Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Support this claim. Please show me where they are allowed to vote.
In November 2016 voters in San Francisco approved a proposal to allow all parents of children in the San Francisco school system to vote in school board elections regardless of their immigration or citizenship status.
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In November 2016 voters in San Francisco approved a proposal to allow all parents of children in the San Francisco school system to vote in school board elections regardless of their immigration or citizenship status.

Well, I stand corrected. Ballot Measure N was approved.

our entire country is lost. It's over. That's it. It was nice while it lasted.

Oh well. So what country are you moving to?
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
it's not the finals say.

Not every case goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reserves the right of certiorari and they can simply refuse to hear a case or the plaintiffs or defendants may opt not to take it higher.

The supreme court often over turns the appeals court.

Sometimes. But again, there is no indication that it is in any way to be adjudicated differently. So the decision currently stands.
 
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Thanks but I'm gonna go with what actual people have told me instead of what the MSM wants us to believe. I don't trust anything coming out of a tv set anymore, and I'm quite surprised you do.

But do go on and explain to me the logic in living most of your life here trying to keep as low of a profile as possible to avoid coming up on any government radar and then suddenly throwing all of that away and putting your name on a government list for the off chance that the candidate you vote for will win and then, actually help you gain citizenship.

These people aren't as stupid or as gullible as you may think they are.
They might if they're under the impression that coming forward won't have any ramifications.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,803
25,694
LA
✟551,661.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
They might if they're under the impression that coming forward won't have any ramifications.
Perhaps. They'd still have to have citizenship before they can register to vote.

How do they get over that hump?
 
Upvote 0

MrSpikey

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2015
1,431
740
53
UK
✟34,367.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I see no problem with voter ID to vote. This cleans up any graft or problems in the system no matter how insignificant. I'm surprised democrats don't adhere to this based on their recent, "every vote counts" mentality, otherwise you can do away with their recount efforts and popular vote mandate argument as hypocrisy.

All you need to do now is pass a constitutional amendment that allows governments to restrict the unrestricted right of citizens to vote.

You don't have any problems with the political and/or racial makeup of locations where such laws have been overwhelmingly introduced, presumably?
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Not every case goes to the Supreme Court.
But this one did. It was a split decision 4/4 thus not setting any lead precedent. I'm sorry, you're just not correct on this point.

So the decision currently stands.

No, it doesn't.


Looks like you can't answer any of the evidence I presented to you, as you are purposefully ignoring it. I'll consider this matter settled until you answer it. Conclusion: Voter ID laws are good and do not negatively impact minorities.
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
All you need to do now is pass a constitutional amendment that allows governments to restrict the unrestricted right of citizens to vote.
False Linkage. Requiring to identify yourself is not a restriction on a right to vote. The right to vote stands based on it's definition.
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But this one did. It was a split decision 4/4 thus not setting any lead precedent. I'm sorry, you're just not correct on this point.

I believe a split decision at the Supreme court effectively upholds the lower court ruling.

"With an eight-justice court, a majority decision requires a 5-3 vote. If the supreme court is deadlocked 4-4, the lower court’s decision in the case is upheld but it does not create a legal precedent" (SOURCE)

Looks like you can't answer any of the evidence I presented to you, as you are purposefully ignoring it. I'll consider this matter settled until you answer it. Conclusion: Voter ID laws are good and do not negatively impact minorities.

An analysis found 28 cases of voter fraud convictions since 2000, 3.6% were voter impersonation. (SOURCE)

Further: "African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to lack one of these qualifying IDs, according to several estimates. Even when the state offers a free photo ID, these voters, who are disproportionately low-income, may not be able to procure the underlying documents, such as a birth certificate, to obtain one." (SOURCE)

GAO analysis found that voter turnout dropped among African Americans in Tennessee and Kansas after Voter ID's laws were put in place (SOURCE)

Again, PBS: "Courts have so far blocked three ID laws. A state judge struck down Pennsylvania’s law earlier this year, determining that it discriminated against low-income and minority voters. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Wisconsin’s from taking effect for this election, and last week, a state court declared Arkansas’ voter ID law unconstitutional. Lawsuits are currently pending against similar laws in North Carolina and Alabama, though they won’t be decided before the November elections." (emphasis added)

Conservative judge Richard Posner had this to say about the Voter ID laws: “[they] appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks.” (SOURCE)
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I believe a split decision at the Supreme court effectively upholds the lower court ruling.
You'd be wrong. It "does not create a legal precedent" Meaning the court decision can be overturned at anytime and is not final, just like I said.

low-income, may not be able to procure the underlying documents,
Unproven claim. I've already shown you CLEAR evidence that WITH THE law implemented MINORITY VOTING INCREASED. So that disproves this quite clearly.

You can quote lower court rulings and judges all day, that doesn't make it a final ruling by the supreme court. My evidence shows you're wrong in your assumption and you have yet to address it. Like I said, until you do, I'll consider this matter resolved and that voter ID does not hamper minority voting in anyway.

I'd love to see you address the situation in Detroit though. Considering all recount measures right now have benefited Trump and he won the election because of the minority vote, I don't see a problem and the headline of this thread is very informative. With all recount efforts so far, it's showing that Trump won and Hillary lost.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
FYI, your GAO said ONLY black minorities..."among African-American registrants than among White, Asian-American, and Hispanic registrants. GAO did not find consistent reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants compared to White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects among these subgroups"

So why is it just one specific minority has a problem getting an ID? According to the poverty rate Hispanics are just as poor? It doesn't seem to be the law?

Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity
 
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just can't relate to this lack of ID deal. I have worked with the poor and homeless, and one thing they always had was a ID. They lacked other things, but that wasn't it. I would drive them to the local government branch to sign them up for food stamps, and other programs. They didn't other things - like a utility bill, etc. Then you ran into some problems at times. The ID part never was an issue.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LouisBooth
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You'd be wrong.

You do realize there's a difference between setting precedent and upholding a decision, right?

It "does not create a legal precedent" Meaning the court decision can be overturned at anytime and is not final, just like I said.

It can be overturned, but as of now it seems that the lower courts ruling stands.

The entirety of the US Bill of Right can be repealed, but they aren't currently.

You can quote lower court rulings and judges all day, that doesn't make it a final ruling by the supreme court.

And NOT ALL RULINGS ARE DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT. As I stated before; SCOTUS reserves the right of certiorari, they can if they like simply NOT hear a case. Meaning that some cases will NEVER be appealed all the way through SCOTUS. That leaves the lower court rulings to stand.

My evidence shows you're wrong in your assumption and you have yet to address it. Like I said, until you do, I'll consider this matter resolved and that voter ID does not hamper minority voting in anyway.

I have provided ample evidence (now repeatedly so) for my position.

I'd love to see you address the situation in Detroit though.

Cherry picking? Sorry, I like to deal with the preponderance of evidence. But if you like please do find cases where your point is supported and assume that larger studies are invalid because you could a case where the result was different. (HINT: This is why statistics is more powerful than anecdotal data).

Considering all recount measures right now have benefited Trump and he won the election because of the minority vote, I don't see a problem and the headline of this thread is very informative.

There is no problem. I am glad the recounts confirmed the election. My point all along is that the Right wants to fight every single case of voter fraud they can find even when it is less than 4% of 28 known cases (1 case). OH, until THEIR guy's election is called into question.

That's been my whole point all along: you have NO data that there is massive systemic voter impersonation fraud going on yet you want to "fix the problem". If your bar to "fixing the problem" is set so low the only way you can appear serious about your own position is if you support the OTHER SIDE abiding by the low likelihood bar.

Meaning if you want to solve "voter id fraud" which is demonstrably low, then you must want to solve ALL voter fraud no matter how statistically unlikely.

Otherwise it makes you seem like there's some ulterior motive to the whole voter ID law push.

With all recount efforts so far, it's showing that Trump won and Hillary lost.

Agreed. Trump won. Hillary lost.

Doesn't change how statistics work.
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I just can't relate to this lack of ID deal. I have worked with the poor and homeless, and one thing they always had was a ID. They lacked other things, but that wasn't it.

Again you are talking about "anecdotal data". YOUR experience =/= every poor person on earth.

I don't mind the idea of a voter ID because it makes sense, even to me! But honestly since there are SO FEW CASES of voter identity fraud I don't understand why we need to "fix" this problem. ESPECIALLY when the party that wants to "fix the problem" (the GOP) is also the party that doesn't want to pay to keep extra DMV offices open.

The examples given of cases where a poor person can't afford to get a notarized copy of their birth certificate means at least one person couldn't get a government ID. Again, if the GOP cares about stopping every single case of voter identity fraud (again, only a couple cases from the data since 2000) then they should be equally mortified that at least a couple people COULDN'T vote because of lack of ability to get an ID.

2 illegal votes is not ispo facto WORSE than 2 disenfranchised legal voters. Unless you are a Republican.

If you want to "fix" the problem of the 2 illegal votes then you HAVE to want to fix the problem of the 2 disenfranchised legal voters, and that will cost money.

And interestingly enough I bet the rate of disenfranchisement VASTLY dwarfs the rate of voter identity fraud. We know voter identity fraud is very small.
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You do realize there's a difference between setting precedent and upholding a decision, right
You realize one has legal long lasting impact and one can be overturned right?
It can be overturned, but as of now it seems that the lower courts ruling stands
Nooo...it doesn't set a legal precedent. You might want to look up what that means legally.

And NOT ALL RULINGS ARE DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT. As I stated before; SCOTUS reserves the right of certiorari, they can if they like simply NOT hear a case
Yes, and in THIS CASE that didn't happen. certiorari is when they basically view the lower court ruling was right and thus it becomes lega precedent. That DID NOT happen in this case. Thus your example is invalid.

I have provided ample evidence (now repeatedly so) for my position.
No, you have one opinion piece with no evidence to back up their claim and I showed you how your other links simply don't prove your point. You have yet to address the link I showed you clearly refuting you. Keep dodging.

your point is supported and assume that larger studies are invalid
ROFL. You do know your link from GAO doesn't prove your point right? That's probably because you didn't read it.

What is interesting is that you say voter fraud is no big deal, it's only about 4% but the same amount is impacted by voter ID law. Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
YOUR experience =/= every poor person on earth.
That's interesting because on your link, that's EXACTLY what they say and you use that as evidence to prove your point. Someone's bias is showing ;)

Your scenario works for you as well by the way. How about you admit that voter ID laws are okay, then you can advocate people not focusing on voter fraud?
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That's interesting because on your link, that's EXACTLY what they say and you use that as evidence to prove your point. Someone's bias is showing ;)

I provided more than one link to more than one analysis.

Your scenario works for you as well by the way. How about you admit that voter ID laws are okay, then you can advocate people not focusing on voter fraud?

You are clearly not following. Sorry. It's pretty simple.
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You realize one has legal long lasting impact and one can be overturned right?

Yet EVEN then a ruling that can be overturned is still a valid ruling so long as it is NOT overturned.

Sheesh. That honestly seems like it should be obvious to you.

Nooo...it doesn't set a legal precedent. You might want to look up what that means legally.

Do you honestly think that every single court ruling has to go all the way to SCOTUS to be completely settled? Really? You'll be surprised that the Law is OVERWHELMED by rulings that have never gone to SCOTUS. Do you think they aren't valid rulings?

Yes, and in THIS CASE that didn't happen. certiorari is when they basically view the lower court ruling was right and thus it becomes lega precedent. That DID NOT happen in this case. Thus your example is invalid.

Correct. But in this case where a 4-4 tie was hit it results in the lower court ruling standing. Even if it didn't establish precedent. (There's even rulings that SCOTUS made that are open to interpretation, SCOTUS kind of kicked the can down the road in some cases. It's not like precedent has to be established every time SCOTUS rules.)

What is interesting is that you say voter fraud is no big deal, it's only about 4% but the same amount is impacted by voter ID law. Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too.

4% of 28 known cases since 2000. That honestly doesn't seem like a lot to me.

Look, I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to institute Voter ID requirements. But that means MORE taxes and MORE money to keep DMV's open in underserved areas no matter the cost. It also means that getting birthcertificates and other foundational documents now also be free (more cost).

I'm ALL FOR VOTER ID'S. They make sense. I'm simply pointing out that they don't seem to justify the extra cost but I'm more than willing to pay it if it helps ease everyone's mind. Are you?

Now, that being said, if we fix voter ID fraud then we MUST investigate ALL instances of potential fraud. Otherwise it looks like there was an arbitrary choice of what fraud is most important.

It certainly has nothing to do with gross numbers unless we investigate ALL potential fraud with equal fervor.

(staff edit)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yet EVEN then a ruling that can be overturned is still a valid ruling so long as it is NOT overturned.
Incorrect. Please read more on legal precedent.

Do you honestly think that every single court ruling has to go all the way to SCOTUS to be completely settled?
Yes, that's how the court system works. If you're denied an appeal then the lower court stands. IN these cases the appeal wasn't denied, it was a split court. Please research this and realize you're wrong here.

4% of 28 known cases since 2000. That honestly doesn't seem like a lot to me.

Look, I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to institute Voter ID requirements. But that means MORE taxes and MORE money to keep DMV's open in underserved areas no matter the cost.
Disagree. it only means that those very very small percentage of people need to have their government issued assistance looked at to have it adjusted. You don't open a new DMV for 10 people, sorry, this is called a false dichotomy.

Now, that being said, if we fix voter ID fraud then we MUST investigate ALL instances of potential fraud. Otherwise it looks like there was an arbitrary choice of what fraud is most important
again false dichotomy. You give one dollar to the poor, but you don't give ALL your extra income to the poor, thus you're not charitable. Your logic just doesn't work. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Incorrect. Please read more on legal precedent.

Are you literally saying that unless a ruling makes it all the way through the Supreme Court with a majority decision it is not a valid ruling? Really????

Yes, that's how the court system works. If you're denied an appeal then the lower court stands. IN these cases the appeal wasn't denied, it was a split court. Please research this and realize you're wrong here.

Show me the USC citation or SOMETHING that shows a split SCOTUS decision results in anything other than upholding the lower court decision.

Please...just SOMETHING. I would LOVE to see this. Please.

Disagree. it only means that those very very small percentage of people need to have their government issued assistance looked at to have it adjusted. You don't open a new DMV for 10 people, sorry, this is called a false dichotomy.

But you would support paying more money to help those people right? You are willing to pay more, right?
 
Upvote 0