@suzianne said
Come on out of the 19th century.

Does all that thumping damage your Bible?

@suzianne said
Misplaced priorities.

1. There was not enough "cheating" to change the outcome of a single state's election. This means that the actual incentive for these new laws is voter suppression.

2. Anyone (with a brain) can figure out that reducing the number of polling places in order to create long multi-hour wait times, and then refusing those waiting food and water ...[text shortened]... entive for these new laws is voter suppression.[/i]

What's so difficult to understand about this?

@earl-of-trumps said
Like I told sonhouse, you are trying to change the playing field.

This is not about the charges that he or you make about letting people die of thirst waiting to vote.
That's another issue, another thread for another day.

how difficult is it for you issue dodgers to understand? This is about Democrats refusing to allow
voter ID in contrast to the sharp opinion ...[text shortened]...
It's because power pig democrats are cheating with the dead person vote and the illegal alien vote.

@suzianne said
Where does the Constitution deny citizens the right to vote?

@earl-of-trumps said
The constitution is not necessary. Non US citizens voting is against the law, which is NOT unconstitutional.

@suzianne said
You keep saying that, but that is demonstrably FALSE.

@earl-of-trumps said
Like I told sonhouse, you are trying to change the playing field.

This is not about the charges that he or you make about letting people die of thirst waiting to vote.
That's another issue, another thread for another day.

how difficult is it for you issue dodgers to understand? This is about Democrats refusing to allow
voter ID in contrast to the sharp opinion ...[text shortened]...
It's because power pig democrats are cheating with the dead person vote and the illegal alien vote.

@mott-the-hoople said
where does the constitution give non-citizens the right to vote?

@no1marauder said
No one said it did.

@eladar said
You said that they had a voter ID requirement in Georgia. If you can vote without ID, then you do not have a voter ID requirement.

@no1marauder
What you said was misleading. Closing the ID requirement loop hole for absentee voting simply makes your statement no longer misleading.

@eladar said
@no1marauder
What you said was misleading. Closing the ID requirement loop hole for absentee voting simply makes your statement no longer misleading.

@no1marauder said
Present the evidence supporting such claims.

Republicans are closing voting precincts, slashing voting hours, lessening the time to apply for absentee ballots. And this is all in States with existing Voter Id laws. Therefore you are either incredibly misinformed or being dishonest in your wild, baseless accusations.

@earl-of-trumps said
The first one that comes to mind is JFK v. Nixon, 1960.

Votes poured in for Kennedy in Chicago and Las Vegas, taking the electoral votes of Illinois and Nevada.
That swing in votes was enough to change the result of the presidential election.

@no1marauder said
You already presented an article which, in fact, concluded there was no real evidence supporting such a claim.

In actual fact, JFK could have lost both those States and he still would have had 273 EC votes, enough to win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election