[TheRealThing]

Nine women have stepped forward to accuse DJT of trying to molest them. Witnesses have come forward to challenge two of them on Judge Jeanine's show. Jessica Leeds claims that Trump was sexually aggressive with her on a commercial flight and had to leave first class to get away from him. The only problem is there is a very credible witness who was on that paricicular flight and remembers the whole scene. He remembered that Trump did not in fact sit next to Leeds, in fact, he was some distance from her. And according to the witness who again was on TV tonight to discuss the matter with the judge, Trump never touched her, nor did he make any lewd comments to her. Just the opposite, she was so thrilled to have had the opportunity to meet him, when Trump went to the lavatory she gushed to this man that she could not believe her good fortune!

Summer Zervos made similar allegations and her COUSIN, now mind you, took time to appear on the judge's show in order to state in a very public way that she had made the whole thing up.

In Judge Jeanine's opening comments she stated that she'd known Trump for 25 years. She'd been to all manner of functions including parties with him, that's parties serving alcoholic beverages I'm guessing, and not only had she not ever seen him misbehave sexually in the slightest. But that out of all their mutual friends none of them had ever seen him talk or act sexually explicit either. Now, if Trump is the sexual tyrannosaur they've painted him to be, one would think the hair of the dog would have loosened him up a bit, don't you think? My guess is that these two will not be the last to be shown to have been somewhat less than honest.

But news organizations talking about this 24/7 is waaay more important than the Wiki expose's or heaven forbid we should actually address legitimate issues.

[vector]

Nine women have stepped forward to accuse DJT of trying to molest them. Witnesses have come forward to challenge two of them on Judge Jeanine's show. Jessica Leeds claims that Trump was sexually aggressive with her on a commercial flight and had to leave first class to get away from him. The only problem is there is a very credible witness who was on that paricicular flight and remembers the whole scene. He remembered that Trump did not in fact sit next to Leeds, in fact, he was some distance from her. And according to the witness who again was on TV tonight to discuss the matter with the judge, Trump never touched her, nor did he make any lewd comments to her. Just the opposite, she was so thrilled to have had the opportunity to meet him, when Trump went to the lavatory she gushed to this man that she could not believe her good fortune!

Summer Zervos made similar allegations and her COUSIN, now mind you, took time to appear on the judge's show in order to state in a very public way that she had made the whole thing up.

In Judge Jeanine's opening comments she stated that she'd known Trump for 25 years. She'd been to all manner of functions including parties with him, that's parties serving alcoholic beverages I'm guessing, and not only had she not ever seen him misbehave sexually in the slightest. But that out of all their mutual friends none of them had ever seen him talk or act sexually explicit either. Now, if Trump is the sexual tyrannosaur they've painted him to be, one would think the hair of the dog would have loosened him up a bit, don't you think? My guess is that these two will not be the last to be shown to have been somewhat less than honest.

But news organizations talking about this 24/7 is waaay more important than the Wiki expose's or heaven forbid we should actually address legitimate issues.

But the video have you already let that slide over

[TheRealThing]

^^Well let's stack the two scales of justice up with the evidence. On one side we have a minimum of 33 thousand emails that were the people's business, but were nonetheless erased in defiance of a congressional subpoena, a FBI investigation which referred to lies and corruption, certainty with the soon coming of a liberal SC, and a political platform that would set the hair on a wild dog. While on the other side we have a tape with the candidate speaking in unflattering terms about women. But who, according to Reagan's economic experts, can steer us out of the financial maze we find ourselves and who will appoint conservative justices to the SC.


The video represents behavior which is not necessarily something we would ideally want from our president, but it is also not an account of real events. And by all accounts Mr Trump has changed. Still not much of a case with which to prosecute him with in light of everything happening around us. From Wikileaks revelations, to Iran shooting missiles at our warships and Putin threatening to shoot down our fighter jets, things are unraveling according to the experts I hear on the matter.

[Hoot Gibson]

But the video have you already let that slide over

You may know what video to which you are referring. Please give everybody else a clue. A link to whatever video you are referring to would be very helpful in that regard. Thanks in advance for sharing.

[vector]

^^Well let's stack the two scales of justice up with the evidence. On one side we have a minimum of 33 thousand emails that were the people's business, but were nonetheless erased in defiance of a congressional subpoena, a FBI investigation which referred to lies and corruption, certainty with the soon coming of a liberal SC, and a political platform that would set the hair on a wild dog. While on the other side we have a tape with the candidate speaking in unflattering terms about women. But who, according to Reagan's economic experts, can steer us out of the financial maze we find ourselves and who will appoint conservative justices to the SC.


The video represents behavior which is not necessarily something we would ideally want from our president, but it is also not an account of real events. And by all accounts Mr Trump has changed. Still not much of a case with which to prosecute him with in light of everything happening around us. From Wikileaks revelations, to Iran shooting missiles at our warships and Putin threatening to shoot down our fighter jets, things are unraveling according to the experts I hear on the matter.

Would your so called Expert be Hoot ??

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️⬆️

Basically, the two choices are flawed significantly. A stable, secure, "positive about the future" America: which flawed choice gives us the best shot at those three, taken together?

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️⬆️

By the way, "if Hillary Clinton is elected, America will be destroyed," and "This election is rigged," are both irresponsible, unfactual yammerings.

[Hoot Gibson]

Would your so called Expert be Hoot ??

Hoot doesn't think Trump has changed. Basic personality and morals of a 59 year old generally do not change much. The Clintons have always preferred to lie, even when the truth would get the job done. Trump is a deeply flawed candidate but Hillary's allies are manufacturing mud on Trump for good measure.

Hillary should be residing in a secure residence where all incoming packages is screened for contraband and outgoing mail is monitored for felonious content. I view people who vote for Obama and Hillary as criminal accomplices.

[Hoot Gibson]

⬆️⬆️

By the way, "if Hillary Clinton is elected, America will be destroyed," and "This election is rigged," are both irresponsible, unfactual yammerings.

The DNC rigged the nomination process in favor of Hillary. That is a fact, Jack. There is no reason to believe that Hillary's foot soldiers are above doing the same for the general election, if given half a chance. With the deeply politicized Obama Department of Justice, they have at least half a chance. She will not need to lie and cheat to win in November, but that has never stopped the Clintons in the past.

[TheRealThing]

⬆️⬆️

By the way, "if Hillary Clinton is elected, America will be destroyed," and "This election is rigged," are both irresponsible, unfactual yammerings.

Obviously I can't this side of the election, speak in terms other than opinion about it. Still, I can speak with certainty about elections being rigged and the internet is loaded with examples of it.

There is significant opportunity for voter fraud according to John Gibbs, "These are just some instances of voter fraud we know about. It would be silly to assume cases that have been discovered are the only cases of fraud. Indeed according to a Pew Research report from February 2012, one in eight voter registrations are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” Since there are 146 million Americans registered to vote, this translates to a stunning 18 million invalid voter registrations on the books. Further, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” Numbers of this scale obviously provide ripe opportunity for fraud."

But allow me to give my perspective in part, to how ridiculous the Dem's claim that voter ID's would disenfranchise the poor. Said poor, are extremely likely to be on some form of public assistance, are they not? And in such case are provided with plastic credit cards so that they can buy food, among other things. But what if the so-called poor Americans were to just start showing up at the various markets demanding that food be just given to them, because they don't have a credit card and don't want to be burdened with having to get one? Are Dem's then going to tell grocery store owners to just hand it out? Who really knows in this day in time? But it does seem unlikely. In any case, as of right now food program recipients must go down to the welfare office and sign up for their free food allotments. So if they can get themselves down for that, how much more trouble would it be to have their picture taken and affixed to new SS cards? The voter ID thing is not any more complex than that. If a person wants to vote, nobody wants to deny that. But if that person does not legally deserve to vote, they darn well shouldn't be just given the same privilege the rest of us had to qualify for and apply for under the law.

Voter ID's can be combined with Social Security cards and the process would seem to kill two birds with one stone IMO. Everybody is supposed to have a SS card and they should have a Voter ID. The government should certainly know who votes in our elections, or are we accepting absentee ballots from Red China and Russia these days? There is only one reason that Dems want illegal aliens and the unregistered to vote. And that is obviously because they think it is they who will benefit from those illegal and disenfranchising votes. I mean, how much more absurd can this stuff get? And BTW, could Paul Ryan and company have laid any lower on this subject the past two years? Is there any wonder the voter rose up against them?

[The Urban Sombrero]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...ent=safari


The issues surrounding voter id laws are much more fraught with hidden agendas on the Right than has been portrayed here. The Right believes stances on abortion and gay marriage somehow exclude it from the tawdry and, often, nasty tactics of big time politics. It's a conservative rat hole of self- righteousness, one might say.

[TheRealThing]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...ent=safari


The issues surrounding voter id laws are much more fraught with hidden agendas on the Right than has been portrayed here. The Right believes stances on abortion and gay marriage somehow exclude it from the tawdry and, often, nasty tactics of big time politics. It's a conservative rat hole of self- righteousness, one might say.

I just heard Rudy Giuliani saying that voter fraud is a problem which plagues the major inner cities. All metro areas and most major cities are governed by Democrats and have been for decades, that's just the way it is. Therefore said Giuliani, responsibility for voter fraud may be laid at the feet of the Democrats in charge. Some things are just hard to argue with.

But if I understand the gist of your post, you're prepared to accept millions of illegal votes if necessary, to make sure that the three people covered by the Washington Post article you cited are not denied. That about right?

That's remarkably shallow given that George W Bush only won the election in 2000 by a near invisible 537 vote margin out of 6 million, in Florida. Twelve years later Obama beat Romney by 5 million and there were at least 12 million illegal aliens lurking about that government officials would admit to, mostly in the big cities BTW. No doubt they didn't all vote, but in report after report people are voting without any form of ID whatsoever, and some are voting more than once. I don't think so much as one citizen of a foreign land should be allowed to vote in a US election. Too much has been sacrificed in blood and treasure to guarantee us that right to just start giving it away.

[Hoot Gibson]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...ent=safari


The issues surrounding voter id laws are much more fraught with hidden agendas on the Right than has been portrayed here. The Right believes stances on abortion and gay marriage somehow exclude it from the tawdry and, often, nasty tactics of big time politics. It's a conservative rat hole of self- righteousness, one might say.

How do you explain inner city precincts where more votes were cast for Obama than there were people registered to vote? If you agree that it is impossible for more votes to be cast than there are live, registered voters, then how do you propose eliminating such obvious instances of vote fraud?

[The Urban Sombrero]

How do you explain inner city precincts where more votes were cast for Obama than there were people registered to vote? If you agree that it is impossible for more votes to be cast than there are live, registered voters, then how do you propose eliminating such obvious instances of vote fraud?

In a democracy such as ours, I would rather cede to human nature twenty fraudulent votes than to disenfranchise one legitimate voter so that my side's chances to win were improved.

[Hoot Gibson]

In a democracy such as ours, I would rather cede to human nature twenty fraudulent votes than to disenfranchise one legitimate voter so that my side's chances to win were improved.

When 20 fraudulent votes are cast, 20 legitimate voters are disenfranchised. Your argument makes no sense.

[TheRealThing]

In a democracy such as ours, I would rather cede to human nature twenty fraudulent votes than to disenfranchise one legitimate voter so that my side's chances to win were improved.

You left off a couple zeros.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I just heard Rudy Giuliani saying that voter fraud is a problem which plagues the major inner cities. All metro areas and most major cities are governed by Democrats and have been for decades, that's just the way it is. Therefore said Giuliani, responsibility for voter fraud may be laid at the feet of the Democrats in charge. Some things are just hard to argue with.

But if I understand the gist of your post, you're prepared to accept millions of illegal votes if necessary, to make sure that the three people covered by the Washington Post article you cited are not denied. That about right?

That's remarkably shallow given that George W Bush only won the election in 2000 by a near invisible 537 vote margin out of 6 million, in Florida. Twelve years later Obama beat Romney by 5 million and there were at least 12 million illegal aliens lurking about that government officials would admit to, mostly in the big cities BTW. No doubt they didn't all vote, but in report after report people are voting without any form of ID whatsoever, and some are voting more than once. I don't think so much as one citizen of a foreign land should be allowed to vote in a US election. Too much has been sacrificed in blood and treasure to guarantee us that right to just start giving it away.

The elderly, African-Americans, Hispanics, and low income folks make for more than three folks, and you know that.

I realize in your Darwinistic, uber personal responsibility worldview, anyone who is poor is to blame for their own poverty. The working poor, the elderly poor, the legal immigrant poor, the African-American poor...you don't like them because they vote in a way that threatens your grand design to use the Supreme Court to "return" America to a Christian Reconstructionist nation.

Voter fraud did not cost Romney the election. That is an unsubstantiated claim that is difficult to refute but impossible to prove.

[The Urban Sombrero]

When 20 fraudulent votes are cast, 20 legitimate voters are disenfranchised. Your argument makes no sense.

Your point is well made. Let me be clear: this is a politically divided country, and a large division is Judaeo-Christian white people, suburban and rural, against groups who do not trust the brand of religion pressing into government those folks envision.

I do not believe that voter fraud explains Barack Obama being elected twice to the Presidency any more than I buy that GOP gerrymandering explains why Texas is so thoroughly red.

If the US government wants to take on giving all US citizens a voter ID card to vote in national elections, fine. I will never be for "come to the courthouse and give us $25" poll taxes.

[TheRealThing]

The elderly, African-Americans, Hispanics, and low income folks make for more than three folks, and you know that.

I realize in your Darwinistic, uber personal responsibility worldview, anyone who is poor is to blame for their own poverty. The working poor, the elderly poor, the legal immigrant poor, the African-American poor...you don't like them because they vote in a way that threatens your grand design to use the Supreme Court to "return" America to a Christian Reconstructionist nation.

Voter fraud did not cost Romney the election. That is an unsubstantiated claim that is difficult to refute but impossible to prove.

Anthony Settles, Hargie Randall and Myrtle Delahuerta, those are the three cited cases in the article you put up. That's what I know, what I don't believe for one second, is that many people in this land would have to make a 250 mile round trip to get an ID. Like I said, they can get their food stamp card and their free phone, and the last time I checked federal law required them to have a Social Security Card. Your argument is ridiculous, but hey, since when are libs not comfortable arguing the ridiculous, right?

And as far as I'm concerned you should choke on the lies you posted in the second paragraph. You don't know who I like or don't like. I'm not even going to respond to the reconstructionist baloney. The only way the Church is to play a role in the US government is via the very predictable ethics of the people in government who happen to be Christians. That and the fact that our system of law is based on Christian principles. My one and only complaint about any sort of jurisdictional overlap between Church and State has been in the State's efforts to legislate against the Church as they did in Roe v Wade and the repeal of DADT. As I have said a hundred times on here, Acts 5:29 (KJV)
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Further, the observation made with regard to the number of illegal aliens who voted in the last two elections is an unknown and I did not say it was illegal votes which provided the margins of Mr Obama's wins. Now, Hurricane Sandy, maybe.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Anthony Settles, Hargie Randall and Myrtle Delahuerta, those are the three cited cases in the article you put up. That's what I know, what I don't believe for one second, is that many people in this land would have to make a 250 mile round trip to get an ID. Like I said, they can get their food stamp card and their free phone, and the last time I checked federal law required them to have a Social Security Card. Your argument is ridiculous, but hey, since when are libs not comfortable arguing the ridiculous, right?

And as far as I'm concerned you should choke on the lies you posted in the second paragraph. You don't know who I like or don't like. I'm not even going to respond to the reconstructionist baloney. The only way the Church is to play a role in the US government is via the very predictable ethics of the people in government who happen to be Christians. That and the fact that our system of law is based on Christian principles. My one and only complaint about any sort of jurisdictional overlap between Church and State has been in the State's efforts to legislate against the Church as they did in Roe v Wade and the repeal of DADT. As I have said a hundred times on here, Acts 5:29 (KJV)
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Further, the observation made with regard to the number of illegal aliens who voted in the last two elections is an unknown and I did not say it was illegal votes which provided the margins of Mr Obama's wins. Now, Hurricane Sandy, maybe.

One does not choke on truth bones. One chokes on bones that come too close to truth for comfort.

Again, if the GOP wants to provide voter ID's to all citizens, I would not oppose. I will oppose all forms of a poll tax, which is exactly the design.

[TheRealThing]

One does not choke on truth bones. One chokes on bones that come too close to truth for comfort.

Again, if the GOP wants to provide voter ID's to all citizens, I would not oppose. I will oppose all forms of a poll tax, which is exactly the design.

Total sidestep as usual and in reading your posts, the truth is nothing if not subjective to you and your liberal brethren. Explain to me why it isn't wrong to require the poor to possess SNAP Cards, Social Security Cards and driver's licenses, but it would be wrong to require voter ID's. Take you time.

I doubt that you would take the dare, but watch Lou Dobbs on FOX Business tonight at 10 or 11 pm if you would care to take a look at voter fraud with open eyes.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Total sidestep as usual and in reading your posts, the truth is nothing if not subjective to you and your liberal brethren. Explain to me why it isn't wrong to require the poor to possess SNAP Cards, Social Security Cards and driver's licenses, but it would be wrong to require voter ID's. Take you time.

I doubt that you would take the dare, but watch Lou Dobbs on FOX Business tonight at 10 or 11 pm if you would care to take a look at voter fraud with open eyes.

Voter fraud's impact on elections is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect you know that, as does Doo Snobbs.

"Give us $25 and vote" is a poll tax. If the GOP wants to provide an ID to every legal citizen in the US, fine.

[Hoot Gibson]

Voter fraud's impact on elections is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect you know that, as does Doo Snobbs.

"Give us $25 and vote" is a poll tax. If the GOP wants to provide an ID to every legal citizen in the US, fine.

Can you name a single state that has recently proposed a poll tax or has not included free photo IDs as an alternative for those who have no driver licenses in their voter photo ID provisions? Just name one state, please, and quit serving us an endless diet of red herrings.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Can you name a single state that has recently proposed a poll tax or has not included free photo IDs as an alternative for those who have no driver licenses in their voter photo ID provisions? Just name one state, please, and quit serving us an endless diet of red herrings.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statem...quivalent/

I cite a source not exactly in agreement with me in using the phrase "poll tax." However, if the idea is that a poll tax is a poll tax is a poll tax, and the motive is to suppress voter turnout, then Politifact's "Mostly False" is less than spot on.

Dems want a turnout that favors them, as do 'pubs. That is no red herring. In Vince Lombardi politics, winning is the only thing, and neither Dems nor Pubs get to put on the halo and claim angels sing if their side wins.

Buying Vaseline lotion for cracked hands is more of a burden for the poor than the non-poor. Any added requirements to vote place more of a burden on the poor and elderly, and we all know it, and we all know what demographics are thereby suppressed.

[TheRealThing]

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statem...quivalent/

I cite a source not exactly in agreement with me in using the phrase "poll tax." However, if the idea is that a poll tax is a poll tax is a poll tax, and the motive is to suppress voter turnout, then Politifact's "Mostly False" is less than spot on.

Dems want a turnout that favors them, as do 'pubs. That is no red herring. In Vince Lombardi politics, winning is the only thing, and neither Dems nor Pubs get to put on the halo and claim angels sing if their side wins.

Buying Vaseline lotion for cracked hands is more of a burden for the poor than the non-poor. Any added requirements to vote place more of a burden on the poor and elderly, and we all know it, and we all know what demographics are thereby suppressed.

So, you're worried about the poor and the elderly now huh? Fine, let's elect a man who will restore the 716 billion dollars this administration seized from Medicare to fund ObamaCare, which is running about as effectively as many VA hospitals are right now. Further, people who reach the age of 65 MUST enroll in the US Medicare Program, which means it is mandatory. So, if you're nearing 65 and have a platinum healthcare policy, you might as well spend those premiums each month on the lottery because that big time policy pays NADA after 65. Medical expenses have tripled for many US citizens since the inception of ObamaCare. That is certainly the case for me, in fact, I pay north of 15,000 thousand dollars each year just in insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles. No more do I get my deductible requirement met than the fiscal year is up in smoke and it starts all over again. Most of my medical expenses therefore come out of my checking account, not my health insurance provider's account. But that was the plan all along and I've been screaming about it since Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi rammed through ObamaCare in the first place. They needed our money to pay for the needs of others. It's called redistribution of wealth. The irony is unless one happens to be wealthy, such government mandates will wind up choking the life out of all who have supported them on party grounds as well as those of us in the opposition. Now, before you accuse me of changing the subject there is a notable ID Card that I have not yet mentioned. The ObamaCare ID Card. That's right, yet another government required ID Card.

But your post is just another sidestep, and I guarantee you we all know that. We don't have any form of poll tax in this nation, ever heard of the 24th Amendment? The ID's are to be given to people free, as in no charge. The truth is you cannot explain any moral difference between SS Cards, SNAP Cards and drivers license requirements, as opposed to voter ID Cards. Nor can you name a state that charges for voter ID's. Frankly, Dems have managed to outlast Republicans on the issue of voter ID's, because if Hill is elected the Obama transformation being set in stone is a certainty and therefore, after November 8th all this becomes moot. Four more years of transformation and people like you will have your way. To apply hyperbole to metaphor, at that point the US Constitution will look more like the rusting hulk of an abandoned Pittsburg Steel mill, than the document that the framers intended to protect their gift to posterity, that shining city on a hill.

[The Urban Sombrero]

So, you're worried about the poor and the elderly now huh? Fine, let's elect a man who will restore the 716 billion dollars this administration seized from Medicare to fund ObamaCare, which is running about as effectively as many VA hospitals are right now. Further, people who reach the age of 65 MUST enroll in the US Medicare Program, which means it is mandatory. So, if you're nearing 65 and have a platinum healthcare policy, you might as well spend those premiums each month on the lottery because that big time policy pays NADA after 65. Medical expenses have tripled for many US citizens since the inception of ObamaCare. That is certainly the case for me, in fact, I pay north of 15,000 thousand dollars each year just in insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles. No more do I get my deductible requirement met than the fiscal year is up in smoke and it starts all over again. Most of my medical expenses therefore come out of my checking account, not my health insurance provider's account. But that was the plan all along and I've been screaming about it since Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi rammed through ObamaCare in the first place. They needed our money to pay for the needs of others. It's called redistribution of wealth. The irony is unless one happens to be wealthy, such government mandates will wind up choking the life out of all who have supported them on party grounds as well as those of us in the opposition. Now, before you accuse me of changing the subject there is a notable ID Card that I have not yet mentioned. The ObamaCare ID Card. That's right, yet another government required ID Card.

But your post is just another sidestep, and I guarantee you we all know that. We don't have any form of poll tax in this nation, ever heard of the 24th Amendment? The ID's are to be given to people free, as in no charge. The truth is you cannot explain any moral difference between SS Cards, SNAP Cards and drivers license requirements, as opposed to voter ID Cards. Nor can you name a state that charges for voter ID's. Frankly, Dems have managed to outlast Republicans on the issue of voter ID's, because if Hill is elected the Obama transformation being set in stone is a certainty and therefore, after November 8th all this becomes moot. Four more years of transformation and people like you will have your way. To apply hyperbole to metaphor, at that point the US Constitution will look more like the rusting hulk of an abandoned Pittsburg Steel mill, than the document that the framers intended to protect their gift to posterity, that shining city on a hill.

If you are equating voting in a democracy to driving a car, you have earned no reply.

The Affordable Care Act is imperfect. It needs amending. If amended, it ceases to be a powerful wedge issue for the GOP. Once again, the Vince Lombardi concept of politics is more important that what is best for the country. Both major parties have their wedge issues, and, year after year, they return to them as a dog to its vomit.

[TheRealThing]

If you are equating voting in a democracy to driving a car, you have earned no reply.

The Affordable Care Act is imperfect. It needs amending :flush:. If amended, it ceases to be a powerful wedge issue for the GOP. Once again, the Vince Lombardi concept of politics is more important that what is best for the country. Both major parties have their wedge issues, and, year after year, they return to them as a dog to its vomit.

Both parties have wedge issues? You mean like murdering the innocent and giving dignity to that which cannot according to God be dignified?

You can always be depended upon to completely dodge points to which you have no answer. How did they get their SNAP, SS, ObamaCare ID, and driver's licenses then? How do they get to the welfare office to sign up every several months or so? The Republicans can be a spineless lot, and that's why the Dems have been able to run over them now and in the past. But you're not going to sell me on the corruption is mutual between the parties and both of them do it angle. If I thought for one second the Republicans were guilty of the stuff of the present 24/7 news loop I'd reregister as an independent ASAP. But I've heard that nonsense out of Hillary's mouth, all of her surrogates, and last but certainly not least the dutiful media right arm of the Democrat Party before. You taking credit now for that?

[Hoot Gibson]

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statem...quivalent/

I cite a source not exactly in agreement with me in using the phrase "poll tax." However, if the idea is that a poll tax is a poll tax is a poll tax, and the motive is to suppress voter turnout, then Politifact's "Mostly False" is less than spot on.

Dems want a turnout that favors them, as do 'pubs. That is no red herring. In Vince Lombardi politics, winning is the only thing, and neither Dems nor Pubs get to put on the halo and claim angels sing if their side wins.

Buying Vaseline lotion for cracked hands is more of a burden for the poor than the non-poor. Any added requirements to vote place more of a burden on the poor and elderly, and we all know it, and we all know what demographics are thereby suppressed.

When a liberal source such as Politifacts labels a claim "Mostly False," it is a real understatement for you to say that it is not "exactly in agreement with you using the phrase 'poll tax'."

It is ridiculous to argue that voter ID laws are "poll taxes." The article that you cited said that the highest cost for a photo ID is $33.50 - but that is in the extremely liberal state of Oregon. When most of those poor people who you contend are being subjected to poll taxes are reaping far more benefits from taxpayers than they pay in taxes, $5 to $15 (or nothing) seems like the least they can do to help ensure fair elections - and Politifact neglected to list the states that provide free photo IDs for the asking. I also question how many of the states cited in the article actually require photo IDs to vote. I thought that states enacting voter photo ID laws generally included a provision for free photo IDs to counter ridiculous arguments like the one that you are making.

[The Urban Sombrero]

When a liberal source such as Politifacts labels a claim "Mostly False," it is a real understatement for you to say that it is not "exactly in agreement with you using the phrase 'poll tax'."

It is ridiculous to argue that voter ID laws are "poll taxes." The article that you cited said that the highest cost for a photo ID is $33.50 - but that is in the extremely liberal state of Oregon. When most of those poor people who you contend are being subjected to poll taxes are reaping far more benefits from taxpayers than they pay in taxes, $5 to $15 (or nothing) seems like the least they can do to help ensure fair elections - and Politifact neglected to list the states that provide free photo IDs for the asking. I also question how many of the states cited in the article actually require photo IDs to vote. I thought that states enacting voter photo ID laws generally included a provision for free photo IDs to counter ridiculous arguments like the one that you are making.

I reject out of hand any steps taken to make voting more arduous. The suppression of voter turnout amongst key Dem demographics is a GOP strategy. However, in polite society, it cannot be so. I in no way condemn this strategy, as Dems have their own below-the-belt shenanigans. It's Vince Lombardi theory politics.

[TheRealThing]

^^To say voter suppression is a key GOP strategy is a lie straight out of the bowels of the DNC. In fact the proposition of voting in this nation, especially the inner cities, is in this day easier than lunch at a McDonald's drive thru. And despite your sanctimonious condemnation of hyperbole, you manage to sneak the word arduous in there when we all know Hill's right hand man John Podesta, is on record as saying that illegals should be allowed to vote if they can show a driver's license. No wonder Pelosi is pushing so hard for the issuance of driver's licenses to illegals out in California. :please: