Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!

[cpl2010co]

https://www.bernardfraga.com/uploads/2/2/3/4/22341374/fragamiller_txid_2018.pdf

"Our pre-registered analyses find registrants voting without ID in 2016 were 14 percentage points less likely to vote in the previous, strict ID election than those with ID, and that voters without ID were disproportionately Black and Latinx. Probing mechanisms that produce these effects, we examine voters’ stated reasons for not providing ID and find socioeconomic hardships are not the most commonly cited impediment."

https://esra.wisc.edu/papers/HMM.pdf

"About 0.6 percent, or 28,000 voters, lacked photo identification. Imputing race based on surname and place of residence, we find that non-white voters are between 2.5 and 6 times more likely than white voters to lack photo ID"

Being able to read is great, it makes it fast to look things up!

I was board so I read the top Bullshit 'academic' paper.

Oh and here was the key from the (top) Study
Data Table 2 tells us (with some adding)
8,911,860 Texans voted
14,577 voted without ID
of those:
8,409- 57.7 % White without ID
2,353- 16.1% Black without ID
3,014- 20.7 % Latin without ID
Or 0.0016356578 or 0.16% voted without ID
Did you get that 0.16% voted without ID

And
Of total voters v. Demographics Listed above:
0.00148 Whites of white voters voted without ID
0.00230 Blacks of Black voters voted without ID
0.00170 Latins of Latin voters voted without ID
Or
0.00060223118 or 0.060% of Black and Latin voters voted without id from 8.9 Million total voters.
Did you get that- 0.060%. And they didn't count non-provisional ballots for this data.

And after all of this. They all still got to vote after signing an affidavit RID form.

In other words you and the 'researchers are full of *******.

Oops, did I just take your data and show your flag ship argument is insignificant in real numbers, scope and impact? Yes, Yes I did.

Now let's see how you will try to spine, after this, my pervious post and the fact that you and Mac asserted and agree there is massive and pervasive voter/election fraud to not check IDs?

Maybe you should "read" you should read past the intro paragraph and cherry pick from the intro bullshit. If you had you would realize both "papers" made up the race demographics and cherry picked the data.

 

[subhub174014]

well that will definitely seal the deal


both sides do NOT want Israel building anymore in Golan heights.....but now with trumps name on it.....hell go ahead

Israel approves budget to build 'Trump Heights' in Golan ...
https://nypost.com/2020/06/14/israel-approves...
1 hour ago · Israel’s government approved funding on Sunday to establish a new town in the contested Golan Heights that will be named “Trump Heights” after President Trump.

'Trump Heights': Israeli settlement in Golan named after ...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/...
Click to view

1:03
Jun 17, 2019 · 'Trump Heights': Israel names Golan Heights settlement after US president – video It is a world away from the grandiose high-rises that bear his name. A sleepy, crumbling hamlet of fewer than a...

• Author: Oliver Holmes

 

[ridgelyfan]

@cpl2010co

1. You're shifting the goalposts again -- you said "no single study shows that voter ID laws reduce turnout"
2. You still can't read. "Indeed, as of 2014, more than 600,000 registered voters in Texas lacked adequate identification under SB 14 (Malewitz 2016b).", which is above half a percent (on par with the numbers from the Michigan study).

Half a percent is still within the margins for quite a few elections

 

[subhub174014]

call it what it is....a fucking handicapped ramp!

Trump Cautiously Walks Down Ramp After West Point Speech

Trump Cautiously Walks Down Ramp After West Point Speech

President Trump’s descent down a ramp after speaking at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in New York reopened questions about his health.

www.nytimes.com

 

[ridgelyfan]

BTW @cpl2010co , the correct response at this point would be to link a study showing that hundreds of thousands of individual people voted illegally in a single election in a way that voter ID laws would stop.

I'll, uh, wait.

 

[cpl2010co]

@cpl2010co

1. You're shifting the goalposts again -- you said "no single study shows that voter ID laws reduce turnout"
2. You still can't read. "Indeed, as of 2014, more than 600,000 registered voters in Texas lacked adequate identification under SB 14 (Malewitz 2016b).", which is above half a percent (on par with the numbers from the Michigan study).

Half a percent is still within the margins for quite a few elections

Did not shift goal post. I said there is no legit study or source that proves this. And you didn't post a legit source. They made up demographics and admit they assigned based on surnames and their beliefs. In both 'papers'

 

[ridgelyfan]

Did not shift goal post. I said there is no legit study or source that proves this. And you didn't post a legit source. They made up demographics and admit they assigned based on surnames and their beliefs. In both 'papers'

So you're seriously asserting that it's ok to deny people voting rights, because you assert that the people in this paper living in majority back zip codes with traditionally African-American names are actually white, so it's OK to not let them vote?

This is some pretty strange logic, bro

 

[cpl2010co]

BTW @cpl2010co , the correct response at this point would be to link a study showing that hundreds of thousands of individual people voted illegally in a single election in a way that voter ID laws would stop.

I'll, uh, wait.

I have already. More than once.

No how about you step and stop strawmaning and answer my questions.

And the correct response is for you to address your hypocrisy and stop ducking

 

[ridgelyfan]

Lol no you didn't. You've just been begging the question by claiming that the NC Republican Party election fraud committed by the politicians was somehow related to voter ID laws.

You should also look up what a "straw man" is at some point.

 

[cpl2010co]

So you're seriously asserting that it's ok to deny people voting rights, because you assert that the people in this paper living in majority back zip codes with traditionally African-American names are actually white, so it's OK to not let them vote?

This is some pretty strange logic, bro

No one was denied.
There are three remedies for the 14k to solve this issue.
And the number is so insignificant (.060%) and they all with remedies, so this small number does not out weight the danger from mass voter fraud. Which you assert and agree exist.

And again, there are three remedies for the14K without ID, out of 8.9 Million voters, to solve this issue at the time of voting or just before.

So again your argument is not valid. Again, you have no standing for your argument.

 

[ridgelyfan]

You still can't read.

"Indeed, as of 2014, more than 600,000 registered voters in Texas lacked adequate identification under SB 14 (Malewitz 2016b)."

The 14k was people that they could track down demographic info for and cross-reference.

Why don't you link to that study now that you've apparently posted several times showing that tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals are voting under other peoples' names.

 

[ridgelyfan]

"the danger from mass voter fraud. Which you assert and agree exist."

Begging the question - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Link. The. Study.

I don't think you have one. You never had one. You just take it at face value because Fox News and the RNC squeal about it.

Here's the fraud I know about:https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/7468...s-new-felony-charges-that-allege-ballot-fraud

It's ballot tampering by the GOP -- which voter ID laws would do absolutely jack ******* about.

 

[cpl2010co]

Lol no you didn't. You've just been begging the question by claiming that the NC Republican Party election fraud committed by the politicians was somehow related to voter ID laws.

You should also look up what a "straw man" is at some point.

No you asserted NC in reply to me addressing a long standing argument with Ed. And I said, more than once, both sides do it. You and the other leftist here avoid that and tried to straw man by using the NC case as fodder to cover for the sins of the Dems and your hypocrisy. And you have now argued over voter fraud and ID laws multiple times and are trying to duck now that your "source" was shown to be BS.

So once again:
If you support no id for the "right to vote," do you support no ID for the right to own a gun?
Where is your legit proof that people were impacted in a significant manner?
How do you justify getting rid of voter ID laws when you and Mac have asserted and agreed, multiple times, voter fraud is real, exists and by your telling a massive issue?
What do you propose to put in place to stop voter/ election fraud?

You have asserted disproportionate and undue impact. Then your studies prove you wrong. Neither can show real disproportionately and in fact show no significant data impact in real terms. The number is so insignificant. Even when you take it for Black voters with ID v. Black Voters without ID it is not even 0.3% by your data. That and good portion of the data is made up or cherry picked.

And, it just so happens, the made up cherry picked data bolstesr the predetermined conclusions of the 'researchers' who just happens to be, in two cases, outspoken hard left democrats. And based on zip code, surname, employment, and association I going to guess they are hard left democrat. The only difference I am right.

And again there are three remedies for the voters and no one was denied. So there goes your argument

 

[ridgelyfan]

"And I said, more than once, both sides do it."

Prove. It.

 

[ridgelyfan]

"Where is your legit proof that people were impacted in a significant manner? "

You're not going to accept any amount of evidence, given your behavior here so far. You just shift the goalposts, like with your weasel words "legit" proof that they were impacted in a "significant" manner -- I guess where you decide what's "legit" (nothing ever is) and what is "significant" (nothing ever is).

Why don't you show me the voter fraud committed by the DNC, hmm? A legit study that showed a significant impact, please.

 

[cpl2010co]

You still can't read.

"Indeed, as of 2014, more than 600,000 registered voters in Texas lacked adequate identification under SB 14 (Malewitz 2016b)."

The 14k was people that they could track down demographic info for and cross-reference.

Why don't you link to that study now that you've apparently posted several times showing that tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals are voting under other peoples' names.

If you are ill informed that is your problem.

Oh and you can't read- the 14k were all the voters who voted without ID. The Surname and guessing was specific to mostly Latinx voters who didn't either did not fill out their names or didn't have clear data in the voter rolls.

That is funny how you keep pointing to that 600,000. Yet they didn't bother to give details in your source and the findings referenced are questionable. Also strange that only once source details it if it was so true. Then add in that both your 'sources' written by hard left Democrats struggle to find 20K of voters without ID, 57% of which are white, that still voted without ID using an affidavit. So that 600K number at the least is disproved by your more current sources. Oops.

And now you are still dodging the questions.

 

[ridgelyfan]

Because the point of the studies was to understand the demographics and the responses of people to voter ID laws, not to count people who are registered but without ID (that's why there's a little citation there for the study that did count them).

"Then add in that both your 'sources' written by hard left Democrats"
Prove it.

" So that 600K number at the least is disproved by your more current sources."
Not in the least.

Now, where is your study showing the democrats engaged in widespread voter fraud?

Or do you admit you're full of *******?

 

[cpl2010co]

"And I said, more than once, both sides do it."

Prove. It.

"Where is your legit proof that people were impacted in a significant manner? "

You're not going to accept any amount of evidence, given your behavior here so far. You just shift the goalposts, like with your weasel words "legit" proof that they were impacted in a "significant" manner -- I guess where you decide what's "legit" (nothing ever is) and what is "significant" (nothing ever is).

Why don't you show me the voter fraud committed by the DNC, hmm? A legit study that showed a significant impact, please.

Now here is perfect proof of begging the question while also using a strawman, again.

Here is the fact. I don't have to. You have proven and admitted there is voter/election fraud. More than once. So the strawman with the NC still does not absolve you of admitting their is voter/election fraud. More than once.

 

[cpl2010co]

Because the point of the studies was to understand the demographics and the responses of people to voter ID laws, not to count people who are registered but without ID (that's why there's a little citation there for the study that did count them).

"Then add in that both your 'sources' written by hard left Democrats"
Prove it.

" So that 600K number at the least is disproved by your more current sources."
Not in the least.

Now, where is your study showing the democrats engaged in widespread voter fraud?

Or do you admit you're full of *******?

Simple. Take your source authors and search there names. You can't afford me to teach you and do your research for you. Again, if you are ill informed that is your problem.

" So that 600K number at the least is disproved by your more current sources."
Not in the least."

Yes totally. You keep claiming impact of 600k from a source referenced only twice in only one of your sources history summary and then your sources do a study and find 14k so that is off by multiple of 41.2 x. I would say discredited for sure. And the referenced source was taken down by the way.

 

[cpl2010co]

Because the point of the studies was to understand the demographics and the responses of people to voter ID laws, not to count people who are registered but without ID (that's why there's a little citation there for the study that did count them).

"Then add in that both your 'sources' written by hard left Democrats"
Prove it.

" So that 600K number at the least is disproved by your more current sources."
Not in the least.

Now, where is your study showing the democrats engaged in widespread voter fraud?

Or do you admit you're full of *******?

No the point of both sources was to show impact of id laws on minorities. Hence why you quoted them. One could easily argue these were papers written with a predetermined conclusion to provide 'academic' sources for leftist to make the anti voter id argument. And like you, they hope the other side or skeptics would not read them.

And you are still running from the questions and using these bullshit papers as a straw man. What was it that you were trying to project, oh yeah begging the question you are.