. And they're the ones who ended it.

The ones who want it both ways are you and the GOP: "That era was just amazing! Fuck, no, we shouldn't have the tax levels that actually paid for it. But, uhh, yeah, the other stuff (being inequality for many) was just fantastic!"

[Tgo01]

Population would only matter if people were exclusively talking about the absolute number of dollars and not the proportion they receive compared with how many they send to Washington.

That's my point.

Democrats are purposefully setting up a false narrative to make things seem worse for red states. You just did this in the post I replied to of yours by saying red states like Mississippi have a higher percentage of their budget coming from federal dollars. Again, that's because Mississippi's budget is far smaller than a state like California.


Population might be able to explain some, but not all, of the proportion.

It explains most of it.

Here is Mother Jones' figures (you trust Mother Jones, right? They are the California of "news" sources.)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

New Mexico: $2.63 (blue, 36th population)
West Virginia: $2.57 (red, 38th)
Mississippi: $2.47 (red, 32nd)
District of Colombia: $2.41 (blue, 51st)
Hawaii: $2.38 (blue, 40th)
Alabama: $2.03 (red, 24th)
Alaska: $1.93 (red, 48th)
Montana: $1.92 (red, 44th)
South Carolina: $1.92 (red, 23rd)
Maine: $1.78 (blue, 42nd)

Notice how other than the outlier of South Carolina the top 10 "most dependent" states are very small states/districts? And look! They aren't all red! But by all means, let's not let pesky things like facts get in the way.


Actually," you didn't. My criticism is reserved for the lawmakers of red states that simultaneously criticize the federal government while eagerly benefiting from federal programs, not the citizenry who benefit from them.

So poor people are deadbeats? Am I understanding you correctly? I mean I see you trying to weasel your way out of this by saying you're just attacking the Republican lawmakers, but I mean no, I can see right through your bullshit. Just call them deadbeats man, it's what you're really saying without saying it.


Translation: "How dare you point out that "making America great again" doesn't actually make sense."

I was actually going to give all of your "points" a read and a rebuttal but honestly after reading this sentence my brain literally held a gun up to my head and said "Read one more sentence and I pull the trigger" so I won't be able to finish your well reasoned and well thought out post.

But yes, exactly, me giving you a perfectly legitimate use of the phrase "Make America Great Again" without literally meaning going back in time to the 1950's, is me saying "It doesn't make sense!"

Pull your head out of your asshole for 2 seconds. Trump himself has even implied what he means by this. He keeps saying Mexico is "beating us at the border", hence his want for a border wall and different trade deals with Mexico. That's an example of "Making America Great Again" without literally wanting to go back to 1950.

Same thing with his arguments of China and Japan; he wants to renegotiate trade deals because he thinks we're getting shafted. He feels Obama has made us weaker as a country. He believes the way the left is demonizing our police and military weakens our country as well.

Now you are more than free to use your brain, facts, logic, and reasoning to come up with arguments for why you disagree with Trump on any of these issues.

But apparently all you know how to do is listen to left wing pundits and parrot back "Make America Great Again means Make America White Again and take us back to the 1950's!"

Here's a cookie Ashliana, in case your handlers haven't fed you yet for repeating their shit.

[drauz]

Yeah Scott DOES have that authority. For one, rules on elections are handled by the Florida State Department (Scott is literally their boss), and Florida Law 101.733 specifically has a provision in it which grants the Florida Governor the right to make changes to the election (including qualifying dates) after an executive order announcing a state of emergency.

8 Days before the deadline 4 years ago in FL, almost 90,000 people registered. And- SHOCK- only about 20% were Republican. 40% were Democrats, and the rest were high proportions of younger voters and people of color. So yeah- there's a strategy here. He's got an opportunity and what he perceives as a viable excuse to exclude tens of thousands of predominantly Clinton voters in a state that has her up by less than 1%. (And, again, let me remind everyone here that Scott Chairs a Trump Super PAC)

That statute doesn't mention qualifying dates only postponing the actual election.

[Ashliana]

That's my point.

Democrats are purposefully setting up a false narrative to make things seem worse for red states. You just did this in the post I replied to of yours by saying red states like Mississippi have a higher percentage of their budget coming from federal dollars. Again, that's because Mississippi's budget is far smaller than a state like California.

It's not a "false narrative." It's just not the entire picture, and again, there are states with large populations that are more dependent on the federal government than states with smaller populations (Texas vs. New York).


So poor people are deadbeats? Am I understanding you correctly? I mean I see you trying to weasel your way out of this by saying you're just attacking the Republican lawmakers, but I mean no, I can see right through your bullshit. Just call them deadbeats man, it's what you're really saying without saying it.

All the backflips in the world don't get you out of the reality that conservative lawmakers have spent a generation demonizing the federal government while doing their best to steer federal dollars to their state, and their state economies are disproportionately reliant on them. Calling out GOP lawmakers' hypocrisy doesn't equate to "PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN MISSISSIPPI ARE FREE LOADERS," no matter how convenient that would be for you.


I was actually going to give all of your "points" a read and a rebuttal but honestly after reading this sentence my brain literally held a gun up to my head and said "Read one more sentence and I pull the trigger" so I won't be able to finish your well reasoned and well thought out post.

But yes, exactly, me giving you a perfectly legitimate use of the phrase "Make America Great Again" without literally meaning going back in time to the 1950's, is me saying "It doesn't make sense!"

Pull your head out of your asshole for 2 seconds. Trump himself has even implied what he means by this. He keeps saying Mexico is "beating us at the border", hence his want for a border wall and different trade deals with Mexico. That's an example of "Making America Great Again" without literally wanting to go back to 1950.

Same thing with his arguments of China and Japan; he wants to renegotiate trade deals because he thinks we're getting shafted. He feels Obama has made us weaker as a country. He believes the way the left is demonizing our police and military weakens our country as well.

Now you are more than free to use your brain, facts, logic, and reasoning to come up with arguments for why you disagree with Trump on any of these issues.

But apparently all you know how to do is listen to left wing pundits and parrot back "Make America Great Again means Make America White Again and take us back to the 1950's!"

Here's a cookie Ashliana, in case your handlers haven't fed you yet for repeating their shit.

Trump has talked about a lot of things. And FYI, I didn't say "only Trump," I went out of my way to say: "When you and your party's stances are ..."

Fact: Trump has stated (http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/31/ted-cruz-attacks-donald-trump-financial-record-trump-responds/) he will nominate Supreme Court justices that will overturn marriage equality.
Fact: Opposition to same-sex marriage is in the GOP 2016 platform (http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-marriage-abortion-guns-wall-street/).
Fact: Trump has stated (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/11/trump-scotus-nominee-overturn-roe-v-wade/84223512/) he will nominate Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade. Mike Pence agrees (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html).
Fact: Opposition to abortion rights are in the GOP 2016 platform (http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-marriage-abortion-guns-wall-street/).

Fact: Trump has talked about "Making America Great Again" -- implying that things are worse, now, and should go back to the way things were before. Y'know, when same sex marriage was illegal and abortions were illegal?

OH, NO! WHAT A STRETCH! Those are just LIE-BRUHL TALKING POINTS, taking your candidate and their platform at their word.

You are a fucking moron, Tgo.

[Tgo01]

Fact: Trump has talked about "Making America Great Again" -- implying that things are worse, now, and should go back to the way things were before. Y'know, when same sex marriage was illegal and abortions were illegal?

It's like you just can't help yourself. Jesus fucking Christ. I literally just gave you examples of how one could say "Let's make America great again!" without saying "Let's go back to the 60's!" This is an honest to God question, do you have severe mental disabilities?

Joe went to prison for armed robbery. Joe got out of prison, went to college, and became a civil engineer and stayed out of trouble. Joe then got into crack, it ruined his life and he lost his job. Bob wants to help his friend Joe "become great again."

At this point Ashiliana points at Bob, laughs, and says "You want to make Joe become an armed robber again? LOL!!!!"

[Ashliana]

Perhaps you don't see the totality of either Trump or the GOP's goals. You being blind doesn't mean everybody's blind. The GOP has a platform, and Trump's parroted that platform -- and that platform involves rolling back the gains in equality for women and gays. Your distaste for that fact being pointed out reflects only on you.

[Tgo01]

that platform involves rolling back the gains in equality for women and gays.

Sure I'll bite. Source?

[Ashliana]

I already linked the 2016 GOP platform, and your candidate & VP's statements! How obtuse can you be??

[Tgo01]

I already linked the 2016 GOP platform, and your candidate & VP's statements! How obtuse can you be??

Oh I see, you're taking the approach of being as vague as possible. Your answer is basically "Google it!"


Fact: Trump has stated he will nominate Supreme Court justices that will overturn marriage equality.
Fact: Opposition to same-sex marriage is in the GOP 2016 platform.

Yes, Republicans tend to hate gay marriage.

Trump didn't say he wold nominate justices that would overturn "marriage equality", he said he felt gay marriage should be a state issue and he would "strongly consider" appointing judges that would overturn marriage equality.

The Republican platform also "condemned" the decision because they felt it should be up to Congress to define marriage in this country.

I was mostly curious about your assertion about Trump and Republicans wanting to "roll back" equality for women and since you didn't provide any further context I see now that you are laughably referring to abortion.

Even if I tried I couldn't manage to even pretend to be this stupid, yet it apparently comes naturally to you.

[Ashliana]

Oh I see, you're taking the approach of being as vague as possible. Your answer is basically "Google it!"

My "approach" wasn't "Google it." It was literally linking you to their statements, you fucking moron.


Trump didn't say he wold nominate justices that would overturn "marriage equality", he said he felt gay marriage should be a state issue and he would "strongly consider" appointing judges that would overturn marriage equality.

Quibbling doesn't even begin to describe what you're doing.



I was mostly curious about your assertion about Trump and Republicans wanting to "roll back" equality for women and since you didn't provide any further context I see now that you are laughably referring to abortion.

Bodily autonomy is kind of important to women.Similarly, "stupid" doesn't even begin describe you.

[Tgo01]

Bodily autonomy is kind of important to women.

And the life of unborn babies (fetuses, viruses, leeches, however you wish to describe them to make yourself feel better about the situation) is important to people.

[Latrinsorm]

According to World Bank statistics, which I think you'd prefer over our own US stats (which are even worse for your position), the US's GDP growth rate was over 3% in 15 out of the 20 years between 1980 and 2000. Since then it has been over 3% only twice, '04 and '05.This stood out to me: surely we agree that President Bush cut taxes in 2001?
It explains most of it.This is not true, as this graph of received/taxes vs. population shows:

http://imgur.com/xChsJYO.png

When we consider all the data, the fit is very poor.

[Tgo01]

This stood out to me: surely we agree that President Bush cut taxes in 2001?This is not true, as this graph of received/taxes vs. population shows:

http://imgur.com/xChsJYO.png

When we consider all the data, the fit is very poor.

So there is a very noticeable trend where the larger states received less money then they paid in federal taxes, and looking at the populations with less than 5 million almost all of them received more federal taxes dollars then they paid, right? Sure looks like a pattern to me. Like I said it doesn't explain everything, but it explains most of it, and your graph proved it! Thanks!

Now do a graph looking at a state's total budget and what percent of the state's budget comes from federal funding.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't doubt it looks like a pattern to you. The point of the graph is to show to people who are interested in the truth what it is.

[Tgo01]

I don't doubt it looks like a pattern to you. The point of the graph is to show to people who are interested in the truth what it is.

Most of the smaller states receive more money than they paid in, how does your chart not show this?

[time4fun]

Most of the smaller states receive more money than they paid in, how does your chart not show this?

You do realize the point of taxes is so redistribute money to where it's needed, right?

[Tgo01]

You do realize the point of taxes is so redistribute money to where it's needed, right?

Can't tell if you think you're being clever or if you're trying to agree with me.

[Parkbandit]

Can't tell if you think you're being clever or if you're trying to agree with me.

Always assume that she's not clever.. it happens so rarely.

[Thondalar]

And the life of unborn babies (fetuses, viruses, leeches, however you wish to describe them to make yourself feel better about the situation) is important to people.

But if they're killed before they're born they're not actually living, so they can't be killed!

[time4fun]

But if they're killed before they're born they're not actually living, so they can't be killed!

Before they have consciousness. Then correct.

[time4fun]

Always assume that she's not clever.. it happens so rarely.

Oh oh- do the one where I'm stupid for saying Trump can't win, and then we can have PK do the one where I'm stupid for saying Clinton didn't violate any laws and wouldn't be indicted.

I do so love the classics.

[Tgo01]

Oh oh- do the one where I'm stupid for saying Trump can't win, and then we can have PK do the one where I'm stupid for saying Clinton didn't violate any laws and wouldn't be indicted.

I do so love the classics.

Still sticking to the story that as long as one is not indicted then they didn't break any laws. Funny how this line of reasoning from yourself doesn't apply when discussing a Republican.

Here's some kool-aid, you looked a little thirsty.

[Latrinsorm]

Most of the smaller states receive more money than they paid in, how does your chart not show this?Because the R^2 value is very small. If it was as you claimed and "[state size] explains most of [the proportion they receive compared with how many they send to Washington]", the R^2 value would be high. That's what R^2 means, how much of the latter is explained by the former.

Obviously you've changed your argument now to the proportion of smaller states that receive more money than they pay. Like I said, the point of the graph was to show people interested in the truth what it is. The point of the graph is not to play another round of Terry's Goalpost Moveapalooza.

[Tgo01]

Because the R^2 value is very small. If it was as you claimed and "[state size] explains most of [the proportion they receive compared with how many they send to Washington]", the R^2 value would be high. That's what R^2 means, how much of the latter is explained by the former.

Obviously you've changed your argument now to the proportion of smaller states that receive more money than they pay. Like I said, the point of the graph was to show people interested in the truth what it is. The point of the graph is not to play another round of Terry's Goalpost Moveapalooza.

When did I state that it was a linear progression, as in the smallest state received the most money compared to how much they paid in, the next smallest state received the next smallest amount of money, and etc?

Cause I don't recall saying this at all.

In fact in the post of mine that you quote (where I said it explains most of it) I said this:


New Mexico: $2.63 (blue, 36th population)
West Virginia: $2.57 (red, 38th)
Mississippi: $2.47 (red, 32nd)
District of Colombia: $2.41 (blue, 51st)
Hawaii: $2.38 (blue, 40th)
Alabama: $2.03 (red, 24th)
Alaska: $1.93 (red, 48th)
Montana: $1.92 (red, 44th)
South Carolina: $1.92 (red, 23rd)
Maine: $1.78 (blue, 42nd)

Notice how other than the outlier of South Carolina the top 10 "most dependent" states are very small states/districts? And look! They aren't all red! But by all means, let's not let pesky things like facts get in the way.

Right there I already show it's not a linear progression based on population, but state that it explains "most of it."

But yet your chart shows that most smaller states receives more money than they pay, and as the states get larger in population they tend to receive less money than they pay in compared to smaller states.

So again, thanks for backing me up! Appreciate it.

[Thondalar]

Because the R^2 value is very small. If it was as you claimed and "[state size] explains most of [the proportion they receive compared with how many they send to Washington]", the R^2 value would be high. That's what R^2 means, how much of the latter is explained by the former.

Obviously you've changed your argument now to the proportion of smaller states that receive more money than they pay. Like I said, the point of the graph was to show people interested in the truth what it is. The point of the graph is not to play another round of Terry's Goalpost Moveapalooza.

Er...the smaller states, or rather, the smallest States, are all among the top 20 wealthiest....I would proffer that this is due to their being "old money" States, and being relatively low population....a couple billionaires in a State of 30 million wouldn't sway the average much, but a couple billionaires in a State of 2 million most certainly would.

The bottom 20 of relative poor (to the national average) States do indeed receive the majority of government assistance...this is a combination of agriculture subsidy and generally poor economic conditions from having a mostly agricultural industry, and therefore a naturally poor ratio of taxes paid to tax receipts.

None of this is difficult.

[Thondalar]

The smallest States are all in the top 20 wealthiest, and pay out ridiculously more than they take in. I invite any data showing otherwise.

[Latrinsorm]

When did I state that it was a linear progression ... but yet your chart shows that most smaller states receives more money than they pay, and as the states get larger in population they tend to receive less money than they pay in compared to smaller states.lol
Er...the smaller states, or rather, the smallest States, are all among the top 20 wealthiest....I would proffer that this is due to their being "old money" States, and being relatively low population....a couple billionaires in a State of 30 million wouldn't sway the average much, but a couple billionaires in a State of 2 million most certainly would. The bottom 20 of relative poor (to the national average) States do indeed receive the majority of government assistance...this is a combination of agriculture subsidy and generally poor economic conditions from having a mostly agricultural industry, and therefore a naturally poor ratio of taxes paid to tax receipts. None of this is difficult.I recognize that you're arguing for the Dem side of this debate, but for the record a state of two million people with $50,000 average income would change to $51,000 average income with a couple people making $1,000,000,000 per year instead of $50,000. Certainly this is more than would happen in a state of thirty million, but 2% is not "much".
The smallest States are all in the top 20 wealthiest, and pay out ridiculously more than they take in. I invite any data showing otherwise.Here (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) are the 2014 populations, and their median incomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income). You only have to go to the fifth smallest state (South Dakota) to find a state not in the top 20 wealthiest, and you only have to go the first smallest state (Wyoming) to find one that pays out less (http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005) than it takes in (as of 2005).

[Tgo01]

lol

Facts are pretty funny.

[Parkbandit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGxu-zNJefs

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

[Parkbandit]

There's no such thing as voter fraud and if you believe there is, you are a racist.

[Methais]

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/cbs4-investigation-finds-dead-voters-casting-ballots-in-colorado/

[Parkbandit]

"OMG! Trump said election is rigged and therefore he is unfit to be President!!!!!!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9yZqsDUbKI

[Parkbandit]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111029767.html