Whew...all that winning...

[transporter]

...another Trump commission goes..."poof". Are there any left?

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has signed an executive order disbanding his controversial voter fraud commission amid infighting, legal threats and information denials.

The White House blamed the decision, announced Wednesday evening, on a refusal by more than a dozen states to comply with the commission request for reams of personal voter data, including voters’ names, voting histories and party affiliations.

“Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and he has asked the Department of Homeland Security to review its initial findings and determine next courses of action,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.

https://www.apnews.com/b3d4e5974aba...signs-order-disbanding-voter-fraud-commission

 

[Gilligan]

Yawn

 

[Starman]

Nice.

Forty-four states (which includes plenty of blue states the Orange Man carried) told him to feck off.

After a few months, we'll have heard nothing from DHS and this entire story will fall into the ether and be forgotten.

hashtag MAGA

 

[Hijinx]

Nice.

Forty-four states (which includes plenty of blue states the Orange Man carried) told him to feck off.

After a few months, we'll have heard nothing from DHS and this entire story will fall into the ether and be forgotten.

hashtag MAGA

I swear, it's almost as bad as Mueller looking for something that isn't there isn't it.

 

[This_person]

Nice.

Forty-four states (which includes plenty of blue states the Orange Man carried) told him to feck off.

After a few months, we'll have heard nothing from DHS and this entire story will fall into the ether and be forgotten.

hashtag MAGA

Voter fraud is not forgotten by any means. Establishing ways to prove voter fraud is against the Democrat platform for some reason, though.

 

[Starman]

Voter fraud is not forgotten by any means. Establishing ways to prove voter fraud is against the Democrat platform for some reason, though.

The only thing that demonstrates is that the only reason to have a government-issued ID is for purposes of control by that government. You're also standing up a strawman.

Did you have a point?

 

[BOP]

Voter fraud is not forgotten by any means. Establishing ways to prove voter fraud is against the Democrat platform for some reason, though.

View attachment 121002

I didn't see "Visit your congress critter who thinks voter ID is rayciss" on that list.

 

[BOP]

The only thing that demonstrates is that the only reason to have a government-issued ID is for purposes of control by that government. You're also standing up a strawman.

Did you have a point?

I actually agree with your first point, to a degree, but as to your second, even you're not that obtuse. You're not, are you?

 

[This_person]

The only thing that demonstrates is that the only reason to have a government-issued ID is for purposes of control by that government. You're also standing up a strawman.

Did you have a point?

I do. I thought it was very obvious, but apparently not. So, I'll get better crayons for you, and spell it out.




See, the only way to prove voter fraud without ID is to catch someone voting dead (happens all the time), or voting in multiple areas (happens all the time). But, to find out if someone voted as if they are someone else, you have to have ID to show that they are voting as someone other than themselves. If they say their name is Bob, but their ID says their name is Joe, you've got a pretty good reason to suspect they are not who they are trying to vote as. Or, if they are not in the country legally (and therefore should not vote), they should not have a valid, voter-capable ID. Then, without the ID, they can't legally vote.

Now, we know that the vast majority of voter fraud is in favor of Democrats. That's why Democrats are against any way of improving catching the voter fraud that occurs. One argument they've used is that voter ID is racist, because (in their view, not mine or any other conservative's mind) minorities are too stupid or incompetent to get an ID, even when they're free. So, therefore, I posted a meme of a bunch of stuff where ID is required (and it was pointed out the meme misses some really good ones, which is true), but no one says that those things are racist, just a voter ID.

So, that points out hypocrisy, which is a great indicator of there being a different motive than the stated one.






Did you follow all of that? I can try and be more explicit, if you need it explained deeper.

 

[Starman]

I do. I thought it was very obvious, but apparently not. So, I'll get better crayons for you, and spell it out.




See, the only way to prove voter fraud without ID is to catch someone voting dead (happens all the time), or voting in multiple areas (happens all the time). But, to find out if someone voted as if they are someone else, you have to have ID to show that they are voting as someone other than themselves. If they say their name is Bob, but their ID says their name is Joe, you've got a pretty good reason to suspect they are not who they are trying to vote as. Or, if they are not in the country legally (and therefore should not vote), they should not have a valid, voter-capable ID. Then, without the ID, they can't legally vote.

Now, we know that the vast majority of voter fraud is in favor of Democrats. That's why Democrats are against any way of improving catching the voter fraud that occurs. One argument they've used is that voter ID is racist, because (in their view, not mine or any other conservative's mind) minorities are too stupid or incompetent to get an ID, even when they're free. So, therefore, I posted a meme of a bunch of stuff where ID is required (and it was pointed out the meme misses some really good ones, which is true), but no one says that those things are racist, just a voter ID.

So, that points out hypocrisy, which is a great indicator of there being a different motive than the stated one.






Did you follow all of that? I can try and be more explicit, if you need it explained deeper.

In other words, the only thing that demonstrates is that the only reason to have a government-issued ID is for purposes of control by that government.

Fair enough!

 

[vraiblonde]

The point being, of course, that so many things require photo ID that the Democrats' claim that black people don't have photo IDs and therefore requiring one to vote is racist is just more of their lies and bull####.

Because Democrats are liars and bull####ters, and their partybots gobble it up and beg for more.

 

[This_person]

In other words, the only thing that demonstrates is that the only reason to have a government-issued ID is for purposes of control by that government.

Fair enough!

That's an interesting way to look at it. You're suggesting that the government - under our control - should have no ID. So, without ID, anyone could vote (as is the case today). That would mean I could drive from county to county, state to state, and vote all voting day. I could get absentee voter cards, and vote as many times as I like based on knowledge of the voter rolls and death rolls - or, wait, should there be no voter rolls? I could get as many people into the country illegally (or, even legally) and get them to vote the way I want.

Then, we, the people, would no longer have control over government, right? Because, the few that do this could completely control the votes dishonestly, and we, the people would no longer control government!




So, your point seems to be entirely invalid. It seems the way to ensure we, the people, maintain control over the government is to be able to identify ourselves in some uniform and established manner. It would seem a government-issued ID that has some kind of controls over it would be the only way to ensure the voters maintain control of the government. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.




Now, if you need for me to be more explicit in tearing apart your idiotic claim, I can be far more detailed. I'm really going out on a limb here, though, and assuming you can follow this the first time this time.

 

[Gilligan]

So, your point seems to be entirely invalid. .

As they so often are.

 

[PsyOps]

You're also standing up a strawman.