Deluge Posted March 15 Author Report Posted March 15 9 minutes ago, Reg Volk said: Another compelling argument for term limits. 1 Quote
Reg Volk Posted March 15 Report Posted March 15 Quote As Democrat and Liberal governments fall, Republicans and Conservatives come to the rescue.
Hodad Posted March 16 Report Posted March 16 On 3/11/2026 at 10:43 PM, gatomontes99 said: 36 states have voter ID laws. Sooooo....14 states would need the laws....annnnnnd the states (36) already have subsidies for those that need them.....are you getting there yet? Oh, I'm there. You're going to pretend that this is not a massive unfunded mandate. lol Quote I did not day it proves citizenship. I said it is one of the approved IDs for the SAVE Act. I also said a few states list the citizenship on the ID of the owner can prove citizenship. So, those do prove citizenship even if that is not accepted...yet. Liar. Gato, meet Gato. "Real ID requires proof of citizenship. So, if your Driver's License has a star on it, you are a citizen." it was false the first time you said it. It's false now. It does not prove citizenship. Quote Bullshit! Congress: Specifically, the bill prohibits states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill specifies what documents are considered acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, such as identification that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship. Holy shit. Yes, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about in terms of being poorly written. What is written there is misleading, at best. Real ID alone does not indicate citizenship. That requires an Enhanced ID, which the vast majority of states do not offer, and in the 5 states where it is available, (at two layers of additional cost above standard IDs) most people won't have. So you have a bill written in a way that implies that Real ID will constitute "documentary proof of citizenship" when in fact it will not. You didn't understand the facts after I explained multiple times. Will the average voter know, or will they show up to vote with an ID that's insufficient? There would be massive cost for states to roll out compliant ID options AND a massive cost to citizens to pay for Enhanced IDs. Not to mention the extreme time investment both for states and voters to get these IDs. The net-net is that it's simply not feasible in the near term. Massive cost, massive disruption, massive confusion and massive disenfranchisement. Quote Lmao...ok. So you don't want to admit you didn't notice that you used registrations and I used votes. Whatever. What study did I quote? I'll wait. Meanwhile, the fact remains true that the non-peer reviewed blog post reanalysis by one guy on Just Facts is based on a study that's discredited publicly and disavowed in this usage by the primary author. And the fact remains that every audit of real votes cast shows that noncitizen voting (and indeed all forms of voter impersonation fraud) are virtually nonexistent. And the net of all this is that you are supporting an enormously burdensome law that will impose millions of dollars of cost and millions of hours in compliance efforts and disenfranchise millions of voters. And getting nothing in return, except voter suppression. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted March 16 Report Posted March 16 4 minutes ago, Hodad said: Oh, I'm there. You're going to pretend that this is not a massive unfunded mandate. lol Ooooh it is so much!! [/sarcasm] Texas The controversial voter ID bill (SB 14) passed on March 23rd, and was sent to a conference committee to determine whether certain amendments should be added before it is sent to the Governor next week. The cost of implementing the reforms set out in this bill is expected to be $2 million in the 2012 fiscal year, not a small amount of money for a state with a budget deficit of about $27 billion. There is also concern that the financial burden will be placed on local election officials, with some of them referring to the bill as an “unfunded mandate.” This additional burden refers to local offices having to remain open, and the hiring of additional poll workers on Election Day in order to comply with the new regulations. $2 million in 2012 is just under $3 million today. So what? That is $42 million over the remaining states, but not really because they all have lower population and it is actually less than $3 million. $42 million is less than a rounding error in our budget. You are scraping the bottom of the barrell, looking for something....anything that will stick. You haven't found it yet. 8 minutes ago, Hodad said: What study did I quote? I'll wait. You quoted the same study. Great. So!? What are you waiting for? Do you not understand the difference between registered and voted? Hint: there are fewer people that vote than register to vote. 10 minutes ago, Hodad said: Meanwhile, the fact remains true that the non-peer reviewed blog post reanalysis by one guy on Just Facts is based on a study that's discredited publicly and disavowed in this usage by the primary author. And the fact remains that every audit of real votes cast shows that noncitizen voting (and indeed all forms of voter impersonation fraud) are virtually nonexistent. The blog I posted reposted the findings. It was outside the pay wall. Had I posted the actual study, you'd complain that it was behind the pay wall so you can't verify it. Further, you posted claims that one (not all) of the authors disagrees with how the data was used but never anything that disavowed the data, which is what I used. You cannot refute the data, so you are attempting to attack me and the website and these red herrings. Take issue with the data. Refute the actual data. Not the red herrings. Not the straw men. Avoid the ad hominem. Just debate the facts or move on. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Deluge Posted March 16 Author Report Posted March 16 26 minutes ago, Hodad said: Oh, I'm there. You're going to pretend that this is not a massive unfunded mandate. lol Liar. Gato, meet Gato. "Real ID requires proof of citizenship. So, if your Driver's License has a star on it, you are a citizen." it was false the first time you said it. It's false now. It does not prove citizenship. Holy shit. Yes, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about in terms of being poorly written. What is written there is misleading, at best. Real ID alone does not indicate citizenship. That requires an Enhanced ID, which the vast majority of states do not offer, and in the 5 states where it is available, (at two layers of additional cost above standard IDs) most people won't have. So you have a bill written in a way that implies that Real ID will constitute "documentary proof of citizenship" when in fact it will not. You didn't understand the facts after I explained multiple times. Will the average voter know, or will they show up to vote with an ID that's insufficient? There would be massive cost for states to roll out compliant ID options AND a massive cost to citizens to pay for Enhanced IDs. Not to mention the extreme time investment both for states and voters to get these IDs. The net-net is that it's simply not feasible in the near term. Massive cost, massive disruption, massive confusion and massive disenfranchisement. What study did I quote? I'll wait. Meanwhile, the fact remains true that the non-peer reviewed blog post reanalysis by one guy on Just Facts is based on a study that's discredited publicly and disavowed in this usage by the primary author. And the fact remains that every audit of real votes cast shows that noncitizen voting (and indeed all forms of voter impersonation fraud) are virtually nonexistent. And the net of all this is that you are supporting an enormously burdensome law that will impose millions of dollars of cost and millions of hours in compliance efforts and disenfranchise millions of voters. And getting nothing in return, except voter suppression. Wrong. The net of all this is: 1. You must have a valid ID, and 2. You must have proof of citizenship. Those 2 are what's required to vote. Stop trying to confuse everyone with your anti-American bullshit. Quote
Hodad Posted March 16 Report Posted March 16 31 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Ooooh it is so much!! [/sarcasm] Texas The controversial voter ID bill (SB 14) passed on March 23rd, and was sent to a conference committee to determine whether certain amendments should be added before it is sent to the Governor next week. The cost of implementing the reforms set out in this bill is expected to be $2 million in the 2012 fiscal year, not a small amount of money for a state with a budget deficit of about $27 billion. There is also concern that the financial burden will be placed on local election officials, with some of them referring to the bill as an “unfunded mandate.” This additional burden refers to local offices having to remain open, and the hiring of additional poll workers on Election Day in order to comply with the new regulations. $2 million in 2012 is just under $3 million today. So what? That is $42 million over the remaining states, but not really because they all have lower population and it is actually less than $3 million. $42 million is less than a rounding error in our budget. You are scraping the bottom of the barrell, looking for something....anything that will stick. You haven't found it yet. Let's stipulate that your calculations are valid. 1. The fact that it's an unfunded mandate means that it's not IN our federal budget. That's what the phrase means. It's a mandate that falls to the states to pay for. 2. Your defense of this is that spending 42 million dollars to achieve virtually zero effect on the prevalence of non-citizen voting. A bargain! Quote You quoted the same study. Great. So!? What are you waiting for? Do you not understand the difference between registered and voted? Hint: there are fewer people that vote than register to vote. You are not tracking this exchange at all. Quote The blog I posted reposted the findings. It was outside the pay wall. Had I posted the actual study, you'd complain that it was behind the pay wall so you can't verify it. Further, you posted claims that one (not all) of the authors disagrees with how the data was used but never anything that disavowed the data, which is what I used. You are either hopelessly lost, or you're lying to cover. 1. Agresti, the author of the Just Facts blog post, doesn't HAVE a peer reviewed study. There is no paywall. It's just the blog post, made in 2024, that attempts to extrapolate from a study that was ACTUALLY published in 2014. 2. You sure as hell haven't read the peer reviewed Agresti study, because it doesn't exist. And you also haven't read the 2014 study. 3. Again, the 2014 study Agresti re-analyzed to extrapolate current figures has been broadly discredited. And again, even the original author disavows the way Agresti (and Trump) are misusing the data. I gave you the links. Why are you so desperately clinging to a blog post about an old, discredited study, that even if it hadn't been discredited, would still just be survey-based projection? Even if it weren't discredited, why would you want to use estimates and projections from a flawed survey instead of the actual audits of votes? Audits that show there is no problem to solve. Quote You cannot refute the data, so you are attempting to attack me and the website and these red herrings. Take issue with the data. Refute the actual data. Not the red herrings. Not the straw men. Avoid the ad hominem. Just debate the facts or move on. lol. You're such a phony. I gave you multiple links disputing the data--which was only survey data. And even if the survey study hadn't been discredited, it's speculative--a projection. The audits are concrete proof that non-citizens are not voting in any serious numbers. We have the receipts. It's not happening. Stop sending up this bogus smokescreen to try to hide the fact that this is nothing more than a cynical attempt to scare Americans into supporting the voter suppression of their fellow citizens. This is not a good bill. It should not be supported by any person who believes in democracy. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted March 16 Report Posted March 16 32 minutes ago, Hodad said: Let's stipulate that your calculations are valid. 1. The fact that it's an unfunded mandate means that it's not IN our federal budget. That's what the phrase means. It's a mandate that falls to the states to pay for. It is such a pittance of a cost. They can make due. 32 minutes ago, Hodad said: 2. Your defense of this is that spending 42 million dollars to achieve virtually zero effect on the prevalence of non-citizen voting. A bargain! Your assumptions of no effect is laughable. 34 minutes ago, Hodad said: 1. Agresti, the author of the Just Facts blog post, doesn't HAVE a peer reviewed study. There is no paywall. It's just the blog post, made in 2024, that attempts to extrapolate from a study that was ACTUALLY published in 2014. I did not use Agresti's data. I used the data he quoted. You keep trying to slide blame over instead of addressing the data. 35 minutes ago, Hodad said: 2. You sure as hell haven't read the peer reviewed Agresti study, because it doesn't exist. And you also haven't read the 2014 study. I never claimed that Agresti was the source of the data. You did. Either you can't grasp the concept of a quote or you are disingenuously attacking Agresti to avoid the real debate. 45 minutes ago, Hodad said: 3. Again, the 2014 study Agresti re-analyzed to extrapolate current figures has been broadly discredited. And again, even the original author disavows the way Agresti (and Trump) are misusing the data. I gave you the links. Why are you so desperately clinging to a blog post about an old, discredited study, that even if it hadn't been discredited, would still just be survey-based projection? Even if it weren't discredited, why would you want to use estimates and projections from a flawed survey instead of the actual audits of votes? Audits that show there is no problem to solve. I can't find any thing that discredits the data. I did find this FactCheck.org article how DOGE found thousands of illegal alien voters in just 4 states. Their only rebuttal was that a formal Biden official denied that it was happening. So we have a study that predicts the behavior and we have a sample data set that confirms the behavior. That is what we call proof. 49 minutes ago, Hodad said: lol. You're such a phony. I gave you multiple links disputing the data--which was only survey data. And even if the survey study hadn't been discredited, it's speculative--a projection. The audits are concrete proof that non-citizens are not voting in any serious numbers. We have the receipts. It's not happening. Stop sending up this bogus smokescreen to try to hide the fact that this is nothing more than a cynical attempt to scare Americans into supporting the voter suppression of their fellow citizens. This is not a good bill. It should not be supported by any person who believes in democracy. You really do live in a fantasy world. One of these days, your pink sky will fall and the bright blue sky will be revealed. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Deluge Posted March 16 Author Report Posted March 16 On 3/11/2026 at 11:17 AM, Hodad said: 1. Real ID has an additional cost 2. Real ID IS NOT proof of citizenship 1. So what? Stop being a crybaby and get compliant - we need to verify who gets to vote and who needs to be deported. 2. It is in most states, but I'd still keep a copy of my birth certificate handy, just in case. Quote
Reg Volk Posted March 17 Report Posted March 17 Woo hoo!!! 1 Quote As Democrat and Liberal governments fall, Republicans and Conservatives come to the rescue.
Deluge Posted March 18 Author Report Posted March 18 16 hours ago, Reg Volk said: Woo hoo!!! America first! 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted March 18 Report Posted March 18 19 hours ago, Reg Volk said: Woo hoo!!! Don't celebrate. These asshats brought it to the floor to kill it. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Deluge Posted March 19 Author Report Posted March 19 On 3/18/2026 at 1:14 PM, gatomontes99 said: Don't celebrate. These asshats brought it to the floor to kill it. I hope not. Quote
Deluge Posted March 20 Author Report Posted March 20 To oppose the Save America ACT is to support illegal immigration and election rigging. That is all. Have a nice weekend. Quote
John Johnston Posted March 20 Report Posted March 20 On 3/10/2026 at 7:25 AM, Barquentine said: The Save Republicans Act. Gerrymandering ain't gonna do it. They're getting desperate. Yep. Quote
John Johnston Posted March 20 Report Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, John Johnston said: Yep. Well, we can't win an election because we are now unelectable, so lets try gerrymandering and unreasonable election rules. Quote
John Johnston Posted March 20 Report Posted March 20 Gona buy some stock in Snorkel Manufacturing. Since the Republicans are so far under water. Quote
Deluge Posted March 20 Author Report Posted March 20 41 minutes ago, John Johnston said: Gona buy some stock in Snorkel Manufacturing. Since the Republicans are so far under water. Pfft - the democrats are STILL dragging the ocean floor. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.