Elections Republicans in disarray(with new disarray!)

[koquerelle]

Apropos of that,


Inb4 thanks, Captain Obvious.

Anyway, at the 2:31 mark, he goes on to echo what I said back in 2016, after Trump received the Republican nomination but before the election. This craziness only stops when people realize only a completely resounding defeat can put paid to this threat.

JC. I thought he was going to cry.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I have no stats but my memory of the energy at the time was that Trump was gonna walk away with a huge victory and even bigger than 2016.

We were almost a year into Covid and leftist covid policies and lockdowns were destroying lives
Skyrocketing crime in leftists cities
BLM/Antifa embarrassed leftists and the country in front of the world
Biden was braindead and couldn't and didn't campaign
Kamala was a loser candidate who got destroyed in the primaries and yet somehow made it as a pick for VP
And while the first debate was two old guys almost shouting over each other ("gentleman! gentlemen!" shouted the moderator) and it wasn't a huge win for Trump, Trump took a different approach in the second one, calmed down, and destroyed sleepy Joe...."I ran because of you"...

Trump made huge strides in the minority vote and got 12 million more votes overall than last time and became the most voted for President in US history!

Then that braindead sniffing senile old man who's rallys consisted of 2 people and 4 empty chairs "won" with 81m votes. Funny how much of a difference some cardboard, a burst pipe, hidden suitcases, and a bazillion mail in ballots makes.

Fuck, I've been affected by the Trump smears a little myself. While the cheeto benito has taken some lumps and is flailing on social media, when you discard all the smearing and fake news, you know most of it's bullshit. Trump 2024, bitches!

Even bigger than 2016 !

When he lost the popular vote lol

 

[Andy Capp]

JC. I thought he was going to cry.

He's not wrong, though, is he?

 

[PEB]

The first photo of the 3 page secret deal that Kevin McCarthy agreed too to get members of the Trump backed conservative members to support him. Top item is to cut social security an Medicare. Even as all of them denied they where going after social security specifically it was top item on their secret 3 page deal.
Reform mandatory spending programs ie cuts.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

Even bigger than 2016 !

When he lost the popular vote lol

What can I say, 2 trillion mail in ballots goes a long way

 

[idrankyourbeer]

lmfao. holy crap. crazy marge says that they changed it from 5 members to 1 member to call for removal of the speaker, and that one member can be from either party. apparently some democrat is ready to do just that. according to crazy marge anyways. i would take what she says with a grain of salt.

alright kevin you've had your 2 days to bask in the spotlight. its time for you to move on. i nominate The Rock for speaker.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Jeez, really?



None of that stuff is relevant to your claim. Can you just admit the claim was false instead of doing this "look over there!" stuff? What's the bet you offered?

Hell Jack you went through a spill of why it wasn't a good bet and have already forgot?

The bet (sig bet) is any republican except Trump beats Biden if he runs for a second term.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hell Jack you went through a spill of why it wasn't a good bet and have already forgot?

The bet (sig bet) is any republican except Trump beats Biden if he runs for a second term.

Oh, that. Yeah, there's no rational basis for any confidence in a pick at this time. Your irrational basis is just partisan cheerleading. You keep thinking that I'm just mirroring your hackery, but I don't go in for that stuff in reality. We'll see what the polls say when the election is set. Note that I didn't bet on Clinton winning in 2016 but I did bet a couple of trolls on Biden winning in 2020 (when the polls were in his favor, but they felt sure that there was some kind of polling conspiracy).

 

[PEB]

Marjorie Taylor Greene officially divorced Trump nutters on Sherdog. You should be lining up to be Mr-Q to Miss-Q laser lady. Lol

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Not sure what you're asking. You have a source that contradicts the claim that about 10% of eligible voters don't have photo ID? I say about because when I looked it up, I saw a range of estimates but in that area.

How would I disprove a made up number? But let's look at Georgia...As of Dec 2021, GA had just over 7 mil voters
https://www.sos.ga.gov/georgia-active-voters-report

As of February 1, 2021, there are 247,158 Georgia voters who are registered to vote but do not have a driver’s license or state provided identification card associated with their registration, Georgia’s SoS office confirmed to the Daily Caller. Of those roughly quarter of a million voters, only 9,147 do not have either a driver’s license, social security number, or state ID associated with their registration, any of which could be used to verify their identity and enable them to cast their vote.

Voters do not need an ID to register to vote, but they must present an ID at the time they cast their vote, according to the SoS office. For the 247,158 voters that do not have an ID associated with their registration, they can still vote so long as they have a government document identifying them when they cast their ballot, according to the SoS office.

For the 9,147 voters lacking a driver’s license or social security number, they can still vote so long as they obtain a free Georgia ID card and prove their residency. Utility bills, phone bills and birth certificates are just some of the ways residents can prove they are Georgia residents.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/09/georgia-election-law-less-than-ten-thousand-identification/​

That equates to 0.12%; and hopefully they picked up the free GA ID card.

At least understand what you're supposed to be disagreeing with before resorting to personal attacks. Most Democrats are now and have long been against photo ID requirements, which are designed to make some eligible voters unable to vote. What sounds made-up is your claim that people who have opposed it have denied opposing it. Democrats have often been willing to compromise on it.

Pick your source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...m-that-no-democrat-has-opposed-voter-id-laws/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._democrat_has_ever_been_against_voter_id.html

https://www.allsides.com/news/2021-...r-shreds-jim-clyburn-claiming-democrats-never

 

[Jack V Savage]

How would I disprove a made up number? But let's look at Georgia...As of Dec 2021, GA had just over 7 mil voters

Good overall discussion of the issue here (note that the "half true" rating refers to the writer's conclusion that apathy is a bigger impediment to voting than voter-identification laws): https://www.politifact.com/factchec...rcia-fudge-says-11-percent-eligible-voters-l/. Looks like 10% is in the ballpark of the right answer, but there is a lot of controversy over it. Obviously it would be very easy to find individuals in any state.

Pick your source:

They're all about Clyburn. You're doing that thing where you think that the left is a single person (and you said "they," also). Just for Christ's sake, try to be honest here.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Good overall discussion of the issue here (note that the "half true" rating refers to the writer's conclusion that apathy is a bigger impediment to voting than voter-identification laws): https://www.politifact.com/factchec...rcia-fudge-says-11-percent-eligible-voters-l/. Looks like 10% is in the ballpark of the right answer, but there is a lot of controversy over it. Obviously it would be very easy to find individuals in any state.



They're all about Clyburn. You're doing that thing where you think that the left is a single person (and you said "they," also). Just for Christ's sake, try to be honest here.

Come on Jack, I'm not looking for each individual link.


"https://t.co/icXUSqDfYC">https://t.co/icXUSqDfYC</a></p>&mdash; Vince Coglianese (@VinceCoglianese) <a href="">June 17, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Jack V Savage]

Come on Jack, I'm not looking for each individual link.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Stacey Abrams now says she could support nationwide voter ID.<br><br>“No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting.” <a href="https://t.co/icXUSqDfYC">https://t.co/icXUSqDfYC</a></p>&mdash; Vince Coglianese (@VinceCoglianese) <a href="">June 17, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Um, do you think Democrats have opposed people having to prove who they are to vote? Abrams statement there is 100% true.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Um, do you think Democrats have opposed people having to prove who they are to vote? Abrams statement there is 100% true.

this is the shit you do.

She and others have repeatedly and clearly said voter id was racist. I've already posted some of those

 

[Jack V Savage]

this is the shit you do.

She and others have repeatedly and clearly said voter id was racist. I've already posted some of those

First, no one says "voter ID is racist." Requiring photo IDs for voting is designed to reduce minority turnout, though. But Photo IDs aren't the only form of identification. Of course people should have to prove they are who they are. That's never been the issue.

And actually, I misheard Clyburn as saying "photo ID" rather than voter ID. He's also right in his claim. Democrats have opposed *photo* ID but never voter ID.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Good overall discussion of the issue here (note that the "half true" rating refers to the writer's conclusion that apathy is a bigger impediment to voting than voter-identification laws): https://www.politifact.com/factchec...rcia-fudge-says-11-percent-eligible-voters-l/. Looks like 10% is in the ballpark of the right answer, but there is a lot of controversy over it. Obviously it would be very easy to find individuals in any state.

And it turns out that more than three million Americans actually don't own a government-issued picture ID. That's according to a recent study by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.​

2012 would have been 235mil voting age population. that would have been > 2%

 

[Jack V Savage]

And it turns out that more than three million Americans actually don't own a government-issued picture ID. That's according to a recent study by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.​

2012 would have been 235mil voting age population. that would have been > 2%

The Brennan Center is the source for the ~10% claim. At any rate, you have badly confused the argument, which is about what forms of ID should be acceptable (Clinton pointed out in 2016 in Texas, they took concealed carry licenses but not student IDs--which come on, we know what that's about).

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Um, do you think Democrats have opposed people having to prove who they are to vote? Abrams statement there is 100% true.

I can't do your twisting logic game today Jack.

Eric Holder:
"Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them, and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes."



Benjamin Todd Jealous:
"If he's (Mitt Romney) going to pick up more support in the black community," Jealous told the Times, " he has to send a message that he's prepared to lead on issues that we care about." For Jealous, that means opposing voter ID laws.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/eric-holder-voter-id-laws-call-poll-taxes/story?id=16749730



Stacy Abrams and Chuck Shumer
"https://twitter.com/hashtag/CNNSOTU?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#CNNSOTU</a> <a href="https://t.co/nDVCaBZRvH">pic.twitter.com/nDVCaBZRvH</a></p>&mdash; State of the Union (@CNNSotu) <a href="">March 14, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>





NC Supreme Court after state Democrats sued the state:

North Carolina’s Supreme Court narrowly struck down the state’s photo voter identification law, ruling the policy “was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose” — in a rushed decision handed down two weeks before Democrats lose their majority on the elected panel.

“The right to vote is a fundamental right, preservative of all other rights. If the right to vote is undermined, it renders illusory all ‘other rights, even the most basic,’” wrote Justice Anita Earls in Friday’s 4-3 party-line ruling.

“A law enacted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of race is unconstitutional even if no voter ultimately is disenfranchised,” Earls wrote.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

this is the shit you do.

She and others have repeatedly and clearly said voter id was racist. I've already posted some of those

How do people prove who they are before they get an ID? If 10% of eligible voters lack an ID do you have a plan to get them one or should they just be excluded from voting?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can't do your twisting logic game today Jack.

I have never done that. I just believe in using real logic and being honest. And not deliberately misstating arguments, as you are doing. No one says that you should just be able to vote without providing evidence of who you are. It's about the specific types of ID that should be acceptable.