Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

[fumster]

@adaher

Cite the authority under which the US could create a national ID. The burden’s on you, not me.

Well there is a passport, which is used as an ID and is issued at the national level. Nothing to stop that from being issued in a different format or for states to recognize it as a drivers license. I can already use it at my state liquor store.

[computergeek]

@BobLibDem

If, in order to stop a few hundred fraudulent votes, you are willing to suppress hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters, you cannot claim to be interested in a fair election. What you are seeking to do is disenfranchise the wrong kind of voters.

It’s not just the ID thing that makes it seem evident they are trying to suppress voting. It’s eliminating or cutting way back on early voting and other things like that, making it hard for the poor and elderly to find the time to vote.

[adaher]

@ElvisL1ves

Same answer as to almost any con law question: Commerce clause. General welfare clause works, too.

But you know that.

That stopped working when the court got a conservative majority. All new expansions of the commerce clause or the general welfare clause are subject to being struck down.

[adaher]

@computergeek

It’s not just the ID thing that makes it seem evident they are trying to suppress voting. It’s eliminating or cutting way back on early voting and other things like that, making it hard for the poor and elderly to find the time to vote.

Early voting is a fairly new phenomenon. It is not a right, and in fact undermines the whole concept of an election day. You’ve got people even voting before the debates. IT’s as if Democrats want to encourage uninformed votes.

But not military votes, of course. Those should be suppressed.

[Algorithm]

@adaher

Early voting is a fairly new phenomenon. It is not a right, and in fact undermines the whole concept of an election day. You’ve got people even voting before the debates. IT’s as if Democrats want to encourage uninformed votes.

As if you can’t get informed about candidates and issues in the year-long election season nowadays. Have you ever decided who you’re voting for before the debates?

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Early voting is a fairly new phenomenon. It is not a right, and in fact undermines the whole concept of an election day. You’ve got people even voting before the debates. IT’s as if Democrats want to encourage uninformed votes.

But not military votes, of course. Those should be suppressed.

Hog wash, as even people in conservative sites pointed out: anyone who hasn’t formed an opinion by the time most early voting takes place probably isn’t paying close enough attention to make an informed choice by the time Election Day rolls around.

And even a worse point is coming from the military vote issue, it is bullshit.

Obama Not Trying to Curb Military Early Voting - FactCheck.org

Conservative blogs and opinion pieces have also misrepresented the case, claiming in headlines that President Obama was suing to “restrict military voting.” A fundraising email appeal from a group called Special Operations Speaks — which wants to “remove Barack Obama from the White House” — wrongly says that Obama “deploys army of lawyers to suppress military’s voting rights,” claiming that “Obama needs the American military to not vote, so he has set out to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.” But that’s not what the Obama lawsuit aims to do at all.

The lawsuit, filed by the Obama campaign, Democratic National Committee and Ohio Democratic Party in July against Ohio’s secretary of state and attorney general, asks for an injunction to block implementation of state laws that modified in-person early voting regulations. In the last presidential election, all Ohio residents — military and otherwise — could cast their votes in-person early up through the Monday before Election Day. But contentious legislation passed by Ohio’s GOP-controlled Legislature in 2011 limited early voting for nonmilitary residents, giving them a deadline of 6 p.m. Friday before the election. Military members and overseas civilians could still vote through Monday. Both parties have squabbled, with Democrats saying the law is a suppression of nonmilitary votes and Republicans arguing that they are just easing a burden on polling places and guarding against fraud. (Mail-in absentee ballots are not affected; the new regulations affect in-person early voting.)

Contrary to conservative claims, the Democratic lawsuit seeks to restore early voting “for all Ohio voters.”

Perhaps you are referring to ballots from the military coming late because of a nefarious plot? That was a parody and retarded people like Victoria Jackson took it seriously:

Did Undelivered Military Ballots Give Election to Obama? - FactCheck.org

Q: Did military absentee ballots arrive a day late, swinging the election in favor of President Obama?
A: No. This rumor is based on a satirical post on a blog that specializes in “faux news.”

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that military absentee ballots that were lost in the mail and sent to Afghanistan and arrived one day late could overthrow the election and be in favor of Mitt Romney? Article in The Duffel Blog.

FULL ANSWER

When we saw a Daily Beast report about the post-election “meltdown” tweets from former “Saturday Night Live” cast member, now conservative celebrity, Victoria Jackson, we just knew this one from Jackson would wind up in our in-box:

Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late, Would Have Swung Election For Romney Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late, Would Have Swung Election For Romney

For the record, we got this official response from the Department of Defense, which as you can imagine takes this stuff awfully seriously.

“The Military Postal Service Agency dispatched to the U.S. Postal Service all military absentee ballots,” Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda F. Morgan told us via email. “We are not aware of any lost ballots at DoD [Department of Defense] overseas military locations.”

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@adaher

Only if you’re ignorant of our Constitution.

Not at all. The fact it is possible does not in any way make it less absurd.

[elucidator]

@adaher

…But not military votes, of course. Those should be suppressed.

Aren’t you even the least bit ashamed of yourself for this?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@adaher

But not military votes, of course. Those should be suppressed.

Which reminds me, you never answered my question. The analogy to voter ID when talking about absentee ballots is notarization. What are your feelings on that? Especially considering that absentee voter fraud is bother easier to perform and easier to get away with, and by all measures more common than in-person voter fraud.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Cite the authority under which the US could create a national ID. The burden’s on you, not me.

No, on you; you made the assertion that it could not be done constitutionally.

[fumster]

@adaher

Early voting is a fairly new phenomenon. It is not a right, and in fact undermines the whole concept of an election day. You’ve got people even voting before the debates. IT’s as if Democrats want to encourage uninformed votes.

But not military votes, of course. Those should be suppressed.

Haven’t you heard? We are filling the military with gays and Muslims. we want to count their votes.

[adaher]

@elucidator

Aren’t you even the least bit ashamed of yourself for this?

Why should I be? We’ve got several pages now of baldfaced assertions that Republicans want to suppress the votes of brown people, so it would be pretty rich to get upset about the just as far accusation that Democrats want to suppress military votes.

Heck, I’ll go so far as to accuse the President of denying vets benefits because he’s keeping his promise to “Punish our enemies”. It more than meets the standard of evidence established by this thread: Vets are hurt by Obama’s management of their benefits. Vets didn’t vote for Obama. Therefore, Obama hates vets and is punishing them.

Veterans Give Romney Big Lead Over Obama

[running_coach]

@adaher

Why should I be? We’ve got several pages now of baldfaced assertions that Republicans want to suppress the votes of brown people, so it would be pretty rich to get upset about the just as far accusation that Democrats want to suppress military votes.

Heck, I’ll go so far as to accuse the President of denying vets benefits because he’s keeping his promise to “Punish our enemies”. It more than meets the standard of evidence established by this thread: Vets are hurt by Obama’s management of their benefits. Vets didn’t vote for Obama. Therefore, Obama hates vets and is punishing them.

Veterans Give Romney Big Lead Over Obama

From your link.

U.S. veterans, about 13% of the adult population and consisting mostly of older men

Older men who are most likely highly conservative.
As far as Veteran benefits are concerned, every President (and Congress and voters)has had an abysmal record of shitty service to those who served.
As for voting suppression:
Florida Republicans Admit Voter Suppression Was The Goal Of New Election Laws

[adaher]

No President has a crappier record on vets than Obama. His VA is a year behind processing applications for benefits and there’s been no leadership on his part to change that despite pleas from across the political spectrum.

Obama speaks volumes by what he chooses to involve himself in and by what he chooses not to.

[running_coach]

@adaher

No President has a crappier record on vets than Obama. His VA is a year behind processing applications for benefits and there’s been no leadership on his part to change that despite pleas from across the political spectrum.

Obama speaks volumes by what he chooses to involve himself in and by what he chooses not to.

Bush was in charge in 2004 when the first reports came out about Walter Reed. He did nothing.
Walter Reed scandal.

The Washington Post published a series of articles beginning February 18, 2007, outlining cases of neglect at Walter Reed reported by wounded soldiers and their family members.Although the article focused primarily on Building 18, a former hotel building just outside the post’s main gates, authors Dana Priest and Anne Hull also included complaints about “disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked managers” that make navigating the already complicated bureaucracy to obtain medical care at WRAMC even more daunting. Although Army officials claimed to be surprised at these conditions, a Salon.com series beginning in January 2005 had previously exposed them. In 2004 and 2005, articles appeared in the Post and in Salon interviewing First Lt. Julian Goodrum about his court martial for seeking medical care elsewhere due to poor conditions at WRAMC.

What neglect are you claiming Obama is responsible for?

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Why should I be?

Uh, because if you don’t you only get a reputation of making bullshit points? Just a thought.

And once again, when you claim that we talk about “baldfaced assertions that Republicans want to suppress the votes of brown people” it is because those assertions were also made by Republicans:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/26/1234171/florida-republicans-admit-voter-suppression-was-the-goal-of-new-election-laws/

Floridians endured election chaos and marathon voting lines this year, largely thanks to reduced early voting hours, voter purges, and voter registration restrictions pushed by Republican legislators. In an exclusive report by the Palm Beach Post, several prominent Florida Republicans are now admitting that these election law changes were geared toward suppressing minority and Democratic votes.

Former governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) and former GOP chairman Jim Greer (R-FL), as well as several current GOP members, told the Post that Republican consultants pushed the new measures as a way to suppress Democratic voters. Crist expanded early voting hours in 2008 despite party pressure, but Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) targeted early voting almost immediately when he took office in 2011. Scott’s administration claimed the new laws were meant to curb in-person voter fraud, despite the fact that an individual in Florida is more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud.

Current party members and consultants confirmed the motive was not to stop voter fraud but to make it harder for Democrats and minorities to vote:

…

Another GOP consultant, who did not want to be named, also confirmed that influential consultants to the Republican Party of Florida were intent on beating back Democratic turnout in early voting after 2008.

[…]A GOP consultant who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution said black voters were a concern. “I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that’s a big day when the black churches organize themselves,” he said.

Point being that against our “blatant” points that have support, you confront them with certifiable bullshit; once again, just a thought to keep in mind, or not as it is not my problem if you like to keep that kind of fame.

[adaher]

The big backlog in processing vets benefits. We already know Bush sucked, that’s why he left office with a 28% approval rating and brought down John McCain with him. Obama’s headed for a similar fate.

Red tape trauma: 851,000 war veterans await benefits

Notice though how the President made sure that Pigford claims were addressed with dispatch. Groups that voted for him get attention, those that didn’t get to rot. Reward friends, punish enemies. He even said it.

[running_coach]

@adaher

The big backlog in processing vets benefits. We already know Bush sucked, that’s why he left office with a 28% approval rating and brought down John McCain with him. Obama’s headed for a similar fate.

USA TODAY

Notice though how the President made sure that Pigford claims were addressed with dispatch. Groups that voted for him get attention, those that didn’t get to rot. Reward friends, punish enemies. He even said it.

What does that have to do with the VA?

[running_coach]

White House asks for 13.6% increase in VA funding.

[adaher]

The funding isn’t the issue. Congress has granted all funding increases, 40% since OBama took office.

The fact is, he could get this backlog cleared if he showed as much leadership as he did to help out his friends in the Pigford case.

Asking for yet more money isn’t leadership. That’s just what Democrats do: they throw money at problems and call it a day. But when Democrats really want to get things done, they actually do them.