Monday, November 5, 2012

Class War: Voter Suppression

Here’s an old debate I had with my buddy, Richard, back before he “de-friended” me on Facebook.

I’m posting it now because the Presidential election is tomorrow and we cover Republican voter suppression tactics. Well, I cover them. He denies them.

Also, I explain in fairly decent detail what happened during the fraudulent Bush v Gore election in 2000.

But most importantly, I wrote a badass version of Green Eggs and Ham.

Sorry that this is a bit verbose. I can’t control the amount of bullshit that squeezes out of a right-wing pie hole. 

Names changed. Enjoy…


Bill Mancuso 
¡Vete a la Chingada, los Republicanos! #6 in a series: Wisconsin... The Republican recall elections are in response to Governor Scott Walker's jihad on the middle class - sponsored by the multi-billionaire Koch brothers.

Walker attacked the middle class under the guise of fiscal responsibility - yet, at the same time gave tax cuts to corporations. Taking money directly out of the pockets of the middle class and stuffing it into the pockets of the rich is not in the slightest way fiscally responsible. Even using the (false) claim that tax cuts for the rich magically creates jobs - no jobs were created.

Republicans then ran 'Fake Democrats' against the real Democrats in the recall elections in order to confuse voters.

Three things:
Just exactly how patriotic/American/honorab​le/Constitutional is it to intentionally take away someone's right in a democracy for a fair and honest vote? It's not. It's fascist.

And since the estimate of how much it cost the state to run the 'Fake Democrats' in this fascist scheme is between $300,000 & $500,000, how exactly is this whole saga about fiscal responsibility? It's not. It's about the Republicans' ever-vigilant war against the dwindling middle class, protecting the ever-increasing wealth of the already wealthy.

Finally, the Republicans keep insisting they have to make stricter voting laws because of all the rampant voter-fraud that is happening across America by Democrats. Aside from the easily researchable fact that there is virtually no voter-fraud occurring, I'd like something clarified. The Republicans fraudulently running 'Fake Democrats' in order to rig an election - does that count as voter-fraud? Never mind. The answer is yes. Yes, it is voter-fraud.

Republicans falsely claim Democrats are committing voter-fraud, but it's OK for Republicans to blatantly commit voter-fraud. The state is in a budget crisis and the Republicans demand the middle class has to ante-up, but the Republicans can hand the ante over directly to big corporations - and waste $300,000+ on a fraudulent election.

Typical Republican hypocrites believing "Do as I say, not as I do" in their truly hypocritical fashion. Anything goes in the war on the middle class, I guess.

Bill, could you explain how this works? How does a political party hope to attain and keep power, by "waging war" against the lower and middle class, when they make up about 98% of the voters in this country?

I always wonder that when I hear the usual diatribe about how only the Democrats care for the masses, that the Evil Republicans are out to rape and murder the Middle Class and only care about the Rich, yada, yada, yada...

How does one get elected when you only cater to perhaps 2% of the electorate, and, according to you, blatantly wage war against the rest of the voters that you need in order to even get into office?

Can you explain this? This outta be good... LOL

Bill Mancuso
When you suppress the votes of the people who vote against you, then you don't have to worry about those votes. It ain't rocket surgery.

[Richard himself answers his own question. Aside from Republicans suppressing Democratic votes, ignorant people like Richard believe Republicans are out to help them. So they continue to vote against their own best interests.]

Oh, a Left-Wing Blog and some DNC activist groups made the claim. Well then it must be true. [If anything doesn't agree with something from the right-wing, it is automatically considered a lie. No matter what. So however many articles I post proving my point, they are summarily dismissed as "left-wing propaganda." This is a convenient tactic to use since you have no facts in your favor. Pre-dismissing anything that could prove you wrong.]

Let me ax you this... Why is it that Democrats are so afraid of people having to prove that they are legally allowed to vote? What has them so terrified of that? [They're not. Republicans just like to say they are terrified. It makes it sound like Democrats are doing something shady. All they are doing is simply trying to hold free and fair elections.]

So if having requiring a photo ID to vote is "suppressing the votes of the people that vote against you"... try to follow my logic here... why is it that Democrats do not or cannot get Photo ID's?

Can you show me where it is written into the law that only Republicans can apply and get the ID's?

Or is there a reason why Democrats, or the people that typically vote for Democrats cannot get one?

It just doesn't make sense. Unless being an illegal immigrant, a felon, dead or voting in multiple precincts is what your party relies on to get elected, I don't see what the problem is with making sure people are eligable to vote... [Ah, THERE'S the alleged 'shady' accusation.]

Democrats always fly into a frenzy whenever anyone talks about having an ID to vote, proving your citizenship, etc... Wonder why that is? :-)

Richard, why do you hate America?

LOL. I just expect people to have some sort of logical reason when they take a stance or make a claim, call me crazy. But just regurgitating what some Lib on a Blog said, just doesn't cut it in my book.

It’s always the Dems that kick and scream any time anybody mentions a voter ID card. [Maybe because it disenfranchises Dems?]

There is only one real reason to oppose having an ID card to vote... The inability to get one. [Or being targeted for disenfranchisement?]

Now, why would Democrats have such trouble getting a legal ID card? [Maybe for THESE reasons?]

Bill Mancuso                 
Way to ignore all the facts. I just posted one link. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of news sources on this. Including politically-neutral ones. No Republican media outlet will report this fascist Republican bullshit. Dems are not afraid to prove they are legal. A photo ID does not even slightly prevent voter-fraud. It ONLY makes it more difficult for American citizens to vote, as is their Constitutional right. This ‘Democrat felon, dead, multiple voting voter-fraud’ you keep talking about is not happening, despite the lies coming from the right. Why, suddenly country-wide, are ONLY Republicans implementing these insane laws to fix a problem that doesn't exist unless there is an agenda behind it?

Unless you think Republicans are trying to suppress Republican votes, then?

Nothing a Liberal says will ever cut it in your book just because a Liberal said it. No matter how truthful. That's called bias.

Why is requiring an ID card considered "suppression", and why would it be limited to only suppressing one party?

They entire premis only makes sense if you accept the notion that either Democrats will not be granted the ID cards, or for some reason they do not qualify for them. You can post 150 links that all say the same thing, and it still doesn't address the fact that there is no logical reason why having a photo ID card would suppress ANYONE's votes, let alone target and limit itself to the votes of one political party. [Summarily dismissing anything that proves you wrong.]

Why can't Democrats get the cards? What is it about them that keeps them from getting cards, but doesn't hamper a Republican voter's ability to get them? [I have to be honest, this IS a logical question. And if you never look into it, or dismiss the facts, it would seem Democrats are wrong. But there are those pesky facts to deal with after all.]

Unless you can present a substantial argument for that, with facts, its just more Left-Wing Extremist bullshit, Bill. [Unless you stop ignoring the facts I present to you, Richard.]

You rant and rant about Fox News this, and Fox News that, when I have not watched Fox news is at least 5 years, and yet most of your links that you post are openly Left-Wing biased news sources and blogs.

Why is that? But before you attempt to answer that, please explain to us why requiring a simply photo ID is suppressing Democrat votes. I would looooooove to hear the explanation on this one... LOL [It really is fun seeing him ignore or deny every fact I present, then demand I present facts, isn't it?]

See Bill, we both know that there is no law that targets Democrats with an ID card. There is nothing in the law that makes it easier for a Republican to get the card than a Democrate voter.

To even suggest it, is pure nonsense and everyone reading this knows it. If you are a Democrat and you apply for your card, you will get it just as easily as any Republican voter that applies, so stop this nonsense, will you? It makes you look like a crazy person... [It is true Democrats can get their ID's just as "easily" as Republicans, but Republicans are not being targeted.]

There is a very simple, and very obvious reason why Democrats are absolutely terrified of any law requiring a valid photo ID in order to vote. [TERRIFIED!!!!]

[Pay very close attention to this detailed explanation of how the Republican voter laws target Democrats, as well as the explanation in my very first post. Richard spends the entire rest of this discussion flat-out denying they ever occurred.]

Bill Mancuso
How many times do you want me to present facts to you that you will ignore then repeat things that are false to support your bias? Let me be succinct and repetitive, so this sinks in.

The percentages of young and minorities and poor who typically vote Democrat is more than enough of a substantial argument supporting Republican voter suppression. Over 400,000 of them in Wisconsin alone don't have a photo ID. I suppose you think they'll all just pop down to the DMV for a driver's license - that is, if they even have cars - many don't. Line forms to the left, 400,000 people. Or join the military just so they can vote? How many hours in the day, how many DMV employees do you think there are to support this massive influx of ID-obtainers?

You're also not taking into account that Republicans aren't accepting State University-issued ID's to those students who typically vote Democrat. That state-issued ID isn't good enough? Wonder why. You're also not taking into account the new extended residency laws that target students who typically vote Democrat. If you go to college in September and the voting is in November, how can you vote if you haven't lived in your new dorm long enough to vote? No, that's not Democrat voter-suppression at all. You're also not taking into account the people with the clip-boards in front of grocery stores signing up new voters who statistically vote more heavily Democrat. Two new laws in that situation. First, making it illegal to vote within a month of registering - these situations, most register within 1 - 2 weeks prior to voting since it's generally a last-minute thing. Why? What could possibly be the reason for preventing these new, Democrat-leaning voters from voting? And the second, the clipboard people have 24-hours to report all the registrations or they face a fine and jail time. What the fuck could possibly be the reason for trying to make it too difficult for these people to register new, Democrat-leaning voters? How does that prevent fraud? It doesn't. Not even slightly. Is this enough information that supports my substantial argument? Or will you just ignore all these facts, too, claiming they're just more Left-Wing Extremist bullshit so you can brush it off and make yourself feel righteous and happy about it?

You can't claim previously that young and minority voters lean Democrat and also argue that these specifically targeted groups aren't about Democrat voter-suppression. You can't have it both ways. Actually, Republicans always ignore things they previously claimed to support the new thing they claim, which contradicts the old thing they claimed.

And there isn't any voter-fraud going on. Even if there was, NONE of these measures prevent that. Again, NONE of these measures prevent fraud. They just specifically target the Democrat-voting demographics and make it more difficult for legal voters to simply vote. So, cut the shit with repeating the lies about Democrats registering dead people and felons and “illegals.” Give me the statistics on that. Not innuendo and hearsay - but reported, researchable facts. Don't just repeat, "Yup, yup, they're doing it. I heard someone say it on the right-wing extremist news source that isn't FOX "News" because I don't watch FOX "News." I mean, seriously, you don't find it odd that ONLY Republicans are making these new, non-fraud-preventing laws, which also happen to mostly just prevent Democrats from voting? Sure, there will be some collateral Republican votes lost, but that's the cost of war. On the middle class.

I have not mentioned FOX "News" even once. Until a second ago. Stop inventing things to complain about me just so I seem wrong about something.

I'm not sure if you consider The New York Times a liberal news source - it's impossible to figure out just what exactly Republicans will claim foul on when the facts contradict their wishes and desires - but this is just an article about the Bush Administration's Justice Department and their 5-year investigation into voter-fraud that turned up virtually no evidence.

I know you like to give the examples of registering dead people and felons as a Democrat tool for voter-fraud. Those are typical examples of the right-wing media picking words out of reports and inventing their own story to fit their biased agenda. Er, I mean, typical examples of right-wing lies. That Bush Justice Department report - that I know you didn't read - did have dead people and felons in it. But the non-twisted facts are as follows: Dead people were found to be registered. Not registered after they died, just registered. Meaning, registered people died. They never voted. No wrong-doing was discovered. It was just included in the report because it was something they investigated – and found no wrong-doing. We'll all still be registered after we die. And one, ONE ex-convict was unfamiliar with voting rules and he presented his prison ID card that was stamped "Offender" when he tried to register. I wonder how they ever uncovered his sinister plan of presenting his secret prison ID card with big, red ‘offender’ stamped on it? That's not exactly a wide-spread Democrat scheme to defraud the system, is it? One felon who didn't understand the rules and people who died that were registered somehow became this massive Democrat conspiracy after it passed through the right-wing media's cherry-picking apparatus.

Since there is no voter-fraud occurring in America, why all the new voting laws sweeping the Republ-o-sphere that specifically target Democrat voters? Why all the new laws targeting Democrats that DO NOT prevent fraud but DO prevent people from voting? What would the purpose be if they're not necessary? I'm almost certain they're not to prevent Republicans from voting.

Shall I say it again? There is virtually no voter-fraud occurring in America. And the new Republican laws that target Democrat voters do not prevent voter-fraud, they just prevent legal voting.

Are any of these facts substantial enough or is it still Left-Wing Extremist bullshit?

Does anyone else reading this think it's pure nonsense?

I'm not going to ask if I sound like a crazy person. I already know I'm crazy.

Like a FOX!

But, yes, there was an instance of actual voter-fraud. It was when the Republican-dominated Supreme Court stopped the recount and removed the democratic system of a free and fair election from the hands of the citizens and summarily judged George W. Bush to be the winner in 2000 even though Al Gore had the majority of the votes.

Oh, and one other instance of voter-fraud. When the Republican-dominated Supreme Court summarily judged multi-billion dollar corporations to be people. So, as a person, they could buy - I mean, donate to - a candidate.

Oh, and another instance of voter-fraud is registering 'Fake Democrats' in Wisconsin by the Republican Party in order to obfuscate voters.

However, photo-ID’s couldn’t stop any of that fraudulent activity, either, so there’s still no reason for them.

So let me get this straight... We are to believe that the Republicans wanting a simple photo ID to vote, is supposed to only impact Democrats? [If you ignore all of the statistics, yes. Also, if you ignore the fact that I admitted there would be some collateral Republican votes suppressed. But, please. Do continue.]

Bill for all of your diatribe, the one thing that sticks out to me is that perhaps we are all asking the wrong question here. What I would be asking myself, assuming that everything you said is true, is what is it about being poor or unsuccessful that you cannot afford a driver's license, that makes you a Democrat? [Well, there’s a fantastic leap in logic. Only Democrats are poor, unsuccessful people with no driver's licenses? You live in Georgia. Your whole goddamn state proves that question to be fucking stupid.]

Or maybe the better question to ask, is what is it about being a Democrat makes is so much more likely for you to be poor or unsuccessful... [What the… who the…? You may be a Republican if you invent things to support your unintelligent babble.]

Your assertion that such laws only target Democracts hinges on the assumption that anyone poor or unsuccessful is a automatically a Democrat. And if that is the case, then there is a bigger problem going on within your party that needs to be addressed IMHO. [That not only is not even close to what I said, but the fact is that the largely Republican South is generally poorer than the rest of the country since they mostly vote against their own best interests because they believe the lies they are told.]

Just food for thought... [Junk food for thought…]

Bill Mancuso             
Nothing you just said makes any sense. And good job ignoring everything I said except this one thing you can manipulate to fit your argument that isn't true. It isn't about being able to afford anything. Or being unsuccessful. Or photo ID's in particular.

The really real question, that I stated 47 times, and it still didn't sink in, is - What is the Republicans' real motive since none of these measures prevent fraud - that isn't occurring anyway - as proved by the Bush Administration's 5-year investigation?

I will answer your question with a question that may make sense to you.

When Flu season approaches, does one get the Flu shot ahead of time, or do they wait until they have a raving case of the flu and then go get the shot?

At the end of the day, if the Reps said that because of the cost concern, everyone that needs a Photo ID in order to vote will get one free of cost, we both know that the Dems would still be screaming bloody murder.

Because it isn't about cost. It never was. That's just the most convenient semi-plausible argument that they think can get some traction.

[Actually, they were giving out free ID’s. It still costs money. Most of the people without photo ID’s have no driver’s license and no car. Not because they're poor. Millions of New Yorkers have no driver's license or car. They take public transportation – which costs money. They have to take time off work to go and get the “free” ID – which costs them a day’s paycheck. They spend half an otherwise productive day going back and forth to get the ID. And most people don’t have their birth certificate or marriage license needed to obtain the ID – which costs money for a copy. It all adds up to a poll tax, which is illegal.]

Bill Mancuso
Christ, I just said it isn't about the cost. What are you talking about?

There is no fraud. There won't be fraud. Either way - NONE OF THESE FUCKING MEASURES PREVENTS VOTER-FRAUD! How many times do I need to repeat that before you stop ignoring it?

Your analogy is nonsensical. For it to be accurate, the vaccine wouldn't prevent the flu. It makes as much sense as - When flu season approaches, does one get circumcised ahead of time, or do they wait until they have a raving case of the flu and then go get circumcised?

And hey, aren't flu shots just big government intruding into your life, telling you what to do?

And let me repeat it again - What is the Republicans' real motive since none of these measures prevent fraud - that isn't occurring anyway - as proved by the Bush Administration's 5-year investigation?

you might be making things worse, bill.

Bill Mancuso
Oh, no. You posted a link to the liberal, leftist, extremist, Marxist, Communist, Fascist, bleeding-heart, big-government, anti-corporate Huffington Post. These statistics will be ignored.

Hey Bill, who cares what their motive is, really? [People being prevented from their Constitutional right to vote in a free and fair election.] Is it really so bad to require people to have a photo ID in order to vote?

I still ask you, why does it scare Democrats to death every time the voter ID card issue comes up?

You keep harping on why the Republicans want the ID card, and yet you never question the motives of why it scares the living shit out of the Democrats.

And nice article from Huffington. Very funny satire, it was a good read. [ZING!]

Ever tried talking to a Liberal about Gore losing the 2000 election? How it didn't matter how the votes were counted, that no matter what standards were used, or who did the counting, no matter how many times they did it, Bush still won? Then you get to listen to the Liberal talk about. "Yeah, but what about the popular vote?", when to date, there has never been a popular vote in the US political election process, it was a term that the media made up and has no actual basis in fact? ['Popular vote' was not made up by the media. It is an actual thing. For a fact. Yes, the popular vote doesn't count in electing the President of the United States of America, but that just proves that for all the democracy-spreading wars we love to start in other countries, we do not have democracy in America. One man, one vote, except when choosing the President of the USA. But other than that, yeah, sure, democracy.]

Yeah, it's just Republicans that are stubborn... LOL

Bill Mancuso
First, factually, there is virtually no voter-fraud occurring in the United States of America according to every investigation into the issue, including the George W. Bush Justice Department's five-year investigation, which you ignored, so whatever point(s) you are trying to make is therefore ulterior motive-based fantasy. Having said that, I will address your fantasies with reality-based fact. Which you will again happily ignore.

Who cares what the motive is? Who wants to know why the Republicans want to spend millions upon millions more of government money and force citizens to spend more of their money as well on an issue that does NOT solve the issue they're complaining about - which does NOT exist in the first place? And they say there are no stupid questions. And my question of what their motive is was rhetorical. The motive is specifically to block Democrats from voting. Again, it ain't rocket surgery.

And isn't the law based on motive? Don't prosecutors always focus on motive? Only now, when it contradicts your fantasy, you say it doesn't matter.

Oh, and your idea of the government providing free ID's = even MORE millions in government spending to fix an issue that doesn't exist. Yay, conservative hypocrisy!

And again, for the 98th time. It's not about the photo ID's. Stop talking about the photo ID's. You ignore every fact and pick out the words 'Photo ID' to keep incessantly talking about. Photo ID's are not the main issue. It's not about the photo ID's. It's about the half-dozen specifically Democrat-targeted laws that do not prevent fraud, just prevent voting. But go ahead, ignore the facts - again - and keep saying 'Photo ID' because this almost meaningless point is extremely significant to you since it falsely makes it look like Democrats are scared because they just want dead people and illegal Mexicans to vote (Which I already proved was a pathetic Republican lie). As opposed to the reality-based fact of a massive exodus of the 28 Million Americans without this ID costing the federal government to expand and spend $billions in the process. AND IT DOES NOT PREVENT VOTER-FRAUD ANYWAY. You're not reading anything I'm writing, are you? If you are, start your next reply with 'Green Eggs And Ham.' And again again (yes, I said 'again' twice), PHOTO ID's DO NOT PREVENT FRAUD. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE? Oh, yeah, I forgot I already told you that was a rhetorical question. The purpose, again, is to specifically prevent Democrats from voting - it's not about the photo ID's. Because, I don't know if you know, but PHOTO ID's DON'T PREVENT FRAUD.

Never was a popular vote? And now peoples' votes don't count? Fascism much? What in the hell are you talking about? Yeah. No one should vote anymore. We should just always let the Supreme Court pick out presidents against who the citizens of the United States of America vote for.

Or are you suggesting that the electoral college is needed because there are more people who vote Democrat and their votes need to be suppressed like in Communist and Fascist countries because you don't agree with the majority of the people? I think you are. I know you are. You made that very same Fascist point in a previous discussion. The reality of the electoral college is that it was created because 200 years ago, voting booths were only in big town halls and most of the population lived hundreds of horse & buggy miles away - so most people couldn't get to the booths to vote. They needed a system that calculated an average. Now, NOBODY is unable to reach a voting booth, so they're not prevented from voting. The useless electoral college system actually interferes with vote outcome (wow. the electoral college system is actually voter-fraud itself). Well, nobody is prevented from voting except for all the new, Republican voting laws targeted at specifically preventing Democrats from voting. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PHOTO ID'S, SO STOP SAYING IT IS. It's about the half-dozen specifically Democrat-targeted laws that do not prevent fraud, but just prevent voting. You know, the ones I explained in detail to you but you ignored so you could keep bringing up the less significant photo aspect of the situation that you think makes it look like Democrats want dead people and “illegals” to vote but really doesn't.

By the way, yes I did listen to a liberal about Gore losing the 2000 election when the Republican-dominated Supreme Court removed the vote from both the people and the electoral college in a fascistic manner. Did you ignore the facts you were told in my previous post about that exact issue, or did you just ignore my whole entire post altogether? And where did you hear that Democrats didn't care how votes were counted? Where does that bullshit nonsense come from? What alternate reality does it exist in?

[The 'previous post' I was referring to is HERE. Scroll down to #5. If you're interested in more cases of Republicans suppressing votes, I have been trying to keep track. They're in THIS post.]

I love how Republicans like to claim "the liberal media made that up and has no actual basis in fact" when Republicans disagree with actual fact. As if just stating that makes the opposite of reality suddenly become true. And to clarify - when you say liberals made it up, you don't provide proof. You believe that you just saying it is proof. When I say Republicans made it up (like rampant voter-fraud), I provide proof (like the GWB Justice Department report). And you ignore it. Or claim it's liberal to give you an excuse to ignore it. But mostly you just ignore it.

Here is a highly detailed non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization report that you will deem leftist, liberal lies so you can feel better about ignoring the facts - or just not read at all:

There are no Democrat targeted laws. None. [You said it, so now it's true.] If only Democrats are impacted by them then democrats are doing something wrong.

And there is no popular vote. We have had an electoral college to decide presidential elections since the 1700's.

Less typing, more research.

Bill Mancuso
Green Eggs And Ham. Fail.

I still don't understand what you are going on about. The law mandates ID's to vote. It has nothing to do with any political party, other than the fact that in that state, and historically nationally, whenever the discussion of photo ID's for voting comes up, Democrats start going berserk. I give you all of your posts on this topic as Exhibit A.

You say it isn't about the ID's, then what is it about? Motives? You say that it targets Democrats because there isn't enough voter fraud to justify the expense? What does that have to do with Democrats, Republicans, or Martians?

If you think it is unneccessary, you might have a point. When you say that requiring ID's targets Democrats, the only way for that statement to have any validity would be if Democrats were unable to get the ID's but Republicans could. You cannot claim that it suppresses Democrat votes unless there is something that prevents Democrats from getting the ID, or, if there is something inherent in Democrats that makes them unable to obtain cards. [How about all those statistics you keep ignoring? Might they prove your head is being safely housed in a dark, odoriferous chamber?]

As for the popular vote, there is no such thing legally, never has been. We elect Presidents with the Electoral College, which was fine until Democrats found themselves in the rare situation that they had slightly more individual votes, but because of the Electoral College breakdown, lost the Electoral College votes. It doesn't happen often, but it was not the first time it has happened. [No, it was fine until nobody was prevented from reaching voting booths. But don't let me stop you from inventing your own reality.]

The media started yapping about POPULAR VOTE, when the bottom line is that we have never elected Presidents that way. It's meaningless, irrelevant. [No, it is not meaningless. If the Electoral College is going against what the majority of the citizens of the United States freely and fairly vote for, that proves the averaging system of 236 years ago is out of date and now constitutes fraud.]

Bill Mancuso
You do not understand because you do not care about facts and keep inventing your own. I have already given you many, many facts as to why these new laws do not prevent fraud and how they do specifically target Democrats to suppress their ability to vote, but you keep ignoring them.

The peoples' votes are irrelevant? You are advocating fascism.

The electoral college is over 100 years irrelevant but you find it helps Republicans by suppressing Democrats' votes, so you like it. But that doesn't make it any less fascistic in nature. Wonder what you would say if you believed it suppressed Republican votes? I lied. I do not wonder.

Like a typical Republican, you believe in something only if it helps you. Even when it is against your alleged beliefs. Unless maybe you like fascism?

Finally, I have proved you are either not reading or not paying attention to anything I am writing. You keep asking the same questions over and over that I have unequivocally answered and provided ample proof for and asked you to please stop asking. You, however, keep providing me with crazy talk based on nothing but the regurgitated fact-contradicting fantasies of a Republican lemming. I realize they are not fact-contradicting to you because anything a Republican invents that supports their bias is considered a fact. And actual facts that contradict Republican bias are ignored like they never existed.

No, their votes count in accordance with the electoral college. [Invented 236 years ago.] Always been that way. But they lost, and some of them still have not gotten over it. The popular vote has never been the system of electing the president, so it is irrelevant. [True democracy - BAH!]

And no, you have not explained why the law targets democrats. Other than most democrats are poor and on the public dole? Was that your argument? [No. That was your argument. Mine was based on facts. Happily ignored by you.]

The electoral college put Obama in office, did that help republicans? I support the system because it has worked for 250 years, and put hundreds of democrats into office in that time. Its not a republican sinister conspiracy.

Put down the pipe and step off the ledge. [If you think the United States of America is 250 years old, it may be you who is smoking crack.]

And the supreme court didn't take over the vote, bill. They overturned the democratic dominated florida state court that tried to steal an election for Gore by changing the rules after the votes were cast. Gore went to the court to change the counting standards when he came up short, the democrat state judges said yes, the USSC stepped in and said no, can't move the goal line when your guy comes up short.

Bill Mancuso
If there was only some way we could figure out if I explained, in detail, these new laws that don't prevent fraud but specifically target Democrats. Like, if it was recorded somewhere. Then ignored. Then denied it was ever explained. Because it was ignored. Because it didn't agree with Republican bias. Oh, how I wish I saved this information somewhere so I could show it to you. Well, I guess it will just be lost to memory and time, like sands in the hourglass.

Out of curiosity, why is it you ignore almost everything I say? Do I present too many facts? Do I use too many words? Do I ask too many questions? Do you just involuntarily ignore that which opposes your politically-biased opinion like some sort of Republican pre-programmed robot? It does increasingly appear that the Yale University study is quite accurate.

Obama won by 10,000,000 votes. The electoral college did not even in the slightest way put him in office. The people actually voted for him. Strange, huh? Unlike Bush who lost by a little under 550,000 votes. In that case, the out-of-date electoral college committed voter-fraud. Bringing the total cases of voter-fraud committed by the electoral college to 4.

The Electoral College put hundreds of Democrats in office? Just how many Presidents do you think we've had?

Changing the rules? Moving the goal line? Do you refer to when Gore requested a hand re-count, which is allowed under Florida state law? Though, I will give you the two-week extension the Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court tried to allow for re-counters to tally up the decision as to who won Florida's election of the next President of the United States of America. How dare they try to get an accurate vote. Good thing the Republican-controlled US Supreme Court stepped in and put an end to THOSE shenanigans. Try to count peoples' votes. How DARE they! Crooked son-of-a-bitch motherfucking liberals!! Fair and honest vote, ha-RUMPH! If we could just come up with a way to prevent those damn Democrats from voting, we wouldn't have to worry about these close calls in the future. We'd have to wait until a majority of states were Republican-controlled, though, so the plan could be wide-spread and simultaneous. An unstoppable Republican blitzkrieg, if you will.

Ain't I a stinker?

I do understand that you believe a straight-up vote that actually counted what the majority of the people wanted would generally favor the Democrats - which is why you are against it. You would rather choose the system that you believe takes away Democratic votes, which is not a fair system, and really rather fascist in nature, but you think it helps your cult. On the flip side, you expect that I don't like the Electoral College because you believe that I believe it takes away Democratic votes. But that's not true. I'm not angling for anything past a free and fair election. One man, one vote. No matter who it favored. But that is not the system we have because the Founding Fathers thought the citizens were too stupid to directly choose a President. So they put the Electoral College between the people and the President. Nice, huh?

And before you claim that a fair election actually would favor Democrats, you would be wrong. Except for the 4 times that the unfair electoral college committed voter-fraud and picked a Republican over the popular-voted Democrat, all the other 38 elections were also won by popular vote. The winners include Republican, Democrat, Whig, Democratic-Republican and Federalist candidates.

Public majority opinion generally bounces back and forth between the two current parties. The Electoral College is unnecessary and stupid and fascist.

Republicans always like to bleat on about what the Founding Fathers wanted. But often ignore any Founding Father writings or statements that contradict their opinions. Or just twist what the FFs said to fit their biased opinions. Yes, the Electoral College has always been the way, but not all the FFs liked it.
"I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and antipope." - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to George Hay, 1823.
Also, did you know that before the election of 1804, the presidential candidate who came in second in the Electoral College automatically became the vice-president? That changed after Jefferson and Burr both got the same amount of votes. Burr would not yield and only after countless deadlocked votes did Jefferson win. Key words: that changed. Although, sadly, it is virtually impossible to remove the Electoral College system of voter-fraud due to the impossible criteria that has to be met. So you can at least take solace in that.

[Actually, there is a movement to rid America of the scourge that is the Electoral College. And it's slowly gaining momentum.]

1) You never explained why Democrats were targetted. You showed a link claiming that some people didn't have ID's and assume that because they are poor or elderly that they would be Democrat voters, but you never really showed how the law targets them, only that apparently Democrats are more likely to be poor or something. [No. I. Did. Not. You fucking said that. Please, continue to ignore and invent.]

You said that voter fraud isn't rampant enough to justify the photo ID law, and I don't really have a problem with your argument. But to take that and leap to the conclusion that it is an Evil Republican plot to block Democrats from voting, is just plain sill and you know it.

There is something about this issue that scares Democrats. [No, Democrats are not scared. You would like them to be because that would fit your conspiracy theory that they are registering dead people and undocumented Hispanics.] Your argument is a fraction of the wailing that went on nationally when it came up a few years ago. The Dems said it was racist, all the usual nonsense intended to mislead people.

Now, about the Election in Florida. [Pay close attention here. Almost nothing he says is true.] You really need to look at the history books. The actual ones, not the Revisionist versions. Gore lost the initial count. Yes, they wanted an extension for a hand recount. And they also wanted to block tens of thousands of absentee ballots from military personnel stationed overseas. And most importantly, he wanted to change the hand-counting standards of how they were applied to "hanging chads" and things like that. Things that would normally qualify or disqualify a cast ballot in the event that a machine could not read it, or if there was a hand count. The goal line was trying to be moved so that ballots that would normally be discarded under Florida election laws, would not be counted.

The state court, being mostly Democrat, said OK, go for it. That was the problem that the USSC had with it. Florida can modify their own election laws as they see fit, and there is a legislative process to do so. But what the USSC said that they cannot do is go into an election under one law and set of standards, and then change that after the votes have been cast. If the voter machines were flunky, or the standards of hand counting were not good, that's fine, vote on it and change it and make a new law for the next time around.

The powers that be down there that make the laws, and decided to use those machines, all very heavily Democrat. The system was fine so long as they were winning elections, but when their guy lost, suddenly its no good and they want to change the rules after the game has started?

USSC said hell no.

USA Today, the Washington Post and the Miami Herald, who had all endorsed Gore, all went in after the fact and manually counted the ballots, hoping to have the huge story of "Bush stealing an election". I mean, can you imagine being the news agency that busted that wide open? But no matter how they counted, no matter what standards they applied to the hanging chads, using all of the things that the Gore camp wanted, Bush still won and even eked out a few more votes to increase his lead.

These are facts. [Be still, my beating heart.] The FLorida court was wrong to try and change the rules mid-play and the USSC was right to slap them down and uphold the laws and standards that were in place when everyone went in to cast their ballots.

As for your assertion about the popular vote, it is still irrelevant. The system is such that we elect the Electoral College and they cast their votes. It is usually a case where the popular vote and EC votes coincide, but the way the math breakdown works, it doesn't have to be. If Bush had lost in this manner as Gore did, I highly doubt that we would see 15 pages from you on the matter denouncing the process and calling for change. LOL [Maybe not. But I would definitely see 15 pages from you on the matter.]

And I meant that our system of electing officials has put hundreds of Democrats in Office. Meaning Congress, Senate, governor, etc... [The Electoral College only elects presidents.]

And if you think that the Electoral COllege is outdated and needs to go, fine. Get the Congress and Senate to create a new law, have the Prez sign it, get 2/3 of the states to ratify it and your done.

We have the means to change things, so if you and your ilk feel that things need to change, then do so. The means are there. Bitching on FB isn't part of the process.

But there was a reason for it, it was to help spread out the voting influence so that a couple of the major cities would not be picking the president for everyone else, including all the areas that didn't have the city's population density. [200 years ago.]

Now, I know that because major cities have more poor people and minorities and those are the bastions of Democrat votes, that they would LOOOOVE to see LA, NY, Miami, Detroit and a small handful of other cities electing a Democrat for the next hundred years, but I don't know that it is the best option for the rest of us.

guess who's closing dmv's in supposedly democratic areas? i say supposedly because i don't know the areas myself, but seeing as who it is, i have no real reason to doubt.

Yes Mulder, it is all an Evil Republican plot. Thank god the Democrats in the media are here to keep us informed.

Maybe the offices in the shitty areas are being closed. Of course, most shitty areas happen to be populated by Democrats. Coincidence? [You made that up. You are a Republican. Coincidence?]

i'm not sure how serious to take that last comment.
but, it does lend some credence to the statement that most close-minded people are republicans.

Liberals are the most open-minded people on the planet, so long as you agree with them.

Very seriously. Why is it that most of the really shitty areas, with the most poverty and crime, tend to be hugely Democrat?

The answer is obvious.

My question, is if the Democrats are so great at taking care of the "little guy", and they are the compassionate ones that do whatever they can to help them, why are they still so badly off? Why hasn't their situation improved? [Might have something to do with Republicans always cutting social programs for the poor while giving tax cuts to the rich. Scroll back to the top and read my original post.]

For the same reason that we still have racism. Jesse Jackson and his cronies don't want racism to end, because without racism there is no need for THEM. No more salary, limo rides, private jets, TV appearances, book deals, expense accounts, etc... They need racism to continue because that is how they make their living, they profit from it, which is why they ENCOURAGE and PROMOTE racism. [How true. Rednecks, the KKK, white supremacy groups would all instantly start loving black people if it just wasn't for Jesse Jackson. I see no flaws in that logic.]

The Democratic Party, of which they also happen to be members of, doesn't want poverty, strife, and all that crap to go away. Because if they actually made people's live better and got them out of those situation, you wouldn't need Democrats any more. In order to posture yourself as the "Champion of the underdog", you have to ensure that there is always an underdog that needs your help. Otherwise, the need for you is gone.

All the trillions of other people's dollars that the Dems have spent and want to continue spending, hasn't made their situation improve, has it? They give them just enough to survive, but not enough that they can provide for themselves and not need the Democrats any more.

You talk about the DMV closings, but you failed to mention that the USPS is shutting down 3,600 Post Offices as well:

The reason? $8.5B in losses last year. Which ones will be closed? The ones losing the most revenue. Want to guess what areas the majority of them will be in? [The gay areas? Asian? Am I close? Richard is trying to somehow claim poor Democrats don't buy postage stamps for his absurd argument, which has nothing to do with voter suppression. In the sequel to this post, "Class War II: Trickling on the Middle Class," I will explain the truth about why the Post Office is in trouble. Hint: It has nothing to do with poor Democrats.]

Another REPUBLICAN PLOT, or like the DMV, the reality of basic economics?

See, I still haven't seen anything to suggest that it TARGETS Democrats. [No. Nobody seems to be able to come up with even ONE thing.]

Now, it may affect Democrats more [Wait, I thought...], but that is not the same thing, else I could make the following statements following your logic:

Tests in school target dumb people, because it is the dumb people that cannot seem to pass them.

Or, laws against assault target minorities, because they commit 72% of the violent crimes in the US.

[Again. Flawless logic.]

Using your logic and the way you employ it in your argument on the Photo ID law, my statements are just as "accurate" as yours. [Hah!] The law says that to vote you need an ID, simple enough. It makes no mention of party and you have yet to show me why one person could get one and another could not.

All you have shown is that some people don't have them, either by choice or because they cannot get one. So to me, the issue is not the requiring of an ID, the real question is why so many Democrats are unable, or choose not to have an ID.

You also make it very hard to take you seriously when you make everything out to be an Evil Republican plot. I don't see either party as being evil. In fact, in concept at least, both parties want the same thing most of the time. But they have vastly different ways of going about getting it.

Both parties want more "equality" in economics, opportunity, etc...

The Dems choose the path of Wealth Redistribution. Take more money from the achievers and give it to the non-achievers. [Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Achievers vs Non-Achievers: The Battle Royale!] Basically try to level the playing field by taking the people at the top of the ladder, knocking them down a couple rungs and using some of the proceeds to subsidize the people at the bottom to move them up a rung, or at least keep them from going any lower. [Otherwise known as: taxing everyone fairly.]

The Reps choose the other path. They want a system where as many people as possible can make more money. Make a system where the people at the bottom can move up the ladder, accepting that no matter what system you have, there will always be some people that cannot, or choose not to do so. There are lazy, stupid or unmotivated people in life, there always will be. [Otherwise known as: tax cuts and deregulation for the rich.]

The Dems path dumbs the system down. It doesn't really solve the problems for the people the bottom, it just allows them to exist there. [Holy fuckballs, Batman.]                              

The Reps path would lead to more people making more money, which means what? More tax revenue. Even if it is at a lower rate, if you have millions of more people making more money, your tax revenue will go way up. Most everyone making more money, spending it, creating jobs, more tax revenue, life is good for the people and for Washington. [Hm. We’ve had this trickle-down system of government for over 30 years now. Why, then has absolutely none of what you said happened? In fact, the only thing that has happened is the rich got richer and the poor, poorer. But I’m speaking of facts, nevermind.]

The Dem path, tax the shit out of the rich, go after corporations, stifle business, stifle job growth and even kill off jobs, force companies to lay off workers, raise prices or move overseas, etc... [Also never happened. Quite the opposite, really. The fact that corporations have had record-breaking profits under Obama and Clinton kind of proves that. Corporations do not pay living wages to their workers, though. And they lay off workers to keep more money, not because they have to, because of greed. Any good jobs in China available? Republicans filibuster any attempts to move jobs back to America, lately?]

It's not the intentions (usually) that I disagree with Democrats on, it is their execution. It doesn't work most of the time. But because they feel their intentions are good, it is very hard to argue with them. Because when Conservatives attack the results, Dems interpret that as you are attacking their goals or intentions [?] and that's an emotional thing and you have as good of a chance of making them see the light as you do of teaching your cat Calculus.

I don't think that requiring a Photo ID to vote is a big deal. I don't think that anyone who is not in this country legally, should be able to get a driver's license. If I went to any country in Europe and was not there legally, they would not issue me a government ID or driver's license. I see no problem with requiring people to have an ID to vote, to show that they are legally ALLOWED to vote in the first place. [Undocumented immigrants receiving driver's licenses... in context. Nothing to do with voting.]

It doesn't target Democrats, but like the law against assault analogy, it may effect one Demographic more than the other. But as with the assault law, it doesn't TARGET minorities just because they happen to be the ones committing most of those crimes.

[He sure can ramble on nonsensically for a long time, can’t he?]

Just as requiring an ID doesn't TARGET Democrats, or any political party, just because for some reason, a lot of Democrats can't seem to get their shit together and get a stupid driver's license or ID. [Again, you nailed it. Flawless deduction.]

The problem isn't the law concerning the ID. The bigger problem is that for some reason, your Party can't seem to get their shit together to do something simple that the rest of us seem to have no problem with. [Keep repeating that. I'm sure it will eventually come true.]

Now, if you want to limit the argument to simple cost, and if we should spend the money or if a report says voter fraud is rampent enough to justify it, we can have that debate and you may in fact get me to agree with you. [There is no debate. There is no voter fraud. Photo IDs wouldn’t prevent fraud anyway. These are facts.]

But making it out to be some Evil Republican Racist plot or whatever, to invent voter suppression is just asinine and smacks of desperation on the part of the media and politicians concocting that nonsense.

And I don't want to hear about how I am heartless because 400,000 Democrats in that state "Can't afford a drivers license or ID"...

Bullshit. I gaurantee you that the majority of them have a cell phone, an iPod, an X-Box, etc...

[Fuck, dude. What the fuck are you – bla bla bla.]

I used to see that crap all the time, [Here we go.] my ex-wife was a school teacher and she had 90% of her kids on the free breakfast and lunch program, because allegedly the parents couldn't afford to fee their kids. Apart from the fact that if you cannot afford to feed your kids, you probably shouldn't be having kids until you can...

That aside, these same kids had $90 sneakers, iPods and cell phones, they would talk about how they got an XBox or PS3 for Christmase, etc... And yet the parents could not afford a box of Cheerios and a sammich? Honky please!

[Racists are so much more fun when they don’t know they’re racist.]

But that is the mentality of many people at that level, because they are ENCOURAGED to, mainly by your party. [Stay on food stamps. Live in the lap of luxury that monthly welfare subsidies provide. Why work when you can get free government money. This message brought to you by the Democratic National Committee.] Not saying that there are not hard working people trying to make a better life and all that, I get that. But the percentage of people "on the dole", with the attitude I described above, is very common, and it is because mostly your Party, created that system which not only allows it, but it often encourages it.

[Right. What a great plan. Democrats spend taxpayer money to keep people poor to pretend they’re helping them so they vote for Democrats. Genius.]

My girlfriend wished to chime in on this...

"Wow.... Very interesting. Talk about paranoia at its finest. Since WI seems to be the state of topic, I've attached the pdf that explains how to apply for the state Food Share and other benefits programs in WI. Note on page 7 where "proof" of identity is required. I don't seem to hear anyone bitching and moaning about having to provide id to get their monies check and their food stamp card. 

As a matter of fact: 14.4% of the 5.7 million people in Wisconsin receive Food Stamps. [I'm sure it's because they want to and not because they need to.]

On average from 1998 - 2000, 8.8% of the state population was at or below the federal poverty rate: [What was I saying about corporations not providing a living wage to their employees?]

[I'm not sure how we've gotten on the welfare topic. Republicans often scramble all over the fucking place trying to make a point without any facts, often contradicting themselves. Anyway, you don't need to download the pdf. Here's a grab of the "proof" you need:

Seems a photo ID isn't needed. Unless your birth certificate, paychecks and hospital records have your photo on them.]

That comes straight from the state no bias bullshit here and people seem to be able to provide ID to get welfare so what is it that has the dems panties in a wad? I would be willing to bet you that most states require proof of ID to get benefits and I don't see any democrates laying themselves over the tracks to save the minorites in this arena.

It's all bullshit and just one more excuse to dumb down and make excuses in our country. I'm amazed how far off the deep end people will go." [Motherfucking "democrates." GARRRRR!!!]

Bill Mancuso
This is going to be a long response. You kept rambling on all by yourself like a crazy person in a padded room. Coming up with new topics, pointless topics and previously covered and explained topics that you ignored. I will address each one as succinctly as my fact-based answers will allow...

You got me, Dave. The giant circles you're speaking in have thoroughly flummoxed me. I have no idea how to respond. Let me see if I can wing it by using facts.

Um, yes, I did explain how Republicans are specifically targeting Democrats. In detail. That you ignored. NOT EVEN including the link full of even more facts that you also obviously ignored. Then you repeated more inaccurate right-wing gibberish.

Where's 2) ?

What part of what I said about Florida was revisionist? I ask the master re-visionary. True, I wasn't as detailed as you, but what did I say that was not correct? The things I said were even in your version of the events. Does this mean you were revisionerizing, too?

As for Bus v Gore 2000: I'm sure that the overseas military absentee ballots were believed to be a majority of votes for Bush, so that indeed was part of the desire for not wanting to allow the ballots. I won't dispute that. And the hypocritical, double-standard, pretend outrage by the Republicans was also to be expected. Laying all that out on the table, here's the cut-through-the-bullshit truth of the matter: County elections officials, both Republican and Democrat alike, agreed that overseas ballots had ALWAYS been thrown out in large numbers for the EXACT same kinds of technical violations (envelopes with no postmarks; postmarks past the due date, senders are not residents of the county), though the voters were unaware of it because the process had never had a bright spotlight shown on it before - the Republicans made goddamn sure everyone was aware of it this time. Other military ballots throughout Florida were rejected because the voters were not recorded as having requested Florida absentee ballots. Federal law permits members of the military to use what is called a 'federal write-in ballot,' but only if they requested, but did not receive, one of their home state's absentee ballots. David C. Leahy, supervisor of elections for Miami-Dade County, said that elections officials were being assailed for doing nothing more than abiding by the law, the same law they have abided by for years, without complaint. Fred Galey, elections supervisor in Brevard County, said: ''In the past, we have not counted ballots that didn't have a postmark. This is the first year anybody has told us something different.'' Suddenly, the Republicans want to move the goal line and make the Democrats look bad for saying illegal votes that were always illegal are still illegal - using the soldiers as pawns by playing on the sympathy America has toward them to hide the facts. That's the great Republican spin machine in action - making something that has always been done, by law, suddenly look as if it's the Democrats who are doing wrong, when it's really the Republicans. They are quite good at it. And you blindly repeat the bullshit because your uneducated bias allows you to think it's OK when Republicans move the goal line. Just not Democrats - who aren't even the ones who actually moved the goal line. Even though you incorrectly claim they did. This looks like Republican voter-fraud to me. But that’s only because it is.

As for changing the standards of how to count the hanging chads and whatnot, you're obfuscating again. The overwhelmingly Democratic Palm Beach County paper ballot machines were run by Democrat, Theresa LePore. So you were correct in saying Democrats controlled the voting machines – sort of. You with me so far? Well, when I say she was a Democrat, I actually mean she was always registered as a Republican - until the 2000 election, when she suddenly registered as a Democrat. And, lo and behold, over 33,000 Democrat county votes were deemed illegal due to 19,000 double-punched cards, 11,000 blank cards, and over 3,000 erroneous votes for Pat Buchanan - which Pat Buchanan himself admitted. And Pat ain't exactly no buddy of Al's. Not to mention the amount of votes the machine couldn't even read was EIGHT TIMES HIGHER than counties not using this punch-card system. Anything sound fishy yet? It was also discovered the ballot machines were not cleaned in eight years, causing a build-up of chads that made it almost impossible to punch through. And you count Gore wanting a recount because of this blatantly fraudulent shit as changing the goal line? HA and HA. Oh, and after the election, Ms. LePore re-registered again as an Independent. She certainly wasn't a Democrat and she couldn't go back to Republican because that would look way too fucking obvious as a case for voter-fraud. Which it was, regardless. Republican pretending to be a Democrat to prevent Democrats from voting. Where have I... heard... this...? But again, it seems you're OK with Democrat votes being illegally suppressed. Strange.

Let's visit Governor Jeb Bush's Florida BEFORE the election, shall we? And so we're all on the same page here, Jeb Bush is George W. Bush's brother. There's absolutely nothing suspicious about all this shit happening in his state. That last sentence was sarcastic. In Tallahassee, registered black voters were turned away because, despite carrying LEGAL and VALID voter registration cards, they mysteriously did not appear on the voter registration rolls at the precincts. Many hundreds more were stopped by Highway Patrol officers who set up inspection road blocks that just happened to be conveniently placed near polling places ONLY in black voting precincts. The Highway Patrol acknowledges this occurred, but claim it was a random placement of routine vehicle inspections near black polling places on election day. Who says there's no such thing as coincidence? This is a perfect example of coincidence of a statistically Democrat-voting minority's polling station where the voters just happened to be prevented from voting by the Republican candidate's brother's police. And this isn't voter-fraud at all by Republicans. (Boy, I sure was sarcastic that time.)

Remember when I previously pointed out that George W. Bush's Justice Department's report turned up only ONE actual felon who didn't know the rules and presented his prison ID to register to vote? And that dead people were registered - NOT fraudulently voting, just registered but dead? And Republicans spun those into a story (lie) about massive cases of registering felons and dead people as Democrats? Of course you don't, you ignored it. Well, let's delve into the origins of those completely fabricated lies a little further, shall we? Reports by the LA Times, among many others, show that many voters fraudulently had their names removed from the voter rolls by elected Republican officials before the election in an effort to remove convicted felons and deceased voters from the rolls, even though THOUSANDS of those deleted had NEVER been CONVICTED of anything, WERE very much ALIVE, and had REGISTERED PROPERLY. While it cannot be known who any individual voter would have voted for, the MAJORITY of those removed from the rolls were AFRICAN AMERICANS, who, as we all know by now, if you haven't ignored it, statistically vote Democrat. And keep in mind Dubya only beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. Put that little number up against the thousands and thousands and thousands of statistically Democrat-voting people who were prevented from voting at all. *cough* republicanvoterfraud *cough*

And yes, you are right. No matter how you count the votes, Bush got more. In Florida. Including all the people who were allowed to vote. But not including the tens of thousands of people illegally prevented from voting by Republicans.

And you said the voting system was fine to Democrats as long as they were winning. I pose to you that the voting system is fine to Republicans as long as they can rig it to win.

And I have already said that it's virtually impossible to remove the Electoral College due to the impossible criteria that has to be met and that you can at least take solace in that. But you ignored that, too.

And I've already explained why your "spreading out the voting influence" idea is nonsensical and fascist, several times, but you ignored that, too, and keep repeating your nonsense. Your idea would only make sense if millions and millions of Democrats lived in cities and 37 Republicans lived outside cities. But that's not the case. As I have explained, everyone can vote (when Republicans aren't suppressing them) and the popular vote bounces back and forth pretty evenly between parties. But you ignored that, too. But the Electoral College is fine with you because when it does suppress votes, it's always Democratic votes.

And please stop saying Democrats are scared. They're not. It's anger toward the people who are actually committing voter-fraud by claiming other people are committing voter-fraud so they can rig elections because they can't win an election fairly because of their fascist agenda that protects corporate America at the expense of middle class America. You sound like a crazy person by pathetically trying to make it sound as if Democrats are terrified of not being able to keep registering felons, deceased, and undocumented workers. That's just stupid. And thoroughly debunked. And inevitably ignored.

No, Kim, I'm sure King Middle Class Jihad Koch-Puppet Mouth-Breather is not closing only the Democrat area DMV's and expanding hours of operation in only Republican-dominated area DMV's because of some Evil Republican plot to commit voter-fraud. It's just one more coincidence in a vast sea of coincidences that only SEEMS to ALWAYS specifically prevent Democrats from voting. I'm sure Richard’s right. All the Democrat area DMV's are just in poor, shitty areas and all Republican area DMV's are in rich, nice areas. Why would he pull completely made up, non-factual, politically-biased bullshit out of his ass? Just let us know where you got your information, Richard and show Kim she's wrong to think that you completely invented non-factual, politically-biased bullshit and we can clear the whole thing up.

And the article you posted about Post Offices says not one single word about the PO's being in poor Democrat areas. It just says they're closing them down across the country because of revenue loss. I guess you see secret words about poor Democrats that only infrared-reading Republican eyes can pick up.

Mulder. I get it. He was the conspiracy theorist. Clever. Inaccurately applied, but clever.

This notion that only Democrats spend other people's money - I accept that you believe that nonsense because you're a Republican and no facts will ever change your mind, but I'll say this anyway... Both Republicans and Democrats (and whatever other party is elected to any office) spends other people's money. They're called taxes. It's how America pays for things. Difference is, Democrats use taxes mostly on social programs and infrastructure whereas Republicans mostly hand it over to millionaires and big corporations in the form of tax cuts.

Of course you don't see anything to suggest it TARGETS Democrats - you don't care about facts that contradict your political bias. Even if said facts are smacking you in the face - which they are. And your logic and the way you employed it is not at all like mine. Mine is based on facts about things that are obviously happening. Yours is conjecture based on things you wish were happening.

And motherfucking AGAIN. It. Is. Not. About. The. ID's. And also motherfucking AGAIN: photo ID's do not prevent voter-fraud. Stop bringing up photo ID's. Put down the pipe and step away from the ledge (like how I used your ridiculously corny and lame insult against you?). You are talking in circles about a subject I've already explained but that you keep ignoring and keep repeating nonsense. Why in the hell do you keep bringing the photo ID's up? Oh. Right. I just said it. You are ignoring me. And more importantly, facts. Completely making up shit like people having X-Boxes and iPods but not able to afford ID's to support a theory you are also making up - what's with the fantasy nonsense? Right, we again circle back to the Republican hatred of facts. Which is why lies are made up to support the politically-biased, non-factual fantasy.

And we yet again circle back to the already covered 'programs designed to help those in need only encourage poor people to live off the dole' nonsense. And although you claim that lie is not racist (I have yet to bring up racism but you keep doing so. Why defend against an attack that is never made? Conscience gnawing?), what's with the 'sammich, honkey please?' Who exactly are you suggesting is spending unbelievably fantastic amounts of money while also being encouraged to live off the welfare system? And just how much money do you think the welfare recipients get every month? $10,000? They're on welfare so they can buy all this expensive electronic equipment and sneakers but need to get free lunch Cheerios? Insert Twilight Zone Theme here.

[To be clear, he said, “They [Democrats] give them [poor people] just enough to survive, but not enough that they can provide for themselves and not need the Democrats any more.” Yet, at the same time, he insists poor people are buying “$90 sneakers, iPods and cell phones, [and] they would talk about how they got an XBox or PS3 for Christmase, etc...” Because in the Republ-O-sphere, contradictory sides of an argument makes perfect sense in proving a point. Remember, kids: No matter what a Republican says, he’s ALWAYS right!]

Your version of how Republicans and Democrats want to govern is based upon wildly inaccurate fantasy. Regarding BOTH parties. Not based on easily researchable, historical fact. But we know how much Republicans love facts.

About your girlfriend’s input: It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's. It's not about the photo ID's.

Start at the beginning and try reading the words where I wrote them down.

But hey, let's just for the fun of it pretend photo ID's is an issue. What do the people who have ID's that are receiving Food Stamps and monies checks have to do with the 28 million Americans who do not have ID's and are not receiving Food Stamps and monies checks? They are two separate groups of people that you are trying to conflate to make a point that isn't the issue. Because since having a Photo ID still does not prevent voter-fraud no matter how many times you bring it up, and they don't solve anything except make the government spend more money for no reason (something the Republicans do all the time then blame Democrats - y' know, based on facts), why make people need one to vote? Do you know how many people live in NYC alone that don't have a car and don't have a photo ID? Again, It has NOTHING to do with being able to afford a photo ID, and no matter how hard you try to make the issue about poverty-stricken Democrats living on the dole, it will never be. So stop saying it. The ONLY ones claiming that's what it's about is you. Over and over. Broken-record style. But to be fair, I do understand that what Republicans consider to be truth is just something that has been repeated a lot - regardless of any facts. Food Stamps and voting are two completely separate issues. Unless I'm wrong and you can show me the statistic that says the 28 million Americans without an ID are also getting Food Stamps. Then I will concede. Until then, imaginary point still not made.

Republican definition of compromise: Do what we want.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge two things: First - The fact that Republicans do not care about facts if they contradict their ill-informed, biased opinions. I agree with the Yale study. And nothing I wrote will penetrate the frontal lobe. As nothing has so far. And second - after you peel away all the bullshit lies and rhetoric, it becomes quite obvious that it's the Republican politicians who are always committing voter-fraud on a massive scale whenever they can. Not Democratic voters. But the Republicans have an extremely coordinated and skillful spin-machine, which Republican voters blindly follow and never check to see if anything they hear is truthful. Because they hate when facts get in the way of their pre-judged, biased opinions.

That was fun. What else ya got?

Bill, you never once provided a single fact that it targets Democrats [Except for all the fucking times where I did.], because it doesn't. [If you ignore facts.] Type page after page claiming you did, but you didn't. [Yup, I did.] You showed a bunch of alleged Democrats that you further allege cannot get ID's, and you then jumped to the conclusion that it was by some Evil Republican design. [Which is the ONLY Party implementing the new, restrictive voter ID laws?] Bullshit. You know it. I know it.

And I love how you call the system that the Founding Fathers set up as "Fascist". That's a typical Liberal tactic, try to compare Republicans to Fascists, racists, Nazi's, etc... Great PR campaign you guys have there. [It wasn't fascist 236 years ago when not everybody could reach the polling station in town. That's why they needed averages of states. Currently, in the 21st Century, EVERYBODY is able to reach the polling station. Currently, the Electoral College only ever suppresses the popular vote of the citizens of the United States. Currently, that definition falls under that of Fascism.]

I read your stuff on the Florida Elections, and I have read countless others. That's the problem with the interwebs... you can find a link that says anything, supports any stance, any viewpoint. I bet if you looked for articles and writing about why sex with farm animals is a good thing, you could find plenty of stuff to "support" that stance. We can get into link-wars all day long, it won't settle the debate unfortunately. [I…the…wha…there’s…but…you…]

And both Democrats and Republicans spend other people's money. Both tax me and take what I earned. One side, steals slightly less than the other side. [Steals more from the poor and less from the rich, you mean. But keep voting against your best interests, if it makes you happy.] So in that regard, the Republicans are not these wonderful humanitarians, they are simply the lesser of two evils in my eyes.

I bring up Photo ID's because you claimed that law was the vehicle by which the Reps were trying to suppress Democrat votes. I guess because Democrats cannot or will not get the ID's. You were the one claiming the law that REQUIRED ID'S was SUPPRESSING DEMOCRAT VOTES. [It’s difficult to use facts to explain things to people who do not accept facts as being important.]

That's why I bring it up.

If you want to change my mind, don't post editorials and blogs and biased opinions. The things you call facts which are usually just a biased interpretation of events that suits your needs. [See what I mean? If a fact contradicts a wish, the Republican will deem them “biased interpretation.”]

If you have actual facts, you would find that I am all ears. [Plugged full of gooey, soundproof wax.]

So can you, in 5 sentances or less, tell me why the law suppresses Democrat voters?

Not how much money it will cost, not why you feel it won't prevent voter fraud, none of the arguments that you keep using to try and muddy the waters, and that in truth may have some merit.


[You probably thought he was done talking right here, didn’t you?]

And I also think that you give the Republicans way too much credit when it comes to spin. They have two media outlets who will even give them the time of day, Fox News and Rush. Those two outlets versus all the other major networks, NPR, countless major newspapers, etc...

The Reps suck at spin most of the time. [It seems to be working on you, though. And every other Republican who repeats this nonsense. Which is almost all of them.] They pander, they soften their tone, they won't usually stand up for their core beliefs, they cave in to the Dems regularly, etc... Because they are afraid of being smeared in the media, called names, have people not like them, etc... [What motherfucking fantasy world does this come from?]

Many of us feel that the Reps suck at PR, that they don't stand up as much as they should. [Fucking hell this is hilarious.]

And the times that they do it is usually over some religious bullshit that should not be a part of politics in the first place, and that's usually where they lose me... Just lower my damned taxes, stop wasting money on dumb shit, stop racking up more debt handing money to people that didn't earn it, stop looking for new ways to regulate and restrict everything that I do, crack down on crime and national security, get the hell out of our bedrooms and wombs and leave the Church shit at the door.

My political views are more Libertarian than anything, but at present the Libertarians have no real shot at winning so the Reps are the closest thing I can find some level ground with, and even then, I only agree with them on about half the issues...

Bill Mancuso
I can't explain anything to you in 5 or 500 sentences. Because when I do, you just tell me I didn't.

It all comes down to the lesson of Green Eggs And Ham...

Plain Facts and Truth

Explain to you!
Explain to you!
I am not able to
Explain facts to you!

In 5 sentences,
In 6 sentences,
In 7 sentences
or 10.

Can you explain
any of them?

I cannot explain them,
No, I can't.
No, not even
In a 10 page rant.

Can you explain them
here or there?

I cannot explain them
here or there.
I cannot explain them
I cannot explain
any facts to you.
I cannot explain them,
no, not to you.

Can you explain them
in a house?
Can you explain them
to a mouse?

I cannot explain them
in a house.
I cannot explain them
to a mouse.
I cannot explain them
here or there.
I cannot explain them
I cannot explain any facts to you.
I cannot explain them, no, not to you.

Can you explain them
in a box?
Can you explain them
to a fox?

I cannot explain them in a fucking box.
I cannot explain them to a fucking fox.
I cannot explain them in a god damn house.
I cannot explain them to a god damn mouse.
I cannot explain them here or there.
I cannot explain them anyfriggingwhere.
I cannot explain them, no, I can't.
No, not even in a 10 page rant.

A train! A train!
Could you explain
on a train?

Not on a train! I can't pull it off!
Not at all! Now, go fuck off!

I would not, could not, in a fucking box.
I could not, would not, to a fucking fox.
I cannot explain them to a god damn mouse.
I cannot explain them in a god damn house.
I cannot explain them here or there.
I cannot explain them anywhere.
I cannot explain any motherfucking facts to you.
I cannot explain them, no, not to you.

You cannot explain
any facts to me?

I cannot explain them,
no, not to you.

You cannot explain facts to me.
So you say.
Try to! Try to!
And you may.
Try to explain them, I say!

If you fuck off,
then I will try.
I will try
to pull it off.

OK, explain them.
Don't say you can't.
And you won't even
need a 10 page rant.

If you take one
and then add one,
together, they're two.
And now you're done.

It just ain't so.
It is not true.
This I know
and so do you.

It does not make the facts untrue.
Just to say that it ain't so,
I have laid out all the facts,
but you just sit there and say no.

You did not explain them,
no, it was not right.
You told me stuff
from a liberal website.

No, I did not.
It was non-partisan.
My facts were checked
again and again.

You did not explain them
here or there.
You did not explain them
You did not explain any facts to me.
You did not explain them, no, not to me.

I did explain.
I did just there.
I could try again,
but I'll get nowhere.

You did not explain them,
no, it was not right.
You told me stuff
from a liberal website.

No, I did not.
I already said.
Stop repeating.
You're hurting my head.

You did not explain them,
no, it was not right.
You told me stuff
from a liberal website.

Explain to you!
Explain to you!
I am not able to
Explain facts to you!

In 5 sentences,
In 6 sentences,
In 7 sentences,
or 10.

I cannot explain
any of them.

No, I cannot explain
any of them.

So what you are saying is that while Democrats may be more affected by the law than Republicans for various reasons, you really cannot prove that it is some sinister plot to target them [Except for my detailed explanation that you refuse to acknowledge.], much like while it is true that minorities are responsible for 3/4 of the violent crime in the US, the laws against murder, rape, violence and theft don't actually target minorities...

Bill Mancuso
In case you didn't get it, this is what I meant by the poem...

I explain something in detail. You say I didn't.

I cite specific examples, using names, places, dates and events. You say I can even find a website saying how great it is to fuck farm animals - meaning I could find any lie on the internet to back up my opinion. It is obvious this is what you are doing, based on your complete lack of facts - you use innuendo and analogy to "prove" your points - but I am using actual facts, from real sources, to back up real events, not my predetermined opinions.

Any and every fact I have given, you say it is not true because it doesn't agree with your opinion.

For example, you said Gore wanted to change the goal line and block military absentee ballots to win. However, the types of ballots that were blocked were always blocked and Republicans were actually the ones changing the goal line to try and get the statistically Republican-leaning military votes counted - for the first time in history - against the law. As proof, I cited precedent and I quoted David C. Leahy, the supervisor of elections for Miami-Dade County and Fred Galey, elections supervisor in Brevard County. I guess these men to you are ‘farm animal fuckers’ because their very existence is counter to your false opinion of the way you would like history to have occurred.

You keep making analogies to back up your claims. Analogies that do not contain any facts and do not have any comparison to the issue at hand.

For example, I explain that photo ID's do not prevent voter-fraud. You say it is better to get a vaccination before a flu epidemic happens - meaning it is better to have the photo ID's before the voter-fraud is able to occur. But since you did not listen to the fact that the photo ID's do not prevent voter-fraud, because the fact did not agree with your opinion, your analogy is analogous to claiming that it is better to get a tattoo before a flu outbreak then getting a tattoo after a flu outbreak.

You also say I can't prove the Republicans' "sinister plot" targeting Democrats because of the analogy that minorities break more laws but laws don't target minorities. I say you are right that laws don't target minorities (in most cases - you ever 'drive while black?' or compare the punishments a white person gets and a black person gets for committing the exact same crime?) but your analogy breaks down at the point where Republicans ARE specifically targeting Democrats. A fact, which I have proved, but since you ignored it because you don't wish it to be true, this false analogy makes sense to you.

I also explained that the photo ID's were not the main issue, that there is a much bigger issue at hand (I explained the bigger issues, in detail, about how Republicans are specifically targeting Democrats, but you ignored them and repeatedly said I never explained them.). You ignored all 437,653 times I said they weren't the issue and kept asking why Democrats were "terrified" of photo ID's - over and over and over and over. I figured out that your conspiracy theory is that Democrats were terrified of being discovered to be registering dead people, “illegals” and felons. That is why you would not let the Photo ID issue go. At all. Under any circumstances. Even though I also thoroughly debunked that complete bullshit - but you ignored it because the facts went counter to your opinion. I even entered into evidence as exhibit "A" the George W. Bush Justice Department's five-year investigation into the fraud that turned up absolutely nothing. You ignored that, too, because it didn't agree with your false, biased opinion.

Any time a fact is presented to you that you don't like, you just say nuts on the internet made it up.

Any time an undesirable fact is presented to you that you cannot claim a nut on the internet made it up, you just ignore it and move on to your next conspiracy. Which you "prove" with an unconnected analogy. Sometimes, you continue with the same conspiracy, because to you, ignoring disagreeable facts is tantamount to the facts never being presented at all.

If facts and reality matter to you only when they mesh with your predetermined opinions, then how do you expect to ever have an intelligent conversation? Or ever learn anything?

In effect, your argument against anything you don't like is, "Nuh-uhhhh."

And that is an argument against which I could not ever possibly ever win.

My poem was badass, though.

Food for thought - no need to reply: Wisconsin Republicans make it a law to get a photo ID to vote, then close down all the DMV's only in Democrat districts just before the recall elections, but also expand the hours only in Republican districts - who is targeted for voter-suppression?

Your poem was badass. [BIPARTISANSHIP!]

But I went and looked and I cannot see where you posted proof that Democrats were targeted by the ID law, which is what sparked this entire debate. [I’m confidently going to call him a liar. He’s a liar. He never looked.]

I mean, the top post is titled, "How Voter ID is voter suppression in disguise". If you want to claim that the ID is not the point, perhaps you should have used a different article for the foundation of your soap-box? ;-)

I will concede that perhaps they will not prevent voter fraud, that voter fraud may not be common enough to warrant an attempt to thwart. But that doesn't mean that because the law concerning ID's might not really have an impact on fraud, that it equates to targeting Democrats. I read back, and I just don't see it. [Pants on fire.]

I see that a link was posted about how some DMV's are being closed down. You alleged that they were or will be in largely Democratic areas. [I didn’t allege. It is a fact.] I simply asked the question, showing the 3,600+ Post Offices that are also being closed, that the reasons may have more to do with the areas themselves and simple economics rather than some nefarious Republican plot, that's all. [You asked a baseless question that was purposefully designed to falsely allege that all Democrats are poor. Also, Post Offices have nothing to do with the voter ID issue at hand. You are either trying to obfuscate the issue or you don’t understand the issue or you don't care what is the issue.]

So the Reps tried to get the Military votes counted when they would normally have been thrown out. Ok, point taken. [But…?] What I would only like to mention is that I don't know that it has always been fair to discount their votes. [Yes, you do. I quoted David C. Leahy, the supervisor of elections for Miami-Dade County and Fred Galey, elections supervisor in Brevard County.] It appears that they have been tossed out in the past, but because no election was ever that close, nobody made an issue or tried to correct that. [Yes, but No, but Yes? So you don’t know? Except for facts. But you don't care.]

I only brought up the "moving the goal line" in reference to you claiming that the "Republican controlled USSC handed Bush the White House." [It did.] I simply clarified that all they did was overturn a Florida court, controlled by Democrats, that were issuing extensions and allowing counting standards that were not in place prior to the election. Florida, as a state can change the laws to whatever they want, all the USSC said was that you couldn't go into the election under one set of guidelines and then change it during the count. That was all they really said. Florida can and perhaps even did change the standards after the fact, and they could have changed them prior to the polls opening if they had wished. The USSC simply upheld the laws that were in place at the time the votes were cast. [You are correct. Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe having an accurate vote count is part of a fair and honest election as opposed to stopping mid-count to deem a Republican winner by Republican judges. But that’s just me.]

I won't deny that the whole situation was jacked up, and I don't think for a second that the Reps were not nearly as desperate as the Dems in their attempts to "win". But at the end of the day, 3 major newspapers that had endorsed Gore, went in and did multiple exhaustive recounts using every standard that they could think of, including the very ones that Gore's people had asked for, and Gore still came up short. So in the end, the USSC made the right call, no? [Yes, not taking into account the tens of thousand black voting precincts “coincidentally” blocked on election day by Jeb Bush’s State Police force.]

And we haven't really discussed the impact that CNN had on the election by calling the state for Gore while the polls in the entire pan-handle of the state were still open for another hour. That part of the state is very Conservative. How many tens of thousands of votes did that cost Bush, as people who were headed to the polls at the last hour, heard that Florida had already gone to Gore, so figured why bother? [Another baseless question? Where did you get ‘tens of thousands of voters figuring why bother?’ I got my ‘tens of thousands of voters being blocked’ from facts.]

Bill Mancuso
My top post is about Wisconsin recall elections. And everything in that top post is thoroughly explained in that very same top post. And you conveniently ignored it in order to allow yourself to repeat the easily disprovable lies you mindlessly believe from Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz, et al.

Regardless, we're talking in circles again. Which is why I kinda threw in the towel twice already.

****  ***   **   **    *    **   **   ***  ****

Rachel Maddow revisits the Bush v Gore case and more on 3/27/12…

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Stay tuned for Class War II: Trickling on the Middle Class
(It's much shorter.)

Good day.

My presidential election prediction for tomorrow:
Obama wins with 303 electoral votes - Romney 235 electoral votes
51.6% popular vote

No comments:

Post a Comment