DOJ Puts States on Notice About Election Law Changes - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15183585
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have already addressed all of this and this contains no new information or argument. Please refer to my previous posts. Thank you.

There is no evidence that these laws promote public confidence in the system. The paper you vociferously defend disproves this argument of yours. The fact that you continue to make that argument while defending the paper that disproves your argument is illogical.


There is also no credible research suggesting they affect elections in any other way, that you continue to parrot those ideas is illogical.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I expect there will be continued legal disputes as these laws are taken to court by the DOJ and others.

Even if there is no evidence that these laws promote public confidence in the system, Republicans will no doubt continue to use this argument to rationalise their attempts to effectively disenfranchise legal voters.

If poor and BIPOC voters voted Republican, none of these voting restrictions would be taking place.


If these laws don't affect results, turnout and registration then the challenges will likely fail either way. You have not shown these laws "effectively disenfranchise legal voters".

I don't think anyone has claimed that in all countries that have voter ID laws either. This includes much of Western Europe and most of Latin America.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, support for anti-democratic measures in the Republican party right now is associated with signs of “ethnic antagonism”. (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/37/22752) In other words, the easiest ways to predict who supports these types of voter restrictions, look for racist people like Marjorie Taylor Greene.


I guess then that 60% of Democrats are like Marjorie Taylor Greene. That's the support for voter ID laws among Democrats according to the MIT Election Lab's Survey of the Performance of American Elections. Are you done with this illogical guilt by association standard?
#15183590
wat0n wrote:There is also no credible research suggesting they affect elections in any other way, that you continue to parrot those ideas is illogical.

If these laws don't affect results, turnout and registration then the challenges will likely fail either way. You have not shown these laws "effectively disenfranchise legal voters".


Please see my previous posts.

I don't think anyone has claimed that in all countries that have voter ID laws either. This includes much of Western Europe and most of Latin America.


Since none of these countries have the exact same socio-political context as the USA, this comparison helps no one understand anything.

I guess then that 60% of Democrats are like Marjorie Taylor Greene. That's the support for voter ID laws among Democrats according to the MIT Election Lab's Survey of the Performance of American Elections. Are you done with this illogical guilt by association standard?


No, that would be stupid.

You misread the word “Republican” to mean “Democrat” or “all US politicians”, probably.
#15183596
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please see my previous posts.


And then see my previous posts too. I'm still waiting for you to provide research that will at least control from pre-existing trends to make your point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since none of these countries have the exact same socio-political context as the USA, this comparison helps no one understand anything.


Right, the US is the only country in the world where there has been a history of government and societal discrimination against minorities and the only country in the world where poor people and some minorities have trouble getting all sorts of things (like ID cards, for example) :|

Canada also has some ID requirements to vote in place, these are a bit softer insofar someone else who has an ID may vouch for someone who doesn't, but they can only do so once - besides that, voters are generally expected to in fact bring some form of ID to vote, and if they don't have a card they will need to bring two such alternative forms. But of course Canada has no history of government and societal discrimination at all like against the indigenous peoples, right?

Same for Latin American countries, although they can have hard requirements. As you should be aware, since you are a Chilean, in our country's case you have to bring your national ID card or passport to vote. No card/passport, no vote, no exceptions. Then the vocales de mesa (citizens who were randomly selected to serve to man the booths and count the votes) will check you are the person in the ID card's photo, and they'll look for you in a paper version of the voters' registry for your booth (to make sure you are in the right place), which you will sign before you vote (registration is currently automatic so voters should be able to vote somewhere - but I've seen cases of people who weren't able to vote because they did not change their address in time and their old place was too far to vote. At least in the US, several states allow you to register on the same day so it's not too bad). I've never heard of any Chileans making any claims of disenfranchisement and to demand to drop the ID requirement to vote, not even in the hard left. It's far more likely people say the government has to give the ID card for free than to do away with the system if ever asked about this (and I've never heard of anyone doing so as it's not an issue). Also, no one disputes election results - at best, there are concerns about how current the voter registry is, as some deceased were found in it some years ago as the registry had not been matched to the population registry for many years (as it was in paper form at some point, I think).

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, that would be stupid.

You misread the word “Republican” to mean “Democrat” or “all US politicians”, probably.


Too bad that's exactly one would infer from your reasoning considering around 60% of Democrats support voter ID laws, according to the MIT Election Lab's Survey of the Performance of American Elections (2020 edition). Support among Republicans is of course higher.

If supporting voting ID laws amounts to being like Marjorie Taylor Greene, then the majority of Democrats are like her, let alone the rest of the country. The same ones who also support measures she probably doesn't like, such as having nonpartisan election officials or making the election day a holiday.
#15183600
wat0n wrote:How about getting 90% of Democrats and independents to trust the election system, regardless of who wins?


Nobody cares, nerd.

Your stupid proposition is that because a former president who loudly bitches about how he didn't actually lose should spur us to make voting as difficult as possible to appease the dumbest people to ever live. My answer is: No. Fuck them.

I legit don't care about their stupid feelings. I can say this because I have convictions in my beliefs, unlike the pussy coward @juin who refuses to explain why he thinks it should be a criminal offense to give ~certain voters~ water. Your arguments are stupid, and are only outclassed in their whiny pedantry by the guy who can't explain his own because he can't do it without coming off as a wide eyed sociopath.
#15183601
wat0n wrote:Right, the US is the only country in the world where there has been a history of government and societal discrimination against minorities and the only country in the world where poor people and some minorities have trouble getting all sorts of things (like ID cards, for example) :|

Canada also has some ID requirements to vote in place, these are a bit softer insofar someone else who has an ID may vouch for someone who doesn't, but they can only do so once - besides that, voters are generally expected to in fact bring some form of ID to vote, and if they don't have a card they will need to bring two such alternative forms. But of course Canada has no history of government and societal discrimination at all like against the indigenous peoples, right?

Same for Latin American countries, although they can have hard requirements. As you should be aware, since you are a Chilean, in our country's case you have to bring your national ID card or passport to vote. No card/passport, no vote, no exceptions. Then the vocales de mesa (citizens who were randomly selected to serve to man the booths and count the votes) will check you are the person in the ID card's photo, and they'll look for you in a paper version of the voters' registry for your booth (to make sure you are in the right place), which you will sign before you vote (registration is currently automatic so voters should be able to vote somewhere - but I've seen cases of people who weren't able to vote because they did not change their address in time and their old place was too far to vote. At least in the US, several states allow you to register on the same day so it's not too bad). I've never heard of any Chileans making any claims of disenfranchisement and to demand to drop the ID requirement to vote, not even in the hard left. It's far more likely people say the government has to give the ID card for free than to do away with the system if ever asked about this (and I've never heard of anyone doing so as it's not an issue). Also, no one disputes election results - at best, there are concerns about how current the voter registry is, as some deceased were found in it some years ago as the registry had not been matched to the population registry for many years (as it was in paper form at some point, I think).


AFAIK the US would be the only country requiring photo ID for voting by mail. I looked that up once.
#15183630
Rugoz wrote:AFAIK the US would be the only country requiring photo ID for voting by mail. I looked that up once.


US voting ID laws generally apply to face to face voting, not to mailed-in votes as far as I'm aware.

Seeing more details about voter ID laws, many States don't even have photo ID requirements (only half of them do) and if the voter forgets to bring whatever form of ID (not necessarily limited to an ID card or a passport), they allow the vote to be cast and to be counted under certain conditions such as providing a form of ID a few days after the election or providing a reasonable reason for not having a photo ID (often holding religious beliefs that bar being photographed or having an impediment to provide an ID in the required form). Chilean law does not allow for these options either, if you forgot to being your ID card/passport, and can't make it back to the polls before they close, you lost your chance to vote. Chile would thus have harsher voting ID requirements than any US State - and I think this is common in Latin America.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... er-id.aspx
#15183632
wat0n wrote:Right, the US is the only country in the world where there has been a history of government and societal discrimination against minorities and the only country in the world where poor people and some minorities have trouble getting all sorts of things (like ID cards, for example) :|
Canada also has some ID requirements to vote in place, these are a bit softer insofar someone else who has an ID may vouch for someone who doesn't, but they can only do so once - besides that, voters are generally expected to in fact bring some form of ID to vote, and if they don't have a card they will need to bring two such alternative forms. But of course Canada has no history of government and societal discrimination at all like against the indigenous peoples, right?

Same for Latin American countries, although they can have hard requirements. As you should be aware, since you are a Chilean, in our country's case you have to bring your national ID card or passport to vote. No card/passport, no vote, no exceptions. Then the vocales de mesa (citizens who were randomly selected to serve to man the booths and count the votes) will check you are the person in the ID card's photo, and they'll look for you in a paper version of the voters' registry for your booth (to make sure you are in the right place), which you will sign before you vote (registration is currently automatic so voters should be able to vote somewhere - but I've seen cases of people who weren't able to vote because they did not change their address in time and their old place was too far to vote. At least in the US, several states allow you to register on the same day so it's not too bad). I've never heard of any Chileans making any claims of disenfranchisement and to demand to drop the ID requirement to vote, not even in the hard left. It's far more likely people say the government has to give the ID card for free than to do away with the system if ever asked about this (and I've never heard of anyone doing so as it's not an issue). Also, no one disputes election results - at best, there are concerns about how current the voter registry is, as some deceased were found in it some years ago as the registry had not been matched to the population registry for many years (as it was in paper form at some point, I think).


This is off topic, so I will ignore it.

Too bad that's exactly one would infer from your reasoning


No. Since my evidence was solely about Republicans, it would not make sense to apply this to others.

Please read more carefully.

considering around 60% of Democrats support voter ID laws, according to the MIT Election Lab's Survey of the Performance of American Elections (2020 edition). Support among Republicans is of course higher.

If supporting voting ID laws amounts to being like Marjorie Taylor Greene, then the majority of Democrats are like her, let alone the rest of the country. The same ones who also support measures she probably doesn't like, such as having nonpartisan election officials or making the election day a holiday.


Again, you misread. Not reading something properly is not an argument.

And again, voter ID laws will not help with public confidence.
#15183635
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is off topic, so I will ignore it.


No, it's not. It falsifies your claim that the US is somehow special or the idea that the current ID laws are harsh. It isn't and they aren't.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Since my evidence was solely about Republicans, it would not make sense to apply this to others.

Please read more carefully.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you misread. Not reading something properly is not an argument.


Ah, so supporting voter ID laws means you are a conspiracy nutter if you are a Republican but not if you are a Democrat. Even though it's the same policy :roll:

Why do most Democrats support voter ID laws?

Pants-of-dog wrote:And again, voter ID laws will not help with public confidence.


Neither will they disenfranchise anyone, coming from exactly the same paper that reached that conclusion. Will you admit so?
#15183636
wat0n wrote:No, it's not. It falsifies your claim that the US is somehow special


Strawman. Ignored.

or the idea that the current ID laws are harsh. It isn't and they aren't.


It is entirely possible that these measures would also disenfranchise legal voters in these other countries as well. You would have to show that this is not the case. Perhaps you should do that for the USA.

Ah, so supporting voter ID laws means you are a conspiracy nutter if you are a Republican but not if you are a Democrat.


No. You misread it again.

Even though it's the same policy :roll:

Why do most Democrats support voter ID laws?


I never made any argument about Democrats.

Neither will they disenfranchise anyone, coming from exactly the same paper that reached that conclusion. Will you admit so?


Again, the paper you defend (and that disproves your argument about public confidence) explicitly states that it does not disprove disenfranchisement.
#15183637
Pants-of-dog wrote:Strawman. Ignored.


Not a strawman. You explicitly claimed the US has a special sociopolitical context that makes voter ID laws undesirable. It doesn't.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is entirely possible that these measures would also disenfranchise legal voters in these other countries as well. You would have to show that this is not the case. Perhaps you should do that for the USA.


No one has ever claimed so, these claims ONLY surface in the US and you have yet to substantiate them. Will you do it?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. You misread it again.


No, I did not.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I never made any argument about Democrats.


Why do most Democrats support voter ID laws?
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Again, the paper you defend (and that disproves your argument about public confidence) explicitly states that it does not disprove disenfranchisement.


Cantoni & Pons (2020) wrote:ABSTRACT

U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications and cannot be attributed to voters’ reaction against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms.

...

Most importantly, given the complaints of selective disenfranchisement, strict ID requirements do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites. The lower bound of the 95percent confidence interval from our voter fixed effects regression rules out that the laws decrease non-white turnout (relative to white) by more than 0.3 percentage points. Strict ID laws’ overall effects do not increase over time, they remain close to zero and nonsignificant whether the election is a midterm or presidential election, and whether the laws are the more restrictive type that stipulate photo IDs. Voters in treated states did have different turnout levels prior to the laws, but they did not show different participation trends than others, lending support for our identification strategy. Finally, in line with the lack of negative effect on the participation of any subgroup of voters, strict ID laws do not affect the relative vote share of Democratic and Republican candidates either. These results contrast with the large participation effects of other dimensions of election administration: voter registration laws (Rosenstone and Wolfinger, 1978; Braconnier et al., 2017), convenience voting (Gerber et al., 2013a; Hodler et al., 2015; Kaplan and Yuan, 2019), voting technology (Fujiwara, 2015), and distance to polling station (Cantoni, 2020). It could be that our null f indings reflect two mutually opposing forces: the laws’ negative effect on participation versus a reaction of voters against a threat to their right to vote (Citrin et al., 2014; Biggers and Smith, 2018). We do not find evidence of such backlash on the part of voters. Strict ID laws have no significant effect on total campaign contributions, measured using administrative records from Bonica (2015), or on an index of voter activity aggregating people’s self-reported having donated to a candidate, the amount donated, their having attended a political meeting, put up a campaign sign, and volunteered for a campaign, all measured using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study surveys. However, the laws increase the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties and candidates who fear they might lose votes as a result of strict ID requirements mobilize their supporters around this issue. These mobilization efforts might have offset small direct negative effects on the participation of ethnic minorities.

...

4 Conclusion

For all the heated debates around strict voter ID laws, our analysis of their effects obtains mostly null results. First, the fears that strict ID requirements would disenfranchise disadvantaged populations have not materialized. Using the largest individual-level dataset ever assembled to study voter participation, we do not find any negative effect on overall turnout and registration rates or on any group defined by race, age, gender, or party affiliation. Close to null turnout effects are robust to the choice of the DD specification and to a large number of robustness checks. While we cannot entirely rule out the interpretation that this null result may be due to voters reacting against laws they felt could disenfranchise them, we do not find any effect on campaign contributions or on other forms of political engagement different than voting. However, we find a 5.4 percentage points increase in the fraction of non-white voters contacted by parties, bringing some support for the alternative interpretation that parties responded to the laws by mobilizing their supporters around them. It remains that based on existing estimates of the impact of campaign contact, these mobilization efforts might only have offset direct negative effects on the participation of ethnic minorities of about one third of a percentage point.


Can you cite from the paper to substantiate your argument? The only thing that comes even remotely close to that is the following:

Cantoni & Pons (2020) wrote:Because states adopted strict ID laws only 4 to 14 years ago, our results should be interpreted with caution: we find negative participation effects neither in the first election after the adoption of the laws nor in following ones, but cannot rule out that such effects will arise in the future. Enforcement of the laws already varies across locations and could very well become more stringent over time, especially if polarization on the issue increases. Partisan mobilization against the laws could also weaken over time. So we do not see our results as the last word on this matter –quite the opposite, we hope that they will provide guidance on the types of data and empirical strategies others can use to analyze the longer-run effects of the laws in a few years. For now, there is a real need to improve the administration of U.S. elections, including voting technology, and increase faith in elections (Alvarez et al., 2012), but strict ID laws are unlikely to do that. At the same time, low and unequal participation represent real threats to democracy –but these may be more effectively addressed by reducing other barriers to voting, such as voter registration costs (Braconnier et al., 2017) or long travel and waiting time in areas with low polling station density (Cantoni, 2020).


So maybe these laws could have effects in the future. Maybe. But they haven't had them so far, according to the results of this paper.
#15183638
wat0n wrote:Not a strawman. You explicitly claimed the US has a special sociopolitical context that makes voter ID laws undesirable. It doesn't.

No one has ever claimed so, these claims ONLY surface in the US and you have yet to substantiate them. Will you do it?


Again, you can show that these laws are the same, and the context is the same, and the results are different , if you want.

Let me know when you are done constructing this argument.

No, I did not.

Why do most Democrats support voter ID laws?


Again, the paper and my post specifically and only discuss Republicans.

Can you cite from the paper to substantiate your argument? The only thing that comes even remotely close to that is the following:

So maybe these laws could have effects in the future. Maybe. But they haven't had them so far, according to the results of this paper.


Yes, I can.

Perhaps I will even do so if someone asks me politely. :)
#15183639
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you can show that these laws are the same, and the context is the same, and the results are different , if you want.

Let me know when you are done constructing this argument.


No, you are the one claiming these laws have an effect, so you go ahead and prove it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, the paper and my post specifically and only discuss Republicans.


I don't care. Will you explain why do most Democrats support voter ID laws?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I can.

Perhaps I will even do so if someone asks me politely. :)


Feel free to do so.
#15183640
wat0n wrote:No, you are the one claiming these laws have an effect, so you go ahead and prove it.

I don't care.


Please see my previous posts. Thank you.

Will you explain why do most Democrats support voter ID laws?


No, since I am not discussing that at all.

Feel free to do so.


No, thanks. No one has asked me politely.

Having said that, this does show that you did not read the study.
#15183646
Yeah, Trump’s willingness to lie about election integrity in order to make money is one clear motive for all of this.

Another cause of these laws is actually an effect of Trump’s disinformation campaign: now Republican candidates have to be seen as supporting these laws so that the Trumpistas will vote for them.

By manufacturing a problem out of thin air and then proposing a solution, they can pose as the saviour of the people.
#15183652
@Juin

Here is the thing Juin. I think the republican legislatures, with these laws that I regard as voter suppression laws, are basically violating the constitutional rights of American citizens, especially black citizens. Now, if these legislatures are basically violating the constitutional rights of some American citizens, in particular black American citizens and can't guarantee these citizens their rights, what makes you think these same legislatures can protect and guarantee your rights? How can they when they can't even protect and guarantee the rights of African American citizens? And this is why the fight for black voting rights is a fight for us all. We want a government that is able and willing to guarantee the rights of ALL American citizens. Denying the rights of some citizens means that those citizens whose rights aren't denied today could very well find their rights being denied to them tomorrow. That's why this is unacceptable and we should join our fellow African American citizens and stand up with them for their right to vote too.
#15183659
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

Here is the thing Juin. I think the republican legislatures, with these laws that I regard as voter suppression laws, are basically violating the constitutional rights of American citizens, especially black citizens. Now, if these legislatures are basically violating the constitutional rights of some American citizens, in particular black American citizens and can't guarantee these citizens their rights, what makes you think these same legislatures can protect and guarantee your rights? How can they when they can't even protect and guarantee the rights of African American citizens? And this is why the fight for black voting rights is a fight for us all. We want a government that is able and willing to guarantee the rights of ALL American citizens. Denying the rights of some citizens means that those citizens whose rights aren't denied today could very well find their rights being denied to them tomorrow. That's why this is unacceptable and we should join our fellow African American citizens and stand up with them for their right to vote too.




I support you 100% on the principle of voting rights for all. But at some point we have to go from the principle to the implementation. The devil is always in the details. And it is in the details- some of the details- where we diverge.

So far, as far as I can see, you have brought up two objections: voter ID requirement, and some Georgia restrictions of activities within 150 ft of voting building.

1

I argue that the necessity to identify a voter is paramount and and necessary to any voting system. Without that requirement the credibility of a voting system is open to question. And there is no possible answer to claims of voter fraud.

I believe it is demeaning, and bordering on the racist the suggestion that a task, as easy as obtaining an identification, is so above what can be expected of a black, that he should be excused from identifying himself at polling stations. Do banks excuse a black from identifying himself?

Maybe you are familiar with such blacks, I am not. All blacks I know are well functioning human beings, have ID cards, have driver licenses, have bank accounts, own appartments.....

The other situations tend to be what is on news, cop shows, crime shows, where a cop stops a black and he has no identification on him. Even then it is not that obtaining an identification is beyond their abilities. Cops usually already have information on them, suggesting that at some point they did go through all the steps of identification, and maybe even obtained them, but just that their chosen careers may have created situtaions where they would rather not carry one.

Polls do not even suggest that blacks as a population believe in no ID voting either. Nor hispanics. So I am not sure what liberals are whining about.

2
The other point you raised was Georgia specific. Which makes me wonder why you would extrapolate a Georgia specific situation to the larger Republicans as a whole.

This is as regards limitations to activities- including watering voters- around voting buildings. After looking at the details, I have no problem with it. The limitation is not broad. It is that watering voters cannot take place closer than 150 ft of the outer edge of voting building. If they had said liberals are not allowed to water voters within a mile or two, I would get your beef. But 150 ft? And you consider that outrageous?

I then asked you; what are your limitations? Should your water bearers be able to go right up to a voter inside a voting boothe to water him?
#15183661
@Juin

From what I have seen, most republicans are very similar to Georgia republicans. Not saying all of them, but most of them. Racism is not just a southern thing you know, it's a problem all over the U.S. Plus, these voter suppression laws unquestionably are not limited only to the state of Georgia. In addition, why not just make voting mandatory for all American citizens who are not serving a prison sentence longer than 5 or 8 years?

I think this would be fair and right so that most Americans and the will of the people are represented in government as much as possible. There is no real rationale reason that somebody should be opposed to this idea. But I know they will be because it serves the best interests of the of people rather than the best interests of those with power.

At the end of the day, the people with most of the power do not like concepts like freedom or democracy because they are interested in power more than anything else and if that means crushing the right to vote and stripping people of their constitutional rights to maintain that power then so be it. It's the mentality of power at any cost. I don't understand how some of these people with power can feel good about themselves doing that but many people are willing to sell their souls for power and to keep power.
#15183891
Juin wrote:I support you 100% on the principle of voting rights for all.


But not water, which you refuse to explain you pussy bitch.

Juin wrote:I argue that the necessity to identify a voter is paramount and and necessary to any voting system.


Who are these mysterious unidentified voters? Nobody gets registered to vote without getting an ID. You're just some weirdo who forces old ladies to stare at your dumb driver's license when you vote.

As I've said before, you care more about ensuring the right people vote rather than ensuring all people are able to vote. Which is why you support laws that make it illegal to give voters waiting in line water. Which you won't explain because, again, you are a pussy bitch coward.

This is as regards limitations to activities- including watering voters- around voting buildings. After looking at the details, I have no problem with it. The limitation is not broad. It is that watering voters cannot take place closer than 150 ft of the outer edge of voting building. If they had said liberals are not allowed to water voters within a mile or two, I would get your beef. But 150 ft? And you consider that outrageous?


I am fine with limiting the rights of people to freely exchange property when Republicans do it. I can't explain why I support this bill and believe it should exist, because nobody can do that without sounding like a monster (and also I, Juin, am a pussy bitch coward). But I can say that I don't object to it, because that is the laziest intellectual approach possible even though it makes me a hypocrite. Seriously, aren't you supposed to be a small government Republican? What the hell is this, "Well, it's only a minor restriction by the government" shit?

But the real question is: are you this shit at arguing in bad faith or are you really so fucking stupid that you can't see the point is to make voting as inconvenient as possible? The only places this will be enforced are districts where voting stations are deliberately understaffed, not supported with adequate voting machines, etc. This law doesn't exist in a vacuum you dunce. Also you are a pussy bitch coward who can't stand by his beliefs.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

There were people there that wanted to overturn t[…]

This rule does not apply to Gov. that issue their[…]

What can't be sold?

With all due respect, how is that last sentence n[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

No it doesn't. Igor and you should make a movie […]