Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
True The Vote !
()
Date: October 28, 2014 09:43PM
Hey Goober, Nice shot.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: October 28, 2014 10:35PM
Fc7ue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The study deals with voting in the 2008 and 2010
> Congressional elections.
It does so only by extrapolating (a favorite tool of sleazy researchers) from a survey database that includes responses from non-citizens legally voting in municipal elections. They count on you being too stupid to understand what they are doing. Looks like their ship came in in your case.
> You've not even looked at it to know who did the
> study or what it is.
Your piece of propaganda trash has already been debunked in the thread asking whether Fairfax County will ever become Republican again. It was meanwhile written by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two political science professors at Old Dominion University. Their article appeared on Red State, Hot Air, Breitbart, NRO, Eagle Rising, Right Wing News, The Daily Caller, and other such Echo Chamber outlets, these comprising pretty much the entire universe of it's publication prior to appearing in a Washington Post blog column.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The study deals with voting in the 2008 and 2010
> Congressional elections.
It does so only by extrapolating (a favorite tool of sleazy researchers) from a survey database that includes responses from non-citizens legally voting in municipal elections. They count on you being too stupid to understand what they are doing. Looks like their ship came in in your case.
> You've not even looked at it to know who did the
> study or what it is.
Your piece of propaganda trash has already been debunked in the thread asking whether Fairfax County will ever become Republican again. It was meanwhile written by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two political science professors at Old Dominion University. Their article appeared on Red State, Hot Air, Breitbart, NRO, Eagle Rising, Right Wing News, The Daily Caller, and other such Echo Chamber outlets, these comprising pretty much the entire universe of it's publication prior to appearing in a Washington Post blog column.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of Butthurt
()
Date: October 28, 2014 10:42PM
Can't dispute information? Hey, they're gooberassholes!!!
Yawn.
U mad, bro? Why so faggot?
Yawn.
U mad, bro? Why so faggot?
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: October 28, 2014 10:43PM
Wow. Never thought this would result in the way it has.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: October 28, 2014 10:45PM
Goober here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goober here. This whole thread is proof of
> the problem: Democrats want to cheat.
Go soak your head, goober. People of honor and good will want ALL Americans who are in fact perfectly eligible to vote to have an unencumbered opportunity to vote. Republicans by contrast, DO NOT.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goober here. This whole thread is proof of
> the problem: Democrats want to cheat.
Go soak your head, goober. People of honor and good will want ALL Americans who are in fact perfectly eligible to vote to have an unencumbered opportunity to vote. Republicans by contrast, DO NOT.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:09PM
Matter of Butthurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't dispute information? Hey, they're
> gooberassholes!!! Yawn. U mad, bro? Why so faggot?
Looks like you've fallen off of....
.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't dispute information? Hey, they're
> gooberassholes!!! Yawn. U mad, bro? Why so faggot?
Looks like you've fallen off of....
.
Attachments:
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:16PM
Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. Never thought this would result in the way it has.
Amazing what can happen once somebody who knows what's going on shows up.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. Never thought this would result in the way it has.
Amazing what can happen once somebody who knows what's going on shows up.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
matter of Butthurt...
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:16PM
is still butthurt.
Why so faggot bro?
Why so faggot bro?
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:39PM
matter of Butthurt... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
.
Attachments:
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
w9EvM
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:46PM
Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fc7ue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The study deals with voting in the 2008 and
> 2010
> > Congressional elections.
>
> It does so only by extrapolating (a favorite tool
> of sleazy researchers) from a survey database that
> includes responses from non-citizens legally
> voting in municipal elections. They count on you
> being too stupid to understand what they are
> doing. Looks like their ship came in in your
> case.
Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from sampled size to highly qualified estimates of what the numbers would represent in the larger population. It has nothing to do with voting in municipal elections, that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to criticize it that you found so you went with that.
The authors aren't counting on anything of the sort because they're not partisan morons like you are. They openly note and readily admit the many significant limitations of the study. There plenty of bases on which the methods in the study could be legitimately questioned as, for example, Tesler does here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/
You own idiocy in not understanding what the study was isn't among them.
> > You've not even looked at it to know who did
> the
> > study or what it is.
>
> Your piece of propaganda trash has already been
> debunked in the thread asking whether Fairfax
> County will ever become Republican again. It was
> meanwhile written by Jesse Richman and David
> Earnest, two political science professors at Old
> Dominion University. Their article appeared on
> Red State, Hot Air, Breitbart, NRO, Eagle Rising,
> Right Wing News, The Daily Caller, and other such
> Echo Chamber outlets, these comprising pretty much
> the entire universe of it's publication prior to
> appearing in a Washington Post blog column.
It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's where the rest all picked it up.
No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard statistical analysis using the CCES database. The numbers come out to be what they come out to be. The authors don't claim anything more than that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fc7ue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The study deals with voting in the 2008 and
> 2010
> > Congressional elections.
>
> It does so only by extrapolating (a favorite tool
> of sleazy researchers) from a survey database that
> includes responses from non-citizens legally
> voting in municipal elections. They count on you
> being too stupid to understand what they are
> doing. Looks like their ship came in in your
> case.
Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from sampled size to highly qualified estimates of what the numbers would represent in the larger population. It has nothing to do with voting in municipal elections, that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to criticize it that you found so you went with that.
The authors aren't counting on anything of the sort because they're not partisan morons like you are. They openly note and readily admit the many significant limitations of the study. There plenty of bases on which the methods in the study could be legitimately questioned as, for example, Tesler does here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/
You own idiocy in not understanding what the study was isn't among them.
> > You've not even looked at it to know who did
> the
> > study or what it is.
>
> Your piece of propaganda trash has already been
> debunked in the thread asking whether Fairfax
> County will ever become Republican again. It was
> meanwhile written by Jesse Richman and David
> Earnest, two political science professors at Old
> Dominion University. Their article appeared on
> Red State, Hot Air, Breitbart, NRO, Eagle Rising,
> Right Wing News, The Daily Caller, and other such
> Echo Chamber outlets, these comprising pretty much
> the entire universe of it's publication prior to
> appearing in a Washington Post blog column.
It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's where the rest all picked it up.
No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard statistical analysis using the CCES database. The numbers come out to be what they come out to be. The authors don't claim anything more than that.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Attn: public union limp dicks
()
Date: October 29, 2014 03:22AM
As if the dead-eyed twink fucking libtards who post on this board care about votes being accurately counted.. Cook County wanna be butt-boy thugs need to move to Beijing or Caracas where they'll never have to worry about the terror of fair and secure elections again. The rest of us can finally move forwards toward the first world standard of voter ID and one citizen one vote.
Why so angry about fair elections limp dicks?
Why so angry about fair elections limp dicks?
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of Fact
()
Date: October 29, 2014 08:40AM
Yes, it's debunked, because I said so!
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: October 30, 2014 12:07PM
AARP
Posted on 11/08/2013
Could Virginia’s Voter ID Law Swing an Election?
by Lisa McElroy | Comments | Print
You’ve probably read about the problems that many voters - especially older voters - have encountered under voter ID laws, many of which are relatively new. (There was the recent case, for example, of former House Speaker Jim Wright being turned away because, at 90, he didn’t have a valid driver’s license.) Among those who may have to make long trips to government offices to obtain voter ID cards are people without driver’s licenses (which, like Wright, many older Americans may no longer have), student or employee ID cards (which older Americans likely may not have had for years), or - in the curious case of Virginia - a handgun permit (I guess maybe some older Americans have those).
>> Sign up for the AARP Money newsletter
Think about it: Every citizen (with the exception of convicted felons) has the right to vote. When voter ID requirements make it difficult to exercise that right, chaos may follow.
Yep, for many Americans, voting can be a difficult enterprise. The result? Some a may choose not to go through the hassle, and others may show up at polling places without state-sanctioned ID and have to file provisional ballots.
This week, with voter ID laws in effect for the first election in some places, we started to see these very real effects playing out.
Take Virginia, for example.
On Tuesday, the race for attorney general there was incredibly close – with only 481 votes out of more than 2 million votes cast separating Republican Mark Obenshain, who’s now leading, and Democrat Mark Herring. But there are likely to be lots of provisional ballots to be counted, as voters who did not have the required identification at the polls have until Nov. 7 to present their ID and thereby allow their votes to be counted. The state then has three weeks to finish counting these ballots, as well as those that weren’t tallied because of other issues.
The fallout? Virginia voters probably won’t know until around Thanksgiving just who will serve as AG – or, as the Washington Post put it, “Almost Governor,” as the attorney general is often a top contender for governor in future elections. Even then, though, if the race is still a nail-biter, the “losing” candidate may ask for a recount, forcing the people of Virginia to wait even longer to find out who will be the state’s top law enforcement officer.
>> Get discounts on financial products and services with your AARP Member Advantages.
And when the very last vote is officially counted, a troubling question may remain: What if the entire election turns on eligible voters who couldn’t or didn’t want to go through the trouble of making a second trip to guarantee that their ballots were counted – perhaps having to take time off work, pay for a taxicab, or spend hours trying to find, say, their birth certificate?
In such a case, you could make the argument that the voter ID law turned the outcome of the election.
AARP has been on the forefront of this issue, participating in lawsuits challenging voter ID laws and arguing that older Americans are disproportionately affected.
Photo: U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services
Also of Interest
Good News for an Older Americans’ Safety Net
Slideshow: 9 Beautiful Waterfalls Around the World
Questions about the Affordable Care Act? Get your answers here
Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being
See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more
Tagged: ballots, cards, driver's license, election, ID, Law, Lisa McElroy, older, requirements, virginia, voter
Share via: Facebook Twitter
Posted on 11/08/2013
Could Virginia’s Voter ID Law Swing an Election?
by Lisa McElroy | Comments | Print
You’ve probably read about the problems that many voters - especially older voters - have encountered under voter ID laws, many of which are relatively new. (There was the recent case, for example, of former House Speaker Jim Wright being turned away because, at 90, he didn’t have a valid driver’s license.) Among those who may have to make long trips to government offices to obtain voter ID cards are people without driver’s licenses (which, like Wright, many older Americans may no longer have), student or employee ID cards (which older Americans likely may not have had for years), or - in the curious case of Virginia - a handgun permit (I guess maybe some older Americans have those).
>> Sign up for the AARP Money newsletter
Think about it: Every citizen (with the exception of convicted felons) has the right to vote. When voter ID requirements make it difficult to exercise that right, chaos may follow.
Yep, for many Americans, voting can be a difficult enterprise. The result? Some a may choose not to go through the hassle, and others may show up at polling places without state-sanctioned ID and have to file provisional ballots.
This week, with voter ID laws in effect for the first election in some places, we started to see these very real effects playing out.
Take Virginia, for example.
On Tuesday, the race for attorney general there was incredibly close – with only 481 votes out of more than 2 million votes cast separating Republican Mark Obenshain, who’s now leading, and Democrat Mark Herring. But there are likely to be lots of provisional ballots to be counted, as voters who did not have the required identification at the polls have until Nov. 7 to present their ID and thereby allow their votes to be counted. The state then has three weeks to finish counting these ballots, as well as those that weren’t tallied because of other issues.
The fallout? Virginia voters probably won’t know until around Thanksgiving just who will serve as AG – or, as the Washington Post put it, “Almost Governor,” as the attorney general is often a top contender for governor in future elections. Even then, though, if the race is still a nail-biter, the “losing” candidate may ask for a recount, forcing the people of Virginia to wait even longer to find out who will be the state’s top law enforcement officer.
>> Get discounts on financial products and services with your AARP Member Advantages.
And when the very last vote is officially counted, a troubling question may remain: What if the entire election turns on eligible voters who couldn’t or didn’t want to go through the trouble of making a second trip to guarantee that their ballots were counted – perhaps having to take time off work, pay for a taxicab, or spend hours trying to find, say, their birth certificate?
In such a case, you could make the argument that the voter ID law turned the outcome of the election.
AARP has been on the forefront of this issue, participating in lawsuits challenging voter ID laws and arguing that older Americans are disproportionately affected.
Photo: U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services
Also of Interest
Good News for an Older Americans’ Safety Net
Slideshow: 9 Beautiful Waterfalls Around the World
Questions about the Affordable Care Act? Get your answers here
Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being
See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more
Tagged: ballots, cards, driver's license, election, ID, Law, Lisa McElroy, older, requirements, virginia, voter
Share via: Facebook Twitter
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
wefqhfweiuhwefiuhfwuiowefuiofw
()
Date: October 30, 2014 02:37PM
Matter of fact... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist.
>
> No, not racist, just discriminatory. These laws
> are all crafted by Republicans to create obstacles
> to voting among populations that typically vote
> Democratic. College students. The urban and
> rural poor. The elderly dependent of Social
> Security. Republicans hope these laws will reduce
> turnout and thus votes among those folks,
> hopefully thereby winning them a few close
> elections as the result. It's nothing at all but
> Jim Crow revisited, but that's Republicans for
> you.
Same tired ass liberal talking points, used by a vapid cock smoking libtard. STFU and DIAF loser.
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist.
>
> No, not racist, just discriminatory. These laws
> are all crafted by Republicans to create obstacles
> to voting among populations that typically vote
> Democratic. College students. The urban and
> rural poor. The elderly dependent of Social
> Security. Republicans hope these laws will reduce
> turnout and thus votes among those folks,
> hopefully thereby winning them a few close
> elections as the result. It's nothing at all but
> Jim Crow revisited, but that's Republicans for
> you.
Same tired ass liberal talking points, used by a vapid cock smoking libtard. STFU and DIAF loser.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Thisisbull
()
Date: October 30, 2014 04:26PM
I need to fart
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Logically...
()
Date: October 30, 2014 05:06PM
Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> history lesson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jim Crow laws were championed by Democrats like
> > Robert Byrd.
>
> Shove your goober "history lesson", asshole. You
> don't know jack-shit about history. Or much of
> anything else, I'd venture to say. Jim Crow laws
> were championed by racists who were once found in
> ,arge numbers in the Democratic Party but who all
> moved over to the Republican Party starting more
> than 50 years ago. As for Robert Byrd, he joined
> and left the KKK in the 1940's. He later called
> that the greatest mistake he ever made. When will
> YOU wake up, weenie-boy?
Indeed. Put it another way: back then, racist laws were considered normal. Most Democrats adapted to the changing national attitude; those that didn't moved to the Republican Party. What does that tell us about the GOP? Discuss.
-------------------------------------------------------
> history lesson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jim Crow laws were championed by Democrats like
> > Robert Byrd.
>
> Shove your goober "history lesson", asshole. You
> don't know jack-shit about history. Or much of
> anything else, I'd venture to say. Jim Crow laws
> were championed by racists who were once found in
> ,arge numbers in the Democratic Party but who all
> moved over to the Republican Party starting more
> than 50 years ago. As for Robert Byrd, he joined
> and left the KKK in the 1940's. He later called
> that the greatest mistake he ever made. When will
> YOU wake up, weenie-boy?
Indeed. Put it another way: back then, racist laws were considered normal. Most Democrats adapted to the changing national attitude; those that didn't moved to the Republican Party. What does that tell us about the GOP? Discuss.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: October 30, 2014 07:18PM
w9EvM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from
> sampled size to highly qualified estimates of what
> the numbers would represent in the larger
> population.
Dude, extrapolation takes small numbers and blows them up to be very big. There is no upper bound as there would be with an interpolation. In this case, the authors took very small (and quite uncertain) numbers of "non-citizen" voters and blew those up to levels of national significance. It's tripe, as they have all but admitted since.
> It has nothing to do with voting in municipal elections,
> that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to criticize
> it that you found so you went with that.
Non-citizens legally vote in municipal elections in various jurisdictions. The corpus of them will become even larger if New York City (where 30% of residents are non-citizens) follows through with non-citizen enfranchisement. Meanwhile, the CCES and YouGov surveys do not have a means to exclude such voters. They are in there. And then they get extrapolated from.
> The authors aren't counting on anything of the
> sort because they're not partisan morons like you
> are. They openly note and readily admit the many
> significant limitations of the study.
They've basically agreed with critics that the survey is junk, indicating that it was only meant as a start point for others to work from. Readers of right-wing goober-media will of course never hear any of that. They will hear the phony cover story and nothing more. As for the "non-citizens" versus "illegals" bait-and switch, people with a glimmer of comprehension can draw their own conclusions.
> There plenty of bases on which the methods in the study
> could be legitimately questioned as, for example,
> Tesler does here:
I've read Tesler and others.
> You own idiocy in not understanding what the study
> was isn't among them.
Odd that you would claim it was "the first thing I found", then claim that it can't be found anywhere at all. I believe you have some wires crossed somewhere.
> It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's
> where the rest all picked it up.
No, it isn't where the rest of them got it. They all had it in hand, but did in fact wait hours to days for the redeeming link to The Post to be finalized. This is how the garbage-manufacturing industry works.
> No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard
> statistical analysis using the CCES database. The
> numbers come out to be what they come out to be.
> The authors don't claim anything more than that.
CCES is not some sort of official survey. It is the product of a for-profit private polling firm working for a consortium of private and academic researchers. Their goal is to produce large volumes of data at really, really low prices. Guess what that means -- CCES is a Yugo, not a Cadillac.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from
> sampled size to highly qualified estimates of what
> the numbers would represent in the larger
> population.
Dude, extrapolation takes small numbers and blows them up to be very big. There is no upper bound as there would be with an interpolation. In this case, the authors took very small (and quite uncertain) numbers of "non-citizen" voters and blew those up to levels of national significance. It's tripe, as they have all but admitted since.
> It has nothing to do with voting in municipal elections,
> that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to criticize
> it that you found so you went with that.
Non-citizens legally vote in municipal elections in various jurisdictions. The corpus of them will become even larger if New York City (where 30% of residents are non-citizens) follows through with non-citizen enfranchisement. Meanwhile, the CCES and YouGov surveys do not have a means to exclude such voters. They are in there. And then they get extrapolated from.
> The authors aren't counting on anything of the
> sort because they're not partisan morons like you
> are. They openly note and readily admit the many
> significant limitations of the study.
They've basically agreed with critics that the survey is junk, indicating that it was only meant as a start point for others to work from. Readers of right-wing goober-media will of course never hear any of that. They will hear the phony cover story and nothing more. As for the "non-citizens" versus "illegals" bait-and switch, people with a glimmer of comprehension can draw their own conclusions.
> There plenty of bases on which the methods in the study
> could be legitimately questioned as, for example,
> Tesler does here:
I've read Tesler and others.
> You own idiocy in not understanding what the study
> was isn't among them.
Odd that you would claim it was "the first thing I found", then claim that it can't be found anywhere at all. I believe you have some wires crossed somewhere.
> It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's
> where the rest all picked it up.
No, it isn't where the rest of them got it. They all had it in hand, but did in fact wait hours to days for the redeeming link to The Post to be finalized. This is how the garbage-manufacturing industry works.
> No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard
> statistical analysis using the CCES database. The
> numbers come out to be what they come out to be.
> The authors don't claim anything more than that.
CCES is not some sort of official survey. It is the product of a for-profit private polling firm working for a consortium of private and academic researchers. Their goal is to produce large volumes of data at really, really low prices. Guess what that means -- CCES is a Yugo, not a Cadillac.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: October 30, 2014 07:45PM
Logically... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Put it another way: back then, racist laws were
> considered normal.
Racist laws were considered normal by racists. Radical Republicans of the time certainly did not. But Reconstruction had come a cropper by 1880 and the South succeeded in imposing a brutal order that has still not been completely done away with.
> Most Democrats adapted to the changing national attitude; those that didn't
> moved to the Republican Party. What does that tell us about the GOP? Discuss.
Well, the GOP is pretty much the Big Tent of people who still hate. They are doomed as a political party in the long run.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Put it another way: back then, racist laws were
> considered normal.
Racist laws were considered normal by racists. Radical Republicans of the time certainly did not. But Reconstruction had come a cropper by 1880 and the South succeeded in imposing a brutal order that has still not been completely done away with.
> Most Democrats adapted to the changing national attitude; those that didn't
> moved to the Republican Party. What does that tell us about the GOP? Discuss.
Well, the GOP is pretty much the Big Tent of people who still hate. They are doomed as a political party in the long run.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Fairfax Conservative
()
Date: November 01, 2014 01:30PM
If the Republicans are a Big Tent, then the Democrats are a Patchwork Quilt, being torn left and right at its seams.
Blacks hate gays.
Gays hate church members.
Union members hate Earthy-Crunchies.
Earthy-Crunchies hate pretty much everybody, and think the world would be a better place without any humans.
The Democrat party is filled with hate. While you can falsely impugn hate on a Conservative, you can go to the internet and actually find high ranking Democrats use the word "hate", as in "I hate so and so."
None of my Conservative friends have any hatred. But, damn, most of my Progressive/Liberal/Democrat friends have hatred for all things American. They love France, though.
Blacks hate gays.
Gays hate church members.
Union members hate Earthy-Crunchies.
Earthy-Crunchies hate pretty much everybody, and think the world would be a better place without any humans.
The Democrat party is filled with hate. While you can falsely impugn hate on a Conservative, you can go to the internet and actually find high ranking Democrats use the word "hate", as in "I hate so and so."
None of my Conservative friends have any hatred. But, damn, most of my Progressive/Liberal/Democrat friends have hatred for all things American. They love France, though.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
dEtYD
()
Date: November 01, 2014 01:55PM
Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> w9EvM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from
> > sampled size to highly qualified estimates of
> what
> > the numbers would represent in the larger
> > population.
>
> Dude, extrapolation takes small numbers and blows
> them up to be very big. There is no upper bound
> as there would be with an interpolation. In this
> case, the authors took very small (and quite
> uncertain) numbers of "non-citizen" voters and
> blew those up to levels of national significance.
> It's tripe, as they have all but admitted since.
>
Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in making estimates to the larger from a smaller sampled population. It still had nothing to do with extrapolation from voting in municipal elections.
>
> > It has nothing to do with voting in municipal
> elections,
> > that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to
> criticize
> > it that you found so you went with that.
>
> Non-citizens legally vote in municipal elections
> in various jurisdictions.
The survey was specific to voting Congressional elections. Look at the questions. Do you know what the second "C" in CCES stands for?
> The corpus of them will
> become even larger if New York City (where 30% of
> residents are non-citizens) follows through with
> non-citizen enfranchisement. Meanwhile, the CCES
> and YouGov surveys do not have a means to exclude
> such voters. They are in there. And then they
> get extrapolated from.
Except that they can't now and couldn't at the time that the surveys were done.
>
> > The authors aren't counting on anything of the
> > sort because they're not partisan morons like
> you
> > are. They openly note and readily admit the
> many
> > significant limitations of the study.
>
> They've basically agreed with critics that the
> survey is junk, indicating that it was only meant
> as a start point for others to work from. Readers
> of right-wing goober-media will of course never
> hear any of that. They will hear the phony cover
> story and nothing more. As for the "non-citizens"
> versus "illegals" bait-and switch, people with a
> glimmer of comprehension can draw their own
> conclusions.
Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the study very clearly from the start. How someone else interprets the results is entirely independent of the work itself. You attempted to paint the researchers themselves as some "right-wing goobers." That's not the case.
>
> > There plenty of bases on which the methods in
> the study
> > could be legitimately questioned as, for
> example,
> > Tesler does here:
>
> I've read Tesler and others.
>
> > You own idiocy in not understanding what the
> study
> > was isn't among them.
>
> Odd that you would claim it was "the first thing I
> found", then claim that it can't be found anywhere
> at all. I believe you have some wires crossed
> somewhere.
Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You found the first rather off-point attempt to criticize the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't looked at it either and ran with that. And it's still off point.
>
> > It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's
> > where the rest all picked it up.
>
> No, it isn't where the rest of them got it. They
> all had it in hand, but did in fact wait hours to
> days for the redeeming link to The Post to be
> finalized. This is how the garbage-manufacturing
> industry works.
>
You're completely full of shit. Most of them even reference the same article in the Post you idiot. lol
> > No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard
> > statistical analysis using the CCES database.
> The
> > numbers come out to be what they come out to be.
>
> > The authors don't claim anything more than
> that.
>
> CCES is not some sort of official survey. It is
> the product of a for-profit private polling firm
> working for a consortium of private and academic
> researchers. Their goal is to produce large
> volumes of data at really, really low prices.
> Guess what that means -- CCES is a Yugo, not a
> Cadillac.
Who said that it was anything more? It's a basic survey data set that's used by a variety of researchers doing elections-related work. Most such social survey data sets are not "official" and it's no different than many others in that respect. The numbers it produces are the numbers that it produces.
-------------------------------------------------------
> w9EvM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from
> > sampled size to highly qualified estimates of
> what
> > the numbers would represent in the larger
> > population.
>
> Dude, extrapolation takes small numbers and blows
> them up to be very big. There is no upper bound
> as there would be with an interpolation. In this
> case, the authors took very small (and quite
> uncertain) numbers of "non-citizen" voters and
> blew those up to levels of national significance.
> It's tripe, as they have all but admitted since.
>
Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in making estimates to the larger from a smaller sampled population. It still had nothing to do with extrapolation from voting in municipal elections.
>
> > It has nothing to do with voting in municipal
> elections,
> > that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to
> criticize
> > it that you found so you went with that.
>
> Non-citizens legally vote in municipal elections
> in various jurisdictions.
The survey was specific to voting Congressional elections. Look at the questions. Do you know what the second "C" in CCES stands for?
> The corpus of them will
> become even larger if New York City (where 30% of
> residents are non-citizens) follows through with
> non-citizen enfranchisement. Meanwhile, the CCES
> and YouGov surveys do not have a means to exclude
> such voters. They are in there. And then they
> get extrapolated from.
Except that they can't now and couldn't at the time that the surveys were done.
>
> > The authors aren't counting on anything of the
> > sort because they're not partisan morons like
> you
> > are. They openly note and readily admit the
> many
> > significant limitations of the study.
>
> They've basically agreed with critics that the
> survey is junk, indicating that it was only meant
> as a start point for others to work from. Readers
> of right-wing goober-media will of course never
> hear any of that. They will hear the phony cover
> story and nothing more. As for the "non-citizens"
> versus "illegals" bait-and switch, people with a
> glimmer of comprehension can draw their own
> conclusions.
Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the study very clearly from the start. How someone else interprets the results is entirely independent of the work itself. You attempted to paint the researchers themselves as some "right-wing goobers." That's not the case.
>
> > There plenty of bases on which the methods in
> the study
> > could be legitimately questioned as, for
> example,
> > Tesler does here:
>
> I've read Tesler and others.
>
> > You own idiocy in not understanding what the
> study
> > was isn't among them.
>
> Odd that you would claim it was "the first thing I
> found", then claim that it can't be found anywhere
> at all. I believe you have some wires crossed
> somewhere.
Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You found the first rather off-point attempt to criticize the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't looked at it either and ran with that. And it's still off point.
>
> > It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's
> > where the rest all picked it up.
>
> No, it isn't where the rest of them got it. They
> all had it in hand, but did in fact wait hours to
> days for the redeeming link to The Post to be
> finalized. This is how the garbage-manufacturing
> industry works.
>
You're completely full of shit. Most of them even reference the same article in the Post you idiot. lol
> > No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard
> > statistical analysis using the CCES database.
> The
> > numbers come out to be what they come out to be.
>
> > The authors don't claim anything more than
> that.
>
> CCES is not some sort of official survey. It is
> the product of a for-profit private polling firm
> working for a consortium of private and academic
> researchers. Their goal is to produce large
> volumes of data at really, really low prices.
> Guess what that means -- CCES is a Yugo, not a
> Cadillac.
Who said that it was anything more? It's a basic survey data set that's used by a variety of researchers doing elections-related work. Most such social survey data sets are not "official" and it's no different than many others in that respect. The numbers it produces are the numbers that it produces.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: November 01, 2014 03:23PM
dEtYD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of
> extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in
> making estimates to the larger from a smaller
> sampled population.
People who actually work with statistics -- as you apparently do not -- are very leary of extrapolation, as they know the effects that any error at all in the original data can have on the final blown up data. Simply put, a few noise records can be disastrous.
> It still had nothing to do with extrapolation from
> voting in municipal elections.
Neither database has filters to exclude them. Each claims to be nationally representative. Non-citizens legally vote in many jurisdictions. They are in there.
> The survey was specific to voting Congressional
> elections. Look at the questions. Do you know
> what the second "C" in CCES stands for?
Yes, do you know what sloppy private sector methodologies and cost-cutting errors are? CCES hopes to survive on the premise that large amounts of low-cost error-filled data will be more useful to some than smaller amounts of expensive but well filtered data. Some 20% of people who claimed they were non-citizens in the 2012 survey cycle had indicated in 2010 that they were in fact citizens. CCES doesn't care about such things. It makes no effort to resolve such anomalies. As Richamn et al, have stated, "If most or all of the ‘non-citizens’ who indicated that they voted were in fact citizens who accidentally misstated their citizenship status, then the data would have nothing to contribute concerning the frequency of non-citizen voting." What Richman et al, have not stated but should have is that ANY significant error in their unchecked, unverified, self-repoprted data would lead to substantial errors in their conclusions. Instead of saying that, they began their sad refrains over how their work was really only intended to be a start point for others to work from. Feed us some more bullshit, boys.
> Except that they can't now and couldn't at the
> time that the surveys were done.
You plainly do not live in Takoma Park.
> Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the study
> very clearly from the start.
No, they were pummeled upon the paper's release and have had to backtrack and admit to almost every one of the charges. But as always, retractions never actually wipe out all of the harm done by the original. The right-wing loves to capitalize on that simple fact.
> Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You found
> the first rather off-point attempt to criticize
> the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't
> looked at it either and ran with that. And it's
> still off point.
One ting was claimed and then its opposite. Go suck an egg.
> You're completely full of shit. Most of them even
> reference the same article in the Post you idiot.
> lol
This is how you refute the fact that they knew it was coming?
> Who said that it was anything more? It's a basic
> survey data set that's used by a variety of
> researchers doing elections-related work. Most
> such social survey data sets are not "official"
> and it's no different than many others in that
> respect. The numbers it produces are the numbers
> that it produces.
CCES and the YouGov opt-in data are lousy. That's why they are so inexpensive. As with so many other things, you get what you pay for. Is that really such a difficult thing for outsiders to understand?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of
> extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in
> making estimates to the larger from a smaller
> sampled population.
People who actually work with statistics -- as you apparently do not -- are very leary of extrapolation, as they know the effects that any error at all in the original data can have on the final blown up data. Simply put, a few noise records can be disastrous.
> It still had nothing to do with extrapolation from
> voting in municipal elections.
Neither database has filters to exclude them. Each claims to be nationally representative. Non-citizens legally vote in many jurisdictions. They are in there.
> The survey was specific to voting Congressional
> elections. Look at the questions. Do you know
> what the second "C" in CCES stands for?
Yes, do you know what sloppy private sector methodologies and cost-cutting errors are? CCES hopes to survive on the premise that large amounts of low-cost error-filled data will be more useful to some than smaller amounts of expensive but well filtered data. Some 20% of people who claimed they were non-citizens in the 2012 survey cycle had indicated in 2010 that they were in fact citizens. CCES doesn't care about such things. It makes no effort to resolve such anomalies. As Richamn et al, have stated, "If most or all of the ‘non-citizens’ who indicated that they voted were in fact citizens who accidentally misstated their citizenship status, then the data would have nothing to contribute concerning the frequency of non-citizen voting." What Richman et al, have not stated but should have is that ANY significant error in their unchecked, unverified, self-repoprted data would lead to substantial errors in their conclusions. Instead of saying that, they began their sad refrains over how their work was really only intended to be a start point for others to work from. Feed us some more bullshit, boys.
> Except that they can't now and couldn't at the
> time that the surveys were done.
You plainly do not live in Takoma Park.
> Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the study
> very clearly from the start.
No, they were pummeled upon the paper's release and have had to backtrack and admit to almost every one of the charges. But as always, retractions never actually wipe out all of the harm done by the original. The right-wing loves to capitalize on that simple fact.
> Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You found
> the first rather off-point attempt to criticize
> the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't
> looked at it either and ran with that. And it's
> still off point.
One ting was claimed and then its opposite. Go suck an egg.
> You're completely full of shit. Most of them even
> reference the same article in the Post you idiot.
> lol
This is how you refute the fact that they knew it was coming?
> Who said that it was anything more? It's a basic
> survey data set that's used by a variety of
> researchers doing elections-related work. Most
> such social survey data sets are not "official"
> and it's no different than many others in that
> respect. The numbers it produces are the numbers
> that it produces.
CCES and the YouGov opt-in data are lousy. That's why they are so inexpensive. As with so many other things, you get what you pay for. Is that really such a difficult thing for outsiders to understand?
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
WT4kx
()
Date: November 01, 2014 04:34PM
Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dEtYD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of
> > extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in
> > making estimates to the larger from a smaller
> > sampled population.
>
> People who actually work with statistics -- as you
> apparently do not -- are very leary of
> extrapolation, as they know the effects that any
> error at all in the original data can have on the
> final blown up data. Simply put, a few noise
> records can be disastrous.
They extrapolated only to get to an estimate of what the numbers would represent in the larger population. Just like it's done in many other cases. They, in fact, noted the limitations and small sample size and the implications for error.
>
> > It still had nothing to do with extrapolation
> from
> > voting in municipal elections.
>
> Neither database has filters to exclude them. Each
> claims to be nationally representative.
> Non-citizens legally vote in many jurisdictions.
> They are in there.
They do in the framing of the questions. No they don't vote in "many" jurisdictions, they can vote in very few jurisdictions, MD being about it, and in no Congressional races even there.
>
> > The survey was specific to voting Congressional
> > elections. Look at the questions. Do you know
> > what the second "C" in CCES stands for?
>
> Yes, do you know what sloppy private sector
> methodologies and cost-cutting errors are? CCES
> hopes to survive on the premise that large amounts
> of low-cost error-filled data will be more useful
> to some than smaller amounts of expensive but well
> filtered data. Some 20% of people who claimed they
> were non-citizens in the 2012 survey cycle had
> indicated in 2010 that they were in fact citizens.
> CCES doesn't care about such things. It makes no
> effort to resolve such anomalies. As Richamn et
> al, have stated, "If most or all of the
> ‘non-citizens’ who indicated that they voted
> were in fact citizens who accidentally misstated
> their citizenship status, then the data would have
> nothing to contribute concerning the frequency of
> non-citizen voting." What Richman et al, have not
> stated but should have is that ANY significant
> error in their unchecked, unverified,
> self-repoprted data would lead to substantial
> errors in their conclusions. Instead of saying
> that, they began their sad refrains over how their
> work was really only intended to be a start point
> for others to work from. Feed us some more
> bullshit, boys.
>
If, if, if... The data says what it says. You can always caveat things further based on various potential sources of error. Again, which they clearly did in their own assessment of the data.
> > Except that they can't now and couldn't at the
> > time that the surveys were done.
>
> You plainly do not live in Takoma Park.
You were talking about what MIGHT happen in NY which obviously is irrelevant.
>
> > Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the
> study
> > very clearly from the start.
>
> No, they were pummeled upon the paper's release
> and have had to backtrack and admit to almost
> every one of the charges. But as always,
> retractions never actually wipe out all of the
> harm done by the original. The right-wing loves
> to capitalize on that simple fact.
Uh, no. Read it. They very clearly note the many limitations, sample sizes, etc., right there in the original paper. It wasn't written for the "right-wing" it was a published article.
>
> > Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You
> found
> > the first rather off-point attempt to criticize
> > the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't
> > looked at it either and ran with that. And
> it's
> > still off point.
>
> One ting was claimed and then its opposite. Go
> suck an egg.
You're obviously confused.
> > You're completely full of shit. Most of them
> even
> > reference the same article in the Post you
> idiot.
> > lol
>
> This is how you refute the fact that they knew it
> was coming?
>
They didn't idiot. Drudge picked up the article in the Post. Most of the rest all pulled it after seeing it on Drudge. There's your "vast right-wing conspiracy." lol
> > Who said that it was anything more? It's a
> basic
> > survey data set that's used by a variety of
> > researchers doing elections-related work. Most
> > such social survey data sets are not "official"
> > and it's no different than many others in that
> > respect. The numbers it produces are the
> numbers
> > that it produces.
>
> CCES and the YouGov opt-in data are lousy. That's
> why they are so inexpensive. As with so many
> other things, you get what you pay for. Is that
> really such a difficult thing for outsiders to
> understand?
No more lousy than thousands of others based on similar social surveys with the same potential for error. The numbers are what they are based on the data source. They don't claim anything more.
-------------------------------------------------------
> dEtYD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of
> > extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in
> > making estimates to the larger from a smaller
> > sampled population.
>
> People who actually work with statistics -- as you
> apparently do not -- are very leary of
> extrapolation, as they know the effects that any
> error at all in the original data can have on the
> final blown up data. Simply put, a few noise
> records can be disastrous.
They extrapolated only to get to an estimate of what the numbers would represent in the larger population. Just like it's done in many other cases. They, in fact, noted the limitations and small sample size and the implications for error.
>
> > It still had nothing to do with extrapolation
> from
> > voting in municipal elections.
>
> Neither database has filters to exclude them. Each
> claims to be nationally representative.
> Non-citizens legally vote in many jurisdictions.
> They are in there.
They do in the framing of the questions. No they don't vote in "many" jurisdictions, they can vote in very few jurisdictions, MD being about it, and in no Congressional races even there.
>
> > The survey was specific to voting Congressional
> > elections. Look at the questions. Do you know
> > what the second "C" in CCES stands for?
>
> Yes, do you know what sloppy private sector
> methodologies and cost-cutting errors are? CCES
> hopes to survive on the premise that large amounts
> of low-cost error-filled data will be more useful
> to some than smaller amounts of expensive but well
> filtered data. Some 20% of people who claimed they
> were non-citizens in the 2012 survey cycle had
> indicated in 2010 that they were in fact citizens.
> CCES doesn't care about such things. It makes no
> effort to resolve such anomalies. As Richamn et
> al, have stated, "If most or all of the
> ‘non-citizens’ who indicated that they voted
> were in fact citizens who accidentally misstated
> their citizenship status, then the data would have
> nothing to contribute concerning the frequency of
> non-citizen voting." What Richman et al, have not
> stated but should have is that ANY significant
> error in their unchecked, unverified,
> self-repoprted data would lead to substantial
> errors in their conclusions. Instead of saying
> that, they began their sad refrains over how their
> work was really only intended to be a start point
> for others to work from. Feed us some more
> bullshit, boys.
>
If, if, if... The data says what it says. You can always caveat things further based on various potential sources of error. Again, which they clearly did in their own assessment of the data.
> > Except that they can't now and couldn't at the
> > time that the surveys were done.
>
> You plainly do not live in Takoma Park.
You were talking about what MIGHT happen in NY which obviously is irrelevant.
>
> > Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the
> study
> > very clearly from the start.
>
> No, they were pummeled upon the paper's release
> and have had to backtrack and admit to almost
> every one of the charges. But as always,
> retractions never actually wipe out all of the
> harm done by the original. The right-wing loves
> to capitalize on that simple fact.
Uh, no. Read it. They very clearly note the many limitations, sample sizes, etc., right there in the original paper. It wasn't written for the "right-wing" it was a published article.
>
> > Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You
> found
> > the first rather off-point attempt to criticize
> > the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't
> > looked at it either and ran with that. And
> it's
> > still off point.
>
> One ting was claimed and then its opposite. Go
> suck an egg.
You're obviously confused.
> > You're completely full of shit. Most of them
> even
> > reference the same article in the Post you
> idiot.
> > lol
>
> This is how you refute the fact that they knew it
> was coming?
>
They didn't idiot. Drudge picked up the article in the Post. Most of the rest all pulled it after seeing it on Drudge. There's your "vast right-wing conspiracy." lol
> > Who said that it was anything more? It's a
> basic
> > survey data set that's used by a variety of
> > researchers doing elections-related work. Most
> > such social survey data sets are not "official"
> > and it's no different than many others in that
> > respect. The numbers it produces are the
> numbers
> > that it produces.
>
> CCES and the YouGov opt-in data are lousy. That's
> why they are so inexpensive. As with so many
> other things, you get what you pay for. Is that
> really such a difficult thing for outsiders to
> understand?
No more lousy than thousands of others based on similar social surveys with the same potential for error. The numbers are what they are based on the data source. They don't claim anything more.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Matter of fact
()
Date: November 01, 2014 04:42PM
Can't fix stupid. Eventually, there's no more point in even trying.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
VUhNj
()
Date: November 01, 2014 04:44PM
Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't fix stupid. Eventually, there's no more
> point in even trying.
Especially when stupid doesn't read before running their mouth. Stupid.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't fix stupid. Eventually, there's no more
> point in even trying.
Especially when stupid doesn't read before running their mouth. Stupid.
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: November 03, 2014 09:21AM
Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist. Progressive Democrats tell
> me
> > so. Illegals tell me so. Maryland Democrat
> > Goobernatorial Candidate Tony Brown just mailed
> a
> > piece telling me so.
>
> Why did Maryland mail you when you live in the
> Fairfax County?
+1
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist. Progressive Democrats tell
> me
> > so. Illegals tell me so. Maryland Democrat
> > Goobernatorial Candidate Tony Brown just mailed
> a
> > piece telling me so.
>
> Why did Maryland mail you when you live in the
> Fairfax County?
+1
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: November 03, 2014 09:23AM
Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax County Board of Elections is requiring
> everyone to present a photo i.d. (identification)
> card when voting. They can be purchased at
> convienent places like WalMart and 7-11. No i.d. =
> no vote
>
-
-
-
+1
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax County Board of Elections is requiring
> everyone to present a photo i.d. (identification)
> card when voting. They can be purchased at
> convienent places like WalMart and 7-11. No i.d. =
> no vote
>
-
-
-
+1
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: November 03, 2014 01:25PM
If you don't bring an id you dont vote and if you don't vote you loose your citizenship
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
kdXhe
()
Date: November 03, 2014 02:01PM
I cant find my voter registration card. Can I still vote at my local precinct?
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
Fairfax Felix
()
Date: November 03, 2014 02:27PM
Jesu Christe. Its the 21 Century. You don't have a picture id?? C'mon this BS has been taken too far. What percent of legal prospective voters do you feel lack picture ids? People are coming to the voting stations and voting in place of people who died. With all the illegal/undocumented folks, we need some mechanism to insure a legitimate election.
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
cvhk
()
Date: November 03, 2014 02:31PM
kdXhe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cant find my voter registration card. Can I
> still vote at my local precinct?
If you have valid photo ID (which is discussed above). The voter registration card is not valid ID, and is only useful as proof that you are registered and of your polling location.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cant find my voter registration card. Can I
> still vote at my local precinct?
If you have valid photo ID (which is discussed above). The voter registration card is not valid ID, and is only useful as proof that you are registered and of your polling location.
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
Jose Cuervo
()
Date: November 03, 2014 02:44PM
What about my matricula consular?
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
Juan P
()
Date: November 03, 2014 02:49PM
Here is what we think about ID's...
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
70chip
()
Date: November 03, 2014 04:22PM
Can we use the permisos the gringos handed us when we walked across?
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
La Raza "Get Out the Vote" Drive
()
Date: November 03, 2014 04:24PM
How about this voter ID?
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
7UULY
()
Date: November 03, 2014 04:29PM
I have a DC driver's license but have my passport with my VA address written in it. Can I use the passport?
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
sane
()
Date: November 03, 2014 04:39PM
Fucking Conservatives Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many of your dead voters have showed up and
> tried to vote? Moron.
Too many. WAY too many. And it certainly doesn't take a moron to figure that out.
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many of your dead voters have showed up and
> tried to vote? Moron.
Too many. WAY too many. And it certainly doesn't take a moron to figure that out.
Re: Don't forget you're voter id tomorrow!!!
Posted by:
Fox News
()
Date: November 03, 2014 05:36PM
Don't forget your I'd
Re: You better get a voter i.d.
Posted by:
dem corrupt dems
()
Date: November 04, 2014 02:58AM
Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, and Republicans simply want to make sure that
> the list of such things is made as much longer and
> more difficult to complete as possible for groups
> that have traditionally voted majority Democratic.
> There is nothing more to these laws than that.
> It's simply disenfranchisement through vote
> suppression. It's disgraceful.
Oh, stick a sock in it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, and Republicans simply want to make sure that
> the list of such things is made as much longer and
> more difficult to complete as possible for groups
> that have traditionally voted majority Democratic.
> There is nothing more to these laws than that.
> It's simply disenfranchisement through vote
> suppression. It's disgraceful.
Oh, stick a sock in it.