Fewer Democrats Are Voting

Rather than the more obvious reason is the Dems have only one legitimate ID and, now, can only vote once.

Does the number of voter fraud convictions back that up?

direstraits posted:

in states with voter ID laws. 

https://thetruth24.info/2016/0...rict-new-voter-laws/

"GOP voter turnout in this year’s presidential race is up 62 percent relative to 2008, the last time both parties had open contests. But Democratic voter turnout is down by 29 percent across all the primary and caucus states that have voted so far. In all but two states, fewer Democrats turned out to vote in 2016 than did in 2008."

I love the explanations from the left that fewer are voting because Dems have a harder time obtaining ID than Republicans.  Rather than the more obvious reason is the Dems have only one legitimate ID and, now, can only vote once.

Oh well, there goes the dead voting demoslop, two or three times.

jtdavis posted:

Rather than the more obvious reason is the Dems have only one legitimate ID and, now, can only vote once.

Does the number of voter fraud convictions back that up?

JT, again, you're either faking it or really can't comprehend what I wrote Get someone to explain it to you, if the latter is the case.

Clean up Memphis, first.

direstraits posted:

jtdavis posted:

Rather than the more obvious reason is the Dems have only one legitimate ID and, now, can only vote once.

Does the number of voter fraud convictions back that up?

JT, again, you're either faking it or really can't comprehend what I wrote Get someone to explain it to you, if the latter is the case.

Clean up Memphis, first.

I truly believe he thinks he's clever.

jtdavis posted:

Rather than the more obvious reason is the Dems have only one legitimate ID and, now, can only vote once.

Does the number of voter fraud convictions back that up?

Will you be voting in AL and  TN jt? Or just voting twice in TN?

Will you be voting in AL and  TN jt? Or just voting twice in TN?

Twice, once in the primary, once in the general election.

jtdavis posted:

Will you be voting in AL and  TN jt? Or just voting twice in TN?

Twice, once in the primary, once in the general election.

How many times in AL? Your nose is so stuck in our politics that you have to be voting (illegally) in AL.

How many times in AL? Your nose is so stuck in our politics that you have to be voting (illegally) in AL.

Keep an eye out for me.

jtdavis posted:

How many times in AL? Your nose is so stuck in our politics that you have to be voting (illegally) in AL.

Keep an eye out for me.

Are you allowed out of the home, or do you do all your voting with absentee ballots using 50 different names in the traditional demoslop way? How many of the dead will get to vote via you?

Are you allowed out of the home, or do you do all your voting with absentee ballots using 50 different names in the traditional demoslop way? How many of the dead will get to vote via you?

Will you tell me how you manage it?

jtdavis posted:

Are you allowed out of the home, or do you do all your voting with absentee ballots using 50 different names in the traditional demoslop way? How many of the dead will get to vote via you?

Will you tell me how you manage it?

Why yes. I go to the church where I vote, get in the line for the letter of my last name, show the workers my license, and get a ballot. I sit down and fill out that ballot, then I put in the "counter", put the pen in the basket, hand the cover to the gentleman standing there, get an "I voted" sticker, and go out the designated door. I only do it once however. I'm not a demoslop.

I love the explanations from the left that fewer are voting because Dems have a harder time obtaining ID than Republicans. 

======================

Harder time unless they need them to get free stuff from the government.

Bestworking posted:

I love the explanations from the left that fewer are voting because Dems have a harder time obtaining ID than Republicans. 

======================

Harder time unless they need them to get free stuff from the government.

Considering the statistical difference in before and after requiring IDs, that would posit that an extraordinary number of the Democrats are physically handicapped or feeble minded. 

While democrat numbers are down around 30% in the primaries, and republicans are up over 60%, I don't think it's so much voter ID laws or voter suppression tactics (although in some cases, it most definitely is).   I think it is more of a byproduct of Trump enthusiasm and those who are enthusiastically trying to stop Trump.   I will generally vote Democrat, but the Democratic race hasn't exactly had the entertainment quality (good or bad) that the Republican race has had this time around.  

I can't remember a time when the Democrat race/candidacy wasn't entertaining.  Dukakis in a tank.  Jesse & Al.  Billy Beer.  Is - is and the whole Clinton era.  Stuff like that.  In fact during the Johnson / Humphrey campaign, they were known as Lets Be Jolly - Ha Ha Ha.  The dual-edge sword of Obamacare.  Democrats sure love their entertainment and I'm not just talking Barbara Streisand.  And the country as paid our fair share of admission.  Like P.T. Barnum said...

. . . . as the yellow dogs marched lock step...clop...clop...clop...clop

I go far back as Eisenhower.  Well, Truman actually, but I heard about that later.  By comparison,  the last entertaining Republican candidate they  had was AuH20.

Till now.

And yet the Clinton-Sanders duo . . . well, that's entertaining, too.  Still in step.

I'm real happy with the direction this country is headed.

budsfarm posted:

I can't remember a time when the Democrat race/candidacy wasn't entertaining.  Dukakis in a tank.  Jesse & Al.  Billy Beer.  Is - is and the whole Clinton era.  Stuff like that.  In fact during the Johnson / Humphrey campaign, they were known as Lets Be Jolly - Ha Ha Ha.  The dual-edge sword of Obamacare.  Democrats sure love their entertainment and I'm not just talking Barbara Streisand.  And the country as paid our fair share of admission.  Like P.T. Barnum said...

. . . . as the yellow dogs marched lock step...clop...clop...clop...clop

I go far back as Eisenhower.  Well, Truman actually, but I heard about that later.  By comparison,  the last entertaining Republican candidate they  had was AuH20.

Till now.

And yet the Clinton-Sanders duo . . . well, that's entertaining, too.  Still in step.

I'm real happy with the direction this country is headed.

And maybe Hillary will get a white Bronco and lead the FBI on a low speed chase across the country. I guess the campaign bus will work:

Harder time unless they need them to get free stuff from the government.

The parts of the US with the highest percent of government assistance are republican voting areas.

jtdavis posted:

Harder time unless they need them to get free stuff from the government.

The parts of the US with the highest percent of government assistance are republican voting areas.

What does that have to do with the fact that if a gimmethat demoslop needs a photo ID to get free stuff he/she can manage to get one, but wants to whine and lie about how they can't get an ID to vote? Stay on subject, don't start trying to deflect.

Back to the topic, there's a lot of voter cross pollination in this primary year as registered dems crossover to vote for Trump in open primary states while Cruz wins in closed primaries. I guess there's little desire to vote for the wife of the guy who made take-it-or-leave-it trade deals that sent the factories over the border and overseas putting people on goobermint assistance or the guy wanting to turn the US into a workers paradise like Venezuela. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...p-only-contests.html

jtdavis posted:

Harder time unless they need them to get free stuff from the government.

The parts of the US with the highest percent of government assistance are republican voting areas.

No, JT, we've been over this before.  The stats showed that more money was spent in certain states on everything, not just assistance.  For instance, Alabama has a number of military installations that are high tech, which costs more. I went over this with a Californian, who's last argument was that California paid more in taxes than Alabama.  I reminded him of the population difference.

direstraits posted:

jtdavis posted:

Harder time unless they need them to get free stuff from the government.

The parts of the US with the highest percent of government assistance are republican voting areas.

No, JT, we've been over this before.  The stats showed that more money was spent in certain states on everything, not just assistance.  For instance, Alabama has a number of military installations that are high tech, which costs more. I went over this with a Californian, who's last argument was that California paid more in taxes than Alabama.  I reminded him of the population difference.

Let's not play jt's deflection game.

Bestworking posted:

direstraits posted:

jtdavis posted:

Harder time unless they need them to get free stuff from the government.

The parts of the US with the highest percent of government assistance are republican voting areas.

No, JT, we've been over this before.  The stats showed that more money was spent in certain states on everything, not just assistance.  For instance, Alabama has a number of military installations that are high tech, which costs more. I went over this with a Californian, who's last argument was that California paid more in taxes than Alabama.  I reminded him of the population difference.

Let's not play jt's deflection game.

When he bring up old items like this, I begin to wonder if ALZ is setting in.  Soon, Condie might have a neighbor at the home.

When he bring up old items like this, I begin to wonder if ALZ is setting in.

When he "bring" up old facts,  the same old right wing, tea party comments are put out. 

jtdavis posted:

When he bring up old items like this, I begin to wonder if ALZ is setting in.

When he "bring" up old facts,  the same old right wing, tea party comments are put out. 

Not like you jt, that keeps harping on all the old, wrong information? Are you "quiet" sure you want to "go there" and mention the fact that Dire dropped an *s*?

Fewer Democrats Are Voting

because the dead are being removed from the rolls.

Bestworking posted:

jtdavis posted:

When he bring up old items like this, I begin to wonder if ALZ is setting in.

When he "bring" up old facts,  the same old right wing, tea party comments are put out. 

Not like you jt, that keeps harping on all the old, wrong information? Are you "quiet" sure you want to "go there" and mention the fact that Dire dropped an *s*?

Facts are not "tea party comments."  One is always allowed one's own opinions, but not one's own facts, despite the post modernists.  I gave the reasons for Alabama receiving so much more federal money, than they pay in taxes.  Other states have different reasons -- Arizona and Nevada, for instance. About 50 percent of Arizona and 90 percent of Nevada are under federal management.  The states would love to control most of that land, which would reduce costs to the federal government.   Failure to recall this information, especially when presented with the facts a number of times, points to memory loss.  Careful, or Condie will have a new neighbor.

budsfarm posted:

Fewer Democrats Are Voting

because the dead are being removed from the rolls.

 

Love it!

Even the living who no longer reside here were carried for years.  When I moved to Atlanta, my dad said he saw my name on the rolls for 10 years after I moved.  I never voted again in Colbert county, not in Alabama until I returned to Huntsville.  Someone could have easily voted in my place.

Dire-See my post from June 2015 on the topic "Unspeakable". That scenario did play out in my case.  And JT would be good to see it also to know how it "can" be done. I think he honestly doesn't believe voter fraud exists.

Dire-See my post from June 2015 on the topic "Unspeakable". That scenario did play out in my case.  And JT would be good to see it also to know how it "can" be done. I think he honestly doesn't believe voter fraud exists.

post a link to voter fraud convictions. That would settle it once and for all.

jtdavis posted:

Dire-See my post from June 2015 on the topic "Unspeakable". That scenario did play out in my case.  And JT would be good to see it also to know how it "can" be done. I think he honestly doesn't believe voter fraud exists.

post a link to voter fraud convictions. That would settle it once and for all.

JT's throwing chaff in the air to attempt deflection, once more.  One finds fraud, when there is a method (internal control) against such.  If someone walks into the poll and states they are "so and so" without ID being required, there is no method to catch the fraudster.  Therefore, there will be few instances of voter fraud. Only when an internal control is installed with there be a method of deterring or preventing fraud.  Most people would understand this.  Those that can't are usually Democrats, which explains why most of Bernie Madoff's victims were Democrats.

JT's throwing chaff in the air to attempt deflection, once more.  One finds fraud, when there is a method (internal control) against such.  If someone walks into the poll and states they are "so and so" without ID being required, there is no method to catch the fraudster.  Therefore, there will be few instances of voter fraud. Only when an internal control is installed with there be a method of deterring or preventing fraud.  Most people would understand this.  Those that can't are usually Democrats, which explains why most of Bernie Madoff's victims were Democrats.

More hot air and personal opinions.  No facts to be found

jtdavis posted:

JT's throwing chaff in the air to attempt deflection, once more.  One finds fraud, when there is a method (internal control) against such.  If someone walks into the poll and states they are "so and so" without ID being required, there is no method to catch the fraudster.  Therefore, there will be few instances of voter fraud. Only when an internal control is installed with there be a method of deterring or preventing fraud.  Most people would understand this.  Those that can't are usually Democrats, which explains why most of Bernie Madoff's victims were Democrats.

More hot air and personal opinions.  No facts to be found

No, JT, a professional opinion. Fraud is rarely detected unless there are policies in position to catch those who commit fraud.  Once fraudsters realize they have a good chance of being caught, they either stop or adopt new tactics. I spent 40 years auditing, to include fraud detection (now usually referred to as forensic accounting).  Fewer Democrats are voting because they don't wish to be caught.

The notion that voting among Democrats in the primaries is down because of fear of fraud detection is fatuous in the extreme.  The Democrat turnout in the general election will explode this myth!

No, JT, a professional opinion.

That's what I said. An opinion, not facts

Poor jt. So clueless.

Contendahh posted:

The notion that voting among Democrats in the primaries is down because of fear of fraud detection is fatuous in the extreme.  The Democrat turnout in the general election will explode this myth!

If, the two white geezers running didn't show up at the primaries, why would they show up at the national election in November?  Part of the increase in Republicans is due to Democrats registering as Republicans, being unable to hold their noses and vote for the two most yeller of mutts.

Bestworking posted:

Poor jt. So clueless.

As I've stated before, usually, the biggest marks taken by fraudulent scams are progressives.  If, it weren't for the charities and widows taken by Bernie Madoff, I'd almost be gleeful about all the wealthy progs old Bernie burnt.